Frank Bainard STACEY

STACEY, Frank Bainard, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Westminster District (British Columbia)
Birth Date
March 27, 1859
Deceased Date
March 18, 1930
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bainard_Stacey
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8905e3c1-be71-4f8c-a314-1eee0a306beb&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
fruit grower, minister

Parliamentary Career

December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Westminster District (British Columbia)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 12)


June 23, 1920

Mr. F. B. STAOEY (Fraser Valley):

I desire, Sir, to make a few observations on the general principle and purpose of this Bill, but in order to do so at this juncture-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink

May 20, 1920

Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, during the debate on the Budget, I took occasion to state the attitude of four of the leading agricultural associations of Brtish Columbia toward the general question of the tariff. I do not purpose to repeat that statement further than to quote two sentences which I then read, and which are as follows:

Therefore, he it resolved that we farmers of British Columbia, as representing all the organizations named below, do not endorse or accept the tariff platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. That we protest against any tariff legislation in the interests of any one class or industry without due consideration of the welfare of others and the progress of the Dominion.

At that time, Sir, I stated that it was not my intention to discuss the tariff. I believed then, and still believe, that there were before the House issues paramount to those involved in the tariff, and I said nothing whatever regarding the resolutions from my province further than to read them. To-night, Sir, I endorse the resolutions which I then submitted from those four organizations, viz: The Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association, composed of something over 1,000 producers of milk; the Provincial Dairymen's Association; the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association; and the United Farmers of British Columbia.

Now, I do not forget that the U.F.A. have been persistently wooing the U.F.B. C. to accept their political platform. I do not think they have so far met with any success; of course, what the future may bring forth I do not know. But one thing I do know, Sir, that, should their wooing meet with a measure of success, to>

some of us who know the conditions under which the propoganda is being conducted, it will not be very difficult to explain what on its surface may possibly appear successful along the line I have indicated.

Permit me to say very briefly by way of introduction that in my earlier years I breathed a political atmosphere that was charged, if not, indeed, surcharged, with anti-proteetion gas. To-night I stand for the principle of protection, and in making that statement I can best illustrate my position and change of mental attitude by referring to my own province. British Columbia contains in itself practically all the essentials of true nationhood. Its population, I grant, is comparatively small-barely half a million. But, notwithstanding, British Columbia is a remarkable province, and I propose to try to show that what obtains with reference to that province obtains to a larger extent and to a greater degree with reference to the Dominion as a whole. I base my argument upon this fundamental mathematical axiom, that the whole is equal to the sum of all its parts; and I believe that what is true in mathematics is also true in economics-that what is true with regard to that physical axiom is also true in considering the nation's welfare and prosperity. I believe in the economic solidarity of the Canadian people, and that our true national prosperity can be secured only by having due regard to the prosperity of the component parts of this nation. In other words, we shall not reach

the measure of success and national prosperity that is possible unless we take into consideration the conditions prevailing in and the circumstances surrounding the various provinces, the various sections which go to make up the Dominion.

Now, with regard to my own province, and carrying out that illustration, I may say that it has an area of some 390,000 square miles. It contains vast resources of minerals. We have gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc and iron, in virtually inexhaustible quantities. The resources of coal are estimated at 76,000,000,000 metric tons. The value of the lumber cut in 1918 was nearly $28,000,000, while there is at the present time an estimated stand Of saw timber and ,pulpwood material amounting to about 366,000,000,000 board feet. With regard to water-power it is estimated that there a'-e some three millions of horse-power, of which only about one-tenth at the present time has been utilized. In 1918 British Columbia contributed about forty-one per cent of the total value of the fisheries of Canada, valued at nearly $21,500,000, exceeding the value of the fisheries of Nova Beotia by over $7,000,000 and that of the rest of the provinces combined by over $11,000,000. *Only last year the value of the salmon pack was estimated at $15,000,000. The estimated value of our agricultural production in 1918 was $42,000,000, while in 1919 the estimate is $99,000,000. We have some seven thousand miles of sea coast containing innumerable harbours, many of which rank among the finest in the world. Of course, it is well known that during the past three years shipbuilding has been carried on in British Columbia to a very large extent. It would appear that when a province has such extensive natural resources it is in the interests of all concerned that these resources should 'be developed to the greatest possible degree and that when and where necessary such protection should be afforded those who are seeking to develop industries as will best bring about the result desired. This does not mean any unnatural or forced protection when there is (no Reasonable prospect of ultimate success and development. It does not mean that because someone wants to start an industry for which the province and the district is not suited, any protection or assistance should be granted But if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an industry would be successful; if the natural resources are there and if the outlook is at all hopeful and reasonably bright, I maintain, Sir, that it is in the interests of the people of

the province concerned to encourage by fair and legitimate protection or help, whatever may be regarded as necessary to bring about the highest possible development in such an industry. That protection is not necessarily eternal, it is not necessarily unchangeable; but it should obtain if required in the early stages of the development of that industry. What is true of a province is true of a collection of provinces-in other words, is true of the entire Dominion. The prosperity of the Dominion is contingent upon the highest development of the resources of which each section of the country is possessed.

Mr. 'Speaker, I am a lover of clean, manly sport. The other day there returned to this country a famous hockey team which had won the world's championship in the continent oif Europe, the Falcons of Winnipeg, d want to read to you, Sir, and to this House a remark made by one of the Winnipeg boys who was interviewed, as reported in the public press. Speaking of the French team, he said:

The other fellows may have been as good as us individually, but when it comes to winning hockey games it's the old club spirit that counts. And the Falcons have the club spirit to the last man on the team.

What is true in hockey is true in every other legitimate, clean sport. Individuals may sometimes apparently succeed in getting off some fancy stunt that will put themselves in the limelight and secure headlines in the daily papers. But the team that wins in the long run-and it is the long run that we are all making-is the team that recognizes the club spirit, the team spirit; the success of the whole depends upon the combination play. And I want to say to my friends opposite that the success and the prosperity of /Canada will depend upon the combination spirit. They may think that by making some grandstand home-run play they will win the game; but, Sir, they will strike out every time. We shall win in the long run as a Dominion when all the national players recognize the team combination spirit. That will secure to us the largest possible measure of success in every province, there being at the same time due recognition by all of the claims and possibilities of the other sections of this Dominion.

Now, I come back to my own province-and I do not propose to cover the whole ground of trade or commerce. My change of attitude towards this question is not the result of reading English history; it is the result of my contact with Canadian people; my knowledge of the conditions

which obtain in the various provinces of Canada, especially of my having lived for ten years in the Pacific coast province. I said a little while ago that the agricultural production of British Columbia had doubled within the last twelve months. Allow me to say now, in a little more detail, that the agricultural industry of my province may be roughly divided into three sections: live stock, grain and vegetables, and fruit. Almost all the districts of British Columbia are suitable or may be made suitable for stock raising; some of them are more adapted to grain and vegetable growing; while some are specially adapted to fruit growing. My argument then is that the possibilities of that province-and what applies to that province, I have tried to show, applies to the Dominion-can be best attained when due regard is given to the promotion of those several industries as circumstances may seem to advise.

Let me now come a little closer to a question which for four years has been agitating the minds of hon. gentlemen who come from the Prairie Provinces. I will try to remember to-night that I have the honour of addressing not simply hon. members from the Prairie Provinces; I should like to take a hint from the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) and try to make myself believe that I am addressing all the women, the housekeepers, and also the farmers of the three Prairie Provinces who may or may not be represented in this House to-night. What I have to say now will be confined to this single phase of the development of our national life. Lest I be misunderstood by some one-not purposely, I presume-allow me to state that what I am about to say has no direct reference to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, because my constituency is not to any large extent, distinctively or specifically, an apple exporting district. I want thus to clear the ground so that no one can say that I am putting up a case for my constituency. I have now reference to what is known as the southern central portion of British Columbia, which is more commonly known throughout Canada as the Okanagan district. Possibly I should include the Salmon Arm and, at any rate, the West Kootenay district. These constitute the southern central portion of British Columbia which portion, in the main, is devoted to the apple industry. Forty years ago thousands of acres of that section of our province were covered by some hundreds or possibly thousands of cattle which were endeavouring to secure a bare sustenance

[Mr. Stacey.l

from an unwilling soil. Some one fortunately discovered that if water could be put on that land it would produce fruit, and that was the beginning of the apple industry of British Columbia. Thirty years ago, or say, in 1890, there were in the entire province some 400 acres only devoted to the production of apples. Twenty years ago the number had increased, and in the entire province, there were some 8,000 acres devoted to the apple industry. Ten y ears ago that figure could be multiplied by four, or, say 32,000 acres. The value, roughly speaking, was, in 1900, $436,000, and ten years ago it had grown to something over $1,000,000. By 1914, the crop had increased another twenty-five per cent, but the value was reduced to less than $1,000,000. Five years ago the British Columbia Dparment of Agriculture estimated that the capital directly invested in the orchard industry amounted to over $20,000,000, while there were directly interested some 2,800 orchard owners. At the same time, large areas in both the Okanagan and the Kootenay valleys were being planted with trees with a view to the growing eastern business. As I said a moment ago, while the total output had increased, the total income, not relative but absolute, had decreased. The result of this was that a very serious situation was developing, and the fruit growers set about to discover the cause of that situation, and then if possible to ascertain the remedy. I shall not weary the House by citing the successive steps which were taken to secure the facts; I shall .however, give the results, which after all I suppose the House is more interested in. It was assumed, when this investigation was undertaken, that the four western provinces of Canada constituted a natural and legitimate market for the apple crop, not ignoring or forgetting the fact that Manitoba had been and probably 11 p.:m. would be supplied in a measure for years to come by the Ontario crop. But in 1914-and I specify that year, because then the matter virtually came to a climax-the Ontario crop and the British Columbia crop were the largest on record. An enormous crop was the result of the harvest of that year. But what followed? Notwithstanding that fact and the fact that during that year prices were exceedingly low, we discovered that no less than 556 carloads of apples were shipped [DOT]to the prairies by American growers. I ask hon. members to remember that, because therein lies the key to the whole situation; the solution of the whole apple problem of the far West is just at that specific

point. The four northwestern Pacific States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and possibly Montana, were some five years ahead of us in the apple industry; they had and have larger areas for apple production than we have. By 1914, it was estimated that they had planted about 500,000 acres, or more than enough .to supply their natural market. The question may be asked, and I fane it very fairly and squarely as I always want to do; it has been asked by hon. gentlemen opposite; I have me't it privately scores of times; it has been put to me in this form: If British Columbia can compete with the Northwestern Pacific States in point of quality of the article, why seek protection?-if it cannot compete with the Northwestern States, what is the logic or reason of giving protection to an incompetent or second-rate industry? I accept the question fully. Can British Columbia compete with the northwestern Pacific States? Yes, she has done so. British Columbia apples have taken first place in competitions open to the world, noticeably in the Crystal Palace Exhibition, not once, but more than once, and, Sir, Washington was an entry in that race. Therefore, I say, without fear or hesitation, that if it comes to a question of legitimate, fair, open competition, British Columbia can beat the world; she has done it. Then, hon. members may ask me; In face of that, why did British Columbia ask a protection of thirty cents per box? And I shall be delighted to answer. I said a moment ago that the Northwestern States had a very large output and they had in prospect a very much larger output because of their immense acreage. I should like hon. members to follow me closely when I tell them that the two finest grades of northwestern fruit have been for years marketed in the great American cities of the Middle West and also in the cities of the Far East; the growers have sent their extra fancy and fancy grades to the great American cities with marked success, but that left on their hands the third grade which they could not ship to those cities and for which a market must be found nearer home. Where did they look for that market? To the Canadian prairies. And having secured their profit on their fancy and extra fancy grades, they launched upon the Canadian prairies their third grade article at any figure which could be secured for that product. I am prepared to -prove that they sold hundreds of carloads at a net loss. It can be shown by their own figures that in the Northwestern states during that time it cost $1.06 to produce a box of apples, and it cost in British

Columbia at the same time about $1.15. Why? One reason is that we paid labour higher than labour was paid across the line, and another reason is that we paid more for containers than they did in the United States; and if hon. gentlemen ask for an explanation of those facts, I can tell them it is because they had a better organization than we had and beat us at buying. But notwithstanding the fact that it cost the growers in the Northwestern states $1.06 -I am not speaking in millions but in something I can understand, a dollar and a few cents-they were willing to contract for hundreds of carloads at a loss of from 40 to 50 cents per box. Why? Because they wanted to do two things: to get rid of a surplus stock, and then to secure the market for the future. With what result to British Columbia? British Columbia had to compete with that abnormal, illegal price -I do not know that I should call it illegal, but at any rate I will say, unfair. She had to compete with that reduced price for Northwestern stock on the Canadian prairies. It cost us $1.15 to produce a box of apples, and we were forced to sell at under 90 cents a box in order to get any sale whatever. How long, think you, Mr. Speaker, would an industry survive that was carried on under those conditions, at a loss of 25 cents or thereabouts on every box that was put upon the open market? There was only one thing to do. The dumping regulations would not apply; that fruit was properly stamped and graded. The Fruit Growers' Association and the legislature of British Columbia appealed to this Government four years ago and asked for a reasonable protection. I am not now speaking of revenue; I do not believe the Government got much out of it in the line of revenue; I am speaking from the standpoint of protection. In order to protect, which meant to preserve the life of, the British Columbia apple industry, this Government very wisely, as we thought, granted, in the session of 1916, a protection of 30 cents per box upon imported American fruit, with the result that that year we sold our apples at a bare trifle above actual cost price.

Now, I hold in my hand a copy of this famous platform, but I do not propose to read it all. With very much of it I agree. On page 13 I read under the heading "Definite Tariff Demands" a proposal that the tariff laws be amended "by placing all foodstuffs on the free list." May I tell my hon. friends, for their future guidance, that there is certainly no better foodstuff than

British Columbia apples? Now, Sir, I have something else which I desire to read to the House. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who I regret is not in his place, is reported t-o have said in a speech *delivered in the city of Regina on November 19, 1919:

If the rich man wants to have grape fruit for breakfast he pays no duty. If you want to eat a baked apple for your morning meal you can have it in the face of a customs protection of somewhere around fifty cents per barrel. . . . The application of the principle of protection is unsound economically and retards the development of a country.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Full View Permalink

May 20, 1920

Mr. STACEY:

And hon. gentlemen applaud that! Think of it. The hon. member for Marquette says: "If you want to eat a baked apple you"-that is, the poor people-"can have it in the face of a customs protection of somewhere around fifty cents per barrel." By the way, I want to be perfectly candid and tell my hon. friend that he is wrong in his figures. The customs protection is 90 cents per barrel, or 30 cents per box. He should have said to them: "Gentlemen, if I had had my way, you poor people would not have got any apples at all." There would not have been a British 'Columbia apple on the prairies. The trees in British 'Columbia would all have been destroyed because the growers would have been producing at a loss. So soon as that had happened the American Northwestern States would have jumped the price up and would have controlled the importation because the Nash interests in the Northwestern States control the whole situation and there would have been apples on the prairie just according as it suited the Nash interest and in spite of everything else. Without that thirty cents a box, apples on the prairies would have been absolutely prohibitive. The people never would have looked at one. E am not talking poetry, and I have not the grace of oratory to make this go very far into your skulls, I am afraid; but what I am saying is solid truth, solid fact. The farmers, and indeed the entire population, of the Canadian prairies, may be profoundly thankful. that the Government of Canada did four years ago grant this comparatively small protection of thirty cents per box, because it saved the industry to British Columbia and for the western prairies.

il want to emphasize that last word. There are 28,000 men who would have been put out of business in British Columbia. I suppose some of these hon. gentlemen re-

gard that as a very insignificant matter. We believe in interprovincial trade. Our people, year by year, buy from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 worth of stuff especially from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That may not be very much but it is a big thing for us especially under existing conditions. Tf those 28,000 growers had been put out of business what would have been the situation at the present time? They have in the Northwestern States a far greater acreage than we have, they have resources far beyond what we have and we could not imagine a better crop than we had in 1914. What would have been ahead of us? Nothing but absolute ruin. What saved the country, what saved the growers, what saved my own province, was that this Government, in 1916, did what we asked. The situation was saved and as a result the prairies had cheap fruit.

I do not forget while I speak that last year the price was high. But of all agricultural products fruit was the last one to respond to the general rise in prices as far as the producer was concerned. Our product last year was not as great as possibly it might have been. Shall I dare tell the IHiouse one reason why our product last year was smaller? I think I shall. Last May I went down through the Okanagan on some business. I saw ranch after ranch in the Okanagan that was growing up a waste-trees neglected and no crop worth speaking of. Why, I said at some of these ranches: " Where is the owner; and what is he doing?" Enlisted! I was told man after man deliberately got up and left his ranch, the whole proposition, and struck out across the seas. To give you one single illustration: I met an

old hero; he was over sixty years of age, he had just got back and I took off imy hat in his presence. He and his wife had gone overseas. She was a trained nurse. He had returned, being demobilized before she was, and he was expecting her in a few days. She had been promoted to the rank of captain. I looked into his face and said: " Ah, ha things will be different when she gets back; she is your superior officer." " Oh, no " he replied, " she will have to revert to private rank." My only object in mentioning that is to show that whole areas in the apple producing country were left to take care of themselves the best they could because the ranchers went overseas and hastened to get there at the earliest possible date. All honour to these men.

I am not talking politics. I am giving you facts and I am speaking to the populations of Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to some extent, of Manitoba. If there is one thing that the people of the prairies should be pleased over it is that the policy of this Government in 1916 saved them from' an exorbitant increase in the prices of apples since that date. While I do not forget the fine quality of the apples in Ontario, Nova Scotia and Quebec, everybody knows that under normal conditions that product finds its market overseas. We are prepared to meet any honest Canadian competition; it matters not where it comes from. What we do object to, and what we have persistently objected to, is the unfair, unreasonable and unneighbourly policy of dumping third-rate stuff upon the poor prairie people and forcing the higher-quality fruit off the market.

How can we, in face of these plain facts, ptand up in this House and say, as did my horn, friend who just sat down (Mr. Thomson): No protection on anything we produce is what we stand for? I claim that is a narrow policy. I claim that is not a team policy, I claim that is not a policy that will win in the Long run for the Canadian people. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in a speech made recently before this House said:

What grown man should want protection anyhow? Our sons and brothers in the trenches did not want protection; it was the fellows they went up against that needed protection.

That was uttered, I presume in a burst of impassioned eloquence. But what is the fact to-day? Every steel helmet upon the head of a soldier on the continent of Europe is the refutation of that statement; and when a man foolishly, or otherwise, so disregarded the idea of protection that he stuck up his head a little too high he paid for his foolishness with his life. Protection! All .civilization and all legislation is based upon protection. Strike out protection and we have anarchy. It is folly for a man to say that he denounces the idea of protection. The whole structure of our civilization, of constitutional government, and of everything we hold dear, rests upon some application of the fundamental principle of protection. It is legitimate, it is natural, it is necessary, and it is a proper application in the realm of economics.

With regard to the amendment, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) spoke of its destructive character. I shall not repeat what he said; but in looking at what it proposes to do I, too, Sir,

was struck with its vein of common generalities-the old expressions of the high cost of living and of the need for a general reduction in the tariff,-and I thought of Tennyson's words in that connection:

nuUaUlti'y ^auItless' ioi,y regular, splendidly

With regard to the Budget, Sir, I can easily understand that any man with one eye on his pocket and the other on the Government's proposals could take his pen and draw a line through a great many of the clauses, and if three or four million other men did that we would have a beautiful Budget; the best men would be out of a job and the country would soon be a memory. We have an enormous debt, and as I-a plain, common working man-see it there is only one of two things to do; either borrow the money or pay it. I propose to do my part towards paying it. I believe, Sir, that while the people of this country may perhaps criticize some of the measures outlined in the Budget they will on the whole accept it as the best possible solution of the great problem which confronts Canada to-day. If I might attempt to suggest for the consideration of the minister one shall I say, amendment?-one thought, that might find a place in his mind overnight, it would be this: I would suggest to him to consider the advisability of making a provision whereby every citizen of Canada who reached the years of matur-lty should be compelled to pay a minimum Dominion Income Tax of, say, $2. I believe, Sir, that would link up with this country's financial interests every citizen fiom the Atlantic to the Pacific in a way in which they are not now linked up. There are hundreds and thousands who wall not be called upon to pay an income tax directly. For their own sake, for the sake of the interest it will create in their own minds regarding the welfare and the development of this country and its future prosperity, I would have every man and woman over twenty-one years of age without exception, asked to pay a small tax or an income tax. That would identify them, continually and individually, with the economic and general welfare of the Dominion.

Mr ARTHUR L. DESAULNIERS (Champlain) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to join my colleagues of the left who have taken part in this debate in protesting strongly against the administration which obtains at the present time. This protest, Mr. Speaker, I must

utter in the name of more than fifty thousand citizens whom I have the honour to represent on the floor of this House, and particularly in the name of the many brave young men of my county

We might have believed, Mr. Speaker, that once the armistice was signed, which in reality meant the end of the war, the Government would have chosen economy for the first article of their programme. Thus, instead of assuming the pompous title of Government of Reconstruction, they should in all decency have called themselves an economic Government and have practiced economy in all things. But on the contrary, they increased expenditure m enormous proportions. They even were bound to have recourse to considerable loans under conditions most onerous and most unfavourable to the country. Instead of being reduced, the effectives of the Canadian militia were increased, even doubled; administrative commissions are created in all the departments; a course which Roubles and trebles the cost of administration. The nationalization of the railways, the creation of a merchant fleet, when the country is already on the brink of bankruptcy, I hold to be national suicide. And that is why the Government had to face in its loans rates of interest higher than that which would be paid even by the unfortunate farmer forced to borrow a thousand dollars from his neighbour.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not by borrowing money, nor by increasing the duties, nor by imposing taxes that we shall remove the unrest that prevails at present throughout the country. That is not the means of restoring the confidence and wellbeing which our people need, neither of reducing the high cost of living that is bearing so heavily on them.

I was surprised but delighted to hear, in the opening-days of this session, that the navy was about to disappear; but, knowing the inclinations of this Government as I do, I am afraid it will come back stronger than ever after the Imperial Conference.

If we jwish to restore peace, harmony, confidence and prosperity and to balance our finances, Mr. Speaker, we must put off this onerous scheme of a navy to fifty years *hence; we must reduce the permanent forces of the Militia to the strength that is strictly necessary for maintaining order in the country; we must abolish all commissions that are more or less useful, such as the Board of Commerce which the people talk so ; nicely about and which threatens to become famous, the Railway Commission, the only one which might be of some little use, the Civil Service Commission, so much criticized even by the most faithful supporters of the Government, the Purchasing Commission, who have the power to buy more than the Government can afford to pay, the Tariff Commission, still in the embryonic stage, the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Board, which, judging by the many amendments brought at every session, has been badly conceived, and all other commissions the names of which I do not remember now but that are still less necessary i and more useless. The population of our country has barely increased in the course of the last fifteen .years; however, the number of civil servants was more than doubled, on account of these commissions, so that we have,never enough buildings to accommodate them all.

To explain their policy of deficits, the Government stated that large works had been undertaken sooner than they wished, with a view to procuring work for the lab-ourmen and the returned soldiers. We cannot accept that argument, Mr. Speaker, when we know that labour is scarce in the country and that in many places the soil is not producing what it should, because the farmers cannot secure the help they require; also when we know that the manufacturers, particularly the lumber men, have very much difficulty in getting the men they want for their factories and mills, notwithstanding the continuous and alarming increase of wages which are not yet sufficient to meet the high cost of living.

For all the reasons ,1 have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I wish to appeal to the good sense of former Liberals sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am asking them to endeavour to impress upon their Conservative friends who are _ in power, the necessity of dissolving Parliament immediately after this session, in order that the people may select their representatives, not for their purposes, but with the only object of assisting in the economic and social reconstruction of our country. Thus shall

be sent back home those pretended patriots who, since their coming into power, confined themselves in tearing up our statutes to replace them by ever famous Orders in Council, that iniquitous legislation which sanctioned the utmost arbitrary and most autocratic measures.

Thus, the people would be able to elect representatives who, while in Parliament, would strive to create a real "entente cor-diale" between the different nationalities in 'Canada and to eliminate racial disputes so often raised by hon. members opposite.

Thrift is a vain word on the lips of hon. members from the opposite side of this House and of hon. members of this Unionist Government. Why should they talk about economy, when they advocate measures entailing such heavy expenditure at a time when the country is on the verge of bankruptcy? Why should they epeak of saving, when the present 'Government are encouraging the profiteers whom they let accumulate millions of pounds of foodstuffs, while t'he people groan under the burden of taxes and the exorbitant cost of essential commodities? Why should they advocate thrift, when the Government are making the ridiculous promise to lend 125 millions to foreign countries, while our finances are in such a bad condition; but that is another way of further enriching the Canadian manufacturers who made millions out of the war.

Now, if iwe look at Canada from a social standpoint, we regret to find that, the country is seething with unrest and' discontent; that this epidemic of strikes is reaching an acute state; that the troubles between capital and labour have brought hardships to the working people and even to the farming community who are no longer able to provide for their wants, owing to the high cost of living. What is the Government doing? What is the Minister of Labour doing? I think I am within the mark when I say that such a state of affairs was brought about, to a large extent, through the supineness of the Minister of Labour. In these times of stress, when all our energies should be bent towards securing that economic and social reconstruction I was referring to a moment ago, which is the first requirement for the prosperity of Canada, it is absolutely necessary that the electors of this Country be called upon to choose representatives, having at heart its interests, men who' are able to put our affairs on a .sound financial basis, and to cause Canada to successfully hold its place among other countries, so that the dictum

of iSir Wilfrid Laurier may prove true, when he said that the 20th century would be Canada's century.

'On motion of Mr. McCoig the debate was adjourned.

On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.

Friday, May 21, 1920.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Full View Permalink

May 7, 1920

Mr. STACEY:

Perhaps it would not be out of place for a representative of another piovince which has received a large number of returned soldiers as settlers to say a word or two. I join most heartily with those hon. members who have extended hearty congratulations to the chairman of this board for the able and efficient manner in which this work has been conducted during the past two or three years. I would like to mention two points which, I think, have not been dealt with by hon. members who have spoken. First, with regard ito the attitude of the returned soldier .settler himself, I would not presume to speak for any other province than my own, but so far as my knowledge goes there is general satisfaction-I do not say universal satisfaction, because that would be impossible-but there is satisfaction on the part of the returned soldier, who now feels that he has a chance, and that, just as he made good overseas, it is now up to him to make good here. Generally speaking, I say, they are satisfied with their position and with the treatment accorded to them by the Government. A large number-it would be futile to make an estimate, nor is it within my province to do so-have good hope of success, and from all appearances a very large percentage of those who have settled upon the land will make good.

I wish to direct attention also to the work which has been carried on by Mrs. Muldrew, who is in charge of the home branch, and to the tact and wisdom manifested by her in soliciting and securing the co-operation of other women's organizations. The task which has been committed to Mrs. Muldrew is a difficult and. sometimes a very delicate one, but certainly it has been carried out with marked success, and as a result of wise and diplomatic management, the co-operation of individuals and organizations has been secured. On the whole, I think there is good ground for believing that this scheme will be highly successful from the standpoint not only of the country but also of the returned soldier; and that it will bring about increased production and general prosperity. If the scheme is as successful in the future as it

has been in the past, it will prove to have been the finest of its kind that has been initiated and carried out in any country affected by the war.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

May 5, 1920

Mr. STACEY:

Hon. members who have

knowledge of the matter which is referred to in this clause of the Bill will readily realize the importance of some such step as is now proposed by the minister. I happen to know that the Dominion Government in conjunction with certain Provincial Governments is seeking to standardize containers of certain fruits which are produced in this Dominion. It is very essential that there should be uniformity throughout the entire country in this matter. It would be almost ludicrous, were it not so serious, to hear hon. members speaking of determining here in this House what shall be the size 1291

of certain fruit containers. I venture to1 say that there is only a small number of men here in touch with the fruit business who are in a position to form any definite judgment upon these matters, even though they be the representatives of the people. If those who are directly engaged in the business throughout the various provinces can by co-ordination and co-operation with the Dominion authorities come to an unanimous conclusion regarding size of containers and other matters, that is the goal to be reached, and that I am satisfied is the purpose of this Bill. It is, from my point of view, entirely aside from the question to call this proposed legislation "legislation by OrdeT in Council." The purpose of these amendments is to secure fair play for all, in the interests of the industry and in the interests of consumers. Hence the desire to secure uniformity. That is the object of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that it will carry.

Mr, SUTHERLAND: Notwithstanding

the remarks which have just been made and the risk I may be incurring of being considered one of those who have no knowledge or experience in connection with this matter, I must say that I do not view with approval the clause which is now before the committee, authorizing the Governor in Council to fix the dimensions and capacity of all containers. We were told by the minister when the first clause was under consideration that a uniform container or barrel had been decided on for all Canada. That being the case, I do not see any reason why it should not be mentioned in the Bill. The minister has told us that these regulations are all published in the agricultural and horticultural press of the country, and that those who are interested in the business will familiarize themselves with the regulations which may be enacted. People under certain circumstances may possibly afford to go it blind, provided they have absolute confidence in the wisdom of such a policy, but under present conditions, and in connection with a measure of this kind, I do not think it is advisable or in the public interest to be continually changing the style or size of these containers. I think we ought to have a uniform package for fruits, and it should be mentioned in the Bill so that people would know whether or not they were violating one of the statutes of this country. To do these things by means of regulations which are not yet known is surely not in keeping with the form of government we have in this country. We are asked to pass legislation delegating certain powers to the Government,

without any knowledge of the regulations that are to be drawn up. If that system was adopted in'connection with all the business that came before Parliament, we might just as well stay home and let the Government carry on the business itself. Person^ ally, I think this is a case where we should state clearly and definitely what the size of the containers shall be. Then people would know that the size was fixed by statute, and would not be changed by regulations which might hereafter be passed.

Topic:   INSPECTION AND SALE ACT AMENDMENT.
Full View Permalink