William Charles GOOD

GOOD, William Charles, B.A.

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
  Brant (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 211 of 212)

April 20, 1922


I do not wish to take up the time of the committee, but I must express my regret that two hon. members of this House, the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), and the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen), should have dragged into this discussion in the way in which they did, the name of the Hon. Mr. supply-Live Stock

Doherty, Minister of Agriculture for Ontario. I am sure the significance of the attack upon Mr. Doherty and the government of which he is a member cannot have escaped the notice of the House, 'and I feel sure that the two hon. members in question will, in their better moments, regret having spoken as they did. Mr. Doherty is quite able to defend himself, 'so I do not propose to go into the question in respect to which criticism was levelled against him. I am sure that if he were here he would be able to present the other side of the question, and there always is the other side. I do not think it matters very much who gets the credit for any particular good act that is done. I, for one, and I think all the members in this part of the House, will be very grateful to anybody who doe's anything to secure the removal of the embargo. It seems to me rather picayune for anybody, I do not care who he is, to try to gain credit for doing anything in this direction. Mr. Doherty may not have acted strictly according to Hoyle, but I certainly think that he secured some results, and when the history of this agitation comes to be written, I believe that his name and his work will receive a fairly prominent place in the record.

The right hon. member for Grenville referred in his remarks to certain obstacles which he alleged had been created in Great Britain owing to the mission and journey of the Hon. Mr. Doherty. I only wish to point out in that connection that it depends a good deal upon the parties to whom one goes for information as to what kind of an opinion one will receive. The hon. member for Victoria City quoted an article this afternoon from the Toronto World. If he had gone to the Telegram, I am sure he would have discovered something even more emphatic, more sensational and spicy than the article which he quoted. Possibly the hon. member for Grenville may have approached the wrong parties in Great Britain, and have received from them a somewhat biased opinion, one not representative of the average opinion in Great Britain. That is all I wish to say in regard to that matter. I again express my regret that this phase of the matter has been discussed in this House.

With regard to the estimates, I am not in a position to criticise the work of the Live Stock branch. In fact, as the present Live Stock Commissioner has been a personal friend of mine for years, and as I regard him as a man of the highest integrity, I would be disposed to trust a great deal to his judgment, but I do feel more or

less inclined to venture this criticism in general. In the Department of Agriculture there is a tendency to devote more and more time and attention to what might be called exhortation to the farmers. This savours of what might be called governmental paternalism, and I, for one, have seen a good many of the evil effects of this kind of thing in Canada. I would suggest to the minister that he go very, very carefully about expanding the work and scope of the department in the way of advising the farmers what to do. This matter was touched upon this afternoon and some rather good advice, I think, was given by some hon. members. I know that a great deal of information which can only be secured by experts is needed by the farmers, and I think that the work of the department ought to be confined more and more to the securing of information which farmers cannot get for themselves, and that less emphasis should be placed upon what I call exhortation. I am not in a position to criticise the amount of money that we are requested to vote for this particular line of work, but I do feel that it is unwise to be continually expanding these activities, and I would suggest to the minister the wisdom of scrutinizing very closely indeed any expansion along that line.

Full View Permalink

April 10, 1922

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) :

May I be permitted to ask the hon. gentleman a question? Would his resolution, if adopted, commit the Government to immediate action, and has he made allowance for the point mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to inclusion or exclusion of the Dominion Police? I think it is necessary that he should answer this question before we can vote on the resolution.

Full View Permalink

April 5, 1922

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) :

I agree with the statement made by the hon. gentleman from St. John and Albert (Mr. MacLaren) that this question should be regarded from a broad national standpoint. And it seems to me if you regard it from that standpoint, the resolution stands condemned. So far as I can see,.


national unity can only be established on one basis, and that is the belief and conviction on the part of every section that each is getting a square deal from every other, and I regard this particular resolution as an indication, an evidence, an example, of the desire to exploit some sections for the benefit of others. I wish to oppose the resolution for that reason, and for the reason that I regard Canadian unity as something highly to be desired and sought after.

Full View Permalink

March 28, 1922

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) :

As an onlooker and a new member, I must say that this discussion, while illuminating and interesting, has not so far been edifying; and I agree with the member (Mr. Irvine) who has just sat down that it would be very much -better if we could dissociate the specific issue under consideration from the question of censure of the Government. There is another question related to this one which occurs to me, and which was brought up some days ago in the House and that is as to what would result it this group, to which I belong more or less independently, should vote against some Government measure. Now, I think it would be unfortunate that anyone in this House, not wanting to censure or to oust the Government, should be compelled by some custom, which I think surely is now obsolete, to vote contrary to his own conscience and opinion. And this is a case in point. If the Government could be convicted, on the present occasion, of dishonour and duplicity in this matter, and we in this section of the House should desire to censure them, I should hope very much that such a vote would not be carried too far; and I should be glad if some amendment to the constitutional rules could be effected which would leave greater freedom to an individual to vote according to his own conscience and his own opinions. I think that such freedom is necessary. I simply say, in conclusion, that so far as I am concerned it will be practically impossible for me to sit in judgment on this squabble between the two old parties. I do not feel that I can vote at all.

Full View Permalink

March 27, 1922


Well I do not feel quite satisfied with the answer, although it may be a sufficient one as applying to this particular item. If we vote more than will be required, we may be giving encouragement to extravagance, and surely that is something we ought to avoid. It might be that embarrassment would be caused if less than the amount required were voted. But if that applies to this particular department, it surely does not apply so much to the departments nearer home.

Full View Permalink