Ira Delbert COTNAM

COTNAM, Ira Delbert, M.D., C.M.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Renfrew North (Ontario)
Birth Date
December 19, 1883
Deceased Date
February 25, 1966
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Delbert_Cotnam
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=2eb2f904-eec2-402a-86ad-818a3c0118f4&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician

Parliamentary Career

October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Renfrew North (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Renfrew North (Ontario)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Renfrew North (Ontario)
December 11, 1942 - August 14, 1935
PC
  Renfrew North (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 76 of 76)


February 23, 1926

Mr. COTNAM:

I simply repeat that it was an admission of weakness; the government could not find amongst their supporters in the House men of cabinet rank.

I should like to quote a Canadian Press despatch dated February 17, and by the way this was just before the hon. member for

The Address-Mr. Cotnarn

Regina (Mr. Darke) resigned, and I am just wondering whether this announcement means that the government was paving the way, trying to make it a little easier for Mr. Dunning to be elected in Regina. The despatch reads:

The Canadian National Railway contemplates an expenditure of $5,896,000 in 1926 on branch lines. This is the estimate brought down by the government and tabled in the House of Commons yesterday.

Between fifteen and twenty branches throughout the Dominion remain incomplete. On seven of these, track will be laid during 1926. The biggest expenditure will be on the Turtleford, Sask., branch, on which about 44 miles of track will be laid and $1,571,000 expended. A million dollars will be spent on the Dunblane-Central Butte, Sask., branch, and $915,000 will be spent on the Rosedale, Sask., branch, which will be practically completed this year.

It seems rather strange the government should be contemplating all this expenditure on branch lines in Saskatchewan at the present juncture, and I was wondering whether this announcement had any bearing on the local political situation in Saskatchewan and particularly in Regina. A little further on the statement says that only two branch lines will not be completed, one of them at Kings-clear, New Brunswick, and the other at Grande Fresniere, Quebec. Evidently they think there is no use for branch lines at those two points. I have been wondering why, in view of the press reports, the government did not bring Mr. Massey into the cabinet. I wonder if they consider that Mr. Massey would not. be any great acquisition to the cabinet, or if they believe with the electors of Durham that, as a result of the verdict on October 29, " Massey's in the cold, cold1 ground ",

Another thing which struck me very forcibly was that when the Prime Minister made the appeal to the country, and when he issued that now famous manifesto, he cited certain reasons, or causes, why that appeal should be made. He told us, in effect, that the government found itself in the position where it was marking time. He said that it would be unable, as at that time constituted, to bring down any great measures of reform to parliament. He stated that there were grave and important problems awaiting solution by this parliament, and among those problems he mentioned Senate reform. Now, I think every member of this House will agree with me that Senate reform is one of those hardy perennials that is dragged dut in election campaigns in this Dominion. It has been one of the red herrings which the Liberal party has tried to drag across the trail in every election in Canada for the last twenty-five years; and everyone knows that throughout the course of the last election campaign Mr. King himself did not offer one real, tangible solution by means of which he intended to effect the rdform of the Senate, only that Providence, in -time, might possibly take enough Tories out of the upper house to enable him to nominate Liberal appointees and thereby secure a majority.

We were supposed to have a transportation problem in this country, and during the campaign Mr. King spoke at some length upon it. I do not intend to go into the transportation problem, more than merely to make reference to the fact that during the course of the campaign the Hudson Bay railway was not made an issue by the Prime Minister. It was only mentioned in the province of Saskatchewan, where he promised that if he secured sufficient Liberal representation from that province he would be prepared to go ahead and build the line. Now we on this side of the House are willing to consider the Hudson Bay railway on its merits. We are not opposed to it, not by any means. I think every Conservative member is ready and willing to make a study of the whole problem and is prepared to vote on the merits of the question; but I do say that there is a vast difference between the Richmond Hill speech of the Prime Minister with regard to the transportation problem, and the method of dealing with it as expressed in the Speech from the Throne. If the Hudson Bay railway is feasible, if it is practicable, if it can be built without too great_ expenditure of public funds, I believe this House wotild be in favour of the scheme-at any rate would be in favour of ascertaining, beyond all question, whether it is practicable or not. On the other hand, the government has not given any intimation, up to the1 present time, as to how much it proposes to spend on the project, how much on terminals, and so forth. As yet we have had no intimation from this government on these points, and I was wondering whether the government wished to keep in abeyance any discussion of the railway, or the possible cost of the project, until it succeeds in getting some ministers elected in eastern Canada, and obtaining cabinet representation in this part of the Dominion.

The Prime Minister further stated that we had an immigration problem in this country, and that it would take a strong government to deal with that problem. To my mind it is not nearly as important to deal with the immigration problem of Canada to-day, as it is to find same solution for the emigration problem from which we are suffering. During the four years of the Liberal regime there was an exodus of Canadian citizens from the Dominion totalling probably 5001,000 souls. I

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

do not believe that our people are thoroughly alive to what that exodus means. While this government has been juggling with the immigration problem-trying to bring into Canada people who, in many cases, know nothing of our race, our language, our religion or our customs; people whom it will probably take one generation or perhaps two to assimilate into our population1-we are allowing our best Blood, our very best brawn and brain, to leave Canada, and nothing has been done to check that exodus.

I believe that the fathers and mothers of families in this country have a right to expect that we, through our government shall, as far as possible, develop our own country; that we shall, through the policies inaugurated by the government, endeavour to develop our own natural resources and our own industries, and assist in every possible way, the growth of the agricultural industry. I believe that we should have a policy that will meet the needs of all classes of our people. In a family, say, of five or six children, you will have one boy or probably two who will wish to engage in farming, another who will wish to take up the legal profession, another who may desire to become a physician, and possibly two with a desire to engage in business. We cannot all be agriculturists, and unless there is diversity of employment in Canada, through the medium of a policy such as will develop our agricultural resources and our industries to the utmost and afford employment for our labouring people, we are bound to have an exodus of Canadian boys and girls from our shores.

Some people are inclined, perhaps, not to take that exodus very seriously. As regards my own constituency, however, I take it very seriously indeed. Five years ago we had a very prosperous, industrial town, surrounded by a prosperous, agricultural community. Today that town-and every village, and practically every crossroads-is mute evidence to the fact that Canadian boys and girls are leaving our communities by the score and by the hundred, and crossing into the United States. I noticed a short time ago that there have gone from the Dominion into the United States during the last four years no less than 3,600 graduates from the university of Toronto alone, and that they are now engaged in employment in the United States. That is an appalling figure. It means that the very best brains of Canada are being attracted to the republic to the south. It is estimated that it requires at least $10,000 to educate every one of these students 'before they graduate from the university, and when they graduate

they cannot find employment and are not finding employment in this country but are going across to the other side of the line. That means that we spend during the four years in the University of Toronto alone at the rate of $10,000 per student to educate the young men and young women who are now leaving us and giving their brains and ability to the republic to the south of us. If that is taking place in the case of the University of Toronto, I think it only' fair to assume that there is a similar exodus from other universities to the American side.

With regard to our fiscal trade or policy, Mr. Mackenzie King says that he believes in a tariff for revenue. Mr. Marler says he is an out-and-out protectionist, and he was a member of this government. Some members on the other side profess to be out-and-out protectionists. Therefore, it is only fair to assume that the Liberal party as a whole has no settled or fixed policy so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned. In my constituency we have all classes of people. We have English, Irish, Scotch, French, German and Scandinavian, and they are all very fine types of people. We are endeavouring, and they are endeavouring, to build up in that section of Canada a strong, self-reliant Cana-dianism. These people are engaged in the different walks of life. We have many large industries employing a great many labouring men, and we have also a large agricultural section in the constituency. The policy of the government during their tenure of office has not been such as to operate in the best interests of the people in my constituency. The constituency sent a Liberal candidate to this parliament for the last four years, and elected him by a handsome majority. But they reversed their decision on the 29th of October because they were utterly opposed to the policy of the Mackenzie King government. The farmers in my district consider that they have been unfairly dealt with by this government, owing to the fact that when the United States government inaugurated the Fordney-McCumber tariff, under which Canadian agricultural products going to the United States were taxed such a high rate of duty that it was practically prohibitive, this government, instead of taking action to relieve the Canadian farmer from the unfair competition of the American farmer, took practically no action at all, and allowed free access to the Canadian market of the same kind of produce that was being grown by the United States farmers. The farmers of Canada considered it was absolutely unfair that while not a bushel of Canadian wheat could get over that

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

American tariff wall without paying 42 cents a bushel, wheat from the United States or anywhere else can come into Canada on payment of a duty of 12 cents, and that while the Canadian farmer cannot sell his corn in the United States without first paying 15 cents a bushel duty, United States corn comes into Canada free. Canadian wheat flour is shut out of the United States by the imposition of a duty of $2.04 a barrel, whereas American flour can be shipped into Canada on payment of a duty of 50 cents a barrel. The Canadian farmer can sell his hay to the United States on payment of $4 a ton duty, while the United States farmer can export his hay to Canada on payment of $2 a ton. The United States impose a duty on Canadian potatoes of 50 cents a hundred pounds, while potatoes .coming from the United States into the Canadian market pay a duty of 35 cents a hundred pounds. If we wish to ship our butter into the United1 States we have to pay 8 cents a pound, but when the American farmer sends his butter to Canada he can ship it to us on payment of 4 cents a pound duty. American cheese is taxed 3 cents a pound coming into Canada, while Canadian cheese pays a duty of 5 cents a pound when shipped to the United States. The American farmer is protected to the extent of 8 cents a dozen on eggs, While the Canadian farmer has a protection of only 3 cents a dozen against American eggs; and so on all the way down the line. The farmers in my constituency feel that the government of Mackenzie King has been remiss in its duty to the farmers of the Dominion of Canada by not protecting them against the unfair outside competition of the American farmers.

Then, not satisfied with that, this government, without any regard for the farmers of the country at all, decided to negotiate a treaty with the Commonwealth of Australia, with the result that again the Canadian farmer has to compete on an unfair basis with outside products. I do not wish to .put on Hansard the terms of that Australian treaty. All I have to say is that the farmers of any constituency and the farmers of the Dominion of Canada consider that it is absolutely unfair and unjust to them. We want to trade with other countries, and are prepared to trade with them, but we wish to trade on a fifty-fifty basis. We want it to be a straight business arrangement. We do not want to make one section or one class of people in Canada pay for certain advantages which we may derive in other markets. We propose that every treaty should stand on its own feet, and that the

people of Canada should get a square deal as a whole. In my constituency we had a textile industry, and everyone knows what has happened to the textile industry of the Dominion of Canada in the last four years. Everyone knows that the present government raised the British preference to the extent of 124 per cent, with the result that British goods produced by the cheaper labour of Great Britain, and also goods that are brought in from France and Germany as well, are coming into, our market to competq with our Canadian goods. Why is it that when you walk down the streets of Ottawa and look into the windows and other places you see goads marked, "Made in England"? Why should those same goods not be manufactured in Canada to-day? Why should they not provide work and adequate wages for the labouring men of Canada? Why should not our industries be running full time in Canada to-day, producing textiles and woollen goods for the people of 'Canada? According to the recognized authorities there are really no physical or climatic reasons why textiles and woollen goods should not be manufactured or cannot be manufactured in this country. Furthermore, if the woollen goods and .textiles were manufactured in this country it would mean that our farmers would benefit to a great extent indeed. Alt the present time the Commonwealth of Australia has about 80,000.000 sheep and we in the Dominion of Canada have probably only in the neighbourhood of 2,500,000 sheep. If the textile and woollen industries were properly protected, it would be possible to carry out a great sheep raising project that would ultimately react to the benefit of our farmers and agriculturists.

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

February 23, 1926

Mr. COTNAM:

I would lower it sufficiently that our market would not be flooded with those goods. I do not believe in a onesided preference. We want an all-round Canadian trade arrangement.

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

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

February 23, 1926

Mr. COTNAM:

As the hon. gentleman

opposite comes from Saskatchewan, perhaps he does not realize the present condition of public affairs in this country, and I am afraid some other hon. gentlemen from the west, while they are honest and estimable in every other way, do not appreciate it. They talk about prosperity; they quote statistics to demonstrate that we have great trade balances and they point to our exports and imports. I prefer to go to the man on the street, the business man, and according to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, if you go to the man on the street, you will not have to quote statistics because he will tell you whether the country is prosperous or not. When I go to the business men of my town, as I did last week, and I ask them if business is reviving, improving, I want to get a candid expression of opinion from them. When they tell me, one after another, that business is in a depressed state, I fail to follow the statistics of hon. gentlemen opposite. In my town at the present time-and it is only an index of other towns in this country-people are living on very low rates of wages. Men are glad to procure a job at any wage and they are asked to go to our lumbering camps at $26 to $36 a month. Out of that they are being asked to pay part of the taxes to keep their children in this country, to pay for rent and fuel and schooling for their children. Yet hon. gentlemen tell us that the people of Canada are exceedingly prosperous. Those are not isolated examples; I can take hon. members to my constituency and show them scores and scores of people who are to-day in that unsatisfactory position. I think it was the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) who told us a few days ago about the condition of affairs he found in that city. Four years ago you could not find a vacant house in Pembroke and to-day I believe there are from one hundred to one hundred and fifty vacant houses in that town. Still hon. gentlemen opposite tell us that the country is prosperous and that there is plenty of employment. In my town we had a textile industry, a woollen mill which, a few years ago, was running at full blast. As late as 1922 it was employing 110 mill hands with a monthly wage of $6,500. It was giving employment to many labouring men in that town who were receiving fair wages and were able to support their families in some comfort. The British preference came

into effect and what was the result? Last year that mill was compelled to close its doors, and the operatives who used to work in that mill are to-day very largely to the south of the line working for our United States neighbours. That is true not only of one textile mill, but of scores of them in this country. In Renfrew, you will find the Renfrew Woollen Mills, owned and operated by Senator M. J. O'Brien. The manager said to us during the election campaign: "We are not making one cent in our industry to-day; we are simply marking time and only succeeding in trading an old dollar for a new one." That is a mill with an immense amount of capital and that is the only thing that is keeping it going. The other day that mill brought in a shipment of Australian wool worth about $72,000, whereas if we were protecting that industry as it should be protected, it might just as well have bought that wool from the farmers of this Dominion. Woollen mill after woollen mill has been compelled to close its doors in this Dominion during the last four and five years under the British preferential tariff.

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

February 22, 1926

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

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

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

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

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

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Address-Mr. Cotnam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just listen to what they say here:

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

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

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

Be it and it is hereby resolved:

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

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

Taxes on luxuries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Address-Mr. Cotnarn

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

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

Tuesday, February 23, 1926

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