February 22, 1926

?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

Oh, oh. I am quite

conversant with that.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

Those whom the gods

would destroy they first make mad. Now, you cannot make me mad, so you may as well

keep cool. The mill of the gods grinds slowly, yet it grinds exceeding small.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Exceeding fine.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

I thank my hon. friend

for the correction. I am trying to keep within the rules of the Chair, but an hon. gentleman in the back benches opposite used very strong language the other day; he said: If

you don't get out we are going to push you out. Well, that is a fair sample of those who are condemning group government. Let me tell him and other hon. gentlemen who share his views that this government is going to rule Canada for the next four years. Do not have any doubts about that. Let those who have so villainously attacked the government bear that in mind. The other night while the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was speaking there was a feeling among some hon. gentlemen that he was rather ill and some expected him to collapse. Happily however the hon. gentleman belies that suggestion; he is apparently quite vigorous and I am pleased to see him looking so bright and charming to-night.

With regard to the tariff, I have not taken the trouble to analyse the figures, but it is significant that whereas between 1911 and 1921 hon. gentlemen opposite did not undertake to increase duties to any extent, for the simple reason that they knew the people would not put up with it, so soon as this government came into power they began howling for protection and higher protection. That shows the insincerity of the opposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite have accused this government of every wrong which could possibly be laid at the door of a party, but they know very well that these charges are without any foundation whatever. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) not long ago was provoked to make certain remarks and in the same way I too am provoked to say things sometimes for which I might apologize. I am sure also that some hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House regret many of the speeches that their confreres have made in this debate. I think it is most unfortunate that we should be wasting the time of parliament as it is being wasted at present. Here we have spent seven weeks discussing almost nothing else but the Address in reply to the Speech from t-he Throne and amendments while matters of great national importance are waiting to be undertaken. Why should hon. gentlemen obstruct the business of parliament in this way instead of allowing the House to get down to business? One important matter that should be attended to is the effort to prevent the present diversion of water at Chicago. One hon. member at the last session of parliament spoke about deepening the river to accommodate larger boats, and he made the suggestion that it might be well to make boats that were adaptable to the river. Well, let me tell the House that the Chicago interests pay no more attention to the overtures of the western states, which are working in conjunction with this government to stop this diversion, than they would to the moaning of the winds, and they will continue draining off the water from the lakes until some effective action is taken by this parliament to deal with the matter in co-operation with the United States government. An attempt will be made on the other side to build a canal from lake Erie through to New York and when that is done it will be good-bye to Canada and to Montreal as the port of our ocean steamers.

Hon. gentlemen opposite are obstructing the business of the House and I charge them with keeping people from coming into Canada. Through their "whispers of death" and their

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

Jeremiah wailings during the past five years they have served to drive untold capital away from Canada, and the gloomy speeches which they have been making in this House and which have been recorded in Hansard have been circulated broadcast not only throughout this country but in other parts of the world as well. But although hon. gentlemen may retard for a time the progress of Canada, nothing that they can say or do will prevent this country eventually from being one of the greatest on earth.

The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other night devoted considerable time and attention to the Rouyn railway, which it is proposed to build into the gold fields of Quebec. Why hon. gentlemen should oppose a proposal of this kind, having for its object the development of one of our great resources, I cannot understand. We have been paying $6 a bushel for potatoes in Rouyn gold fields and it is impossible for us to develop our mines without proper transportation facilities when we have to meet such prices. You cannot mine gold or silver unless you can do the work at a cost that will bear comparison with the cost of similar labour elsewhere, and in order to make this industry a success it is necessary to have such transportation as will make it possible to get foodstuffs and other supplies on a reasonable basis. Along with certain other gentlemen I waited upon Premier Taschereau with a view to having some action taken in this matter and I was sorry to see the ex-Minister of Finance throwing cold water on the proposition the other night, after the efforts which the Prime Minister and the government of Quebec have been making to provide transportation into that country. A highly reputable geologist was sent into that country to explore it and his report was quite favourable. I am interested in the concern and you could not induce me to take up any proposition if I did not consider it profitable.

Hon. members opposite, it seems to me, have not yet caught the vision of a united Canada, such as the late member for St. Law-rence-St. George, who sat in this House from 1921 to 1925, pictured to us. I regard him as one of our outstanding Canadians and though he did on one occasion vote against the budget, in the year 1924, he saw his mistake and later rectified it. And as that gentleman showed us, it is impossible for us to have a united Canada without give and take.

So far as the proposed tariff commission is concerned, I would suggest' that in addition to manufacturers there should be on that board representatives from various walks of life. I would even include some mother who

had raised a number of children and who would therefore know what it was to clothe, house, educate and discipline a family. I would not have only manufacturers who could spend their winters in California, in Florence or in Naples and their summers on the golf links, and have a retinue of servants to wait upon them, living in chateaux and palaces. Any country in which that sort of thing exists must sooner or later sink into the depths of an Ireland or a Russia, if they will not think of the toilers of our land. Do you think for one moment that the brains of the poor are not the equal of those of the rich who are swaddled in eiderdown and fed on luxuries? No public man who has not a heart should be in any government, municipal, provincial or federal, or on any board administering public affairs in this country. Right here I think of two examples. The hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), when he was High Commissioner for Canada, wTas the means of raising men who had not a doilar to the high pedestal of the councils of men. They have been made rich. He said, if I remember rightly, that he had got through with his lumber product business. We on the eastern coast have to pay our taxes, insurance and overhead, and we have had to ever since the Panama canal was completed. That is what we are suffering, but he gloried in what he was able to do. Then he said that the young ladies were most efficient in that wonderful country to the south. I would ask him why he did not stay in this country. We have wonderful resorts here, a Caledonia, a Carlsbad. we have the springs at the old Welland canal, and they are delightful. People from the south come up there and are delighted. Why don't our people stay at home in our own country and see our beautiful resorts? Then our beautiful maidens would stay here.

The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) has been over at Clifton Springs, New York. He could have found1 much better springs on the Canadian side, within fifty miles of where he was. But he went to Clifton Springs and watched the trainloads of coal coming to Canada. I pray that Canada with her mountains of coal will develop her own coal resources, and I heartily agree with every member on the other side of the House who has expressed any patriotic ideas in regard to coal or anything else. I agree with every one of them -who has expressed patriotism and love of this grand and glorious country. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) in an eloquent speech the other night told us of the wonderful mineral resources of our country. If we would only develop them, and as yet we have hardly touched the

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

fringe, we would develop wealth that would make our public debt seem a bagatelle. We have exploited our timber resources, our farming lands, and to some extent our fisheries, but our mineral wealth we have hardly touched. Let us work together and develop these wonderful resources for the sake of thi3 great and wondrous country. Do hon. members realize that more than two-thirds of this country is west of the western

border of Ontario? We have members telling us how large their constituencies are. One member the other day mentioned that his constituency was 300 by 600 miles. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) compared his constituency with some of the empires of Europe. Let me tel you a little story, and it is true. Last June I was introduced to a German on Bank street, and he told me something of his business. He had met a Canadian in London and Berlin, who had told him of this wonderful country, and he came out here. First he got his Dominion charter. He was told of the great deposits of silica in this country, and at last he found a wonderful silica mine at East Templeton. To show his sincerity he took out a 125,000 insurance policy for the benefit of the company to be; he took out a guarantee bond with a guarantee company for $25,000 for the benefit of the company to be. He went to a man like the late J. R. Booth, who put his hand on the German's shoulder and said, "Mr. Pease, I know something about glass. I sent my son Jackson over to Belgium, and made over a million dollars out of glass'. Soon after, 1 met this young Bavarian and I asked him how things were going. "They are not going at all," he said, and he laid the blame on the public men of this country. He said, "J went down to New York and they said yes, they would finance me. They told me to bring the silica on the boats below the falls of the Ottawa river, and then bring them over here. They told me they would furnish me with one and a half million dollars for this glass factory." It was a factory making bevelled mirrors, automobile glass-expensive plate glass, not common glass. He referred me to one gentleman in this city, a noble old gentleman, a hard worker like myself, but ten years older, though full' of pep and ginger and energy. I went and saw him and he said, "I will be vice-president and put forty or fifty thousand dollars in the company. We do not want our money going to the United States; let us keep it here." The next morning I gave the man a cheque for $10,000. Within three weeks, I saw a very substantial man, running

up into the millions, one of the members in this House, and I asked him for a cheque for $10,000. lit was the member for Sherbrooke, and he said, "I will do it on your reputation." We have now got out our prospectus, and our auditors are Price, Waterhouse and Company. That firm is good enough for me. The foreman, the superintendent, the general manager, the vice-president or the president of your company could not take ten cents worth of merchandise without that firm property charging it up. I wrote to them and said, "I have put a good deal of money in my life in companies because you were the auditors." I got a letter back on Saturday saying, "We accept with pleasure, although you will not want us this year. We never accept the position of auditors without knowing the members of the board personally, for it is our business to look out for the shareholders." If we had more companies like that Canada would be the gainer, and we should not be troubled so often as we are by crooks, shysters, and hot air artists. There is no place in Canada where we are more troubled with people of this class than we are in this building. I do not know how it . is but they swarm through these precincts, and even invade our very rooms. The other day I put this notice on my door: "One hundred thousand dollars waiting for crooks, hot air artists and shysters. Kindly rap before you enter."

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

It would be well if the hon. member would pay due regard to the dignity of parliament and adhere to the king's English.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I have unwittingly violated the canons of good taste. But the circumstances are such as to prompt me to an unusual1 display of feeling. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that it would be much better if they entertained the same degree of confidence in this country as does the Bavarian to whom I alluded a moment ago. Let us be true to Canada and to its institutions. As a man who has had a long business experience I would much rather invest in Oanadian securities than I would in the securities of any other country.

Now I should like to say something on the subject of our great inland waterway. In New York state they have the Erie carnal; and the cities of New York, Portland, Boston and Baltimore are decidedly opposed to the deepening of the St. Lawrence canal. H, however, the movement for the diversion of water from our Great Lakes to the Chicago

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

drainage canal proves successful, what is to hinder our friends across the line from deepening the Erie carnal and taking a vast volume of water from the game source, a source in which this country is so vitally interested? And I believe theTe is a possibility of that being done. And yet hoo. gentlemen opposite are spending their time arguing and quibbling here over the emoluments of office! Hon. gentlemen opposite are fighting and trying to upset the government, and allowing the great problems of this country to remain unheeded. If the people of other countries observe that nothing is going on in this parliament but fighting and squabbling we are not going to attract immigrants here to the extent that we should. Of course they will come here to some extent because we have wonderful natural resources in Canada waiting development.

Here is the immigration policy that I would adopt, if I were an immigration agent. I would go to the populous countries of the world and say to them:. "Canada is the greatest country on earth. We have cheap lands, and it is even possible that at some time we may have free homesteads again. H you go to Canada you will go to a great country where we have good laws, a beautiful climate with plenty of oxygen in the air and plenty to do. You can sell the products you raise from our soil, fish you take from our waters, and the materials you derive from the mines and forests. You can manufacture the raw materials and ship them, as well as the products you raise, to the markets of the world." I often think of the case of the Mennonites who settled in the west, many of whom became wealthy there. They moved to Mexico, but some of them did not like that country and have returned to Canada. I believe that those who have come back will yet conform to our laws and become good citizens. I hope that every one of them will eventually return.

The problem of immigration has been often to the fore in this parliament. Personally I would not have too many restrictions. I well remember being at Castle Garden, New York, in former years, as well as in Chicago, St. Louis, and other cities. I have seen many people arrive in that country with their entire wordly possessions contained in a red bandana handkerchief, an old garment, or a tin can. To-day many of those former immigrants are occupying positions of the highest character in that great country. I lay the charge against the government that was in power in this country from 1917 to 1921 that they endeavoured to stir up hatred against the Germans. So incensed were they and their

followers against the Germans that one gentleman, who is now the Premier of New Brunswick, rose in this House on one occasion and said. "I would not spend a cent to save the last blood of the German empire." It is too bad to see manifestations of hatred of that kind in this country. The Scandinavians make the very best kind of settlers where-ever they have gone. They help largely to create the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas in the neighbouring republic. Go down to those states and see what they have done. Examine also what the Germans, the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Finlanders have done in the United States. On the other hand consider what has happened in the New England states, largely owing to the fact that their native sons have forgotten marriage, or have too generally adopted divorce. If you travel through the fertile valleys of the Connecticut river you will see farms which have been vacated by native Americans, whose places have been taken by Italians, Poles, and people of other nationalities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, who will develop this country? Will it be those people who are fond of the jazz and go to picture shows?

I say no. Unfortunately, we have to the south of us a great and rich country. Since the Civil war many people in the United States amassed wealth but of course others became poor. Canada has wonderful potential wealth which should be developed.

We must admit that every member of this House has been elected by from 25,000 to 100,000 people, and we are supposed to be able properly to represent their views in parliament. When I came to parliament eight years ago I expected to come in contact with many great minds. I am a very modest man myself, and I hope I shall remain so. Even if 1 became wealthy and accumulated as much money as the Rockefellers and Morgans. I should not be any different from what I am, because it is said that by the sweat of our brow we Should earn our daily bread. That is not the exact scriptural quotation, but I think it is near it. To me it is inconceivable that the parliament of Canada should drag along as it has been doing for some weeks. Some people on the other side say, "Get out and have an election." Well, let them talk to the Chief Electoral Officer of the Dominion. If they cannot get any information from him, let them call up the Auditor General, and he will tell them that one quarter of the counties have not been paid their election expenses. It is absolute nonsense to talk about another election before the expenses of the last have been paid.

The Address-Mr. Baldwin

More than two millions in solid cash have to be disbursed during an election and an army of officials have to be employed.

How many countries of the world to-day are being administered by group governments? Could any hon. gentleman enumerate them? Now in this parliament we find the brilliant men of the great Tory party rising on the other side and advocating either one thing which is nonsensical or another thing which is absurd. But nothing more nonsensical could be suggested than that we should go to the country again. The people would not stand for it. I do not believe there would be a revolution, but the people would not elect anybody who suggested that parliament should dissolve.

We have many good business men in this country. I have a business which is over a hundred years old, and I am getting the largest number of calls for timber that I have had for years; in fact, I am getting so many that I do not answer all the calls to enlarge or build new factories. At present I am running my business from Ottawa and I have not been home for weeks. Now I face a group that want to destroy the

10 p.m. country, but they will not have their way. I run down to Montreal, buy my goods, and have them sent home. Of course if I cannot buy as cheaply as a Jew I do not buy at all. That is a compliment to both Jews and Scotchmen. If I have a dollar in my pocket and I cannot see something worth more than a dollar I keep my money in my pocket. Of course if I could see a bargain I would take advantage of it.

When I think of the grand and glorious people I represent, when I think of fifty years of married life on a beautiful farm in a beautiful country with sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters around them, I feel my inability to represent them. Now here in this parliament we have the administrators of public affairs being slammed and abused. We have the right temperature in this country with its snow, ice and coid weather to freeze our rivers and lakes, so that we can transport the products of the forest. We do not have too much winter, and I do not want to leave the country in the winter season. My wife goes to the British West Indies, to Bermuda in the winter. She has at other times gone to California, but sees more beauty in the West Indies, more beautiful flowers and very nice people. She tells me Bermuda is delightful.

Many millionaires go to the south. I presume there are more millionaires asleep in the balmy climates of the south than are

sleeping in Canada. If I had to go away, I would go north. That may seem strange to some people. The people of the north live on fresh air. The sun, the oxygen and the air would cure almost any malady if taken properly. It is sad to hear people say: "My children are sick and I am worried to death". Oh, that the time would come when Canada would put herself on a par with China and Japan, and employ medical men in this country who would attend to the eyes, ears, noses and throats of the poor people. Those people have raised our population to what it is. but if we continue as we are doing our country will be as bad as Fifth avenue, New York. Twenty years ago Fifth avenue families had but two children. Is there anybody who would laugh when we are appealing on behalf of the poor of the country, in order that they may be clothed, fed, educated and receive medical attention? Is there a person in this country so heartless that he would not endorse a proposition to have medical attendants go about this country, to every municipality, every town and village? It would cost less than it is costing the country at the present time. Every man must feel that we should adopt a policy of that kind in this country and it should be at the public expense. It is well known that the rankest weeds grow in the richest soil that produces the best wheat and potatoes. Young people sow their wild oats and yet they grow up and make the most brilliant sons and daughters and the most useful people on this earth, if they turn back quickly. .

I know a great deal about the nefarious work that went on during the last election, and I have some extracts from Toronto papers in regard to what happened in Stanstead constituency, but I will let these heinous things go because the Speaker might call me to order for using unparliamentary language if I were to describe properly some of the things that were done. I have some sympathy with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) because I heard a schoolmate of his, who sits in the far corner of the House, speak about him in his early days. He said that he was maligned in the province of Quebec and that more than one-quarter of a million people voted against him. His name was not mentioned in the constituency which I represent except in one place where it was said, "A vote for Baldwin is a vote against Meighen." In all the other places it was "Vote for Pate-naude." I have a number of extracts that I could read, but I will leave 'them for a later instalment. It has been said time and again on that side of the House that if you in-

The Address*-Mr. Baldwin

elude the Patenaude vote, the Tory party have a majority of a quarter of a million over Liberals. That is a mistake; the parties forming the government have a majority of a quarter of a million. The Progressives, Independents and Labour men combined, therefore, have a right to rule. I cannot see any reason why we are not acting in perfect harmony with the constitution, with the wishes of the people, with everything that goes to make a great country. I can see that that side of the House has changed in the last few days from the attitude of the New York curb to a fellowship, a fraternity meeting. The last great gun that boomed out was that of the gallant old gentleman from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and if I thought more of that bombastic stuff was to be delivered, I would talk for an hour or two longer, but I will wait and see what happens.

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

An hon. MEMBER:

Go to it.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

I am not directed from

that side of the House. The other day in the corridor a big, burly fellow who was walking alongside the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones), came up to me and put his clinched fist close to my face. I straightened myself up and went closer to him, saying: "What does this mean?" When he saw that I was not afraid of him he withdrew a little and said: "I wish every damned member in this

House that is against Meighen could be sent to Mexico and made a target for the Mexican bandits."

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression "damned."

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

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

It matters not.

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

Willis Keith Baldwin

Liberal

Mr. BALDWIN:

I will withdraw. The

only thing stronger than his language was his whiskey-tainted breath. I also learned that he was a lawyer from New Brunswick. This kind of proceeding will never make this country prosper as it should.

The hon. member for Toronto-High Park (Mr. Anderson) spoke about hydro-electric development and seemed to intimate that no one was making efforts to develop the great water-powers of this country. A company in which I am interested is proposing to develop 50,000 horse-power, and another company to which I belong is going to develop 80,000 horse-power, in accordance with the engineer's report. There has not been a hydroelectric development anywhere which has not had its power sold before the plant was completed. Hydro-electric development is making steady progress throughout this country, and no other country, according to population, is making faster progress than the Dominion of Canada. One would think a man with a great brain and intelligence like the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George would know better than his statements would seem to indicate, because some fifteen years ago, before electricity attained the prominence it has to-day-and it is only in its infancy yet- he obtained control of a company by hook or by crook when he happened to be in the Rocky mountains. There is not a hydroelectric development to-day where the power is not sold with a demand for more, and that is why I am deploring the fighting that is going on in this House when great questions are crying for solution. There is the question of preventing that great country to the south of us from developing water-powers which would carry back the head waters to the city of Quebec instead of the city of Montreal; for even at the present time it is costing a tremendous sum of money to permit seafaring vessels to reach the city of Montreal. Then there is the question of the depletion of our forests, which will naturally lessen the water supply on account of the higher evaporation. There is also the matter of the United States diverting the waters of the Great Lakes to her canals and sewage systems. The settlement of these questions is being delayed on account of the discussion that is going on in this House.

As regards immigration, if hon gentlemen opposite would not say so much about conditions in Canada, as they are doing simply on account of a desire to get into power, many more people would come to this country. Capital is certainly coming in. and I am delighted to see that last week the stock exchange in Montreal-and the same thing is true of Toronto-has become just about independent of the New York stock exchange. Some hon. members opposite are endeavouring to show that we are retrogressing instead of making progress. That is not the case. We have become well known throughout the world as a great nation; we shall continue to be so notwithstanding all the things that are said against us, and this government will continue to work for the greatest good of the greatest number. Mr. Speaker, although you have called me to order, I thank you for your kindness and courtesy.

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

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. F. ARMSTRONG (South Timis-kaming):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that in my maiden speech I shall not be as entertaining as the hon. gentleman who has just resumed

1234 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Timiskaming)

his seat (Mr. Baldwin). I feel a little timid, but I know that you, Sir, are very sympathetic towards a young member who has had very little experience in public speaking and is addressing this House for the first time. But I am sent here by people of the north. You have heard members from the west, you have heard members from the east, you have heard members from the south, but so far you have not heard a representative from the northern part of this Dominion. I come, Sir, from a new district created by the increased population due to the development of industry in the country between North Bay and Hudson bay. There you have two new electoral districts known as North Timiskaming and South Timiskaming, which now have representation in this House.

I have listened with considerable interest to many of the subjects discussed during the past few weeks, and when I look across at the other side of the House I am pleased to see that four of the young men who left primary schools some twenty ypars ago are now members of parliament. Two went east and two went west, and now they grace the other side. I, Sir, am a young man who went north because I believed that the march of empire was in that direction rather than east or west. There was a strong inducement for me to go to the United States, but I had faith in Canada-I have still and I am going to stay here as long as I live.

You have heard many excellent speeches on the Hudson Bay railway, Sir. I too, live on a Hudson Bay railway, one of the most romantic railways in the annals of our history, and possibly it -may be of interest to the House to hear something about that undertaking. I have heard many references to the railway and to the mining industry which are not accurate. I know that hon. members are interested in the mining industry. I have been to every mining camp in the last twenty years; the only rush I have missed was that into Red Lake the other day, and I would not have missed that thrill if I had not been elected to this House. Twenty years ago the government of Ontario projected northward what is now known as the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. It was regarded as a waste of public money to build a railway into what many people described as muskeg country. But after the contractors had carried the road beyond the confines of North Bay they ran through the valuable silver formation at Cobalt-a camp that has become known throughout the world as the highest grade in the history of mining. It is going as strong

to-day as it ever was. It has already added $230,000,000 to the wealth of this country, and is still producing from $7,000,000 to $8,000.000 a year. The history of the advancement of that country is even more wonderful than the realm of romance. Hon. members may think I am enthusiastic. Well, I am enthusiastic, so much so that I am afraid I shall not be able to tell the story of the romance of the Temiskaming railway as it should be told. That railway has followed the trail that Champlain blazed. And that wonderful road is going towards Hudson bay.

Beyond Cobalt is the beautiful town of Haileybury, which was recently burnt out, but which its enterprising people have rebuilt and improved. It looks across lake Timiskaming, to the purple hills of Quebec. In fact we get our inspiration from that province. Further up you strike New Lislceard, and thence north for eighty miles you have the finest agricultural country in Canada. You will find there as beautiful farms as you have anywhere in old Ontario. Men have gone in there within the last few years and have taken off enough pulpwood from their land to provide them with working capital sufficient to establish themselves as farmers. Then you can drive over a fine automobile road for nearly one hundred miles. In about a year and a half we hope to have a trunk road from North Bay to Cobalt, passing through the beautiful forest reserve of Timagami. I would ask the House, Mr. Speaker, to have a recess not in the winter but in the summer, when we shall be glad to entertain hon. members in the beautiful isles of lake Timagami. That agricultural territory, Sir, is the embodiment of a great principle; the mining industry opened up there has made it possible for people to come in and till the soil with profit to themselves and benefit to the mining population-. We are almost a self-contained country. That is the only market the farmers have, but it is a good market. When referring to some statistics recently I noticed that our mining people are paid twice as high wages as they are in the Maritimes. The Maritimes have my sympathy. Many of our finest miners come from the provinces down by the sea.

Passing seventy or eighty miles over that agricultural area is the mining district known as Swastika and Kirkland Lake. Swastika, the magic word, was given to that town by a recent member of this House. Kirkland Lake is only a few years old, and yet it has the highest grade mine on the continent. In the Teck-Huehes, the Lake Shore, Tough-Cakes and a number of other mines we have very

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Timiskaming)

rich producers. The Teck-Hughes is producing a millhead of $32. Men interested in mining will understand what that means. We have the highest grade ore coming from that mine. We have silver at Cobalt and gold at Kirkland Lake. I may say that Kirkland Lake is right opposite and on the same belt as the famous Rouyn district. It is just thirty miles from Rouyn, and we 'hope with the co-operation of the two provinces to be permitted to have a railway connecting fifty thousand people with that part of the province of Quebec. We are a very harmonious people up there, we are on the best of terms with our Quebec neighbours. Fifty per cent of my constituents come from the province of Quebec, and I am glad to represent them. As you go further north some fifty or sixty miles you come to what is known as the Porcupine district. You turn to the left and pass into Porcupine.

Mr. O'NEILL: Hear, hear.

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

Ernest Frederick Armstrong

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARMSTRONG (South Timiskaming):

My hon. friend from North Timiskaming will be able to tell you all about hie country. I want to tell the House about some of the wonderful gold mines. For instance, take the Hollinger mine that is producing and putting through the mill six thousand tons of ore a day. Last year our gold mines produced about $23,000,000 and this year they have created $30,000,000 of wealth in gold. They are increasing at the rate of 20 per cent per annum so that in the next five years northern Ontario will be producing over $?0,000,000 in mineral wealth. To-day we hold the third place in the world in the production of gold and to-morrow, that is to say, within the next two or three years, we shall occupy second place. We shall be beaten only by the mines in South Africa. To the right of this wonderful mining district you have the pulp industry at Iroquois Falls, where every twenty-four hours they produce 600 tons of newsprint, a train-load that goes south to supply the great cities of this continent. And that is only one pulp concern in the north country. Twenty-five miles further up the road you come to the town of Cochrane on the Canadian National railways, which is the best built road, with the easiest grades, on the North American continent. This road does not stop at Cochrane, however; it goes further down over the height of land and passes on towards the icy waters of Hudson bay, and at the Tin Can rapids there is a flow of 25,000 horse-power which is utilized to turn the wheels of the Abitibi mills. There is a wealth of romance in that northern country and I tell the people from the west that if

they do not get a hustle on we wiil beat them to it. Beyond that we have the largest china day belt probably known to the world, and we have asbestos. A gentleman who came out the other day brought also a very fine sample of coal. We have not much coal but if we can get this commodity in the north country we shall have the greatest industrial centre there that will be found on this continent.

This brings me to the Rouyn railway. I do not intend to dwell on this matter but I may observe that this railway is a branch line commencing 112 miles east of Cochrane and going down to within thirty miles of the interprovincial boundary. The road, when it is completed, will provide a freight and passenger service to the Canadian National railways in the north. To-day they have only three trains a week, so that you can readily understand that at first the service will not be very efficient. If this government could possibly bring about harmony between the two provinces so as to facilitate the building of that short railroad between the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario Railway and Rouyn, a daily service would be provided. Passengers at present embark in Montreal and pass Swastika each day on the trip either way, and if it were possible to have the connection made you would have the best service to Rouyn that could 'be given. And that service could have been provided without spending one cent of money from the Dominion treasury. That $5,000,000 could have been saved, and in this connection I wonder why the Hudson Bay railway should be mentioned at all in the Speech from the Throne. We have been discussing that railway for weeks and yet we have $5,000,000 being spent on a railway here without any mention of it in the Speech. Why do not hon. members from the west get on to this scheme? Do they not ask themselves how it is that $5,000,000 can be Spent on this railway without its being mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, while it is necessary to mention the Hudson Bay railway specifically? Let the government take that $5,000,000 and devote it to the Hudson Bay road. The Hudson Bay railway may have many things in its favour, for our history in the north country has been one of romantic and profitable adventure. There are members here representing the east and the west and those who are in the mining area know that the country stretching north of the western provinces and taking in northern Ontario and northern Quebec, known as the pre-Cambrian area, has been swept clean by the wonderful forces of nature, exposing to Canada the greatest treasure country in the now known

1236 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Armstrong (Timiskaming)

world. That may strike the House as strong language, but it is backed up by the best geologists who come to this country.

Now, I represent the people up there and I have come here to put some pep and spirit into the mining branch of this government. I come to offer some assistance to the minister in charge of our mining affairs, because I want some action taken. The people up there want something done, and I am here to urge their needs upon the government. We feel the influence from the west. We want coal and we want fish from the Atlantic. We *want those who go down to the sea in ships to send their products to our country. We are in the centre of Canada and it costs us more to live there than it does anywhere else in the Dominion. A ton of coal there to-day cannot be procured at less than from $25 to $30, and you cannot even get it at that. We are the people who stand dn need of some action in the matter of transportatiop for we are the greatest sufferers. We reach both east and west. We gather the sentiments of the people of the west, the people who have certain transportation problems, and we know their political views. And we derive from the energetic and magnificent province of Quebec a good deal of inspiration. We are the melting pot of Canada. The young people of that country are vigorous and they want me to represent their case in parliament and to get the wheels of government moving in their behalf. This is the day of great opportunity. Fortunes and opportunities are passing daily, and I would ask the House to look forward to a great development of that country in the future. A spirit of strong Canadianism is being engendered up there. As I say, we have been called the melting pot of this Dominion, and \ve look forward with hope to a great development in the not distant future. And I know we shall not be disappointed.

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

Ira Delbert Cotnam

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):

With considerable diffidence as a new member, I rise to address the House on this occasion, but before proceeding to a discussion of the subject under consideration I desire, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your elevation to the exalted position you hold in parliament. The members here, I am sure, all appreciate the grace and dignity you bring to your high and exalted position, the fairness of your decisions and your impartiality in disposing of all questions that come before you for review. I desire also to congratulate some of the hon. members on the Liberal side who have taken part in the various debates which we have so far had in this House, particularly during the earlier part of the session.

I refer especially to hon. members from the province of Quebec who have astonished me by the extent of their knowledge of the English language and their proficiency in its use. It has been indeed a great pleasure to listen to those hon. gentlemen speaking in a language other than their mother tongue, and giving expression to their ideas in such well-chosen terms. I listened particularly with a great deal of interest to the address delivered some time ago by an ex-Speaker of this House in the person of the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) who, I thought, was uncommonly fair and open minded and who couched his observations in faultless language.

We have a rather peculiar situation in this House at tire present time. We came into parliament following a general election on October 29. We know that on that occasion the government of the day appealed to the country after propounding certain principles, certain doctrines and certain policies which they thought should be inaugurated in this country if they were to carry on the business of this Dominion successfully. In the Prime Minister's manifesto delivered on September 6 last, he propounded those questions of policy which he thought Should take precedence, and with which he thought this parliament should deal. After the election we find that the remnants of that government came back to this House with a following much depleted. They had been storm-tossed and shipwrecked. The government was decapitated on election day, and although they have since recovered their head, I think the people of this country realize, as do the members of this House as they look across to the other side to-night, that they are indeed a very dilapidated remnant of a government.

Those of us who took part in the election of 1921 will remember that the Liberal party on that occasion appealed to the electors of this country on a very definite platform from that which had been laid down in the convention held in this city of Ottawa in the year 1919. At that convention the Liberal party selected a new leader, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and we all know that he was selected as the leader of the party pledged to support a certain platform, certain policies which were enunciated and laid down upon that occasion. The Liberal party appealed to the country in 1921, but I am here to-night to say that they did not * appeal to the country on the policies enunciated in the platform of 1919. In my own constituency, the Liberal platform as laid down in 1919 was never once mentioned during the campaign of 1921. During that whole

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

campaign the Liberal party carried on under the name of the late revered leader of the party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose name was continually conjured up in order to carry the party through. Mr. Mackenzie King, the leader of the Liberal party, was in1 my own constituency during the 1921 campaign, and wthile there he failed to discuss the platform or enunciate the policies of the Liberal party; in fact, the Liberal candidate, who afterwards became the Liberal member in this House from 1921 to 1925, although he had been an avowed free trader all his life, when the election of 1921 took place declared that he had changed his policies and that he was now an out-and-out protectionist. The leader of the Liberal party, I say, when he was in my constituency did not discuss the Liberal platform of 1919; in fact, I do not think the Liberals in this House or in the country want to see that platform of 1919 carried into effect at all. Mr. Mackenzie King, when he came to my constituency in 1921-he was then leader of the opposition-spoke of other problems, problems which were more or less local, and which perhaps appealed more or less to the people of that constituency. Following Mr. King during the whole progress of his 1921 campaign, I believe that he conducted it entirely as he did the last campaign, on geographical principles, enunciating, not the policies or principles of the Liberal party, if it has any, but rather the policies which he thought would suit the particular constituency in which he happened to be speaking.

When Mr. Mackenzie King spoke in mv constituency in 1921 he took up such problems as these: As hon. members know, he claims

to be a very strong opponent of trusts, mergers and combines, although as a matter of fact he was a member of the Laurier administration during a period when there were more trusts, mergers and combines formed in the Dominion of Canada than, there had ever been before or since. I notice that in his manifesto at Richmond Hill Mr. King again took up the subject of monopolies, declaring that he was unalterably opposed to monopolies, trusts, mergers and combines in any shape or form. That is all very fine as grandstand play, but what actually has taken place during Mr. King's regime, even within the last year? In my constituency in 1921 he declared that if he became Prime Minister of this country there would be no more bank mergers in the Dominion. He was opposed to mergers then because it happened that at that particular time a merger was being negotiated between the Bank of Montreal and the Merchants Bank, yet we find that in 1924, 14011-79

just last year, there were four bank mergers consummated in the Dominion of Canada without a word of protest from Mr. King or any member of his government. There were amalgamated last year the Bank of Commerce and the Bank of Hamilton; La Banque Nationale and La Banque dTIochelaga; the Standard Bank and the Sterling Bank; Molson's Bank and the Bank of Montreal; and yet Mr. King says that he is opposed to trusts, mergers and combines in any shape or form.

During that same campaign of 1921 Mr. King declared that if he became Prime Minister of this country he would have an investigation into the affairs of the Riordon Company of Canada. That was a company in which a great many people in eastern Canada were interested at that time, particularly the people of Ontario and Quebec, who had put their money into that corporation expecting that it was an organization which was being fairly and equitably handled, and one in which the shareholders would have a fair chance. The government that went out of office in 1921 found it necessary to take I.O.U's from the Riordon Company in payment of certain business taxes, because the company, owing to the financial position in which they found themselves, were unable to pay those taxes at the time. When Mr. King spoke in my constituency in 1921 he tried by innuendo to make it appear that the Conservative government was in some way allied with the big interests and with the Riordon Company, that there was some secret underhand dealing between them whereby the Riordon Company was exempted from taxation, yet subsequent events proved that the Riordon Company was in a serious financial position at that time, and that it was impossible for them to pay their business profits taxes. Mr. King became Prime Minister in 1921, and from that day to this no one has ever heard anything further from him about the Riordon Company or of any investigation which would disclose the real cause of the failure of that company.

Mr. King went further than that. He said that the government of Mr. Meighen was a government by order in council, that parliament was not consulted, that practically the whole business of the country was carried on by order in council. Of course, he knew perfectly well as every hon. member knows, that no government can carry on in this country without orders in council. I venture to say to-night that the present government; during the last four years, have passed not five hundred, or a thousand, or fifteen hun-

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

dred, or two thousand orders in council, but probably three thousand such orders. And yet Mr. Mackenzie King said at that time that he was the great protagonist of responsible government in this country, that the people through parliament must be consulted in regard to everything. What do we find to-day? We find that this government-this responsible government of which Right Hon. Mackenzie King is the head-guarantee the bonds of the Canadian National railways for the building of a line of railway costing the people of this country a sum probably in the neighbourhood of three to five million dollars, for which we are directly responsible. They do this by order in council, although Mr. King insisted when in opposition that government by order in council was altogether unfair and should not be permitted under our British constitution.

I wonder if any of the Liberal members of this House have ever read over the platform of the Liberal party as enunciated in 1919 under the caption of "financial conditions and taxation." I should just like to read a little from that platform to-night for their enlightenment, to see if it conjures up any memories of the past when that platform was framed. It reads as follows:

Whereas the national safety demands that the serious financial position of the country should be known and appreciated in order that steps may be taken to cope with the same; and

Whereas on the 31st March last, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, the net public debt was $1,584,000,000 or roughly, $220 for every man, woman and child in the Dominion, involving an annual interest charge of about $115,000,000 and thus imposing an annual burden for interest on debt alone of $15 per head of the population; and

Whereas the estimated expenditure of the Dominion government for the present fiscal year is over $800,000,000 or roughly $100 per head of the population; and

Whereas the estimated revenue is only $280,000,000, thus creating an estimated deficit of over $500,000,000- a sum equivalent to $62.50 per head of the population- which sum the Finance Minister proposes to obtain by borrowing; and-

Just listen to what they say here:

Whereas national disaster will overtake this country should the present method of financing the country's affairs be continued-

National disaster, they say, is to follow. These were the gentlemen opposite who are telling us to-night that we are the people who are preaching blue ruin in this Dominion; and yet that is what they were saying in 1919-that national disaster will overtake this country. I continue quoting:

Whereas both Great Britain and the United States at present raise more than 80 per cent of their revenue by direct taxation, while Canada raises not more tian 20 per cent;

Be it and it is hereby resolved:

That the serious nature of the country's financial situation calls for the profoundest consideration of all patriotic citizens and the exercise of severest economy by the government;

That increase of revenue must be sought from an equitable and effective imposition and collection of graduated taxes, on business profits and income, applicable to all incomes above reasonable exemptions;

Taxes on luxuries.

That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance. First: diminishing the. very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people,-

And by the way, the cost of living is five per cent higher than it was when that platform was framed, yet nothing is said about the high cost of living to-day.

Second: reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.

That, to these ends, wheat, wheat flour and all products of wheat; the principal articles of food; farm implements and machinery; farm tractors, mining, flour and sawmill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber; gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils; net twines and fishermen's equipments; cements and fertilizers, should be free from customs duties, as well as the raw material entering into the same.

That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions should be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering into the manufacture of the same.

That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff.

And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.

I am sure it must be refreshing for hon. gentlemen opposite to listen once more to these words, which they surely must have heard in 1919. That suits hon. members from Saskatchewan all right-So impressive is the statement: " The Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement these provisions by legislation." You would think the proceedings were as solemn as a funeral. And yet to-day when we draw the attention of these gentlemen to their platform of 1919 and the explicit planks they laid down therein, in which they said that national disaster would overtake the then government if they continued on this course, and that we had a national debt of $1,584,000,000, or $220 per capita; to-day when we draw their attention to the fact that the national debt of this country has risen until it is over $2,500,000,000, or $300 per capita, they say that we are crying blue ruin.

The Address-Mr. Cotnarn

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

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Tuesday, February 23, 1926

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

February 22, 1926