George Adam CLARE

CLARE, The Hon. George Adam, P.C.

Personal Data

Conservative (1867-1942)
Waterloo South (Ontario)
Birth Date
June 6, 1854
Deceased Date
January 9, 1915
businessman, manufacturer

Parliamentary Career

November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
  Waterloo South (Ontario)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
  Waterloo South (Ontario)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
  Waterloo South (Ontario)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
  Waterloo South (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 25)

March 4, 1915


It would also appear

to me-my hon. friend need not get excited, it is difficult for two of us to speak at once. I am saying that whether I have come from the shades of Cobden or elsewhere my hon. friend does not seem to know very much yet about this return or about what is going on in the Civil Service. However, I am not going into that. I simply wanted to make the admission I have made, that if the resignations added to the dismissals reduced the disparity between those receiving appointments and those going from the service that, would weaken an argument .used upon this side of the House; but, as far as a man claiming to be honourable, and I claim to be so, understands the meaning of language, that did not justify for one moment the language which was used by my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers); and if I have any knowledge of his character, the moment he sees that he will be the first man in Canada to withdraw the language. That is my opinion of him. It may be misplaced, but I hold it none the less. Nothing that Professor Shortt did justified the language which has been used by my hon. friend. I shall not go further into the question. I think I have cleared myself of the imputation, coming from a source that I was surprised to hear it come from on this particular occasion, of having used strong language. I made a simple statement, or I meant to convey to the House that from the bureau of the Liberal party at the time of the outbreak of war until the moment at which I was speaking, partisan literature had not been issued and that statement I repeat on the authority of those who have read the literature carefully. I am strongly disposed to believe this, because, as I have already pointed out, my hon. friend certainly did not quote any language in justification of his stating the opposite.

I shall not go into what my hon. friend called the progressive administration of this [DOT] Government. We may admit the adjective if he gives it a shade of meaning which I myself would be inclined to attach to it at the present moment. It has certainly been a progressive administration in the matter of appointments to the Civil Service by the most favourable construction upon the figures of that return that could be put upon them, the construction of my hon. friend himself. There has been no extra business done in Canada, and there has been no extra prosperity to justify-even this

gap of 4,000 employees between the time when the late Administration was in power and the present moment. A progressive administration? Well, we are going to speak on the Budget some of these days and we will have something to say about the progress of this Administration and the progress of Canada under it. As I said, I intervened for a specific purpose, and having accomplished it I shall express to my hon. friend the hope that when he introduces a comparatively harmless quotation from anything I have said in the future on an occasion when his own language, which I do not think he has justified, is of the strongest possible description, he will not charge me with having used strong language.

Full View Permalink

May 15, 1911

1. Did the government erect a temporary wooden building to be used as a post office -it Three Rivers, or any post office building after the fire at Three Rivers, about two years ago?

2. Of what was the building constructed, and what was the cost of it?

3. Does the government contemplate replacing this building by a permament one at an early date?

Full View Permalink

March 8, 1910


where our financial liability is going to end. We know that some fourteen years ago we expended on the militia of this country only one and a half million dollars a year, but to-day we are spending seven million dollars annually, so that for the up-keep of our militia and onr navy we will have an annual charge at the lowest calculation of $14,000,000, which, of course, is bound to increase as the years go on. I do not think there is any man on the government side of the House who will deny that in a very few years the expenditure of Canada for warfare will be at least $25,000,000 per annum. And, Mr. Speaker, what does $25,000,000 mean? It means that if we placed $25,000,000 per annum at the disposal of the Minister of Finance he could go to the money markets of England and borrow between $800,000,000 and $1,000,000,000, which would represent enough money to rebuild the whole British navy. That is what we are going to expend in this_ country. It would mean that the Minister of Finance could take that money and build the Georgian Bay canal, and deepen and extend the Welland canal, and buiid the Hudson Bay railway, and two or three transcontinental railways, and still have some money left in the treasury. I am opposed to this navy. As I have said, it will be no protection to Canada and no protection to the empire. And, Sir, the people of Canada, the voters of this country, the people who make and unmake governments, should be treated fairly in this matter and should be consulted. I appeal to the Prime Minister of this country that he should in all fairness withdraw this Bill and consult the people of Canada first, and if the people say: we want a navy

Full View Permalink

March 8, 1910

Mr. GEORGE A. CLARE (South Waterloo).

Mr. Speaker, for reasons known to you and to many members of this House I have not for some time taken part in the discussion of any of the important questions which have come before us; I have contented myself on each occasion with giving a silent vote, so that at least-. I would be on record in reference to the-various matters dealt with by this House. I would prefer to do this even now, but the question before the House is so momentous, and so far reaching in its'effect that I consider it a duty to myself, to my-

constituents and to Canada to say a few words in it. I beg of you to bear with me for a few moments while I explain my position.

Before doing so I would like to say a few words of the people whom I have the honour to represent in this House, the people of South Waterloo. They are composed of many different nationalities, the English, the Scotch, the Irish, the German, the Hollander, the Russian, the Austrian, the Swiss, and many other different classes of Europeans. We have in the southern part of my riding, the intelligent and sturdy Scotchman, who has settled the township of North Dumfries, and made of that township a veritable garden of beautiful homes and beautiful farms. We have the tenacious, enterprising Englishman, we have the brave and open-hearted Irishman, we have the peace-loving, honest, and thrifty people who speak the German language, whether they be German proper, Pennsylvania Dutch, Amish, Mennonite, Hollander, or Bohemian, people who have asked no special privileges from the legislature of this country, who have adapted themselves to the conditions in this country, and who obey its laws. Besides all these people, we have the admirable young Canadian who can hold his own anywhere in the world. Through the assimilation of all these nationalities, there are to be found in the county of Waterloo-and I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) will pardon me if I speak of the county as a whole- a population unexcelled, yes, I believe, unequalled, in this Canada of ours. They work together, they are friendly with one another, they assist one another, and they have made Waterloo county a hive of industry. Their manufactured goods are to be found throughout the length and breadth of Canada, so that the name Waterloo is a household word with the people throughout this country. There are no better farmers, and no better tilled farms. But, above all, these people of different nationalities, who have made this country their home, are loyal Canadians, and, as such, proud of the great empire to which they owe allegiance.

Mr. Speaker, my parents were born in Germany. They were proud of the country from which they came, but I believe they were prouder of the country which they made their home. They instilled into me a feeling of love, affection and attachment for the great country of their birth. Forty years ago the German empire was a number of scattered provinces. By uniting, these became a great nation. Through its educational system, through its technical schools and through the policy of protection inaugurated years ago, Germany has become a great .manufacturing country. They are a business people and Mr. CLARE.

in their state-owned utilities they have shown what a nation can do. The state-owned utilities of Germany, run and managed by the civil service there, have brought in immense revenues to the country and have reduced taxation accordingly. The imperial government of Germany and the governments of the several states of that empire, through their various state-owned business, cleared for the people in 1908 no less a sum than $277,385,095. Here are some of the items:

The leased lands of Germany are worth $198,122,725, and they produced an income for the people of $7,925,309.

The forests of Germany, worth $730,898,200, brought in, over and above all expenses, $29,235,938.

The mines of Germany, worth $128,907,725 brought in $5,116,309.

The German state-owned railways, worth $4,706,904,750, have shown the enormous profit toi the people ol $189,916,190.

The state-owned telephones, telegraphs and express and mail services within the German empire worth $694,816,650, earned for the people $27,792,666.

Other state-owned utilities worth $435,184,900, showed profits of $17,407,476.

Bavaria, one of the provinces of the German empire, pays 39 per cent of the cost of administration from the profits of its state-owned utilities; Saxony, in the same way, pays 31 per cent; Wurtemburg pays 38-7 per cent; Prussia, which forms five-eights of the empire, pays 47 -36 per cent of its public expenses from the profits of state-owned utilities. The state . of Prussia enjoys an income from its state-owned utilities of no less than $176,000,000, which is more than twice the amount of all taxes of that state, amounting to only $85,000,000.

The German empire and its people, in the management of their public utilities, are an example to the people of Canada. They are, above all, an example to the Minister of Railways of this government who is managing a state-owned railway at an enormous loss. The German people excel in literature, in art and in science. The population of Germany is over 65,000,000, and, as has been stated before in this debate, it is increasing at the rate of over 1,000,000 people a year. They have a large and growing foreign trade. Their merchant vessels are seen on every sea. And, like the people of Great Britain- for they are in exactly the same position-the German people with this 1 immense foreign trade must have a navy to protect that trade. As the trade increases, the number of merchs&it vessels must increase, and as the merchant vessels grow in number so must the war vessels grow in number. But do the people of Germany want war? Do the people of

England want war? I. say, no. For these great business and manufacturing countries, these peoples who compete in the foreign market there is no danger of war except it be a commercial war, a war which might occur through competition. This might lead to .actual conflict. In the past, these two great nations, Germany and England, have never warred against each other; they have been firm allies in many wars for the upbuilding of humanity.

I have had the pleasure of visiting both Germany and England several times. As a public man I have tried to find out the views of those people upon the question of war between these two great countries. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure the people of this country that as far as the educated and working classes go in Germany, they have a perfect respect and love for the English nation. This may not be universal, there may perhaps be exceptions in their army and navy of which I do not know. I say again and I cannot help it, I have a feeling of attachment to the great empire of my forefathers. If you do not love your country either you, or your country, are no good. You, Mr. Speaker, and your compatriots, have a feeling of love and veneration for the great country of your forefathers. You are interested in the traditions of France, you are proud of its marvellous people and the wonderful good that they have done in the world, but being proud of that country, being proud of the country of your forefathers, does not prevent you from being proud of your adopted country; in fact, I believe it makes you feel prouder of Canada, the country that you have made your home. The French and the Germans will always stand for Canada and its interests. The majority of the people of this country will do their duty to Canada, to the empire and to His Majesty King Edward VII. We are one people and one people only, and the only way in which we can differ is as to how we can best do our duty to the great empire to which we belong. The Prime Minister, when introducing this Bill, charged the opposition, and I was sorry to hear it, with having differences of opinion on this great question. He charged that in the ranks of the opposition there are differences of opinion. I want to say to him that there are. No great question has ever come before the two great parties in this country without differences of opinion. I am rather proud of the fact that in the Conservative party, amongst eighty loyal citizens of this country, there were differences of opinion as to how best we could serve our empire. On the other side of the House they have differences of opinion too. But they must-do as they are told, and I believe that when the vote is taken every hon. gentleman opposite will support the government in its policy.

Some hon. MEMBEES. Hear, hear.

Full View Permalink

March 8, 1910


Mr. Speaker, I would

have been pleased to answer the question put by the hon. member for South Huron if I could hear it, especially as it comes from a man who says that he knows of no duty that we owe to the empire, and who is prepared. Mr. Speaker, to vote $15,000,000 now and $7,000,000 a year for all time to come for a navy which is no good to the empire, but that does not matter much to him.

Full View Permalink