March 1, 1928

CON

James Charles Brady

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADY:

In rising to offer my contribution to the debate on the budget I do so at least after some study and reflection, and any criticism I now offer has not for its object personal aggrandizement nor party politics. My remarks will be in strict accordance with the rules of debate, the purpose of which is

[Mr. Spotton. J

a contest between two opposing sides on a definite question, in this instance a question of such vital import to the people of Canada that every representative in parliament has a moral obligation to discuss it.

The immediate purpose of the debate which has now continued for a few weeks is to find out as far as is humanly possible whether the budget on which the present government has staked its reputation is one that satisfies the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people at the present time. The question, therefore, is clear and well defined: Is this budget, which was praised so loudly last evening by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) as well as by other government supporters, a budget which by its excellence, and its promise of economic expansion, in keeping with Canada's possibilities Is it a budget that will receive the support not merely of this house but also of the people of Canada? After studying it, I contend that the budget defines nothing, convinces no one, and confuses many. Even the most ardent devotees of the government, who in this house and in the press support it, do not, if we are to judge by their comments, endorse the budget as if it were intrinsically sound. The great mass of the Canadian people, when they come thoroughly to understand it, will not be satisfied with it. Nor do I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who sponsored [DOT]the budget considers it sound himself. As the minister read the budget speech the other day I felt that he was merely the instrument of master minds who had! for their object not the good of the people of Canada but the desire to remain in office and hold the reins of government. That was the thought that struck me, and there came to my mind at the time a verse in Spencer's Faerie Queene wherein Archimago, the enchantor, could confuse all who came within his environment. The words that I recall appear in canto 2, and I think they will be understood by everyone in this house:

He then devised himself how to disguise;

For by his mighty science he could take As many forms and shapes in seeming wise,

As ever Proteus to himself did make. Sometimes a fowl, sometimes a fish in lake, Now like a fox, now like a dragon fell,

That of himself he oft for fear would quake, And oft would flie away.

The conviction that this budget is not in keeping with the spirit of the Canadian people in this great moment of need deepened as I heard more of the debate. When I heard the hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Cahan), the hon.- member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards), the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), and, later on,

The Budget-Mr. Brady

members to my left, particularly the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), I was more convinced that the budget would never attain the limit of the possibilities which the government expects of it. There are members of this government and sections of the Liberal press who are accusing the Conservative party of injuring the Dominion in the eyes of the world by daring to assert that Canada is not enjoying to the full the prosperity which is suggested in the budget. That there is prosperity in Canada we all admit; that it is as general as the budget, implies we deny. I contend, and I hope to prove my contention in the few minutes at my disposal, that under the present Liberal government Canada's prosperity is neither as general as it is painted nor as widespread as it should be. Canada should be a land of opportunity for all and not a land of opportunity for some, as the present government- and hon. gentlemen opposite know it-is making her. We on this side of the house as well as members of the government take pride in our country; we as well as they want our children to live in Canada and enjoy to the full the blessings of life. We deplore the fact that the future of this country is being endangered by the lack of policy of the present government, or rather the destructive tendency of that so-called policy which, is certainly not constructive. The onus of proving this prosperity lies with the government, but so far they have failed to prove their assertion, and the consensus of public opinion is against their contention. Anyone who has a knowledge of the conditions prevailing today throughout a great part of Canada-I might even say over the length and breadth of Canada-must admit that our young industries are being strangled, our settlement checked and our sons and daughters driven to take up foreign citizenship by force cf circumstance. I therefore believe, sir, that the hour has come when the people of Canada should know once and for all whether the Liberal government is the working man's government, as they desire to be known. I am going to make a statement now which no member of this house can contradict, and I think once it is established it will decide exactly the difference of policy between the opposition and the government. That statement, sir, is that any policy which by its operation is sending our people out to assume foreign citizenship, by which our country is made the poorer, and the other country "irridentist" stands condemned; while any policy which keeps our man power within Canada and adds to our population the best type of immigrants from other countries, must receive universal approbation.

I ask this house and the people of Canada which of these policies is now in force. Prosperity has been spoken of not only to-day but in the years past. In the palmiest days of the Roman Empire prosperity was often mentioned; Rome was the centre of wealth while the common people were kept in poverty, little more than slaves. The same was true in France before the days of the French revolution.

I wish to say here that the policy of the Liberal government with regard to immigration and the development of our natural resources is a setback to the future of this country. I ask any right thinking man or woman to ponder this question for a moment; upon what do our provinces depend? They depend upon their natural resources and their development. From Nova Scotia with its coal, its iron and its steel to British Columbia with its forest products, its mines and its fisheries, this is true. What is the government doing to help Canada develop these resources to the utmost and produce the finished article in our own country? My answer is that the government is doing very little. Under our present immigration scheme we are taking in raw material in shape of unskilled labour from other countries, but we are sending out to foreign countries our highly trained, technical young men and women. They naturally go to the United States where greater opportunities exist, and there they assist in the finishing of our raw materials. After this is done the finished products are sent back to us, and our country is thus prevented from developing as it should and we do not reap the benefit of the initiative, vigor and scholarship of the products of our schools and universities.

We must remember that we are spending millions of dollars to-day in the education of our young people. We only need to consider the nine provinces to see how much money is being spent in training our boyhood and girlhood in our universities to take up technical work, particularly in science and industrial chemistry. After they have received this training, what happens? They go to these places where their knowledge will be of service, and I say that any policy which does not have as one of its main attributes the retention of these highly trained young men and women deserves the censure of all right thinking people.

Referring to the question of immigration, which was lightly touched upon a few moments ago, as an echo of the McConachie case which occupied the attention of the people of this country a week ago I have another example which is very interesting. I

The Budget-Mr. Brady

Topic:   $ 9,415,291 4,519,690 21,236 $13,956,217 816,487 $14,772,704 2,956,689 4,610,984 135,001 5,982,407 13,685,081 MARCH 1, 192S
Permalink

OOMMONIS


have the name and address of the father, and will give them to the Minister of Immigration if he so wishes. When this record is given to the house to-night, and when it reaches the outside world, the people will stand amazed to see how far we have gone along a path which is making us a shame and a disgrace to the thinking world. Here is the case. The father came to Canada from Scotland as a high class engineer and entered the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway. He has a wife and three children, and they sold their home and also came out to Canada. The little boy was four years of age; I saw his photograph to-day, and it can be shown to any member of the government who may desire to see it. For twenty-eight years I was a teacher in this country and other parts of the British Empire and I think I should know at least something about boys and their mentality and intelligence. What happened!? A lady doctor and her supernumerary put that child through an intelligence test to determine whether or not he was fitted to enter Canada. Four tests were given him, and I challenge any member of the government to say that the answers of that child were such as to indicate that he was subnormal. The lady doctor, whose name was given me, took a one cent piece from her purse and showed it to the child bom in Scotland.


?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON

James Charles Brady

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADY:

As I say, she placed the cent before the child and asked what it was; the child answered that it was a penny. That was one black mark. The second test was this: A medical or surgical instrument was placed by the lady doctor upon the table, and the child was asked what it was. The child looked with intent eyes at the outline of the mechanism and said "It is a pipe." It was very much like a smoking pipe to that child. That was black mark No. 2.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

What was the instrument?

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON

James Charles Brady

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADY:

I do not know what it was. The third test was the display of a picture of a kangaroo. The child was asked what it was and he answered that it was a dog. Black mark No. 3.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON
CON

James Charles Brady

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADY:

The child was four years of age. Now, sir, in the light of this farce in which we are becoming the laughing stock of the world, I ask any member of this house what faith they would place in the Mc-Conachie test. If such things happen here

and happen there it is apparent the hour has come when we should demand the adoption of a different policy. We should show that we possess intelligence and know how to handle cases of this sort.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON
CON

James Charles Brady

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADY:

The mother was kept in the deportation quarters for three weeks. She had to pay her board bill and was finally shipped back with her child to Scotland. This was the information given to me. I have the name and address of my informant, and if the government desire any further information it will be forthcoming.

Now, sir, I wish to deal with some statements made by the Finance Minister. I should like to quote his actual words because I feel that out of those words I shall foe able to condemn the government for not carrying out what they say is sound administration. In delivering the budget speech the Minister of Finance quoted the opinion of a British economist named McCulloch:

The greater productiveness of industry and the greater well-being of the community are the real sinking funds which a wise government should exert itself to build up and encourage.

And again:

Thus by policies beneficial to all parts of Canada, national development both in industry and population, has been encouraged. Canadians are returning home ... and Canada is once more building solidly for the future.

And again:

Work and thrift are the only sure roads to success.

Now, sir, I think that the Minister of Finance was the victim of some master mind, as is evident in these words just read, because I declare to-night that as regards British Columbia, and as regards the constituency that I represent, the fulfilment of that program has not taken place. I will prove, when the estimates come up again, that instead of looking to the well-being of the community, and looking to the development and support of our industries, the government pursued the very opposite course, or at least those did who were responsible for carrying out the very things suggested by the policy as enunciated above. The greater productiveness of industry 1 I want to tell the house to-night that I live in the heart of one of the greatest fishing communities as well as one of the greatest mining districts in Canada. Further, I say this,-that the day is not far distant when British Columbia will play a part on the Pacific similar to the part played by Great Britain on the Atlan-

The Budget-Mr. Brady

tie as a great centre of commerce. We have got the great Pacific along our coast, we have got -the Orient at our door. Prince Rupert is 480 miles nearer the orient with its 480,000,000 of population in the Chinese Empire, and its 65,000,000 in Japan. I say, sir, that if ever the hour comes when I shall be called upon to decide between the working people, the common people, as we say, and any class my lot shall be cast with them to the end. What is this government doing? They say they are the friends of the working man. Sir, they took out from the estimates the necessary appropriation to give to the fishing folk of Prince Rupert a little paltry shelter for their boats during the: winter season. Where is the romance which should exist in the hearts of the government ministers? Where is the love of adventure with which they should be inspired? Have they never thought for a moment of the fishermen out on the deep amid grave dangers and perils, constantly risking their lives, their families never certain that they will return to their homes? I stand here as a representative of those people. Is it possible that in a country like ours that the word democracy, painted in vivid colours on the emblems of all who claim to represent Liberalism, is misunderstood by the Cabinet ministers. Is it possible that this government refuses to give to these people the things so necessary to render their lot less hard? Sir, the failure to minister to the wants of these people is a crime.

I went through the mining districts in my constituency. I did so because I wished to give to this house statements which could be substantiated and not statements which were untrue. I will give you an outline of the conditions which prevailed (written down on the very day I went there) at Stewart. I went up to Stewart because the people asked me to come and see the congestion at their wharves. I went so that I might honestly note and report the conditions which prevailed there, and here is what I found: The Mogul, a

large ore carrier, had been in midstream for twenty-four hours. Five times the boat had to leave the wharf to go out to mid stream, each removal involving an expenditure of $48, besides great loss of time, because the Union steamship boats and the Canadian National Railway boats were coming in on their regular service, and these boats are not always on schedule time. Furthermore, that same boat could not deposit on that wharf the necessary supplies so essential for the mines. A thousand cases of gasoline could not be landed there owing to the congestion which prevailed, The wharf was laden with coal, steel for the mines, concentrates, and

gasoline cans, and the Mogul had to take back for the next trip, five days later, 500 cans of gasoline that could not go on the wharf. And yet the government call upon the people to work and to practise thrift. The pioneers up there are fighting to-day for their very existence. They work long hours, they toil from early morn until late at night; and I say that if this government had the heart to recognize what was necessary for those people, we the representatives would not be compelled to stand up here and demand these necessities; we should be doing something else and legislating along other lines for the improvement of the public welfare.

I have still a minute and I have something more to say. I come from a great country, a land where the old British stock is practically predominant. In the old days, long before the birth of Vancouver or Victoria, there were along the Skeena and the Stuart rivers, great Hudson Bay forts, trade routes. These were there a hundred years before the Canadian National thundered through the Yellowhead pass on its way to the port of Prince Rupert. I should like to let the people of Canada know that this particular part of central British Columbia is replete with wonderful natural resources. It is only fourteen years ago that this particular part of British Columbia was connected up by the Canadian National from the port of Prince Rupert to the outer parts of Canada, and yet we have in that city a port second to none in this Dominion. We have there a port that, when the St. Lawrence was closed last winter, was open for grain boats to come and go all the winter months and it is an open port at all times and all hours throughout the whole twelve months. We have a great dry dock costing some millions of money but lying practically idle because of the fact that the government do not see fit to realize that they could, through that port, capture the oriental trade, a goal which today should be the ambition of the Canadian people. We have there a great ocean dock eight hundred feet long, but practically no use is made of it. What should we do? Do you not think, sir, the one great thing today in a national policy is the development of our seaports? The whole history of the world centres around its waterways. Study the history of rivers, harbours, lakes and seashores and you find the history of the world and of the progress of civilization. It Should be the bounden duty of every government; it should be one of the chief platforms in any policy, to make use to-day of the gifts that we possess, where much money has been spent and where the conveniences are available, to develop our ports and make use of them as a means of

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

encouraging foreign trade and building up our domestic markets. This, I think, is the chief duty of any government.

In conclusion let me say that whatever little good the budget possesses, has been recognized. The income tax and one or two other things have been reduced, but there are throughout Canada many people who never had the chance of having a reduction in their income tax.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON

Ira Delbert Cotnam

Conservative (1867-1942)

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

Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the House of Commons on the present budget I wish to state at the outset that I will vote against it. Like so many other things that this government has presented to this house, it is a dud. It is a milkless, ereamiless, butterfess and breadless budget for the great masses of the working people. I have been in the house now for three sessions; I have listened to three speeches from the throne and to the delivery of three budgets by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). In the three speeches from the throne and also in the three budget speeches this government has been endeavouring to tell the people that this country is in an exceedingly prosperous condition. This reminds me of that old adage "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." Why, this very afternoon, in an address delivered by the hon. member for Bast Essex (Mr. Odette), he tended to stress the fact that there was a great industrial boom in his constituency. I hold in my hand a report taken from the Border Cities Star of Windsor under date of February 13, 1928, and stating:

So many people are applying for work at the city hall these days that the mayor's office has become pretty much of an employment bureau.

That is right across the line from the hon. member for East Essex. Furthermore, the man who made that statement is a Mr. Blake Winter, who, I understand, ran on the Liberal ticket in East Essex in 1925; consequently I assume the government will accept that report as true. Yet we have the hon. member trying to tell us in the house this afternoon that in his constituency everything is in a condition of industrial boom. I fail to see where you can have an industrial boom with everything prosperous and at the same time have an exLiberal candidate telling us that there is practically a bread line and people seeking for employment right across the border from the hon. member's own city.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
LIB

Edmond George Odette

Liberal

Mr. ODETTE:

Is the hon. member sure of the name? I do not know of any Mr. Blake ever running in Essex counity.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON
LIB
CON

Ira Delbert Cotnam

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COTNAM:

I presume my hon. friend will accept him even on that name. Whle all the members on the government side who have spoken in this debate and members of the government themselves have stressed the prosperity which they allege to prevail in this Dominion, I have noticed that all this prosperity is present in the abstract. Not a single member has stood up in his place and said that in his particular constituency industrial conditions are excellent; that the people are busy; that the working men have full pockets, and that the larders of the women are well stocked with food and the other necessaries of life. This government is a government by statistics. When you try to pin them down to hard facts, every member of the government immediately turns to statistics to support the spurious case which they want to present to the people. Why, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his first address in the house this year took almost three and a half hours, and most of that time was consumed in giving statistics to prove to the people of this country that they were prosperous. I, for one, prefer the method of the late revered leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that if a people were truly prosperous it was not necessary to quote statistics, that when the man in the street put his hand in his pocket he knew whether or not he was prosperous. While banking institutions may be prosperous, while certain sections of this country may be prosperous, while the farmers of this country, due to their own work and thrift, may be in a more or less prosperous condition, while the pulp and paper industry is probably prosperous to-day, by the test of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the working people of this country, the great mass of the people, are not in a prosperous condition, or are not as prosperous as they should be.

Why, this government says, we are reducing taxation. But, Mr. Speaker, if you look over the estimates for the last five years you will find that year after year there has been a steady increase in expenditure on the part of this government. Year after year this government has been collecting more and more money from the taxpayers. True the government have taken off some of the nuisance taxes which they themselves imposed. They have brought the sales tax back to three per cent, the point where it was when they came into office in 1921. But I maintain that if this government economized as they should do, and economized as the people of this country demand, they could have taken off the sales tax entirely and have got rid of

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

the nuisance tastes years ago. Anyone who looks over the estimates even for this current year will agree, 1 think I am quite safe in saying, that this government could cut down their expenditure by fifty to seventy-five million dollars a year without one public service in the country suffering thereby, if they were willing to cut out their political patronage to political heelers and hangers-on and give the country a good straight square and honest deal in the matter of government. It is a strange thing how the government can expect this country to grow and prosper-and to me it seems impossible-in the face of the fact that in the last five years they have spent over two billion dollars in administering the -public affairs of only nine millions of people. I cannot understand how we can prosper when this government are spending at least $40 per capita per annum for every man, woman and child in the Dominion. It does not matter how they get the money out of the pockets of the people, whether by direct or indirect taxation; the fact remains that the people of Canada must pay the bill. You can cut down your sales tax, cut down your income tax, cut down all your taxes, but if you continue in the aggregate to collect more revenue than you have been collecting in the past, the people of Canada must eventually pay the piper, and they are paying it to-day.

Yes, the government have reduced the income' tax. I do not think that helps the labouring man in this country very much. The bon. member for East Essex, when speaking this afternoon, said that if you bought an automobile in the city of Ottawa to-day, now that the reduced sales tax is in effect, you could buy it ten dollars cheaper than before this budget came into effect. But I ask you, how many working people in this country are to-day living on less than $1,000 a year? I venture to say that probably sixty per cent of the labouring classes in this country are earning less than $1,000 a year, and they are not buying motor cars, I can tell you, to say nothing about benefiting by a reduction in the income tax. I do not believe in this reduction in the income tax. I believe the income tax should be collected, and collected from the people who are able to pay. The people who have the money in their pockets have the right to pay; it is their duty to contribute to the running expenses of this country instead of the government collecting a sales tax from the little fellow who can earn only $2 or $2.50 per day.

In 1921 we had the Prime Minister-at that time he was leader of the opposition-in my c mstituency. He came there all arrayed 56103-60

in battle armour, equipped with sword and shield, and he was going to slay a number of dragons that were then in the way. The present Prime Minister in opposition was a wonderful filter at imaginary evils. They must slay that dragon, he said, of the high cost of living. The poor consumer in this country was paying more than he should have to pay for the necessities of life. Where is the cost of living to-day? Why, it is higher to-day than when the Prime Minister was touring the Dominion in 1921, and I do not now hear him raising hia voice against the high cost of living.

Another thing of which he complained was that the Conservative government was a government by order in council. But yet this government, which, according to a return tabled last year, had passed 25,000 orders in council from the time they came into power up until last year, have I presume up to now passed 35,000 or 40,000 orders in council, and the Prime Minister never raises his voice against that evil which was so rampant in thi3 country in 1921.

The Prime Minister was also going to reform the senate. He has been in office now for six years, and reformation of the senate so far as the Prime Minister and his cabinet are concerned, is as far away as it was at the time of the flood. However, he did perhaps take one step towards the reformation of the senate when he appointed the ex-Minister of Customs and Excise in this country, a man who had assisted in defrauding-

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. It is not permissible to reflect upon any hon. member of the other chamber.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON

Ira Delbert Cotnam

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COTNAM:

Well, Mr. Speaker, he was appointed to the senate. He was accused- if I may use that word-of bringing the department of which he was the head into disrepute.

We have another problem to-day, a problem that has been mentioned over and over again, and with which is interwoven all the future life of the Dominion, a problem which we cannot get away from however much we may try. I refer to the immigration problem. According to a return tabled the other day, we have brought into the Dominion, during the years this government has been in office, over eight hundred thousand immigrants. To this number must be added the natural increase, which should give a very largely augmented population. But has our population increased? On the contrary, there is a net loss of 60,000 to the U.S.A. in the past year. Where are those immigrants? The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning),

The Budget-Mr. Cotnam

speaking in this debate yesterday, said that we, in mentioning the fact that certain of our people were going across the line, were acting as advance agents for the immigration authorities of the United States. Well, that does not say much for the personnel of this government: How does that state of affairs fit in with' their prosperity cry? I would give the Minister of Railways or any of his colleagues credit for a little more sense than to 'believe that, although we suffered a net loss last year of sixty thousand Canadians to the United States, everything is prosperous here, wages are good, industries are booming, and agriculture is about 'as profitable as it would be made. Why were these sixty thousand Canadians foolish enough to forego the pleasant conditions depicted by the government and move across' to settle in such a country as the Minister of Railways painted yesterday with the help of newspaper reports? Well, it is the same old story; when the government want to cover up their deficiencies and ignore the facts they quote statistics and newspaper reports. Yet it cannot be denied that last year we lost sixty thousand Canadians to the United States. What are we doing to make good this loss? We are bringing in people from outside, people who in many cases know nothing about our traditions, our language, our customs. This is a sin and a shame, and I say it is a reproach to the government that they cannot find a solution of the problem. It is not up to us to find a solution; it is up to this government. I claim that the fiscal policy of the administration and their attitude generally towards our industries are responsible for driving our native-born across the line. The government must provide the remedy for this evil, otherwise the Dominion can never grow and develop as she would if we had in office a party capable of dealing in a statesmanlike way with this and other national problems.

I have in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, English, Irish, Scotch, French-Canadians, Germans, Poles and people of other nationalities, and they are living and working together in peace and harmony. I wish we had more of them. I should like to see more German immigrants brought in since the ban has been lifted on their entry, because they make most desirable citizens. They are thrifty, honest, hard-working, and they make a success of whatever they take in hand. I repeat, I wish I had more of them in my constituency. But no matter how many immigrants we may bring in, or what nationality they may be, they cannot in the nature of things make good the loss of our native-

born. I believe this is a problem for the mothers of Canada, and that they are going to have a great deal to do with its solution. It will be for them to say whether their children are to get at the hands of this government a square deal, whether conditions are to be such that their children when they arrive at adolescence will be assured an opportunity of securing useful and profitable vocations which will enable them to remain in the land of their birth. The government accuse the Conservative party of not having any policy to prevent this exodus to the United States. Well, what is the policy of the Liberal party in this regard? Have they any solution to offer that will be satisfactory to the people of Canada?

I can heartily sympathize with the hon. member for North Huron- (Mr. Spotton), for in my last election my riding also was invaded by cabinet ministers. I think the first minister to come in was the genial gentleman who presides over the Department of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). Let me tell it to the marines: he did not do me very much harm. The next minister to arrive was his good-natured colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals. Harm? No, I think he did me some good. He spoke about the customs scandal something along these lines: The customs scandal does not amount to very much -why, you know, you ladies would all like to smuggle a pair of silk stockings or a, few little handkerchiefs, or something like that, so really there is not very much in the charges after all. I suppose he meant that if the crime was not very serious it was not much of a sin in his eyes; but he shocked the moral sensibilities of the people by preaching such a doctrine.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Mr. Speaker, I do not usually object, but my hon. friend is quoting me entirely wrong. As a matter of fact, in the course of several speeches, I discussed the moral attitude^ of the public towards the whole question, and not at all along the lines indicated by my hon. friend.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink
CON

Ira Delbert Cotnam

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COTNAM:

Perhaps the Minister of Railways was only discussing it in an ironical fashion.

Topic:   OOMMONIS
Permalink

March 1, 1928