March 6, 1919 (13th Parliament, 2nd Session)

L LIB

Isaac Ellis Pedlow

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PEDLOW:

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but at some later date I shall certainly discuss this matter.
I should now like to place before the House the Liberal platform as enunciated at the Liberal convention held in the city of Ottawa on January 14th last'. It includes : Fair treatment for returned soldiers; generous care of the dependents of the fallen; restoration of the British preference to its pre-war status; reciprocity in food stuffs; gradual progress towards freer trade; the democratization of labour; the abolition of government by Order in Council; the repeal of the War-time Elections Act and support for a league of nations.
The achievements of the Liberal party when in power from 1896 to 1911 will be within the memory of some of the members of this House. They were briefly as follow's :
In 1897 there were 48 articles added to the free list and duties were reduced on 147-including farm implements.

In 1904 there were 14 more articles added to the free list and duties were reduced on 14
others.
In 1907 the duty on harvesters, mowers, reapers, and self-binders and binding attachments were reduced from 20 per cent to 17J per cent.
To Great Britain there was given a preference by way of deduction from the general tariff amounting to 33 4 per cent. *
With the United States an agreement was effected in 1910 whereby the minimum tariff under the Payne-Aldrich Bill was applied to Canada while the maximum tariff under the same Bill was applied to other countries by the United States.
In 1911 the Liberal Government of the day negotiated a Reciprocal Tariff Agreement with the Government of the United States, under which when effective certain natural products were to be admitted free into both countries, and the duties on a limited number of other articles were to be reduced. -
On submitting its policy to the people, the Liberal Government was defeated and was re' placed by a Conservative-Nationalist Administration under Sir Robert Borden.
After the Borden Administration attained office, the duties were increased on certain specified articles, and a further general increase of 71 per cent was placed in the Tariff on all commodities coming into Canada {rom outside Great Britain, and an increase of 5 per cent was placed on the .goods coming in from Great Britain.
Besides opposing the said Tariff increases of 71 per cent and 5 per cent respectively, the Liberal Opposition on different occasions since 1911, and more particularly on January 28th, 1914; on February 10th, 1914 ; on March 11th, 1914 ; on April 23rd, 1914; on April 28th, 1914; oit March 16th, 1915, and on February 23rd, 1916, moved in the House of Commons for reductions in the tariff on specified articles, and on each of the occasions mentioned their motions were defeated by the majority supporting Sir Robert Borden.
On May 23rd, 1917, the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons moved an omnibus resolution embodying practically all the proposals for tariff reduction previously made by them in Parliament and defeated as in the next preceding paragraph mentioned.
The said omnibus resolution of May 23rd, 1917, was also opposed and defeated' by the Borden Administration.
The election manifesto issued in November, 1917 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier as the Leader of the Liberal Party, contained a declaration as Tariff Reform in these words:-
" In further mitigation of disadvantages to Agricultural production, I would immediately remove the duties on Agricultural Implements and' other essentials, as demanded hy the western farmers. A general well-considered reform of the Tariff for the purpose of helping Canadian production and relieving the Canadian consumer would also he an object of my administration."
Therefore he it resolved that in the opinion of this Association, not only should the said Tariff increases of 7 1-2 p.c. and 5 p.c. be immediately repealed, but that there should also be an immediate downward revision of the Tariff in accordance with the above mentioned omnibus resolution moved by the Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons on May 23rd, 1917, in these terms:-
"1. That wheat, wheat flour, and all other products of wheat be placed upon the free list.
" 2. That farm Implements and machinery, farm tractors, mining, flour and saw-mill machinery and repairs for same, rough and partly dressed lumber, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, cement and fertilizers be added to the free list.
" 3. That staple foods and food products (other than wheat flour), domestic animals and foods therefor be admitted Into Canada free of duty when coming from and being the product of any country admitting like Canadian articles into such country free of duty.
" 4. That substantial reductions be made in the general Tariff on all articles Imported into Canada, excepting luxuries.
"5. That the British Preference be increased to fifty per cent of the general tariff."
That is the platform on which the Liberal party stands four square at the present time. L make mention of it in order to show that it is in line with the demand of the community in general and especially of that portion of the community but feebly represented in this House at the present time-ll refer to the united farmers of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having dealt at so great length with many questions, let me deal as briefly as possible with another- matter, one with which I am more familiar, perhaps, than with any other subject in the list; I refer to the matter of finance. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. iCarvell), on Wednesday evening last, sang a most doleful dirge over our federal finances, or at least his words certainly were not such as to make one very enthusiastic over the situation. He led us through an intricate maze of figures on into the slough of despond and left us there, without indicating how we were to make our way out-he left us to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. His main query on the subject of Dominion finance was not exactly that made famous at one time in Ontario provincial politics, " Where " did " the money come from?"- but his query was; " Where " will " the
money come from?" The position in which he landed this House on this question was enough to make pessimists of us all. To use an illustration that has been made famous, the hon. gentleman considered the doughnut and saw nothing but the hole-not a glimpse did he catch of the ring around the hole. He told us, among other things, that the public debt of this country in 1914 was $336,000,000, whereas it is now about $2,000,000,000. Rive years ago our interest charge on public debt was about $10,000,000 or $12,000,000, but now that charge has increased to the enormous sum of $110,000,000. This charge upon our resources, he tells us, will remain, if not forever, at least during our lifetime. Turning to the other side of the ledger he pointed out that our customs receipts would amount to $140,000,000; ex-

18, amounted to $2,054,915,245, and that manufacturers' exports, which included war material, during the same five-year period, amounted to only $1,499,020,143, showing a difference in favour of agriculture of $555,895,102, and proves conclusively that the agricultural community is the bone and sinew of this country, the foundation stone on which this country must build its future.
I find, also, from the Official Record- and, by the way, this is a paper that was established by Order in Council during the past year, I do not know for what purpose, the hon. member for Brorne ('Mr. McMas-ter) and myself hunted the library and reading room of this building a few days ago without succeeding in finding a copy of that publication; it was supposed to be established for the purpose of informing the public generally, but there was not a copy of it in either place mentioned, at least not then. However, I succeeded in obtaining a copy eventually, and from that publication I have taken these figures: Table I, National Wealth of Canada, $19,002,788,125. Of this total $5,216,117,000 is derived from agriculture, or over twenty-five per cent. I commend this fact to the notice of the House to establish further my contention that the agricultural section of our community is the foundation rock on which we must build the future progress of this country. We cannot, we must not, depend entirely on manufacturing concerns for our progress in the days to come, because these industries do not produce quite fifty per cent of as much of the wealth of the country as does the agricultural class. Now, the manufacturers claim that it is impossible to continue in business in this country and succeed, unless they are doing business behind the high tariff wall. If you continue building up this tariff wall you certainly will protect the manufacturers, but at the same time- you shut off the Customs revenue of the country. But let me give a case in point to explain my contention that it is not absolutely necessary that the manufacturers should receive the attention and consideration they demand. I have in mind an institution organized in the town of Renfrew for the manufacture of cream separators in the year 1910. I might just state that cream separators were placed on the free list in 1897. There were none made in Canada prior to 1897. A few only were assembled prior to that year, but not made in this country. The concern I refer to was established in 1900, that is the Renfrew Machinery Company. It has gone on successfully doing business in this country until its output covered the
market from end to end of this Dominion. Not only that, Sir, but it has entered the United States, and is competing successfully for business with the best producers of cream separators in the United States and in the markets of the world.
There is another matter I would like to call attention to while I am on this subject, and that is the duty levied on motor cars.
A car costing $500 in the United States, costs, laid down here $712.50. A car costing $1,000 in the United States, costs laid down here $1,421. A car costing $1,500 in the United States, costs laid down here $2,137.50. To the Canadian price must Ipe added a duty of thirty-five per cent, plus seven and a half per cent, or forty-two and a half per cent in all.
Now, Sir, if you want to make the farmers satisfied with their lot in life, if you want to improve their surroundings, one of the best methods would be to supply them with motor cars at the lowest possible price. If you continue to collect the revenue that I have referred to on these necessary items for their service and use then, Sir, you will delay and retard the farmers in their operations and make them dissatisfied with their surroundings and life. Now what are we to have in Canada? Are we to have stable industries based on sound business principles, or are we to continue the maintenance of industries that require twenty-five, thirty-five or forty-two and a half per cent protection for ever more? I claim, Sir, that the time has arrived- nay, it is past due-for a revision of the tariff, and that it is not in the best interest of Canada that this House should pass over that important subject to a more convenient season. The country is up in arms against delay in the matter.
The Minister of Immigration the other night seemed to think that there was no need for alarm, but he certainly has not been studying the press of the country, especially the western press, or he would have a different opinion. I have heard of alarming conditions obtaining in the Western Provinces, on this subject-tariff reform-and I have read of extensive demands being made on representatives from western constituencies who are members of the Union Government. Such being the case I think the Government should address itself to the subject of tariff revision at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Speaker I have transgressed at great length upon your patience, and the patience of the House, and I now beg to thank you for your kindness and your attention.

Lieut.-General Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria) : Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) on succeeding to the seat so ably and so long occupied by the distinguished and worthy statesman who has recently departed this life. I think possibly the leader of the Opposition will be frank to admit that in years gone by your humble servant contributed a good deal towards placing him in the position he now occupies. We used to have great delight in the olden days in annoying the hon. member, getting him to display his talents and his ability, and in that way he became skilled and polished and has risen to the high position which he now holds. (May we promise him that we will endeavour to test his temper occasionally again? <1 am sure that discharging the high and distinguished duties which he is now called upon to discharge, he will not hesitate to respond as he used to in the olden days.
The mover and seconder of the Address have distinguished themselves, not only on the floor of the House but elsewhere. The mover of the Address (Mr. Redman) in his dogged, determined, fearless manner, gives the key to why the Canadian position stood at St. Julien, and held back twenty times their number of the enemy. He was one of the lads who won distinction there. He got knocked to pieces a bit, but he is still able to hold his seat in Parliament and to do nearly as well as those of the community who did not go to the front. As for the eloquent seconder of the Address, (Mr. Manion) I was thinking while he was speaking, Sir, that if he had not kissed the blarney stone himself, he had either followed in the footsteps of some person who had, ox-had been conveniently near to some pretty girl who had performed this picturesque feat.
His address was a model in many ways. But, Sir, lest the public should think that these are the only two members of the House who have been to the front, permit me to draw your attention to the fact that a distinguished soldier has taken his seat in the House to-day. I refer to Colonel Cyrus W. Peck, the member for Skeena, who has won the Distinguished Service Order, with a bar, and also the Victoria Cross, the coveted highest honour of the Empire.
I wish to take the liberty of giving the names of other distinguished soldiers who occupy seats in this House, as well as of members of the House who are the fathers of distinguished soldiers. The list which I am about to furnish may not be complete, and I shall be very glad to receive any
13i
additions that may be offered. I trust that there will be no opposition to adding to the Hansard record any odd name that may be left out, because I think it is important that the complete list should go down on the record.
First, I find the name of a gallant lad who went over to the front, young Andrews, of Winnipeg. His father is Major George William Andrews, member, for Winnipeg Centre. I remember one morning in the year 1915 when I was passing down the trenches-the German trenches were about 80 yards away-I came across the familiar face of my dear old friend Andrews. He had a rifle, over his arm and he looked just as he used to look in the old days at the Dominion of Canada Rifle matches when he and thousands of other Canadian boys learned the art of rifle shooting, which they so aptly applied on the Germans when it came to facing them at the front. I asked Major Andrews what he was doing and he said that he was instructing snipers. As I passed, however, one fellow whispered to me saying that Andrews himself had "picked out" five that morning. I think that five a day was about Andrews' average. Father and son did their duty at the front fearlessly and well.
Then, there is the name of Colonel James Arthurs, of Parry Sound, whose son also was at the front. Colonel Arthurs went over in command of his battalion, reverted, went to the front and fought in the trenches in a subordinate position.
Colonel C. C. Ballantyne, -a member of the Government, took his battalion over and did his duty fearlessly and well.
Another name on the list is that of Willis Keith Baldwin, member for Stanstead.
Robert James Ball, of Grey, has a son at the front.
I need not say that Hon. Dr. Beland spent long, weary months in prison in Germany. Two others, step-sons, fought in the Belgian service.
Dr. Matthew Robert Blake, of Winnipeg North, was in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but he did not get across, through no fault of his; the fault was mine.
A case of distinguished service comes next. Mr. Ferris Bolton, member for Lisgar, had three sons who went overseas, and all three are to-day buried in Belgium,
Dr. Samuel Bonnell, of Kootenay, served at the front. Dr. John Wesley Brien, of South Essex, who had the distinguished honour of being born in the riding which I represent, also served faithfully and well at the front.

Our good friend, Mr. John Hampden Burnham, of West Peterborough, threw off his mufti, donned the uniform, took his training and went over to the front and did fearlessly and well his duty as he was called upon to do it.
Colonel Chabot was also in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but owing to the condition of his health I did not feel that I should let him go to the front.
Dr. Michael Clark, of Red Deer, sent three sons to the front, one of whom fell. One of those boys went away with the Princess Pats. When I was over there in 1915, I called the regiment out and inspected it. I asked how many of the original regiment were there, and I found that there were only nineteen. Talking to the boys, [DOT]one after the other, of the original Pats, I .-came across a lad by the name of Clark. I looked at him and knew in a moiment that he came from Red Deer. I asked him what he was doing there, and he said that they were going over the top every time they were called on. The Officer Commanding told me that Clark was the only man in the entire battalion who had never missed once going over the top-a chip off the old block.
Hon. Frank Cochrane had two sons at the front, one of whom has since died.
Mr. William Foster Cockshutt of Brantford had three sons at the front. I think that two were wounded, and I believe that one of them was wounded twice.
Major Richard Clive Cooper, member for Vancouver South, served at the front and was severely wounded.
Mr. Walter Davy Cowan, of Regina, has a son at the front, and was himself on duty with the Canadian Expeditionary Force at Regina. '
Major Hume Cronyn, of London, had two sons at the front.
Hon. Thomas Wilson Crothers had one son at the front.
Robert Cruise of Dauphin, has two sons at the front, one of whom, I believe, has fallen.
Colonel John A. Currie, member for North Simcoe, served at the front with distinction at the Battle of St. Julien. I want to point again that the name of Colonel John A. Currie has been confounded with that of another, and deeds have been attributed to him that have not been creditable and that have absolutely no connection whatever with Colonel John A. Currie.
Mr. Arthur L. Desaulniers, member for Champlain, has a son at the front.

Mr. James McCrie Douglas, of Strath-cona, served with the Canadian Expeditionary Force. He did not get to the front, but that was not his fault.
Dr. J. W. Edwards, member for Fronte-nac, has a son at the front.
Hpn. W. S. Fielding has one son, a very gallant young lad, who served at the front from the beginning.
Colonel Evan E. Fraser himself served at the front and also two of his sons.
Mr. Charles Arthur Gauvreau, member for Temiscouata, sent two sons to the front, one of whom is second in command of a torpedo boat destroyer and has been in active service for four years. He has been captured by a black-tyed Irish girl, but in spite of all drawbacks he has done magnificent service.
The daughter of Mr. Samuel Francis Glass is at the front as a nurse.
Mr. Robert Francis Green, of Kootenay, has a son at the front.
Mr. William A. Griesbach, member for Edmonton West, is a Brigadier-General. He went over in command of the 49th Battalion and has done splendid service. I regret that he is ill in hospital in England, and was not able to come home recently, as expected.
Hon. Hugh Guthrie has two sons at the front.
Mr. John Harold, member for Brant, has two sons at the front.
Mr. William B. R. Hepburn, familiarly known as " Barney," member for Prince Edward, went to the front and has been one of the surprises of the war. He has proved a most efficient officer, and has done his duty on every occasion to the entire satisfaction of all concerned. He has risen to the rank of Brigadier-General.
Mr. H. C. Hocken, of Toronto West, had one son at the front who fell at the battle of Cambrai. [DOT]
In my own case, I traversed the entire front from the North sea to Verdun in 1915 and 1916, and the only son I have served at the front four years.
Mr. Norman Lang, member for Humboldt, commanded a battalion, went over, reverted, and did splendid service in the trenches.
Mr. Auguste Theophile Leger, member for Kent, N.B., has two sons at the front.
Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, had only one son. I remember the young lad very well when he was too young to go in for training. He got his training, however, went to the front, and fell. There is a little hard-

ship in connection with his service. He was in an attack and his company came out with very few remaining. His officer commanding told him that he would receive the coveted Military Cross. The next day when the remnant of the battalion were coming out and he was informed that his tour of duty was ended, he persisted in going in again because they were short of officers, and he fell.
Mr. Samuel Charters, of Peel, sent two sons to the front.
Colonel H. B. Tremain served himself and sent one son to the front.
Mr. William Stewart Loggie, member for Northumberland, N.B., is not a very warlike gentleman, but I can say I was never more proud of any man than I was of Mr. Loggie in the beginning of the war. Two of his sons and others of his family were only too-anxious to serve and did serve at the front.
Colonel Herbert .T. Mackie, member for North Renfrew, W'as not at the front fighting, but he was in military service testing Russian shells, and he did yeoman service during the war. I am particularly interested in this young man, because I had the honour of having him as a comrade during the South African compaign, when we rode many hundreds of miles together across the veldt. If he has any bad habits, I claim the credit for them.
Mr. Francis M. McCrea, member for Sherbrooke, had, I understand, two sons at the front.
Major Peter MoGibbon, member for Mus-koka, who delighted the House last night with his address, went overseas and joined the Berkshire regiment in England. In one of the earlier engagements, when they were shot to pieces, there was only one officer of the battalion left, and the little, nervous chap that we saw last night, when he came to face the Germans, did not hesitate to take charge of the battalion, and they drove the Germans completely out of the trenches.
Mr. Alexander McGregor, member for Pictou, has one son at the front.
Mr. D. D. McKenzie, leader of the Opposition, has a son at the front.
General Hugh Havelock McLean, member for Royal, was most anxious to go to the front, offering his services in every capacity; but he had at the front twp, if not three sons, besides a brother. One son is a member of the English House of Commons now, having fought through the war and been wounded, and he has proved himself a splendid soldier. Nothing is too good for that branch of the McLeans.
Colonel Harry Fulton McLeod, member for York-Sunbury, took his battalion over and did splendid service at the front,
Dr. Molloy, member for Provencher, lost a brother in battle.
Captain Robert J. Manion, member for Fort William and Rainy River, the gentleman who so ably seconded the Address, served with distinction at the front in both British and Canadian services, and has now returned none the worse for wear as we can all see. He has, if he remains in parliamentary life, a great future ahead of him.
I might mention that I am taking only this year's list. I might have referred to members of the last Parliament who fell for example, Colonel Harry Baker, whom all hon. members knew well and who distinguished himself in the affair at Zillibeke in June, 1916, where he fell with a great many of his men, having conducted himself as a true British soldier.
Mr. Joseph Edmond Marcile, member for Bagot, has two sons at the front.
Mr. J. A. Maharg et Moosejaw has a son at the front.
Thomas McNutt himself an old veteran, has a son at the front.
Major-General, the Hon. Sydney Mew-burn, Minister of Militia, lost his son doing his duty gallantly and well at the front.
Mr. H. B. Morphy, member for North Perth, had two sons at the front, one of whom made the supreme sacrifice.
Mr. Donald Nicholson, member for Queens, P.E.I., has one son and two daughters, nurses, at the front.
Mr. George B. Nicholson, member for East Algoma, who delighted the House yesterday with his charming address, lost his only son at the front just a day or two before the fighting was over.
Mr. William Folger Nickle, member for Kingston, might be expected, if he had a boy, to have him at the front. You could bet your bottom sixpence that Billy Nickle's boy would be at the front, and he had two sons there. One was wounded three times and the other once.
Colonel Cyrus Wesley Peck, member for Skeena, the worthy member who has just taken his seat to-day, was twice wounded at the front. He has won the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Order with bar.
Mr. Edward Guss Porter, member for West Hastings, lost his only son, his only child, at the front.
Mr. Charles Gavan Power, member for South Quebec, not only was at the front himself and fought well with a good Toronto regiment-and he has had a liking for On-
COMMON!.
tario boys ever since that-and he had two, if not three of his brothers also fighting.
Major Daniel Lee Redman, member for East Calgary, who moved the Address, fought and fell at the battle of St. Julien and has risen again.
Mr. John Flaws Reid, member for Mackenzie, had one son in the overseas service
Mr. James Alexander Robb, member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon, Chief Whip of the Opposition, had at the front a young lad whom he raised.
Dr. Charles Sheard, member for South Toronto, tops the list with four sons, three of them overseas and one in the home service, all in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Mr. William Smith, member for South Ontario, was too old to go to the front himself-he wanted to go, but I would not let him-but his son, a gallant young lad, did his duty fearlessly and well.
Mr. Edgar Keith Spinney, member for Yarmouth and Clare, has one son in the overseas service.
Mi*. Frank Stacey, member for Westminster district, had at the front three sons, one of whom has made the supreme sacrifice.
Mr. Donald Sutherland, member for South Oxford, had one son at the front who served in France and Flanders, and later in Egypt and Mesopotamia. His son has done yeoman service in the Flying Corps as well as in the Engineers.
Mr. Alfred Thompson, member for the Yukon, served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force although he did not go overseas.
Mr. Levi Thomson, member for Qu'Ap-pelle, has one son at the front.
Mr. Simon Fraser Tolmie, member for Victoria city, has one son in the flying corps but he unfortunately contracted serious illness and was unable to take part in the fighting.
Our good-friend, Mr. 0. Turgeon, member for Gloucester, N.B., has a son at the front.
Major Thomas Vien, member for Lot-biniere, lost his brother who was killed at the front.
Major Thomas Wallace, member for West York, had three brothers at the front.
Dr. Howard Primrose Whidden, member for Brandon, had his son at the front doing his duty fearlessly and well.
I think I drew attention to the son of the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, did I not?

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH. ADDRESS IN REPLY.
Full View