February 23, 1926

LIB

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Wheat is being

shipped on a rate set by statute, which neither you nor I have any right to discuss.

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

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

The loss is $6,000,000

a year.

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

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

If that is the

case, and you will project the wheat rate on the same basis from Fort William to Toronto, it will bring your coal rate to $10.50 a ton.

Just a word respecting our freight rates today. Everybody seems to take great delight in jumping on the railways, both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. It will no doubt interest hon. members to know that our freight rates are lower than those in any other country in the world. The freight rate in Great Britain per ton mile is equal to 2.84 cents; in Switzerland to 6.20; in Norway, 4.47 cents. In Australia it ranges from 2.8 in the commonwealth to 3.20 in South Australia, 3.94 in West Australia and 2.79 in New South Wales; in United States 1.116; in Canada 1.019. The Canadian National is .968 cents-the lowest freight rate in the world. And still we ask to have the freight rates reduced here. Hon. gentlemen

1264 COMMONS

The Address

Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)

opposite are always endeavouring to bolster up industry in order to keep people employed in this country. I would like to give them a figure or two regarding the railways. The assets of the Canadian Pacific railway alone in this country are worth more than the national debt of Canada. The payroll on all Canadian railways in the year 1924 was $231,517,863; there was in addition expended in Canada on materials, supplies for the railways, and other expenses, $146,077,729, or a total spent by the railways in Canada in wages and the buying of supplies of $377,595,592. That I claim is an industry that should be looked after by the people of Canada.

The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and his followers went from one end of this country to the other in the last campaign, and they have been talking the same way in this House since they came here, saying that the trade of the country was declining, industry was at a standstill, people were leaving the country, business was not good at all, and yet Sir Henry Thornton picked out that kind of a year to show a surplus of some $32,000,000 in revenue over operating expenditure on the lowest freight rate in the world. Either the right hon. leader of the opposition and his followers were misrepresenting business conditions in Canada, or Sir Henry Thornton must be little less than an angel in their estimation at the present time.

I do not wish to take up much time jr this debate, but before taking my seat I wish to say a word or two in regard to what is going on in this House at the present time. The system of government we have in Canada is what we call representative government. Members are elected to this House to represent and voice the will of the people. The people of Canada, through their duly elected representatives, have said that this House should adjourn so that cabinet ministers might be elected to the government chosen by the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada. Every member of this House will have an opportunity to speak to all the measures mentioned in the Speech from tihe Throne when they are brought down to this House. Then why do the opposition delay? They delay because they are afraid to face the issues in the Speech from the Throne. They will go to any length, moving amendment after amendment, in an endeavour to beat this government so that the measures outlined in the Speech from the Throne shall not become law. They know there are men within their own party who dare not vote against certain measures in the Speech from

I Mr. J. G. Ross.]

the Throne, and I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. leader of the opposition that he who for political advantage endeavours to make impotent the parliament of Canada and flouts the will of the people, as expressed through their duly elected representatives in this House of parliament, will pay, and pay dearly, when the people of Canada have a chance to deal with him.

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

Richard Langton Baker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BAKER:

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He said it was the high tariff of Canada which was driving people from this country to the United States. If that is the case how is it that the tariff of the United States, which is twice as high os ours, is not driving people from that country to this?

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

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

If the United

States have a much higher tariff than we have, at all events they sell their goods much cheaper, and they can sell their goods in this country much cheaper than olur own manufacturers do.

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

Richard Langton Baker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BAKER:

Because they have a higher tariff.

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

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Just to give you an instance, the other evening when the former member for Regina, Mr. Darke, was speaking of the Ford car, he was questioned by an hon. gentleman opposite. Now our tariff on the parts that go into a Ford car is around 25 per cent, and I believe the total amount collected on the parts of a Ford car entering this country would amount to about $25. But the extra cost to us of a complete Ford car in this country is $150. In Saskatchewan we have to pay $150 more for a Ford car than they pay right across the line to the south of us. If the people who want tariff protection in this country would ask only for the tariff protection they need, you would find that that extra $125 paid by the people of Canada for that Ford car would be spent in buying other articles made in this Dominion, thereby helping other industries.

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

Edward Armour Peck

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. A. PECK (West Peterborough):

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to address myself to the motion and amendment before the House although I realize that you, Sir, will accord to me the same kindly consideration which you are in the habit of extending to all new members of this House. One may be accustomed to address local audiences, but I realize that now I am a member of and addressing myself ito the supreme assembly of this country, an (assembly composed of members resident for the most part in the ridings which they represent, assembled

The Address-Mr. Peck

here from all parts of the Dominion to deliberate on matters affecting the welfare of the whole of Canada, and, if necessary, to crystallize their view into the form of legislation. It is only natural to expect that a gathering such as this, representing all the various sections of Canada and gathered here from sea ito sea, as the scroll over the entrance to this building states, will have divergent views. They represent different interests, different occupations, and necessarily there will be divergencies of opinion. It is our duty when we meet here to discuss fully all the questions which may possibly affect Canada, and to do so there must be the fullest freedom of debate.

The debate on the Address has been a feature of our proceedings ever since parliament was established. It answers a hseful purpose. It gives us an opportunity of stating our views and of hearing the views of those who do not, perhaps, agree with us. There should be no limitation of that debate unless limitation becomes really necessary. It has been suggested that by carrying on this discussion we are obstructing, but we are in no way preventing the carrying on of public business. The government has expressly stated that it does not intend to bring down any more business until (March 15; and so if we wish to continue exchanging our views we are in no way preventing the carrying on of the business of the country. In that connection I regret to. See introduced the amendment calling for the previous question to be put. Under the circumstances it answens no useful purpose. If important measures were being held up by reason of this debate there would be some reason for checking discussion. But no such condition exists; and it is unfortunate that, by reason of that amendment, a suggestion should go forth from this assembly that there should be any restriction of the fullest discussion of public matters.

We have an unusual condition in the present interesting parliament-the fact that the government which is endeavouring to carry on is a minority in the House. In the former House the Prime Minister had a following, I believe, of 125. He expressly stated that he had not a sufficient following to enable him to put into effect the policies which he wished to have adopted. Having gone to the country he comes back with a far less number of supporters-to be precise, only 101-and seeks to carry on. His only salvation is to turn to the members of the Progressive party for support. As has been stated in the House, he has had1 several interviews with some of the members of that party, and after some discussion a very loose agreement has been arrived at-in fact it is scarcely to be called an agreement at all.

As I understand that agreement, it contains three parts. It starts off with the statement on the part of the Progressive party that it has no confidence in Mr. King's government, and that any support the Progressives see fit to give to the government is not to be construed as an expression of confidence in it. And then, as I gather, another feature of the agreement is this: It is not intended there

should be a departure in any respect from the principles to which the Progressive party are wedded. In no way is it to mean an abandonment of the views which the Progressive party have expressed in the House; if any party is to give way it must be the Liberal party. In the third place there is this understanding, I believe, with the Progressive party: It will only support the government as long as the measures introduced are satisfactory to it. That is a very loose agreement. It must be very unsatisfactory to the Prime Minister that he can secure no better treatment from the Progressive party than that which I have indicated. Well might the Prime Minister, as time goes on, say in the words of the psalmist:

" I am in jeopardy every hour. Every night I make my bed and water my couch with my tears."

Now, Mr. Speaker, where does this lead us to? It leads us to the conclusion that when the House reassembles on March 15, Progressive measures are to be considered first. The government is to continue to ride in the government car, but the man at the wheel is to be the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke); he is to direct the course which the car will take. Now, I am not going to say that will necessarily be a bad thing. I do not know altogether the views of the Progressive party. Part of my constituency, which was taken out of the former riding of East Peterborough, was represented in the last parliament by a Progressive member, and there are several Progressives now in the present riding, many of whom gave me their support. So far as the Progressive party is concerned I have come to parliament with a fairly open mind. My experience tells me that there are generally two sides to every question; and when I find that the Progressive party was composed in the last parliament of sixty-five members-many of whom had broken away from former political affiliations to assist in forming that group-I cannot but come to the conclusion that there must be something in the Progressive movement. Therefore, speaking personally, I am prepared1 to give fair consideration to any of the measures that

The Address-Mr. Peck

may be introduced on behalf of the Progressive party, without giving any assurance that I will accept them and' support them.

But there is this to be borne in mind: the Progressive party does not pretend to represent the whole of Canada. With two exceptions the Progressive members in the present House all come from the western provinces and naturally represent western views. But they are only twenty-four in number, a trifle under one-tenth of the representation in this House, and presumably they only represent about that percentage of the people of this country. It may be said by them that they are endeavouring to represent all the people of this country engaged in agricultural pursuits. Admitting that for the sake of argument, it still follows that they only represent about thirty-four per cent of the Canadian people. Now I want to say something, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the other 66 per cent, composed1 to a very great extent of persons engaged in manual work, persons who are dependent upon industrial employment to enable them to earn the wages necessary to support themselves and their families. I come from a riding which is about two-thirds ufiban, and one-third rural, and I desire to speak for a few minutes on the subject of protection, which has been discussed so much in this chamber since we met last month.

I wonder if I might venture to say a word or two about the conditions in the city of Peterborough at the time of the election and for some time previously. There was considerable depression in the city, and to be truthful I must say there were depressed conditions not only in the' city of Peterborough but in all other urban centres in Canada, I believe, with one or two exceptions. Yet I realize that these conditions can be improved by the adoption of a better protective system than the one now in vogue in this country. There are several factories in the city of Peterborough which require protection. They are exposed at the present time to undue and unfair competition with foreign goods imported into the country and manufactured under conditions which no respectable workman in this country should be subjected to. The depression at any rate exists, and prior to the election some of those factories found it necessary partly to close down and in some cases to work half time. Many men were out of work and times were very hard in Peterborough. Frequently I would meet a man and he would ask me: "For heaven's sake, can you get me a job?" There was no job to be had for him. I am sorry to say.

In connection with and as a result of that condition, many of the people of the city of Peterborough found it desirable to go to the United States and take their families with them. I could give many instances during the few months preceding my election when my attention was particularly directed to that sort of thing. There was one man in whom I was particularly interested, a man I had known for many years, who was born in the county, brought up there, married, with three or four children, a strong, able-bodied middle aged man, able and willing to work. He hunted round for six months but could not get a job. Finally he went to the States, came back to Canada, reported that he had a job for himself and one for his eldest boy. He sold the little house which he had been given time to pay for; he went away, and probably will never return. I met another man the other day and asked him about his boys. "Oh," he said: "My four boys are all gone and I am left alone." I asked him. "How are they getting on?" He said: "They are over in the States and doing pretty well." There are many cases of that kind. The matter became serious, and as the election approached people became aroused and awakened to the condition of things, realizing that the failure to put up a proper customs tariff against the importation of goods which we were capable of manufacturing in Peterborough was causing the trouble in that city. There was no undue or unfair propaganda, as was suggested by the hon. Minister of Public Works OMr. King) in this House the other evening. The facts were plain, and the people realized them. There were men out of employment and there were many cases of people going to the States. It was not necessary to appeal to the people; they appreciated the seriousness of the situation. They appealed to me, I may say, to run in the election and to carry their burdens and present them to this House. What happened? The case was very ably presented for the Liberal side by the then member, a man of great ability and1 force, a man very well known to this House, I dare say, because in the last parliament he was Deputy Speaker. He had been returned for that riding in 1921 with a majority of over 2,000, and he was defeated at the last election by nearly the same figure. He presented all the stock arguments of the Liberal party. He pointed to the fact that the Canadian dollar was worth a whole dollar in New York. He dwelt upon the favourable balance of trade between Canada and foreign countries. He asserted with some force that the government

The Address-Mr. Peck

had reduced the taxation of the people. But somehow or other all those assertions did not seem to influence the result; the people were against him. It just shows the folly of endeavouring to prove such and such a thing to be true by statistics. The statistics were there, and his case looked all right on paper, but the machine would not work. The statistics alone did not bring employment to the working people.

And it was not merely in Peterborough that the protectionist principle was adopted by the people. The rural portion of the population in West Peterborough is not particularly antagonistic to the protectionist principle. Nearly half the agriculturists in the rural portion of the riding voted for the Conservative candidate. Not merely West Peterborough, but almost every other riding in Ontario seemed to adopt that protectionist principle and returned Conservative candidates by large majorities. You know, Mr. Speaker, that out of 83 members for the province of Ontario 69 are seated on this side of the House. The same thing happened in other provinces. The maritimes were very strong for the protectionist principle; Manitoba came back into line; British Columbia gave us ten out of fourteen, and Quebec is coming back coyly. That province is Conservative at heart and protectionist, and it will be only a matter of time before Ontario and Quebec are ranged side by side fighting for protection.

I think I have made a case for the consideration of this question of protection. I am not going into details, but particular instances in which protection is needed have been detailed by other hon. members. I wish to point out, however, that apparently the attention of the government is beginning to be directed to the necessity for doing something in connection with this protective principle. During the four years that the present government was in power prior to 1925, the speeches from the throne failed to refer in any way to the tariff question. Now, in view of the discussion and the expression of opinion by the people on that subject, the Speech from the Throne undertakes to deal with the matter in some way, and this particular portion of it begins as follows:

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

If that is supposed to indicate that we on this side of the House are in favour of a general increase in the customs tariff, I for one do not propose to accept it. Speaking

for myself, I do not know that a general increase in the customs tariff is required. There are in this country certain industries the nature of which is such that they do not require to be protected by a customs tariff, but there are others which should be protected, and I wish to urge that upon the House. The Speech continues:

They believe-

That is, the ministers.

-that in the interest of industrial development every effort should be made to eliminate the element of uncertainty with respect to tariff changes.

This uncertainty with reference to tariff changes is profoundly affecting the country. There is a feeling on the part of people engaged in or proposing to engage in industry that some tariff changes may take place which will be prejudicial to the industries which they are carrying on or propose to carry on. We have all heard the views of the Hon. Mr. Dunning, who, I believe, is about to take his place in this House as Minister of Railways and Canals.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Not yet.

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, yes.

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

Edward Armour Peck

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PECK:

He must be elected, of course. I presume if he is not elected in the constituency which has been set aside for him by Mr. Darke, he will keep on until he finds some place in which he can take shelter. Wc all know his views, because he came to Ontario during the last election and gave expression to them. He has the satisfaction of knowing that wherever he spoke a Conservative candidate was elected. He expressed the view that there should be a reduction in the tariff and a similar idea was given expression to by the Hon. Vincent Massey-a great friend of the Prime Minister-who, it is suggested, is also going to endeavour to obtain a seat in this House. There is fhus the element of uncertainty and there will be continued uncertainty until /this policy of protection is fully adopted by the House and steps are taken to put the tariff on a sound footing.

Then this portion of the Speech concludes:

A tariff advisory board will accordingly be appointed forthwith. This board will be expected to make a careful study of the customs tariff, the revenue to be derived therefrom and the effect of the tariff and allied factors on industry and agriculture.

That, if the expression is not unparliamentary, is simply passing the buck. The matter is to be referred to a commission and everything will consequently be postponed for another year, or possibly longer. I do not think it is the wish of the people that action upon this tariff question should be postponed;

The Address-Mr. Peck

I believe the people want the adjustment of the tariff to be taken up and dealt with immediately. I do not see any reason why a special tariff commission should be appointed. There are in this House members who are capable of serving on committees and making their own investigations, and I have very strong objection to the appointment of a commission by any party if that can possibly be avoided. Hon. members who are here representing the people are an intelligent set of men, and I am quite sure a committee could be selected from members on all sides of this House who would give this matter fair and impartial consideration and within a reasonable time recommend such changes in the tariff as would give effect to the wishes of the people.

In the Speech from the Throne there are many other matters with which I might deal, but I do not wish to do so now because I do not want to get away from the question of protection; for it is important that that matter should be considered in the interest of the people. I have therefore risen to-night to express in a general way my views in this regard and1 my hope that a matter of such importance to many people in this country will not 'be side-tracked even for measures of interest and value to the Progressive party.

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

John Millar

Progressive

Mr. MILLAR:

Considering that during the years 1914, 1915, 1916 and until March, 1917, the United States were reaping hundreds of millions of dollars of profit by manufacturing munitions for the Allies and had not a man in the field, while during the same period Canada was paying out hundreds of millions of dollars and had hundreds of thousands of men in the field, is it not a little unfair to point to the fact that conditions just after the war was over were better in the United States than in Canada?

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

Edward Armour Peck

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PECK:

I do not remember making

any comparison between the United States and Canada. I recognize the fact that the United States by reason of their keeping out af the war so long are in a much better position financially than Canada. We must try to overcome that, but we cannot do so by continuing to buy United States or European goods manufactured by cheap labour. The increase in the value of manufactured goods coming into this country was shown in a recent article in the Financial Post. That article pointed out that although Canada was apparently improving in some respects, the quantity of manufactured goods, imported goods, which we could well make in this country, was increasing. If we could arrange to

manufacture in Canada the goods which we require for use by our people, this trouble about lack of employment and all the troubles incident thereto would be avoided.

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

John Millar

Progressive

Mr. MILLAR:

Was there not in the hon.

member's remarks the implication that conditions were better in the United States than in Canada and for that reason our people were going to the United States to seek employment?

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

Edward Armour Peck

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PECK:

There is no question that the United States, which is a tariff country, is prospering.

Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I presume that as a young member of this honourable body, possessing the average degree of cordiality and fellowship, I should be actuated by a spirit of appreci-9 p.m. ation to offer to you my congratulations on having again been extended the high honour of the speakership. It is a source of personal gratification when one observes a gentleman so competent and possessing such a high degree of dignity acting in a capacity where grace, fairness and despatch are the outstanding characteristics of a successful term of office. I trust that at the end of the session my expression towards you, Sir, may be equally commendatory. I take this my first opportunity of extending to you and through you to the loved ones who share your distinction my sincere congratulations upon the honour that has been conferred upon you by this parliament, the highest honour within its gift. However envious one might be of your personal capacity, I can assure you, Sir, that there is little of this weakness and no animosity, in my makeup and I trust that any breach of the rules of which I may be guilty you will regard as an innocent offence and not as an intentional violation of parliamentary practice.

I trust further that as the session proceeds our mutual relations, if I may venture to say so, will strengthen into something like friendship; and I am sure that, whatever happens, the present parliamentary term will be successful at least so far as a strictly impartial guiding of its deliberations is concerned.

I fully appreciate the privilege and the honour which I have, as a result of the last election, of representing in this House one of the most progressive constituencies in Canada. My first desire in representing that constituency in this the fifteenth parliament of the Dominion is to correct certain statements that have come from sources unreliable and incredible, and in doing so I accept as an invitation the remark of the hon. gentleman

The Address-Mr. Gott

who leads the remnant of a shattered and discredited government, if it may be called a government, in the person of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to the effect that lavish expenditures had been made for political purposes in the last election. The wail of a defeated party, it has been said, is always audible and to these lamentations there seems to be no end. I am compelled to conclude that it is not in the interests of the party opposite that their inner activities in the last campaign, their expenditures at any rate, should be revealed at this particular time. Even the Prime Minister-I beg your pardon, I mean the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King-made the charge that financial interests were against him in Prince Albert. But taking a casual glance at the result in that by-election one would wonder just how many financial interests had really been at work there. I believe that the Independent candidate has as much reason to make that charge as Mr. Mackenzie King had. Certainly the Independent candidate did not prove to be much of a politician so far as vote-getting was concerned, but he has the credit of being a better soldier; at least military report would lead the average person to think so. I wonder whether I should be ruled out of order if I offered the Liberal party my congratulations on the marvellous victory it obtained on Monday last, a victory which, according to the newspapers, had the effect of bringing even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to life, to lead a demonstration in celebration of the event.

The press of western Ontario a short time ago oarried an article which, according to the reports, emanated from Dr. C. C. Ross of Hyde Park, Ontario, on January 10, appearing in the Border Cities Star in its issue of January 11 under the heading:

Charges American gold beat Graham: Dr. Ross bitter at London over defeat of Railway Minister.

"American gold" defeated both Premier King and Right Hon. George P. Graham, in their respective ridings, according to an address by Dr. Cecil C. Ross at the convention of East Middlesex Liberals, held in Hyman hall, London. At the meeting, Dr. Ross was nominated as Liberal candidate for the riding, in prospect of another federal election.

To this I say that the vote in South Essex was not purchasable; the vote in South Essex is not purchasable; and the vote in South Essex never will be purchasable. And if the vote in South Essex were purchasable I can assure you that it is the huimtole opinion of my constituents, particularly my workers, that I, like poor Burgess, would have lost my deposit. South Essex was not won in a day or a week or a month; it was won by the cooperation of the loyal support of fifty or-14011-81

ganizations. On January 27 I took occasion to write to Dr. Ross as follows:

Dr. C. C. Ross.

Hyde Park, Ontario.

Dear Dr. Ross,

Have you been correctly reported by the press when they say that you say I defeated the Right Hon. George P. Graham by the use of American gold?

Very cordially yours,

Eccles J. Gott, M.P.

House of Commons,

Ottawa, Ontario.

To this I received no reply; Dr. Ross did not even extend to me that courtesy. Hence I must describe his chatter as leather-lunged political hypocrisy. Now a Detroit newspaper early in February reported Mr. Charles Tuson, a very prominent, highly respected and prosperous business man of Windsor, as having made the statement that money had been expended to defeat Mr. Graham, and I wrote this gentleman under date February 9 as follows:

Mr. Charles Tuson,

Windsor, Ontario.

My dear Mr. Tuson:

It has been reported to me that you made the statement in public that much money had been expended by the Conservatives in South Essex to defeat the Right Hon. George P. Graham-down Amherst-burg way.

Is this so?

Very cordially yours,

Eccles J. Gott.

In reply I received the following:

I was surprised to receive the above lines, as you know that I took no part in the last federal elections, here or elsewhere, had not the faintest idea what was going on. I do not know of any moneys being spent by either parties or their agents. I did not make the above statements, and am sorry that any reports that in any way might get into print are not true. I did hear that you worked very hard. This is of course to your credit. We all know that elections cost money for legitimate purposes. We spend too much in Essex county in this way.

That is the difference between writing to a man of ability, capacity and sincerity and writing to what I have termed a political hypocrite.

Now I hold in my hand a copy of the famous Australian treaty which has been discussed at considerable length in this House. I do not intend to go into the details of this treaty but I may observe that it was discussed on several platforms in the south riding of Essex, and on one in particular to which I shall refer in a moment. I hold in my hand a list of comparative duties between Australia and Canada, and they seem to me to be absurd in that they are conducive to making our farmers pay the very highest prices for what they buy and accept the very

The Address-Mr. Gott

lowest prices for what they sell. I believe the farmer works longer hours and receives less money for his toil than any other man who labours.

Three weeks prior to the election my worthy opponent asked that there should be no last minute appeals. I am going to submit to the House one such appeal that was issued by him at 6.30 o'clock on the night of October 28, when printing houses in small towns are closed. There is no date to this, but I think hon. members will take my word that it was issued on the 28th.

To Brunner Mond workers:-

Brunner Mond is an alkali concern in the town of Amherstburg, and this appeal was issued particularly to its employees.

The Brunner Mond makes soda ash. Soda ash enters largely into the manufacture of paper. Under the treaty which Mr. Graham and his colleagues concluded with Australia, millions of tons of paper will be sold to Australia, and every ton of that paper sold is just so much work for the Brunner Mond and Amherstburg. Mr. Meighen and his candidates have roundly abused this treaty, while the "outside man," Mr. Graham, has been quietly working for the welfare of his constituency.

Think it over-vote for Graham.

Amherstburg Liberal Association.

Hear about it, Liberty Theatre, Wednesday night.

That was Mr. Graham's last-minute appeal, although three weeks prior he had requested that do such appeal should be made. The people who went to hear the issues discussed at the Liberty Theatre did hear Mr. Graham remark, "We have sacrificed' the farmers and their interests in this country for the paper manufacturers." I issued a circular shortly after in this form:

To Brunner Mond workers, fellow electors.

The Brunner Mond makes soda ash. Soda ash is used in the manufacture of glass. Glass factories have closed under the King government. Glass contains 30 per cent soda ash. The Brunner Mond needs protection. What protection they have was obtained from the Liberal-Conservative party. If they desire more protection they are entitled to it. Tariff on glass is essential. Think it over. Don't be hoodwinked. Vote for Gott-a South Essex man for a South Essex seat.

That was the last that the electors of South Essex heard from Mr. Graham. They heard from me the following day as follows:

Amherstburg, Ontario, October 30, 1925.

My dear friend:

It is difficult to convey in words my heartfelt appreciation of your honest efforts and loyal work that did so much to accomplish our brilliant victory yesterday. You have a great deal to be proud of, for in retiring my opponent from South Essex politics, you decisively and convincingly defeated a man who was considered the most prominent and outstanding figure in the Liberal party in our Dominion.

During my incumbency of the office with which the electors of South Essex have honoured me, I expect to enjoy the same hearty co-operation with you that marked our campaign efforts, and to serve your interests

in parliament as well and faithfully as you have served mine. I hope to meet you often personally during the next four years, and shall do my utmost at all times to work constructively for your welfare and to show myse'.f worthy of the confidence you have placed in me by an active, honest and faithful representation of the electorate.

With a hearty "thank you"

Now, the electors of South Essex have even heard from me since. On December 21, 1925, I addressed them as follows:

My dear Friends:

As member-elect of the House of Commons for the South riding of Essex, I desire to extend to you my sincere Yuletide greetings, and at the same time thank my friends for the fine endeavour made by them on October 29. True, I may not have been your candidate, but I am your member, and only by conciliation with the powers that be and co-operation with the member-elect can we obtain for a progressive constituency the things we are justly entitled to. Hence I ask your co-operation during my incumbency of the office with which the electors of South Essex have honoured me, as I have no grind to make with those who opposed me, and forgive those who adapt themselves to tactics ill-timed and unbecoming Christian intuition.

I have 6.851 supporters whom I desire to thank for their loyal support, and I expect to enjoy the same hearty co-operation from them that marked our campaign efforts, and to serve their interests in parliament as well and faithfully as they served mine in the campaign.

I hope to meet all the electors personally during the next four years, and shall do my utmost at all times to work constructively for their welfare, and to show myself worthy of increased confidence in the future by active, honest and faithful representation of all sections and classes, regardless of colour, creed or political affiliation.

In thanking you for your valuable assistance, and in kindly expression to those who opposed me, as well as to the 4.000 voters who failed to express themselves by ballot, I would call to your attention the fact that when Premier King dissolved parliament he gave as his reason for not being able to properly conduct Canada's business, that in a House of 235 members there were only 117 Liberal members. In appealing for a more definite mandate, he clearly intimated that unless given more Liberal supporters he and his government would retire from office.

The election resulted in the return of 118 Conservatives, 100 Liberals, 23 Progressives, 2 Labour and 1 Independent. Premier King and nine of his cabinet ministers were defeated. Of the 26 Progressive, Independent and Labour candidates elected. 18 of them denounced the record of the King administration and defeated its candidates, and the Conservative party polled over 200,000 more votes than the Liberal party. Yet all this means nothing to Mr. King, who clings to office in defiance of the verdict of the people and in contempt of the popular will. If, as Mr. King himself declared, he could not carry on the business of Canada with 117 supporters and a full cabinet, how can he hope to carry on efficiently with only 100 Liberals and he and half of his cabinet without seats? The good-thinking Liberals have advised Mr. King to admit defeat, while others advised him to hold on at any cost, which brings a spectacle of shameless usurpation of power, a spectacle the like of which has never been witnessed in any other civilized country in the world.

If another election with its enormous expense is forced upon the people of Canada, do not fail to impress upon the people that Mr. King, and he alone,

The Address-Mr. Gott

is responsible. In such event I ask the electors of South Essex to demonstrate their sense of fain play and political honour and decency by registering their emphatic protest against the unconstitutional and high-handed methods employed by Mr. King. By so doing you will at least have done your part in preserving the good name of Canada.

For your convenience and in grateful appreciation of your valued assistance, and in anticipation of the full confidence of all the electors of South Essex, I am appending a statement on the back of this missive of the votes polled in the recent federal election, in the constituency of South Essex.

With a hearty "Thank you" for the fine manner in which I was received throughout the constituency, and with the wish that the Almighty in his wonderful providence may permit-

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

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh!

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

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

Anything of a Christian origin seems to provoke laughter in this House, Mr. Speaker.

-you to enjoy a bountiful Christmas season, with a flow of yuletide blessings, and bring you peace now and forever, is the earnest wish of your representative in my Christmas message of thanks and good cheer, in which I sincerely extend to all a Merry Christinas and a Bright, and Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Mr. Speaker, the Australian treaty, along with many other issues and reasons, was the cause of Mr. Graham's defeat. He did not purpose, not for one moment, that the Civil Service Commission would function to the disadvantage of his political standing in the riding. In giving a few details in connection with only one of several cases in South Essex where he was dictator, I desire to submit

Having been officially appointed by the Civil Service Commission, before he could be sworn in he was relieved of his appointment through the advice and dictation of Mr. Graham. In other cases, and in not simply a few, Mr. Graham's interference with the Civil Service Commission was as brazen as in this case. These I shall not mention other than to say that in them he showed a defiance of any regulations that might govern the Civil Service Commission. Mr. McCallum is a returned man of excellent standing, fine executive capacity, qualified in every way for the position, and slightly indisposed at times due to war service. I was the recipient of a letter from Mr. McCallum, under date of February 5, in which he states:

Re-Kingsville Customs Appointment

This is a rather complicated affair and quite difficult to explain by letter.

I am forwarding herewith two official documents, the result of marks obtained on the examination, also the appointment, both signed by the secretary of the Civil Service Commission.

14011-81 i

I carried out instructions on appointment, and on presentation of same was informed that my duties would not begin until authorization from Minister of the Department at Ottawa had arrived.

Through some reason, the news of my appointment became known, and our friends here became active, by wire, with the result that although I was appointed on June 30th, headed the examination, served approximately three years in France, was rejected on account of a charge by some political henchmen of this district, but the enclosed letters will explain all I think to your satisfaction.

This appointment did not follow the usual procedure, and instead of going through the commission, came from the department by wire, in due time being passed through the usual channels.

Pressing the commission personally for a reason, also the department through the Windsor G.W.V.A., will enclose herewith the letters which are self-explanatory, the charge against me by the department (manufactured for the instance), and also letters from the C.N. and C.P. Telegraph Companies, whose agent I was here. These letters are from the inspectors who personally checked my office at the time I resigned.

You can easily see what becomes of the charges of the department, against the name of a man who had served his country in the time of need; charges that had not the slightest foundation, nothing more or less than a political dodge from beginning to end.

When we fellows enlisted they did not stop to ask what our politics were.

The defeated representative of South Essex, Mr. Graham, with whom I had several interviews, the first one the day that I had been informed that the appointment was made definitely. Mr. Graham said that the Civil Service Commission was absolutely and entirely supreme. The commission and the department usually met and decided on the appointment, but if the commission made the appointment, recommendations or anything else from the department would take no effect.

I immediately produced the result of my marks, also the .appointment, and said: "In view of the facts already stated by you with these official documents in your hand, how do you account for another mar. receiving the appointment?"

Mr. Graham: "Well, the Customs Department have got busy, Mac."

Mr. McCallum: "You have just finished telling me

that this could not possibly be done."

Mr. Graham: "But, of course, you understand this

is not my department?"

Mr. McCallum: "This may not be in your department, but this is your constituency, and are you aware of the fact that there are hundreds of returned soldiers in South Essex?"

Mr. Graham then promised that he would get in touch with the department, and the Civil Service Commission, and see what could be done.

The next interview I had with Mr. Graham was the day that he was endorsed as Liberal candidate in South Essex.

A fateful day:

He admitted before Lafferty, President of the Windsor G.W.\.A., and others, that according to the evidence produced from Lafferty's files, part of which I herewith enclose, there was no doubt I had been done an injustice, and on arriving at Ottawa he would immediately get in touch with the Minister of Customs and see if he could not have my name cleared of these charges. As usual his actions were conspicuous by their absence.

This was a fine endeavour-quite characteristic of him, though-to try to clear a man.

The Address-Mr. Gott

of a charge which was manufactured by his opponents. What manner of man is he who can so gracefully clear a man of charges of which he was innocent when these were only in the preferred class and manufactured for the occasion?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the documents in connection with this case, and they show an absolute disregard of the Civil Service Commission as instituted by my worthy opponent, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, and his former colleagues. I have first the time table calling attention to the examination to qualify for permanent appointment to the position of sub-collector of customs and excise at Kingsville, Ontario:

Time Table

Examination to qualify for permanent appointment to the position of sub-collector of customs and excise, at Kingsville, Ontario.

Date: May 29, 1925.

Subjects Time

General questions 9.00 a.m.-3 hours

Place of examination:

Enquire A. W. Massey, Esq., B.A.,

Principal, High School, Kingsville, Ontario.

Civil Service Commission Examination Branch May 22, 1925.

Next I have the instructions issued by the Civil Service Commission, all of which were lived up to. Then I have the result of the examination:

Statement of marks obtained by candidate 137 at an examination held on May 29, 1925, in order to qualify for permanent appointment as sub-collector Department of Customs and Excise, at Kingsville, Ontario.

Now taking the different subjects: on general questions the candidate received 72 marks out a maximum of 100. On education and experience he received 85. In the oral examination he received 88, or a percentage of 80.7. He was pronounced to have passed the examination successfully and to have ranked first.

Under date of June 25 I have his official appointment by order of the Civil Service Commission as received by Mr. McCallum in Kingsville on June 26, which says:

Civil Service Commission of Canada Notification of Report for Duty

Name-Charles R. McCallum.

Address-Kingsville, Ontario.

Department-Customs and Excise.

Branch-Kingsville, Ontario.

Title of position-Sub-collector of Customs and Excise, outport, Kingsville, Ontario.

Duties-As specified in the official definition, and such other related work as may be required.

You have been selected for appointment on probation as shown above, subject to your ability to furnish the commission with satisfactory evidence as

to your citizenship, age, physical condition, character and habits. Report for duty at the time and place indicated below, and present this notice to the officer named. Also please note the extracts from the law quoted before.

Place to report-Amherstburg, Ontario.

Person to whom to report-By letter to the Collector of Customs and Excise.

Date to report-Immediately.

The appointment was closed. A few days later Mr. McCallum learned that another appointment had been made. He went to Amherstburg and presented himself to the Collector of Customs to be sworn in, but that official did not have any authorization from the department to do so, consequently he could not swear him in. A few days later, under date of June 13, Mr. McCallum wired to the Civil Service Commission, and they wrote to him under date July 16, 1925, as follows:

Dear Sir:

In reply to your telegram of the 13th inst. I am instructed to inform you that the Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise has notified the commission that your services will not be acceptable to that department, and the commission has therefore made another assignment to the position of sub-collector of Customs and Excise in the person of Mr. Allan Dorland Peareall, who qualified for permanent appointment at the same time as yourself. Mr. Pearsall did not serve overseas during the late war, but you were the only successful candidate who did so. Mr. Pearsall was regularly assigned to this position on the 3rd instant.

Yours truly,

C. H. Bland,

Assistant Secretary.

The Great War Veterans' Association in Windsor pressing the Civil Service Commission for an explanation, the latter communicated with the Customs department, which department, under date of August I, wrote to the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission as follows:

I am in receipt of your letters of the 21st and 27th ultimo respecting the appointment of a customs excise examiner at Kingsville, Ontario, and the rejection of Mr. McCallum one of the candidates.

You are advised in reply that it was reported to the department that Mr. McCallum was discharged from the service of the Canadian Pacific Telegraph Company for cause, and the department is therefore not prepared to recommend his appointment to a position in its service.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

R. R. Farrow,

Deputy Minister.

Naturally they had to find some excuse. I may say that the G.W.V.A. of Windsor took the matter up on behalf of Mr. McCallum and have proved -that the charges were baseless and without the slightest foundation. I present a letter from the Canadian National Telegraphs sent to Mr. L. J. Lafferty, Pres-

The Address-Mr. Gott

ident of the Great War Veterans' Association, Windsor, Ontario, under date August 15. 1925:

Dear Sir: Further to my letter of recent date in

connection with former agent C. R. McCallum.

Kindly be advised that Mr. McCallum was not discharged from the service but resigned of his own free will, not wishing to assume further responsibility as he was not acquainted with the wire work.

Under the circumstances consider he acted very wisely as our system is quite complicated which made him dependent for information from his operator.

Yours truly,

G. R. Kerby, Inspector.

I have a further letter to Mr. McCallum from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under date of London, Ontario, September 2, 1925, as follows

Dear Sir : With regard to your inquiry I am glad

to confirm the fact that you resigned the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's telegraph agency at Kingsville of your own free will, and with the object of securing a more lucrative position.

Wishing you future success.

P. G. Galbraith, Telegraph Inspector.

Now it is shown definitely, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling of the commission was overridden by Mr. Graham. It is very easy to make up reports about men. If I were guilty of the things that were said about me in the campaign, some of which have evidently

been carried to Ottawa, I would not be worthy of a seat in this honourable body. McCallum was persecuted for political purposes, and for political purposes only, and I think it is the duty of the Civil Service Commission, and also of the Department of Customs and Excise, if they prize honour and virtue in their operations, to rectify the error so grossly made in the heat of a political contest. I trust the Department of Customs and Excise and the Civil Service Commission will note my remarks and take' immediate steps to correct the error to the committing of which they contributed thereby preventing the proper functioning of their own express regulations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was not elected to parliament on promises. I told the electors of South Essex that if I had to tell one lie, or make one promise, or purchase one vote, I had no desire to sit in the House of Commons. I said that the only promise I could conscientiously make was that if I were elected I would put forth my best endeavours at all times in the interests of my constituents regardless of colour, creed, or political affiliations; for I believe that a person who has one spark of prejudice in his make-up has no right to aspire to the highest honours within

the gift of the people. We have had many promises in our riding from public men in the past. My worthy opponent, Mr. Graham, in the 1921 campaign, promised the onion and early vegetable growers of Leamington and Mersea township protection on their products. Then when a delegation of fanners waited on Mr. Fielding and Mr. Graham at the Prince Edward hotel in Windsor on the 22nd May, Mr. Fielding turned to Mr. Graham and said, "George that is not our policy". I say to this House and I say to the people of this country at large that this is our policy, and when our party comes into power, whenever that may be, legislation will be enactedwhereby the necessary tariff can be implemented, and it will not be necessary for a delegation to go to see my leader or the

representative of their constituency, if I am sitting member.

I have no apologies to make for the defeat of my worthy opponent. I classed him in the campaign, as I do now as the leading man in the ranks of the Liberal party in the whole Dominion of Canada. I think he stood head and shoulders over the Prime Minister, not only in stature but in

capacity and ability, a man worthy of any man's steel, a good all round fellow, with sportsman-like qualities. When he was defeated he wanted to retire. Why should he not do so? I have been connected all my life with those lines of sport by means of which we put on the map our county and the town in which I was born and raised and in which I live-Amherstburg, Ontario. In other words, we have known how to be good winners and good losers. We organized and instituted an amateur county league system of baseball and we tried to instil into our boys a realization of the fact that a dishonest victory was less to be prized than an honourable defeat. Had the Right Hon. Mackenzie King been a member of our league he would have had the same teaching and the people from coast to coast in Canada to-day would not be saying that Mackenzie King was not even a good sport.

My worthy opponent possessed sportsmanlike qualities. In addition to that he was straightforward and outspoken, especially when I was not present. He is the possessor of a genial disposition; his character is unsullied; and on the whole he has the qualities which make him a lovable chap-the term I believe which has been applied to him by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Mr. Graham was a part of the sporting fraternity in our county, but he was

The Address-Mr. Gott

in the county so little that he grew away from the people and they grew away from him. If I am any judge, his absence from this House is conspicuous. I had the unique experience of meeting a lady who was a personal friend both of the Minister of Railways and of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and she whined because I had defeated Mr. Graham and pined that it was not the Minister of National Defence who had been defeated.

Now I desire to say a word or two about the part of the country I come from, the constituency I have the honour to represent, and the town of my birth. I was born in the town of Amherstburg, Ontario, the oldest town in Canada, how many years ago I shall not say unless requested. Amherstburg is an historic place, being situated eighteen miles south of Detroit, at the foot of the Detroit river where the river enters into lake Erie. It was known over a century ago, in the war of 1812, as Fort Malden, and the block house used by the Canadian soldiers in that war still stands on Bois Blanc island. The very trenches used by the Canadian artillery to repulse the attack of the Americans in that war still hold their grassy mounds at the north end of the town, and in the town there has been preserved on the property now owned by Mr. John Fraser the very stone from which Tecumseh, the great Indian chief, made his last address to his soldiers before he took the Indian trail north of the town on his retreat to Moraviantown, where he was slain. Being historic we still maintain traditions in some sense, for we have to-day a mayor occupying the red chair for the sixteenth year. He is not an old man and may be good for half a century yet, in which event he may occupy that office until the Master calls.

We produce in the town of Amherstburg soda ash; we have the only alkali manufacturing establishment in Canada. We have a 15,000,000 plant which employs 300 men, known as the Brunner Mond Canada, Limited. The employees of this firm are one happy and contented family of devoted wage earners. The plant was constructed during the war and when ready to operate, the government of Sir Robert Borden, with Sir Thomas White as Finance minister, had not placed a tariff on soda ash as promised and 600 men who were then engaged in construction were laid off. Soon a tariff of 124 per cent was placed on soda ash; the men resumed work and that factory has operated from then until now. It is the bulwark of sustenance for scores of homes in the community, and offers the sur-

IMr. Gott.]

rounding farmers a ready market for all produce.

Just recently officials of the Brunner Mond went into eastern Canada to ascertain why certain institutions were not using Brunner Mond products, and the only reason given was that the Michigan Alkali people were underselling our Canadian firm by the smallest kind of margin, due to the fact that the Michigan firm turns out ten tons to every ton manufactured by the Brunner Mond. I am not asking for or suggesting, nor has the Brunner Mond Company done so, a raise in tariff, which would be conducive in my humble opinion to materially increasing their output, giving employment to more men and supplying the Canadian market exclusively with Canadian products, manufactured in Canada, the output of Canadian brain and labour; but what the Brunner Mond Company needs is protection on glass.

The people of Amherstburg are interested in the manufacture of soda ash, which is an indispensable product in the manufacture of glass. Glass contains thirty per cent soda ash. Canadian glass factories are unable to withstand the importation of American glass at a low duty, and are closing, or rather have closed their doors, for the lack of profitable business. Across the river two huge factories employ thousands of men manufacturing glass that is shipped to us for consumption, while our own factories employ but a few men because our government allows the market for its product to be choked by the product of our competitors.

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

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Does the hon. member think that a 35 per cent duty on glass is not sufficient?

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

Eccles James Gott

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GOTT:

I have noticed a disposition on the part of Jion. members to my left to interfere with younger members who are making their first speeches. The hon. member who spoke before me was not interrupted; I have not yet interrupted a speaker in this House, and if my hon. friend desires an answer to any question I shall be willing tomorrow to sit down with him and go into the question in an intelligent manner.

This was one of the issues-one of the many issues-that was discussed in Amherstburg during the campaign. Mr. Graham carried the town of Amherstibuirg, a small town of less than 3,000 souls, in 1921 by a majority of 325. But after the visit of Mr. Duncan Marshall to Amherstburg the town flopped to the tune of 295 the other way. I do not know whether or no-t the term "flopped" is unparliamentary. Mr. Marshall sought to impress

The Address-Mr. Gott

upon the people that the woollen factories of Canada were working night and day, whereas the official report that had the day before been placed in the hands of residents of the town disclosed the fact that twelve woollen factories had closed their doors in Canada during 1924; that hundreds of men had been thrown out of work due to their failure to operate, and that the twelve failures had resulted in a loss to the operators of $1,463,000, whereas others failed without actually going into liquidation and the woollen business of Canada was not in the healthy state in which Mr. Marshall said it was.

My first remark in connection with the railways of this country is that if any one of the 245 members of this parliament is not vitally interested and concerned in the government-owned system, he is not a loyal Canadian. During the campaign I sent out a circular letter dealing exclusively with railways, asking for an understanding on the question, and to-day I say to the nation at large: Let us understand one another on the railway question. At various times I have criticized the waste, the useless expenditures, the pledging of credit and the promise of railway lines where the traffic would not justify extensions. To-day I am opposed to the building of t'he Hudson Bay railway or any other line while our backs are breaking with a railway debt of $2,056,181,517.70, with the 1925 addition still to be made. It is too late in public life in Canada to place the blame on any party or person. It is not a political question; it is a national problem, the biggest problem facing the Canadian people to-day, and we must grapple with it in a genuine business-like manner or we shall be heading straight towards national disaster. The Conservatives blame the Liberals; the Liberals blame the Conservatives. In one of the thirty-one paragraphs of that circular letter I placed the blame on the shoulders of the Right Hon. George P. Graham, who, when he was Minister of Railways and1 Canals in the Laurier government, overbuilt this country with railways in anticipation of an immediate influx of immigrants swelling our population, so that to-day we have the railways capable of handling the population but unfortunately we have not the population. I hold in my hand the circular letter to which I refer. It comprises thirty-one paragraphs, but I am going to read just this one:

The Hon. George P. Graham is one of those rare optimists that the returning annual deficit cannot for a moment disturb. You will recall, many of you, that he was preaching optimism when the Canadian Northern lines were being built and the Grand Trunk Pacific was under construction. He has that same optimism. He boasted of it and he ridiculed those

business men who counselled caution in those enormous expenditures. The Grand Trunk Pacific, you must recall, was built in part during Mr. Graham's earlier years as Minister of Railways and Canals, under the old Laurier administration. Even in those days Mr. Graham was a successful builder of deficits with the old Intercolonial railroad which ran from Montreal to Halifax. In those days, however, he had not attained the success that he now has achieved as a deficit builder. Three or four million dollars of a deficit per year was his crowning achievement. To-day, he never bats an eyelash with a deficit of $35,000,000 or $40,000,000. And even this amount is modest for there have been expenditures incurred for the Canadian National lines that have not been charged to the railroads, but that are charged to the government as general expenditures.

Still, this deficit builder has been until Saturday hanging on to the reins of office as Minister of Railways after having been swamped in South Essex. The people said: We want no more of your administration; and the voice of our section of the Dominion of Canada spoke very audibly. Four years ago the three seats in this section were held by three cabinet ministers by enormous majorities, namely, the Right Hon. George P. Graham, the Hon. James Murdock and the late Hon. W. C. Kennedy. Since then another seat has been added, and it must be painful- yes, it must even be mournful to the officeholding government, to discern on this side of the House four Conservatives, all with proud majorities. Strange as it may seem, with full faith and confidence they sent an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Scotchman and an Irishman to conduct their business in this parliament. I might add that so far the Irishman has not been out of bounds except on one occasion, and that owing to the fact that he has been seated in this House between two Scotchmen. I took occasion to turn to one of the Scotchmen and I asked him if he knew the difference between a Scotchman and a cocoanut. He advised me that he did not, and I told him that he could get a drink out of a cocoanut. I turned to the Scotchman on my left and I asked him if he knew the difference between a Scotchman and a canoe. He told me that he did not, and I had to tell him that a canoe tipped-sometimes.

A great deal has been said about keeping the railroads out of politics and I believe even this House could agree unanimously on that. There are in my riding five newspapers, three Liberal and two Independent, supposedly and during the campaign they carried advertisements headed: "Keeps the railways out of politics." Naturally I thought some' interested citizen had been prompted by independent motives to take the initiative and to write the article; but when I was speaking to the owner of one of the news-

sor-and this is the only port of entry I use as an illustration because it is a stone's throw from my riding-there were admitted to Canada-and they were not all Canadians-by way of ferry boat 47, by way of trains 26, or a total of 73. When we make the comparison that I am about to place before the House showing the absolute disparity that exists, those who are responsible for the policy that causes it say we are crying blue ruin, that we are calamity howlers, pessimists. I am not a calamity howler, nor am I a pessimist. I am just optimistic enough to think that a roadster can carry six passengers if they are well enough acquainted. Hence when I tell you, Sir, that for the first fifteen days of this year there were regularly admitted at Detroit from the Dominion 1,375 permanent residents-and the American officers think they do well if they get two out of three- the disparity is patent. During the same period we lost at the port of Windsor emigrants over immigrants 1,302 citizens that there are records of, and how many more crossed over never will be known. But those who assert that our boys are returning in large numbers know little, yea, very little of which they speak. It is not a pleasure for me to cite these conditions; it is rather painful. I think they are disgraceful. Let me quote a paragraph from the Border Cities Star of January 2, 1926:

Detroit Is Mecca For Canadians

The exodus of Canadians to the United States continues with the new year, according to a report by H. F. Hawley, United States consul at Windsor. Applications by bona fide Canadian citizens for legal entry into the United States are piling up rapidly, the consul said. That appointments with prospective immigrants have provided for every minute of his staff's time until February 26. The majority of those who propose departure from Canada by way of Windsor desire to settle in Detroit or vicinity, according to the records.

Now, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what this means to Canada, losing the flower of her population? And yet we have a government in power that does not even know this is taking place! As to how many Canadians we will lose for the first quarter of 1928 from the port of Windsor -alone no person can make even a conservative estimate. Those who left during the first fifteen days of January paid $13,750 to get passports, and the head tax aggregated $11,000 or a total expenditure of approximately, $24,750 of good Canadian rn-oney for the mere purpose of our fellow countrymen entering the States to reside there permanently. This is assisting to solve unemployment in Canada! I admit it, Mr. Speaker. It is helping as well our exports. All of these people are heads of

families, and their dependents will follow later. Taking their furniture and so forth, their settlers' effects, and averaging them at $500 each, we are losing in wealth $687,500-a mere trifle. I claim this is the greatest challenge to any government or even a professed government that has ever -been made. I ask what is being done t-o meet it.

The hon. member for Queens (Mr. Jenkins) recently said:

I have noticed in the speeches that have already been delivered in this debate that not a great deal has been said by hon. members regarding the particular constituencies they represent.

I did not regard his own statements as being very specific with respect to his constituency. I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to represent the most southerly section of Canada. I have the honour too of representing Jack Miner, the leading bird naturalist of the world-also Jack Miner's birds. Jack Miner is a good Christian soul, kind hearted and with a very charitable disposition. Through his sanctuary he protects annually more birds than all the paid officials of all the governments of Canada combined.

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

February 23, 1926