1922-03-13

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) asked me to lay on the table of the House correspondence between the
The Address

late Government and the Government of Australia with respect to reciprocal trade relations between Australia and Canada. I have gathered together such papers as I am able to find in the Department, but the file does not appear to be complete, and I have asked that further search be made for other papers. Those that I am now bringing down are the only papers that thus far have come to my notice.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I mentioned as well correspondence between members of the late Government and myself. I refer particularly to correspondence that passed between the Acting Prime Minister and myself while I was at the Imperial Conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the correspondence which I have just brought down.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

[Stage Direction]
ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY Mr. E. J.
McMURRAY, SECONDED BY Mr. PAUL

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. E. J. McMURRAY (North Winnipeg) moved:: That an address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, offering the humble thanks of this House to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is customary, and courtesy requires, that as mover of this Address I should express the appreciation of my constituents and myself for the high honour that has been done to them and to me. This constituency of North Winnipeg which I represent is one of the most cosmopolitan in Canada by reason of the varied ethnic elements of its population, many of them people from Central Europe, who, as new Canadians, I am pleased to say, Sir, are rapidly acquiring the manners, characteristics and habits of old Canadians; and because of their racial origin they appreciate very much the honour that has been paid to them by having their representative move the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you, and to congratulate ourselves, upon your appointment as first

Commoner. Your wide experience as a parliamentarian, as a cabinet minister, and as a barrister will he of inestimable service to us as we deliberate in this assembly, and I trust, Sir, that you will be long spared to give us your advice and guidance.
The poet has said:
The old order ehangeth giving place to the new;
and we have in this House for the first time a lady member-the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I am sure that when I say we all appreciate her presence here my words find an echo in the hearts of all.
During the past year the term of Governor Generalship of the Duke of Devonshire, who and whose family in imany ways have been connected with Canadian life, terminated. Baron Byng of Vimy, a man who as commander of our gallant divisions in the war had won a high place in the hearts of the Canadian people, has succeeded to that office. I am sure, Sir, that it will be filled by him with satisfaction to us, and I trust that his tenure of office will he pleasureable to himself and to his family.
This new Parliament, the first expression of the will of the Canadian people after the war, meets under unusual circumstances. Both at home and abroad conditions are abnormal. Four years of war have rendered Europe not the Europe of old. International trade had drawn us close together, the world had grown smaller. Any serious disturbance of trade or of affairs in Europe must affect every nation, and we in that regard have been affected with the rest. Those circumstances and conditions we cannot control. But throughout the whole of her history Europe has survived tremendous catastrophes; there is in European civilization an inherent strength, a capacity to reestablish itself. Already the situation is clarifying; already the stars are beginning to to shine in Europe's dark night. The Washington Conference on the Limitation of ,Armaments, which has just closed, is, let us hope, the morning star that ushers in the dawn of a day of international harmony and concord. The reference to that Conference in the Speech from the Throne is a matter of satisfaction. I was particularly struck with the intimation that the treaties there arranged are to be submitted to the consideration of this House; it is a vindication of the assertion that has been made by Mr. Lloyd

The Address
George, by Mr. Smuts, and by Mr. Hughes, that we are a nation in every sense of the term.
We have domestic problems, the outcome of which we can more or less control; the exterior problem we cannot so much control. We have a stupendous financial burden, the greatest in the history of this country, involving an indebtedness which can only be carried by large annual outlays. We have also a very difficult railway problem. Our state-owned railroad system, one of the largest in the world, is being operated at an annual deficit of many millions. The rates are so high to-day as to thwart and stifle industry and to defeat the very object for which they ' were established. This railroad system- a portion of it-has been actually wished upon us; like a starved and emaciated foundling it has been left at the door of the Dominion and the Dominion must perforce take it in and, we hope, rear it and develop it to strong and healthy maturity. Private ownership as applied to much of this road, Sir, has proved to be a failure. Private ownership has laid the burden and asked that we take it up and carry it. That being the case, state ownership should be given a chance. Not for a year or two, but for a reasonable length of time, having regard to prevailing conditions, to the vastness of the project and to the failure of private ownership, state ownership should be given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to deal with this tremendous problem.
Those who have travelled over the state-owned road from Quebec to Edmonton must have been struck with the fact that no railway line on the American continent runs through a better, a more productive, a greater freight-yielding country. In Northern Ontario and Northern Quebec there are probably twenty million acres of fertile land, capable of producing our ordinary cereals, land which will some day be very thickly settled. It is estimated that between Edmonton and Winnipeg, within a distance of ten or twelve miles on each side of the road, there are some ten million acres of unoccupied lands; from Edmonton out to the Coast the line runs through a more or less productive region. It is said, Sir, that comparisons are odious, but one cannot help remarking, merely for the sake of illustration, that the Canadian Pacific Railroad does not run through any section of country so productive as that traversed by the old Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental.
There is a small strip of rocky land along the line of the state-owned road between the Quebec border and Edmonton, covering a distance of some three hundred miles, but even that area is more or less heavily mineralized. It is a matter of great satisfaction that in the Speech from the Throne it is stated that there will be a co-ordination of the various railroad systems making up the National Railways which will ensure better management and bring about economy in operation.
Closely connected with these two great problems, the national indebtedness and the national railroads, is the question of conditions pertaining to agriculture. Agriculture is the basic industry of Canada; in it we Canadians, speaking from the financial point of view, live and move and have our being. During the war agriculture was a paying industry, but following the termination of the war prices have fallen or have become unstabilized, through the costs of operation-of farm machinery and of labour-continue high. That has been the condition of agriculture throughout Canada. Moreover, a high tariff wall has been raised against us in the United States in the form of the Fordney Bill. In adition to that, the crops of the West last year suffered from heavy rains and there was a consequent lowering in the quality of the grain produced and in the price obtained. Agriculture in Canada to-day, therefore, is becoming an unprofitable occupation.
It was with pleasure that I heard in the Speech from the Throne, Sir, that the policy of the Liberal party of the past and as set down in their election platform was to be brought into effect as far as possible during this session, in a consideration of the tariff and a reduction as far as possible of the duties on certain commodities. The tariff operates, Sir, as a rule to the advantage of the few and to the disadvantage of the many, and the deductions to be made will be in the interests of the producer as well as of the great body of the consumers. These reductions can be made without violence, without dislocation of industry; they will be in the interests of the country as a whole.
While on the subject of agriculture, to those of us who came from Western Canada, which, after all, commands a very high place in our agricultural production, it was particularly gratifying to hear that the natural resources of the three western provinces were to be dealt with and some form of settlement effected, if possible. We of
The Address

the West, and particularly Manitoba, have long awaited such a step. We want only what is fair and reasonable, we want only what we believe is constitutionally ours; and I repeat, it was a great pleasure to me as a westerner to hear in the Speech from the Throne, the first time, I believe, any such intimation has been given in that way, that a settlement of this long outstanding question was under negotiation.
Undoubtedly, it is an evidence of the goodwill of the Government and of the people of the East towards the people of the West. In this connection I cannot help making reference to the gracious act that has been accorded to the West by the province of Quebec in providing a constituency and a seat for the Honourable the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Stewart). That gracious act was indicative, I believe, of the goodwill of the people of the East towards the people of the West, of the French-speaking people towards their English-speaking compatriots.
The Speech from the Throne in its opening paragraphs contained a reference to unemployment, and intimated that the Government would continue, at least for the present year, measures of relief in that connection. Unemployment is a painful thing. It is with us very largely because of the dislocation of business caused by the war. Many returned men and many skilled artisans are idle, and it was therefore very gratifying to learn in the Speech from the Throne that there has been an appreciation of that condition.
Then there is the question of the returned soldier. Some arrangement must be made in that regard. We cannot do greater honour to the soldier, the living or the dead, than to provide for his dependents, and for those who have been disabled. We cannot do too much, within reason, in that regard.
These problems that we have to face are tremendous; they cannot be minimized. They are problems worthy of the calibre of the Canadian people. Our problems are great, but compared with the lot of other people we, in this country, are comparatively fortunate. Canada can be compared to a young athlete who has been stunned in a struggle, only to rise stronger to continue the battle to ultimate victory, like the fabled wrestler of old who when he touched his mother earth only rose the stronger. Time and tide are with Canada. Time runs in Canada's favour. The recuperative powers of a country are a combination of its resources and its people,
TMr. McMurray.]
and the history of Canada has proven us to be an intelligent, industrious, and resourceful people. Our resources are very great, in fact, almost illimitable when compared with most other countries. We have a vast extent of fertile land, some three hundred million acres, of which but one-sixth, or some fifty million acres, is under cultivation. We can produce food in as great a variety as the German Empire, and yet the German Empire, by reason of its food supply, was capable of defying the world in arms for a period of years. The German Empire is a mere pigmy compared with Canada in the area of its fertile food-producing land. We have vast forests, some five hundred thousand square miles, two hundred thousand square miles of which is saw timber. And yet with these vast forests we actually have Germany to-day, with its forests planted on the sand dunes, competing against us in the American markets in the pulp industry. Great as is our fertile land in Canada, it constitutes but about fifteen per cent of the total area of the country.
We have also over two million square miles of mineral lands. The mineral lands of Canada are unusual and different from those found almost anywhere else. As a rule, in the matter of minerals, Mother Nature has hidden her jewels well, but we have that great pre-Cambrian range extending down from the north and crossing into Minnesota and Michigan. We have merely touched the fringe of its wealth. Yet we have the Cobalt and the nickel mines of Sudbury-the Hollinger gold mine-the Flin Flon, with its twenty million toms of copper -we have that great iron range extending down into Minnesota-we are on the edge of the great copper ledges of Michigan. Great as are our agricultural resources, high as Canada stands in the agricultural world to-day, some day in the future she may stand still higher as a mineral-producing nation.
We have in our oceans and inland waters vast resources in fish. In water powers we stand second in the world. Undoubtedly, in the very near future water power will take the place of coal in our homes and in our industries; it will operate the transcontinental trains.
In addition to all these resources pur railways are built, the trunk lines at least; we have built our canals. The stage is all set. What do we lack? Canada lacks but two things. We are short in man power, and short in capital. Is there a solution to the

The Address
great problems that we have to face? What must we do to be saved financially? There is only one way in which wealth can be produced and that is by the application of labour to the natural resources direct or indirect. We must deal with our great resources as an individual would deal with his. We must assist in permitting the free development of these resources, and we can assist by providing markets. As Robert Ingersoll so beautifully said, "And prosperity, when it comes must come over the golden grain fields, past the flaming forges and the whirring wheels, greeted and grasped by the countless sons of toil."
For the building up of our country, for the development of its resources, and ir. order that we may be prosperous and rich individually, we must bring to our country wealth-creating labour and capital. And I believe, Sir, that the time was never more suitable than at present- owing to the dislocated conditions of affairs in Europe consequent on the termination of the great world war-for the bringing to Canada the very cream of Europe's wealth-producing people. The same would hold, Sir, in connection with attracting settlers from the United States. The stage is all set for the resumption of our development from the point where it was temporarily stayed. Where should we have been, Mr. Speaker, had the trade arrangements that had been established, the wider markets that had been secured, been permitted to continue? Had war not intervened, with these resources where would we have been to-day? Who can tell? As I have already said, the stage is set, Sir. We have no creed problems and no racial problems in Canada such as they have in Europe. We have all the conditions necessary to enable us to forge ahead.
It is true, Sir, that we cannot offer people free homesteads such as have existed in the past, but we can offer them cheap lands- lands close to railroads, lands with all the conveniences of good roads, schools, and every other advantage attendant upon them. It was by a system of immigration that the United States grew up to be the great nation that she is to-day, the paragon of the world so far as wealth and increased population is concerned. And in past years wealth was produced with great rapidity in Canada. So able an observer as the late Viscount Bryce marvelled at the rapid creation of wealth in this country.
It is very interesting-and I will not detain the House long in this connection- to consider the growth of wealth in Canada under an active immigration policy. In
the year 1896 there were five millions of people in this country, in 1911 there were seven millions, an increase of forty per cent. In 1896 the exports and imports of Canada amounted to $223,000,000, and in 1911 the figures had increased to $798,000,000, or over 300 per cent. In 1900 the mineral products of Canada amounted to $47,000,000; in 1910 they had increased to $122,000,000, or a gain of 250 per cent in ten years. In 1900 the capital invested in manufactures in Canada was $446,000,000; ten years later the amount had increased to $1,247,000,000, or a gain of 275 per cent. The value of the manufactured products in 1900 was $481,000,000, whereas in 1910 that value had increased to $1,165,000,000 or 250 per cent. Those products in the last ten years, or in 1920, have more than doubled, and to-day amount to some three billions. In the growth of agriculture there has been the same marked increased. In 1900 there were some 16,000,000 acres of land under cultivation in Canada. In 1910 that area had increased to 30,000,000, a gain of 14,000,-000-the area of cultivation practically doubled. In 1900 there were 338,000,000 bushels of grain produced, and in 1910 the figures had increased to 583,000,000, an increase of 250,000,000 bushels. In 1911, the number of horses, cattle, and swine had increased by one million each. In cultivated lands from 1910 to 1921, despite the war, there was an increase from 32,000,000 acres to 52,000,000 acres, a gain of 20,000,000 acres.
Now, Sir, to meet this situation what must we do? We must bring immigrants to Canada to fill the vacant spaces of the West and help develop the country's great resources. The call is for men, men, and yet more men. We must attract capital to Canada; we must provide conditions under which capital will come to this country and be safe in its investment here.
I was glad, Sir, to note in the Speech from the Throne that already steps had been taken by the Government to make provisions for obtaining wider markets. These markets must be found. We must consider the Orient, we must consider Mexico. Coupled with these measures we must bring science to our aid. We must prevent national waste, such as the terrible destruction of our forests by fire. By national thrift and saving-the replenishment of our seas, the refertilization of our. fields, the replanting of our forest, by planting a tree wherever we cut one down -our future will be eventually assured.
The Address

But, Sir, we have another and greater work to perform. We cannot be great and rich, we cannot develop our resources, unless peace and concord dwell within our borders. National duty must never permit class selfishness to usurp its functions. We must build up in this country a democracy sound, and sane, and loyal to the core to Canada. We must have the fullest scope of liberty within our borders. Where liberty dwells license will not exist; license only follows upon the heels of tyranny. Sir, during the last few years democratic principles have had a rough time of it in our country. Perhaps we must make allowance for the consequences of war, and if we do probably some justification may be found for the curtailment of free institutions and the loss of a certain amount of liberty. But at the termination of war that restraint should have been lifted and we should have reverted at once to our old institutions. The condemnation of the ' late Government by the people of Canada at the last election, so decisive, so absolutely overwhelming, was the united protest-the united and indignant protest- of the people against political autocracy. The people, Sir, could not and would not forget government by Order in Council and specially constructed Election Acts. The status of the Canadian, Sir, as a citizen, in the last few years had sunk very low. May that time never come again. Under the new regime these conditions never will again obtain. Liberalism is associated absolutely with personal liberty. On personal liberty the British Empire was built. And, Sir, while it was not contained in the Speech from the Throne, I would like to see the last Act enacted by the late Parliament, the Election Act, which deprived a large portion of the electors of this country, particularly in my own constituency, from participating in the inalienable right of selecting and electing a Government-I would like to see that Act repealed and disappear from our statute books. As long as it continues in force it is an insult to these people, a degredation to ourselves, and a blot upon our statutes.
When we read the history of Europe and reflect upon its past wars and catastrophies, when we contemplate Europe to-day, with the decimation of its population by wars and famines, when we think of the tragic sltory of Ireland within our own Empire, with all its tale of sadness and of sorrow, and when we reflect that in this Canada of ours, two of the world's most virile races, high in courage and proud of lineage, but with a 
difference: in speech and religion, with the true spirit of democracy, with mutual toleration and forbearance, for upwards of a hundred years have lived together side by side, and developed the free institutions which we enjoy to-day; when we realize that these wars of Europe have largely been the result of race creed and race difference, Sir, the concord prevailing in Canada must be cause of great satisfaction to us. The same spirit that existed between the French and the English in this country we must exercise towards the new Canadian who is with us in many thousands in the West today, who will come to us more and more as time progresses. It was no statesman's hand that spread the weed seeds of dissension to the detriment and injury of his country.
We have occupational troubles in Canada, as other nations of the world have bad, and as other members of the British Empire are experiencing. There are troubles between labour and capital in this country, and they must be dealt with. There must be a spirit of toleration, a spirit of reasonableness. With this, and under the guidance of the eminent gentleman, the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King), with his deep theoretical knowledge and wide practical experience, and of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), these problems should be easily and readily solved. There has grown up in this country, or is said to have grown up, a spirit of antagonism between the agricultural interest and the manufacturing interest. These interests are undoubtedly dependent one upon another. We must approach them in the same spirit that has worked out so successfully between our Freneh-Canadian people and our English-speaking people. We must not deviate from the path of reasonableness and fairness in dealing with these questions, and must cast aside everything which is not in the common interest of our country. In a spirit of toleration we must deal with the great problems placed in our hands.We want Canadian people, in the words of Kipling, to realize that "there is no East, no West, border nor breed nor birth." And I recall the very appropriate words of one who in the years gone by sat in this House as a minister, who said, in the words of poetry:
What matter if at different shrines we kneel unto one God,
What matter if at different times our fathers won the sod,
One in name, one in fame,
-the Canadian should ever be.

The Address
The question of tariff is a very important one. I notice in the Speech from the Throne a reference to the postal conference to be held between Canada and the United States. That indicates a friendly spirit. The Fordney Bill is not framed specially against Canada, and I understand there are possibilities of some trade arrangements being made with them.
I note also the co-ordination of all the branches of defence under one head. That is indicative undoubtedly of a period of economy in the administration of affairs, and I close with the golden words of one, ever respected by political friend and foe, a truly great Canadian, who left 'hits mark forever upon this country, words uttered a short time before his death to the young Liberals of London, Ontario. I refer to the gifted leader of the Liberal party. He said to these young men-
After a long life I shall remind you that already many problems rise before you, problems of race division, problems of creed differences, problems of economic conflict, problems of national duty and national aspiration. Let me tell you that for the solution of these problems you have the safe guide and unfailing light if you remember that faith is better than doubt and love than hate. So live, so strive, so serve to do your part, to raise ever higher the standard of life you live in.
I have the honour, Sir, to move the Ad-'reply to the Speech from the
*brume.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St. Henri) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker: The opening of the fourteenth Parliament of Canada took place with the prescribed state ceremonies and amidst the concourse of the people mingling their voices in praise to God and our Sovereign King George V.
I highly appreciate the honour conferred by the Prime Minister in calling upon me to second the motion to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. This honour reflects highly upon the electors of the division of Westmount-St. Henri.
Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that in rising amongst this distinguished assembly of the nation, I realize fully all the responsibilities which, at this moment, devolve upon me. Once my task is fulfilled my one regret will he that of not having been equal to the mission so kindly entrusted to me. I therefore beg my fellow members to be indulgent and rather attribute to my lack of parliamentary experience the deficiencies of my debut in this House.
To second in my mother tongue the motion for the Address is to seize upon a
pleasing occasion to pay homage to my Sovereign, my country, my province and my race; it is at the same time to perform a duty towards our ancestors for the heritage which we have inherited in the form of the British North America Act; it affords the thankful son an occasion to remember his native province; it moreover testifies to the return to our best traditions; it is to trace our constitutional liberties back to their origin; finally, Mr. Speaker, it is to sanction anew the official use of the French language in the debate on the Address and in the administration of the affairs of the country. General elections took place on the 6th of December last. The Meighen Government and its followers had not the satisfaction of seeing their deeds and their political programme endorsed by the people. On the contrary the Canadian people placed their trust in the Liberals, made them their authorized mandatories under the direction of a Liberal ministry, having as its leader the young and brilliant successor to Laurier, the hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. The country welcomed the new ministry composed of distinguished statesmen, and in the true spirit of our constitution, all responsible to the people. Just as in 1896, when the Laurier ministry assumed power, the Canadian people look forward with confidence to the future, trusting in the guiding light of those who henceforth designated to safeguard our Cana-dlian traditions, direct the destinies of the country.
Within these parliamentary walls raised with such splendour from their ashes, Mr. Speaker, I feel throbbing in the elite that surround me, symbolising the nine provinces of Confederation, as it were, the anxious soul of the country. Canada is suffering from the consequence of the world-wide crisis; an epoch of heavy responsibility is its lot. Its revenues are no longer adequate to meet the national debt and to enable the federal administration to carry on. The country is anxious and suffering through unemployment; the wheels of industry are running slow. Our citizens bear up with sacrifices, proving by their quiet and dignified attitude that the solidarity in misfortunes must one day or another, earn them a better fate. As a representative of the people, I shared the intimate thoughts of my electors and with them I was most desirious to hear from the Governor General's lips, in the Speech from the Throne a message of good wishes and also the Government's pro-
The Address

The Address

termittent periods of unemployment, he has been magnanimous in his conduct. He never had the intention, as was so justly remarked the other day by one of their leaders on a delegation to Ottawa, to belittle any government, but on the contrary to co-operate to the best of his ability in the country's interest. However, in return he expects a legitimate and effective protection from the Government, a legislation which will give him hope of more favourable conditions of employment and compensation. It is with pleasure that I see that this question is under consideration and will be solved by the department to the advantage of all interested.
Justly does the Canadian workman hope, for the present Liberal Administration was born from the popular vote, and knowing its responsibilities, of an incomparable importance in our political history, it will strive for unity, right and justice.
Representing in this House an electoral division for the greater part made up of workmen, and knowing these good people, having witnessed the throbbing of their generous heart under their working blouse, I can vouch that the workman of my county, like others, understands that he has to work with the ultimate end of the greatest possible production in order to establish abundance and competition of products in the world's market. In so doing, he will have been a help to his Government, he will become the recognized artisan of the falling cost of living already but too high, the comforter of human misery.
And we on this side of the House, witnessing such a noble act on the part of the working class, shall continue to believe in the just administrative principles bequeathed by Laurier and which our party has always extolled in its programme and which the people accepted at the last general election, that is: that the individual of whatever art or trade, commerce or profession he may be, is indispensable on this earth; that classes must exist, help one another, love and respect each other in order to re-establish peace in this world and thereby assure the success and the welfare of humanity. This is, Mr. Speaker, the true doctrine; no other exists, to follow or to invent in order to make a people happy.
I admire the reference in the Speech from the Throne, which draws our attention to the fact that in the hard times we are experiencing a wise economy must be sought by all the federal departments if

we wish that Canada, burdened with heavy debts by the different administrations that have followed one another since the year 1911, meet her obligations. Official figures speak more plainly than words and sarcasm. On January the 31st, 1922, our debt amounted to more than two billions of dollars. Our current revenue on January the 31st, 1922, amounted to $318,489,889.74. The expenses incurred by the late government for the fiscal year ending on March 31st, 1921, required the enormous sum of $361,118,145.21. We must conclude, taking into account these figures, that the financial position of Canada must be judiciously looked into if we wish to maintain our national credit. It is absolutely necessary to make the best possible use of our revenue; to see that such an important problem as the railways be solved not in the interest of individuals, but in the interest of the whole country: to reduce the expenditure of the various departments to the minimum of their needs; to reclassify the Civil Service, if need be, in order to secure in every case the greatest efficiency and also that every civil servant may prove his actual usefulness by his daily labour. This economy which we are now preaching with a view to restoring our national credit, will show to the citizens of Canada that the hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues are conscious of their responsibility. No doubt, during this much confused period, they may rely on every member of this House who sincerely wishes for the prosperity of this Dominion.
Before I resume my seat, as I cast my eyes upon this 'House, I realize better now than I did at the beginning of my remarks, that it is composed of three parties. The division of the old Canadian political system into two great parties, Liberals and Conservatives, seems to have disappeared, at least for the present. The Conservative party died away, even in time of victory, and like an autumn leaf, was carried away by the passing breeze of Unionism. Since 1911, the Liberal party alone remained in existence. It remained the party of the people, of the humble and of the mighty, of the poor as well as that of the rich; untouched by the conflict of opinions which has destroyed everything else, it will live to promote the actual interests of the country.
There is a third party, named the Progressive party. At its head and in its ranks there are experienced men who are filled with the best public spirit.

The Address
The people of Canada, however, have looked at those political changes with some apprehension, but always confident in the destinies of the Liberal party and in the King Administration they look forth to the days of resurrection.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I am able, with, I believe, more than even the usual sincerity, without reservation, insofar as their personalities are concerned, to congratulate the mover and the seconder of this motion. To come into this House for the first time and address his fellow-members is no easy matter for a young member of Parliament. I, of course, was able to follow more closely the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) than the hon. member for Westmount-St. Henri (Mr. Mercier) who seconded the motion. With the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I find myself in concurrence to a greater degree than I had expected prior to his rising and, I think I may add, to a greater degree than he expects even now. I am not able to share all his hopes as to what is to be the fruitage to come from this Speech from the Throne. Indeed, I may venture to predict that before the session is over he will find himself a great deal nearer the depths of distrust and despair in which I am now than the high level on which he has commenced. He has, however, acquitted himself creditably to his constituency and creditably to the province which he alone represents on that side of the House.
The hon. member for Westmount-St. Henri has come to this Parliament preceded by a reputation which does him honour. Though I was not able to follow his utterance with that degree of certainty that would enable me to refer to it particularly prior to translation, I am sure he has vindicated his reputation as a public speaker at least in point of clearness of enunciation, in point of natural decisiveness and graciousness of speech. Those ef us who have spent many years, many of us the best of our years, in public and parliamentary life, gladly welcome new talent amongst us. There is room in the politics of Canada, there is room in the work of this House, for the best and most promising of our young men, and the welcome that I hope I may be permitted to extend to the mover and the seconder of this Address goes with equal sincerity to all who come among us on all sides of this
assembly; and possibly I may add that it goes as well to many good friends, although my opponents politically, who, after severance from public life, are back with us again.
I add especially a word of welcome to the first lady member of the House of Commons. The last Parliament, by a very large majority, almost by a unanimous decision, conferred the franchise on women, and conferred upon them as well the privilege of candidature for the Commons of Canada. To be the recipient of the first expression of confidence by a constituency is an historic honour, and I know I express the feelings of all, when I put into words the hope that she will vindicate the confidence that the last Parliament has reposed in her sex, do credit to herself and to the constituency that she represents.
This House meets under a new Government and under a new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister who leads this assembly now has come to his high office at an early age. He has had considerable association with public life in a conspicuous way. Notwithstanding the feelings many of us have of opposition, of, indeed, antipathy, to the methods indulged in by himself and his followers, by which their so-called success was achieved, we all, as Canadians, wish him long service in the life of this country. We shall give him fair play in the work of this House; we shall do our part to contribute to the success of this Parliament; and I, for one, wish him personal success. Before I sit down, I shall have something to say in explanation of the words I have uttered as to the character of the campaign that preceded the last contest. I do not do so in any spirit of resentment to the people of this country; I do not do so at all out of any personal regret I may feel at not holding high office still; indeed, I speak in all sincerity when I say that it is well that young and, indeed, sometimes untried figures come to responsibility in our public life. Alternation of party control is good-those of us who know what the burden has been during the past ten years will understand what I mean. I do not think the years ahead will be so strenuous; I hope they will not; but aside from all questions of public policy, it is well that those who are fresher to the task and who perhaps bring new points of view should assume from time to time, the responsibilities of administration.
There has been comment in the speech of the mover of the motion, and there is
The Address

reference in the Speech from the Throne itself, to the conference that has just been concluded at Washington. I am sur.e the words of the Speech in that regard and the words of the mover of the motion as well find unanimous and hearty echo from us all. The purpose of that conference is not misunderstood by those who have read the press. I was anxious-and I think I succeeded in my desire-not to impart into the late party contest any questions of external policy of this country, any question as to the conduct of our affairs in relation either to the Empire or to the outside world. It is, however, only fair to say that in the bringing about of that conference this country took its part as other countries did, and in the earnest hope that something real, something practical, has been effected in the alleviation of the woes and miseries from which the world has suffered and suffers to-day in the lifting of the clouds that are before the world to-day, Canada's anxiety, Canada's earnestness takes second place to that of no other country in the world. That the Conference has had practical results should be a matter of congratulation; that there have been practical results I have no doubt at all. I am sorry that the purpose of the conference, that Canada's participation therein, should have been a subject of misconception even in the last election contest in Canada; but it is well in that respect to let bygones be bygones, and I make no further reference thereto.
The first paragraph in the Speech from the Throne makes comment on the present condition, commercially and industrially, of this Dominion. All of us were glad to see that paragraph inserted, and I think we understand the significance intended thereby. It is as follows:
Our Dominion has not escaped the world-wide economic disturbance and industrial depression, hut has suffered less from it than other countries. Keen observers of the business barometer feel that the worst is about over and that at an early date we may look for a substantial revival of activity.
Those words are true. I find no mention in the Speech from the Throne of a very outstanding fact that might, I think, have appropriately been referred to-namely, what has been disclosed as regards our population in the recent census returns. It is true that those returns are not to the last fraction of percentage complete, but they are substantially complete, and what is known of them is a matter for congratulation on the part of all our people. Our population has increased from

less than seven and a quarter millions to well over eight and three-quarter millions. In a speech which I read in the press recently, delivered by the chief statistician of the Dominion in the city of London, he called attention to the fact that the rate of increase has in these ten years been the fastest of that of any English-speaking country in the world, inclusive of all the British Dominions and the United States. We have passed the 21 '5 per cent rate-that is the highest rate. In that speech emphasis is laid on the fact that this increase has been achieved against the handicap of the war. And Mr. Coates says that Canada would have passed the nine million mark but for the losses in men and women and in the birth rate due directly to the war. The fact, however, that we have surpassed the record of the world in this regard, at a time when the greatest difficulty was encountered in doing so, and when some of the other great countries of the world outside the Englishspeaking countries sustained a loss in population, is a matter for pronounced congratulation.
This increase in our prosperity, as evidenced by our increase in population, has been accompanied by an expansion of our trade unprecedented in our history. Our trade has expanded to proportions undreamt of ten years ago. In making that statement I have reference not to the inflated figures that obtained during the war, but to the 1921 figures obtained during the very depths of the post-war deflation. Comparing those figures with the figures for the ten years preceding 1911, our exports have multiplied almost three times over in that decade, as opposed to the increase of less than twice in the fifteen years that went before. Therefore there was a very considerable basis of fact for the assertion in the Speech from the Throne that this Dominion, which took a place of honour and of great value in the most terrible conflict the world has ever known; this Dominion that performed the stupendous task of placing on another continent five hundred thousand of her sons; this Dominion that took upon her back a debt of over $2,000,000,000 for the sole purpose of prosecuting to victory a war for human freedom-this Dominion finds itself to-day, as acknowledged in this Speech, in the best position of any country in the world. And I am disposed to believe that when the Speech from the Throne enters into the realm of prediction it does not go

The Address
too far. It states that to keen observers of the business barometer the worst is over, that the year 1921-which I have just compared with the year 1911-was the year of greatest deflation, the year of heaviest reaction. That prediction placed alongside the assertion of fact as to our present condition, should bring comfort and cheer to us all.
I wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite would recognize any comparison between this very frank acknowledgment in the Speech from the Throne and some of their literature and speeches in the late campaign. Was it a picture of confidence that they drew? Was it a comparison favourable to Canada that they made with other countries of the world? It was not. I have before me some of the speeches made and pamphlets issued by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer* Gouin). I understood that until he reached this House he was in a state of exceeding doubt, not to say irremovable despair, at the awful position into which this country had fallen. He was associated in those feelings with the present hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell), who felt that the condition of the country was so desperate that he should resign his post in the government of his Province and devote his capacities to the rehabilitation of the Dominion financially and commercially. I have before me* some utterances of both these hon. gentlemen. In a manifesto, issued at, I fear considerable expense, and appearing among other publications, in The Montreal Standard of the 5th November last, the following is given as a description of our plight-I would like it placed alongside of the paragraph that I have just quoted from the Speech from the Throne.
"Our country," said Mr. Mitchell, now hon. member for St. Antoine, "is passing through a crisis."
After passing through four years of war and sacrifice which did it credit, Canada to-day is reeling under a burden which would crush many nations less courageous than ours. With a war debt unparalleled in the history of this land or any other with a population the size of ours;-
This land that is now acknowledged to be the best of any in its relative position in the world.
-with a gaping wound in the body politic which only the best physicians gathered together in counsel can heal;-
And which I assume, this Speech from the Throne is designed to heal even in this present session.
-with a railway deficit whicli would rock to its very foundation; with a meichant marine, the national credit of any land with a population
of nine millions; with a national revenue'which is declining day by day while our burdens and liabilities increase, Canada to-day is looking in this direction and in that direction to find a way to meet the terrible storms that are ahead.


An hon. MEMBER:: And they have found it.


Arthur Meighen: They have found the way, and the way is designated in this Speech from the Throne, which, as hon. members will see in a few minutes, promises to do in every regard just what they found the late government doing, and insofar as it does not promise to do what they found the late government doing, promises to think about the subject. The manifesto continues:
With these huge undertakings, either one of which alone is sufficient to cripple Canada, this Dominion is sick commercially and weakened financially.
I will refer to other portions of this address when I come to other subjects treated of in the Speech from the Throne.
The hon. member who is now the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) speaking in his province also in the course of the campaign, gave utterance to sentiments that painted an equally doleful picture. He seems to have declared even that our population was diminishing. I see he gives mute indication of dissent, but I have the declaration attributed to him before me now. He stated as well that trade was falling; that unemployment was rampant; that bankruptcy was at hand; and that, indeed, we were going to fall into the hands of the United States unless the people arose to a sense of the appalling condition they were in,-in other words, unless they elected him and his party to power. On the 3rd of December he is thus reported in Le Soleil:
Sir Lomer Gouin received an ovation when he entered the hall. He warned the electors against the stratagem of the Conservatives-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I paused there purposely in order that the opportunity for applause might come. I will wait now for the applause that will finish the sentence:
-the stratagem of the Conservatives, who, once elected, will take away from us our railway shops and managements, thus depriving at least 50,000 of our workingmen who would be compelled to exile themselves.
In which the hon. member, now the Minister of Justice, deliberately associated himself with the most disreputable political roorback that ever disgraced the politics of any country.
The Address

Again, in a speech at Three Rivers on 21st November, the Minister of Justice said:
In case the Meighen or Crerar Government be adopted-
My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is in the same boat as myself.
In case the Meighen or Crerar Government be adopted, farm land will be taxed, as well as urban and rural dwellings and the house of the rich as that of the poor. If we maintain the Meighen Administration, not only will your lands be taxed but you will never be so close to that annexation, which will soon be a reality in this country, if Meighen is elected.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: And hon. gentlemen
say "hear, hear."
Already, so to speak, he said, our country is palsied, and halted immobilized in its expansion.
This country which, let me repeat, is acknowledged in the Speech from the Throne to be in the soundest position of any affected by the war.
It makes no more progress; its population decreases while its indebtedness increases to a huge extent; its trade diminishes every month; uncertainty and uneasiness obtain everywhere, according to the own admission of the Prime Minister, and minds heretofore optimistic foresee only bankruptcy and annexation. The people are giving way under the burden of taxation, and in spite of that, deficits accumulate. Dulness is experienced in Government administration ; industry is standing pat; trade is stagnant, and on the approach of winter unemployment prevails throughout the country. How can we be charged with exaggeration when the highest financial authorities of the country are frightened?
I draw the attention of hon. gentlemen to my left to the quotation of the Ron. Minister of Justice of "the highest financial authorities" being frightened because of the course pursued by the late Administration.
Now, I need not make reference to utterances in the late campaign by which the entire anti-conscription feeling of any part of this country, but particularly of the province of Quebec, was turned against the late Administration. This from "Le Soleil," however, is typical:
The people's forces consist of all those who have wept when they saw their sons being hunted for the slaughter; of all those who were deceived by the false promises of ministers ; of all the heroes who were deluded by those who drove them to carnage.
That is worthy of memory, and I am sure it will be remembered and will be done justice to by the hon. member (Mr. Crerar) who leads the Progressive Party and who had part with us in the, not pleasant but necessady, tasks-and onerous tasks they

were-imposed upon us during the conduct of the war. I doubt if I could point to any hon. gentlemen opposite coming from that province-although I think I should exculpate the hon. Minister of Justice in this regard-who did not make use of that appeal; who did not point out as the chief sin of the late Government that, in a time when the country was rocking in the very worst convulsions, struggling through the very darkest nights of a terrible war, that Government sought to carry out the undoubted mandate of the people to impose compulsory and equal military service throughout the length and breadth of our land in order that the honour of the nation might be maintained, in order that the men who fought for us might be supported 

in order, in a word, that we might do in the best way we could what we deemed to be our duty in the most awful crisis of the world's history.
Now I pass to other and to me-because I do not desire unnecessarily to harp on the past

more pleasant subjects, so far as discussion goes, enumerated in the Speech from the Throne. The Speech makes reference to the return to the western provinces of their natural resources, and in a somewhat boastful way refers to the fact that already a definite proposal has been made to the prime ministers of the western provinces for the return of those resources. The Government appears to feel that as a consequence a settlement of the question is at hand. On the same subject the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) too, is optimistic. He is hopeful that something will be done at once. It is stated in the Speech from the Throne that a proposal has been made to the several governments of Western Canada looking to the return of those resources. What the proposal is is not vouchsafed in this Speech. However, there has been given to the press, and to the public through the press, a full statement-I believe it is a full statement-of what the Government has proposed. That, I might remark, has been done notwithstanding the many protestations of the Prime Minister that Parliament always had to know Government policy ahead of the press and of the public. In the letter which has been given publication, the Prime Minister proposes to the three western provinces that the resources withheld from them when those provinces were established, or what remains of those resources, should now be transferred to them by federal statute, and that each of them should in return release any claims it may have to the

The Address
extra indemnity which at the time of the original withholding of the resources was given to the provinces concerned. One would think by the emphasis and the advertisement given to this action on the part of the Administration that it was a new and wholly original thought.
The House, of course, is aware that for ten years that precise proposal has been before the western provinces. It was made ten years ago by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden. It was repeated afterwards, repeated by myself specifically in 1920, when I attained the premiership, in letters to the prime ministers of the western provinces. But from the first the proposal has been rejected; it was rejected in 1911, and every year since, and it stands rejected to-day. I do not know what value there is in making the proposal once more, nor do I quite understand the complacency evidenced by language which indicates that in making the proposal which in the past had been rejected, all eyes are turned to the future and to this "new method" of solution. It is true that that letter goes on to propose arbitration as a means of solution if this offer is again refused, but we have no intimation either in the letter of the Prime Minister to the three western provinces, and much less in the Speech from the Throne, of the nature of the arbitration that is to be conducted or the character of the tribunal that is to be erected.
As hon. gentlemen know-and no one knows it better that the Hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) for no one was more emphatic than he in the -claim that he made when Prime Minister of the province of Quebec-the assertion has been persistently made on the part of British Columbia, on the part of the province of Quebec, on the part of the province of Ontario, and possibly more emphatically still on the part of the three Maritime Provinces, that they as provinces have a claim in respect of those resources, and have a claim particularly in regard to any adjustment of provincial subsidies that may be made as a result of the return of the natural resources. Is each of these provinces to be represented on this board of arbitration? Let the Prime Minister now make good his boast and tell this Parliament. Let us know, first, whether the province of Nova Scotia is to be represented, whether the province of British Columbia is to be represented, whether the province of Quebec is to be represented, and whether the province of Ontario. I do not know how there can be
an arbitration with their approval unless they are represented, and if there is to be an arbitration board on which all provinces are represented, on what principle and by what right is any such arbitration board going to assume functions that are essentially functions of the Parliament of Canada? All these provinces are represented here. They have sent their representatives to this Parliament. Why, the leader of the Government elected one of his supporters in this House, even the hon. member who succeeds him in the representation of the county of Prince, by advancing a claim on behalf of Prince Edward Island that that province had millions of dollars of interest in the resources of Western Canada. I read from an advertisement published under the heading "Why vote for MacLean?" Among other reasons, none of which appeal very strongly to those who have had experience in this House, the following is given:
Because by doing so you will be upholding your birthright in the public domain of the western provinces, in which millions of dollars are involved and justly coming to us, in spite of Mr. Crerar's contention and assertion to the contrary, and we can surely do with that money now.
Again I ask, are we to acquiesce in a proposal which proposes to erect a tribunal, composed of representatives of all the provinces, to be substituted for this tribunal in which the constitution vests responsibility for apportioning the rights and claims as among all the provinces of Confederation? Is Parliament to make that surrender? It is for this Government-this Gevernment whose members for years criticised the late Administration because we were not able to get the representatives of the various provinces to agree upon any terms that would have been acceptable to Western Canada, and which belaboured us for the delay that intervened-to come to this Parliament with a proposal which they believe will commend itself to a majority, a proposal not for the abdication of the rights of this Parliament but for the assertion of those rights in solving a problem that Parliament alone can solve. Let the Prime Minister come down with a proposal that commends itself to a majority of Parliament, and then it will become the law of this land. But, is something to become the law of this land because it happens to commend itself to certain others selected by the Government to represent the constituencies of this country when it does not commend itself to those selected by the people to represent those constituen-
The Address

cies? I venture to recall the assertion I made early in my address and to ask the hon. member for North Winnipeg not to forget that before this session is over, and still more, before the end of sessions to come, the optimism excited in his breast by this sentence in the Speech from the Throne will be very much lower and darker than it is just now.
I see in a statement, evidently issued officially or semi-officially, that the government of Manitoba has resented the proposal to accept a return of the resources and release all the extra subsidy that came to take their place, and further that if an arbitration board is to be appointed, the Manitoba Government is going to be represented by the Attorney General of the Province, by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson), and by one other 

three representatives from the province of Manitoba; and the prediction is made- a prediction that very probably will come true-that if this course is adopted it will take several years to get the accounting done and come to a decision.
Now I come to a paragraph in the Speech of His Excellency which, in its comparative innocence, is really fitted to be historic

I refer to the paragraph dealing with the Customs Tariff. Hon. members should keep in mind, as I refer to this subject, the declarations in this House on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite-when declarations were made to get votes, declarations of definite and specific policy were made and voted for year after year. They should remember how anything in the way of delay was deprecated and berated. They should remember how we were told, session after session, that there was no need for any tariff inquiry, that the way was clear for action, that there was no need for delay at all-the proper course was to act and to act at once. Hon. members should keep in mind, as well, the specific commitments of hon. gentlemen opposite, made with all the sanctity of democracy in a great convention held in this city in August 1919, commitments that have a very peculiar ring when contrasted with this pallid, barren paragraph in the Speech of His Excellency to-day. The paragraph in question reads as follows:
You will be invited to consider the expediency of making some changes in the Customs Tariff. While there are details of revision, the consideration of which will require time and care that are not at present available, there are features of the tariff which it is felt may properly be dealt with during the present session.

What are the features, what are the "changes" alluded to? The hon. member for North Winnipeg assumes that this means a revision of the tariff downwards. I am afraid he will look long and patiently for any mention of the word "downward" in the paragraph. There may be revision upward, there may be revision 5 p.m. downward, there may be no revision at all, there may be inconsequential changes; but Parliament is not advised what shall be the character or the nature of the subjects dealt with. In such a position has the Government placed itself in its first session in office- this Government that obtained the seats it occupies this afternoon by specific, definite, and understandable pledges to the people of this country; this Government which obtained seats in this House because candidates now sitting behind it pledged themselves to their constituents that those promises-promises that everybody understood-would be made good as soon as the Liberal party was returned to power. I have before me those pledges and those commitments but is it necessary to read them? Have not hon. gentlemen read the commitment of 1919; has it not been placed on the pages of Hansard, over and over again? Did not the present Prime Minister-speaking in this House in the month of June, 1920, almost a year after the convention-pledge himself that when returned to power the resolution in question would be made the law of this country. Do hon. gentlemen not remember? Did not the present Prime Minister-speaking at various places in the country in the fall of 1920-bind himself to the terms of that resolution, and declare that by it he was going to stand or fall? Did he not, as respecting many of those terms, commit himself definitely even in the summer of 1921? I am quite aware that his language moderated after he was joined by the present Minister of Justice, after the resignation and candidature of the Provincial Treasurer of the Province of Quebec, and after those interests that to-day are responsible for his elevation to the Prime Ministership came and exercised their sway in the councils of his party. I know that it was in the fall of 1921 that he preached throughout Canada the doctrine of the chart, that all the commitments of the 1919 convention were merely indications of the direction in which he should proceed, and that as to how far he proceeded, or whether he proceeded at all, he was going to be governed by the wisest

The Address
councils of the men around him, knowing quite well that to his left-if he obtained power-would sit the present Minister of Justice; knowing quite well that to his right would sit the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who had frankly declared to the people of the country that this platform was only made to get in on well knowing also that he would have near him the present Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) ; knowing too that he would have behind him, and directing his conduct, the powers centred in and spreading from the city of Montreal who are responsible for his elevation and for his position to-day.
Then it was that the doctrine of the chart was promulgated, then it was that the guarded empty language came into use on platform after platform-about a tariff for revenue, about a tariff for producer and consumer, about a tariff for the home-then it was that all these phrases came to mind, and the hon. gentleman sought by means of them to escape from the commitment which he and his party had made in the month of August, 1919, upon which he accepted the position of leadership that has brought him the Prime Ministership of this country but which binds him in the same degree to-day as when he was simply leader of the Liberal party. I do not need to remind the House of all these commitments, but possibly it would be just as well to read them in order that they may stand alongside of the aggregation of' letters of the alphabet that is supposed to denote the Liberal policy as respects the tariff now that they have attained power. Here is what was resolved upon at the Liberal convention in 1919:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reduction 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 too severely on the masses of the people; 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 saw-mill machinery and repair parts thereof; rough and partly dressed lumber, gasoline, illuminating, lubricating and fuel oils, nets, 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 reduction 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 provision of this resolution when returned to power.
The day of the return to power has come. The hour has struck and the moment is here. I would not expect that they would embody this resolution in the Speech from the Throne, because that is not the custom, but I would expect that the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne would be comparable in principle and would intimate a fulfilment of the resolution. I ask this House and my hon. friends to the left, whom I endeavoured to persuade many a time of the very truth that is revealed before their eyes to-day: do you find in the Speech from the Throne the slightest intimation or promise or hint that anything will be done, even of the very nature of that delineated in the resolution of 1919? Are we to expect it? Proud hearts beat with hope as does the heart of the hon. member for North Winnipeg. I ask particularly the hon. member for Marquette^ (Hon. T. A. Crerar) to answer this question. I wonder now whether my analysis of the sincerity of hon. gentlemen opposite, made last session and the previous session, which I am sorry the hon. member for Marquette did not receive very well, will not prove more accurate than the hopes that even he sometimes gave expression to.
It is not hard to find the reason for the change of heart. The hon. gentleman who leads the Government in, I think, the last speech he made, at least one of the most recent speeches, declared that there was virtually no difference between his stand and the stand of the progressive party. He described their principles as the principles of Liberalism, to which he says he is prepared to give a very wide interpretation. In that I thoroughly agree with him, because the interpretation he has given to Liberalism has been so wide as to include every side of every question under the sun. Indeed, under his aegis, Liberalism has become merely a synonym for political dishonesty.
I refer to a speech, which, I think, was made in the province of Quebec, at a banquet given to celebrate the victory of the hon, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries
The Address

tical promises. It indicates that once they have got their reward, once they have reaped the fruit of their professions, those professions and promises go into the discard and are forgotten. It indicates that when the hour for bringing down those "some changes" in t'he tariff comes, there will be about as much resemblance between the actual legislation and the pledge's of the past as there is between darkness and light. The hon. member for St. Lawrence and St. George (Mr. Mahler) declared his tariff faith as follows, and upon this he was elected:
That the tariff should be framed with the assistance of such scientific or other board acting in collaboration with a committee of Parliament, with the object in view of providing the revenues required for the administration of the country- the maintenance of established legitimate industries, the encouragement of new industries- the promotion of trade with other countries, consistent with the above objects- and with due regard to the economic rights of the consumer.
As clear and unequivocal a declaration of the principle and practice of protection as any candidate for Parliament ever made. By those mean's the government now in power obtained office. While their candidate in North Winnipeg was publishing the promises of 1919, while their candidate in Centre Winnipeg-and I have his declaration before me-was casting far and wide a circular in which he pledged himself, and declared his party was pledged, to put into effect the pledges of 1919, while every candidate that supported them in all the provinces of the West right to the Rocky Mountains was binding himself and his party to those pledges and getting votes upon the strength of those pledges, these hon. gentlemen, now elected to this House, were pledging themselves and their party to exactly the opposite course, and by that means they were elected. So the Government is bound to betray those who supported the present hon. member of St. Antoine (Mr. Mitchell), it is bound to belie the declarations of the present Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), it is bound to take his electors into camp and deceive them; or it is bound to carry out the pledges they made to the whole people-pledges that were ratified, confirmed, repeated and voted upon by immense sections of this Dominion. That is the position hon. members supporting the Government are in, that is the position the Government itself is in. Far be it from me to make the claims of a prophet, but I know something of the preponderance of influence in the present administration, I know some-
[Mr. Meighen.j
thing of the source of the momentum that put them into office, I know something of those who bought and paid for a programme and who expect delivery of the value thereof, and in my own mind I have not very much doubt as to what will be the measure and character of the "some changes" referred to in the customs tariff paragraph of the Speech from the Throne.
I pass from that subject to refer to the declaration as regards railways. Of that I have less criticism to make. On the subject of railways it is declared, as though it were a matter requiring the attention of Parliament-and as I understand, speeches from the Throne are intended to lay down a programme for the consideration of Parliament during the ensuing .session-that there will he co-ordination of the railways owned by the people of this country. This is the paragraph:
In order that government ownership and operation of our national railways now extending through every province of the Dominion may be given a fair trial under the most favourable conditions, it is intended at an early date to co-ordinate the Government-owned systems in the manner best calculated to increase efficiency, and to effect economies in administration, maintenance and operation. The whole transportation situation is one which will require your best attention. It weighs heavily upon our national finances. To assist in obtaining the information essential to an exact understanding and an adequate appreciation of the problem in its many bearings, it is proposed to supplement the work of co-ordination by a thorough inquiry.
A Speech from the Throne, written by a Prime Minister, who, within a few months of writing that speech, had declared to the people that an inquiry is only suggested by a government that has no policy at all! It.will be noted how sedulous the draughtsman of the Speech from the Throne has been to use the most evasive and nebulous terms at his command. He does not say there is to be unification of the roads owned by the Government; he does not say there is to be amalgamation; he does not say all are to be brought together as one system, as was the intention of the last Parliament, and, is the intention of the law today. He says: There is going to be "coordination,"-a word chosen because of its elasticity, because its exact meaning is at least capable of more interpretations than any other word that could have been used.
I hope, however, that the meaning that will appeal to most of us is intended, namely, that there will be actual unification, in order that the advantages and economies incident to unity will be provided; in a word, that all intended by the statute of

The AdAress
this Parliament will be carried out. I hope that is the intention of the Administration. If it is, I can assure the Prime Minister on the part of those whom I represent in this House that he will have our assistance to the full in the carrying out of that policy.
I have no objection to reference to this being made in the Speech from the Throne; indeed I welcome it; but it does not provide material for the consideration of Parliament. This policy is already imbedded in the law of the country to-day. The Government need no legislation to carry it out. The Canadian National Railway Act of 1919 provides that roads from time to time owned or controlled by the Administration may be brought under the National system and operated as a unit in the same way as the roads at that time were being operated. From time to time the late government brought one road after the other under that system. The Grand Trunk Railway system alone now remains outside. As respects that system, the arbitration following its acquisition by the government was proceeding up to the time I arrived home from England in the summer of 1921, when the matter of the general election had immediately to be taken into account, and during the campaign no one would suggest that any action should have been taken to bring about that amalgamation, the last step of the whole process; it had to wait and did await the judgment of the people. But the intention of the late government as embalmed in the legislation of this House is apparent, and to do what is set out in the Speech from the Throne is only to carry out what is already expressed in the statute books of this country. I say again that I hope the language means the bringing into one unit of all our railway systems in order to get the advantages of co-ordination and unification. By that I do not imply that there cannot be that measure of local supervision that is so essential to the best management. That measure of local supervision, I, on the advice of the best experts at our command on the National Railway Board, stated was the policy of the late government, recommended by the board. With the Grand Trunk coming in and the entire mileage owned by the people of this country brought into one system, there should be what are called grand divisions, whereby, without in any way impairing the advantages of unification, a measure of local supervision in the operation of the lines would be feasible.
All these things are quite consistent, but there must be unification. There must be one system; there cannot continue to be two. The late Government proceeded on that principle and carried it out to a great extent; all that is left to be done is to bring in the Grand Trunk. Let that step be taken. May this paragraph in the Speech from the Throne mean that this will be done without delay; and if it is done it will have the support of those who stand behind me in this Parliament. But I am afraid that if the Government take that step they will have difficulty with those' around them; either that, or hon. gentlemen around them will have difficulty with their constituents.
I see in front of me now hon. members who are committed to their constituents to an exactly opposite course. I see in front of me those who have pledged themselves, not that the National Railways will be unified but that they will be disrupted; not that the National Railways will be co-ordinated, but that they will be disintegrated; not that the National Railways will be maintained out of politics, managed by a business board and all brought under that business board, but that portions of the system will be taken back into politics as they were in politics for many decades I see in front of me also those who are pledged against a continuance of national ownership and operation-yea, I see its bitterest enemies, its stoutest foes, in the ranks of the Government itself. I know the Prime Minister has declared, and I see a reference to it in the Speech from the Throne, that national ownership and operation shall be given a fair trial, but I for one, am apprehensive of the fairness of the trial to be given national ownership and operation at the hands of its inveterate enemies. I am apprehensive that it is not the desire of hon. gentlemen opposite that the utmost possible success shall follow that trial, because I know there are hon. gentlemen on that side who would be infinitely more pleased by the utmost possible failure than by the utmost possible success. I know there are hon. gentlemen elected to support this Government who have declared themselves on principle opposed to government operation not only of railways, but of everything, and who have pledged themselves to their constituents to do everything in their power to stop the wheels of government operation at the earliest moment. I know there are those who declare not only that the acquirements of the roads never should have taken
The Address

place, but that now they are acquired the proper policy to pursue is to get rid of them at the earliest possible day. Some would turn them over to the Canadian Pacific-even among those whom I see in front of me, hon. members supporting the Government. Some would sell them for a dollar-they have so little use for them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: "Hear, hear" from the hon. member opposite; but he is going to be asked to support what is described as, and 'promised to be, a fair trial of government operation. I venture to suggest that government operation would have received a much fairer, a much more useful and much more successful trial at the hands of those who were its friends and wanted it to succeed; at the hands of those who in the difficult position in which they found themselves after years of railway blundering, took the best and the only course this country could take in its own interests and for its own protection in the acquirement of these roads.


Mr. CANNON:: And you made a lovely
mess of it.


Arthur Meighen: Pardon me? I did
not hear:	The hon. gentleman will not
repeat. I looked opposite during the speech of the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I heard his references to the railway history of our country. I heard him say that the late government.found on its doorstep bankrupt roads-found there railways that he described as starved and emaciated foundlings; as he spoke, on the faces of some I saw a smile, at least a gleam of approval, but on the faces of others I saw a scowl of resentment. I thought I would like to hear some of the private conversations between the hon. member for North Winnipeg and others when he went outside and beyond the pale of this House. But he spoke the truth.	The late government
found itself the recipient of all the penalties, the heir to all the railway blunders of this country.	The late government
found itself with four or five thousand miles-yes, nearly six, of prematurely constructed railway mileage. The late government found itself the mortgagee of railways that were ill-conceived, that were constructed to a grade far beyond the requirements of the country and at a time far in advance of the country's needs. The late government found itself administering the affairs of a nation over railroaded by four to six thousand miles, and as such mort-
[Mr. Meighen.l
gagees-private ownership of that mileage having irretrievably failed because of the blunders of the projectors, in which the government that preceded the Laurier government were coadjutators and co-operators-in order to protect our position as mortgagees, to protect ourselves as the inevitable owners of a large and almost barren mileage-a mileage that we could not help becoming possessed of-and in order to make that mileage possible of ultimate success through the acquisition of the systems that it was built to be a complement of, the late government took the course that it did. Now, this country has got upon its back an impossible mileage of railways, railways that never could be made to succeed run by the government or by a company as single separate systems. We have something which, now that all are collected, possesses in Eastern Canada an excellent gathering system, and that possesses in Western Canada the finest gathering system there. We have an immense mileage, but it is a system that is complete,

burdened, I know, with large transcontinentals built long before their time; burdened, I know, with transcontinentals that should never have been projected, to which the country was irrevocably committed by the government that preceded us and necessarily doomed to deficits for years to come on that account. But we have a system that is a system. We have a system to-day in which the people of this country can take pride, in respect of which they may have hope, and which they know can reach the day of solvency and of surpluses sooner than it possibly could have reached that day had any other policy been adopted.
Hon. gentlemen talk about handing it back to private ownership. Let them come forward with their proposals. Hon. gentle men opposite are elected by the forces opposed to public ownership in this country, by the forces opposed to public operation in this country, and they know what those forces are. They know who were around them in the late campaign. They know that the interests that they pictured day after day and night after night as having their hands on my neck and as dictating the policy of the late government-they knew at the very moment in which they spoke those very interests were backing them in the contest, determined to secure their election. They know they sit opposite me now elected by the powers they have denounced. They know that some of the heads of those in-

The Address
terests have been favoured by them even since they came into office. They know that very little has been done-indeed, nothing at all except, forsooth, that which was the policy of the late administration as to the unemployed about whom they shed tears abundant in the course of the campaign-while nothing new has been done as to them, a lot has been done for others. There has been a lot by way of recognition of the men-very wealthy men-whom they berated with all the ridicule at their command and whom they pictured as our supporters and our friends.
Now then, if they mean to carry out the pledges they have undoubtedly made to those who put them where they are, they are in a position to carry them out better than they were when they made the promises long ago. If they are against public ownership and operation, do not let them argue that it is impossible now to bring private ownership back but that it was possible before. The system that we own to-day is a system that would appeal to private capital certainly better than anything we could have owned if we had not acquired what we have now. Now, if they have courage to make good the understanding with those who supported them abundantly and generously, if they have the courage to deliver the goods, let them come forward with their programme to this House; I assure them we stand where we did when we adopted the policies. We stand where we did then. We believe these roads can be made a success under fair trial. We believe that if their friends, those who want them to succeed, were in charge of their destiny they would be made to succeed, and the results of the last few months are encouragement to us in that belief. But I must say I have distrust of the future. I have distrust of the conduct of these roads when influential men in charge of our country's affairs to-day, and because in charge, responsible for those appointed to take care of these roads, are the sworn enemies of the very principle entrusted to their care, the sworn enemies of public ownership and operation in every way, men whose reputation as public men and business men is based upon their declared antagonism to the system now entrusted to their charge. So let us watch the progress of government operation in the next few months. Already we see the interesting process under way. This government operation and co-ordination are to
be accompanied by an inquiry. I do not know who are to make the inquiry. I do not know just what they are inquiring for. I know the hon. member for St. Antoine has his ideas about an inquiry. He said in a public speech published under his photograph that we ought to get the best railway men we could, not from this continent, but from Europe and other continents, and that they should sit down and think the whole subject out, and he promised that if they would do that-these experts from Europe and, I suppose, from Africa-when they got through he would sit down and help them come to a decision, and he promised that the solution would be a solution "without deficits." I do not know whether the inquiry foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne is to be an inquiry at the hands of Europe and Asia, or Europe and Africa, but while this inquiry is proceeding I venture to predict that one thing will be taking place. I venture to predict that the propagandist will be at work, and that there will be over-flooding this Dominion an anti-government operation propaganda designed to turn the minds of the people of this country in disgust from the public ownership of railways; and that propaganda, the signs of which we see already all around, and under the onrush of which we sit at this very hour, will be powerfully financed by interests most friendly to this Administration. That is what the people of this country will see. All the while that this nominally fair trial is being held, these forces will be at work, and these forces are very confident they can succeed.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: (Resuming) :	Mr. Speaker, I had reviewed some of the methods adopted by the leader of the Government, the members of the Government, and members supporting the Government in connection with their advocacy of railway and other policies. Let it not be understood that I have exhausted all ammunition in that connection-I have only commenced. The list is a numerous one whether on the subject of railways, whether on the subject of the tariff, whether on the subject of any other of the questions that they brought to the front
The Address

throughout the land in the places and from the angles that they thought would pay. On all of them every possible phase of opinion was by some one of them held. I am in a position, and would undertake now, to name a supporter of the Government who was elected because he took any certain view and had that view accepted: and I would, at the same time, be prepared to name another supporter of the Government-very probably a member of the Government-who was elected because he preached exactly the opposite.
Something is said in the Speech on the subject of wider [markets for our products. I think there is more said about it in the Speech than we will hear of during the course of the session. It is said there, also, for the benefit of the farmers of our country, that there ought to be more diversification, there ought to be better methods of culture, and there ought to be better methods of grading; but I am sure those of us on this side of the House, of whatever party, could not help but note that one subject that is of moment-a subject indeed that has earned a position of great importance, particularly in our western country-is entirely ignored. There is indeed a member of the Government elected on the solemn pledge to re-establish the Wheat Board in this country. I refer to the Minister of Agriculture. There are other members who contested on their behalf and members sitting to my left who advocated that policy. The Government is in power and is responsible. For myself I took a stand on that question that I do not think anyone had any difficulty in comprehending. I did not believe in the re-establishment of the Wheat Board as a monopolistic body, I did not believe that the conditions prevailing in the world markets to-day were such as to justify or demand that step; but I did believe that the time had come, when better marketing facilities should be given, and I stated to the people of Western Canada that if returned to power those facilities would be provided by the establishment of a board by the Government which would be prepared to handle all the grains of our country that the producers of those grains chose to commit to its charge, and would handle those grains by the methods, and with adequate powers,-save monopolistic power,-such as had the Wheat Board that handled their wheat in 1919-20. There was no misapprehension as to the meaning of my statement. Of course it would not have 
done for the opponents of myself and the then Government to have concurred-that might possibly have helped us. There were those who complained, and complained bitterly that the Government had done much while in office without resorting to a general election, and that is quite true. But those who had complained that we took great and important steps, without the mandate of the people, expressed by a general election, found it necessary in this instance to get on exactly opposite ground, and to say that because I asked the mandate of the people I was playing politics and was not sincere. However, they succeeded in doing their part in preventing the establishment of that board by that course of conduct.
There is, however, a member of the present Government who expressed himself most definitely, who issued his manifesto in print and resorted to the public press regardless of expense-and I am sorry to say in some cases regardless of veracity. He is now in power and able to give effect to his views. Is he going to do so? I have heard-I may be wrongly informed; I did not see it in the press myself-that he takes the ground that those promises were made with the understanding that he would be a private member of Parliament and are not applicable now that he is a member of the Government. But the hon. member is in a rather difficult position in that regard because concomitantly with the pledge that he would put into effect this platform, he also described himself as the future Minister of Agriculture. What is his position to-day? Is he prepared now to fulfil the pledges he made to the people of Regina? What is the policy of the Government? It is worth while, apparently, to tell Parliament what is to be done on subjects that require no legislation, and no change of policy at all, but it is not worth while to tell Parliament what the Government proposes to do on the subject of the marketing of the grain of this country? Is the Government going to let this session go by without any action? If it does it will be too late for 1922; if it does there will be no relief for the grain growers this coming year; if it does there will be many in our western land who will have a very different opinion of the present Minister of Agriculture from that previously held owing to declarations by himself and by the propagandists behind him.
There is a question that I would like to put to the Administration:

The Address
Where have the advances been made with a view to securing what they describe as wider markets? We see in the press-though we do not see it in the Speech from the Throne-the announcement that advances have been made to the United States of America; that the Minister of Finance made another trip down to Washington in the supposed belief that he would achieve some practical result in this respect. We are also told that, as well, efforts have been made to establish reciprocal relations with Australia. Apparently the Goverment have in mind-[DOT] but I must say that in my own judgment it is only apparently as far as one of those countries goes-the making of a reciprocity pact, one with the United States and another with Australia. As far as the United States are concerned, I expressed the fear that the desire was only apparent. I believe on the part of most members of the Government, and I am inclined to believe on the part of the preponderating element of the Government, the only purpose was a mere gesture, knowing full well its futility, in order to see if they could lure behind them, without the reward of office, the honourable gentlemen who sit to my left.
In so far as that subject is concerned, my position has been well known for years. I do not believe advantage can be gained for Canada, I do not believe advantage can be gained for any country, only a fraction the size of its neighbour, the competitor of that neighbour in every field of its enterprise, by tying itself to a trade treaty with that neighbour. Reciprocity with a country which is not a producer in surplus of our products is something that should be sought for and should be gained, if at all possible; that is something which would be of advantage to both countries. Reciprocity with Australia is something which should be obtained, if we are able to obtain it for Canada. Reciprocity with the West Indies, who produce goods that we do not produce in surplus, who consume what we produce in surplus, is desirable. Reciprocity with a country in that position should be the object of our policy. The late government achieved it with some of these countries. The late government tried to achieve it, and did everything in its power to achieve it, with Australia, and before retirement from office I was instrumental, by interviews with the Prime Minister of Australia, in securing his influence to have inserted in the legislation of that
dominion power to its government to negotiate reciprocity treaties with the other dominions of the Empire. I pressed that upon him. It was inserted and after I returned communications passed with a view to securing practical results. The legislation of the Commonwealth of Australia came into effect only, I think, in the fall, and some time late in the fall, of 1921; consequently the government of that dominion was not able to take action upon it during the life of the late government. I earnestly hope this Government will press for fair terms of reciprocity with that dominion, and I earnestly hope they will meet with success. But Sir, in regard to the United States of America, reciprocity with that country of the nature of that which they achieved, and which the people of this country rejected in 1911, could, I think, lead to no good object for this Dominion, it could, I think, only succeed in tying our hands fiscally, in subordinating us more and more, as years would go on, to the commercial domination of the republic. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that now in opposition I take no different stand from that which I took in office, and that I took no different stand in office from that which I had taken throughout the country, before acquiring the reins of power. In all modesty I venture to suggest that those opposite consider now for the first time an example of that kind.
It is stated now that they are making a powerful effort for the reduction of freight rates. Reduction of freight rates is a vital question in this Dominion. That freight rates must come down is axiomatic, but I had thought that the control of freight rates had been, even by hon. gentlemen opposite, placed in the hands of a railway board, which had been given a judicial status, which had been given ample power, and whose duty it was to do the right thing in this regard. I know that in the late campaign hon. gentlemen, hoping to secure votes thereby, ignored their legislation, ignored the status of the board, played before the electors as if it were the duty of the Government to derogate from its own legislation, the duty of Parliament to derogate therefrom, to invade the domain of a judicial body, and to do what alone a judicial body was empowered to do. I know they sought to raise a wave of prejudice against the Administration by ignoring the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I know, besides that, one member of that Government, not content with

The Address

tJhiaffc offense, went on and sought to curry the favour of his electors by pledging himself to remove the Chairman of that Board. I have not observed in the Speech from the Throne, nor have I observed in any of his post-election utterances a reference to that subject. However things are done sometimes that are not in the Speech from the Throne, and now that the member for Regina (Mr. Motherwell) has fulfilled one, only one, of the pledges he made, namely, the pledge to be Minister of Agriculture, the House will look to see what progress he makes in the fulfilment of the others. Yes, we must have a reduction of freight rates. The Railway Board 'has the subject before it now, and has heard the evidence. If hon. gentlemen feel that the Board is not doing its duty, that it is not discharging the sacred and most vital trust reposed in it by this Parliament, ratified and confirmed by the verdict of this country, then it is the duty of the Administration to act with (reference to the Railway Board. The Government say that they have brought the heads of the two railway systems together. Mighty achievement! Have they not been together every week, every month for years gone by, conferring over this subject and (that? Railway rates were reduced last fall. In the latter pant of the summer the rates on some basic commodities were substantially reduced. Later on a general 10 per cent, reduction took effect. But since the present Government has came in, since the late Government went out, there has been nothing but advertisement on the subject. So far nothing has been done.
What is the composition -of this Administration? We are told it is a Liberal Administration, that there is nothing in the way of compromise in if. All sections, all corners, all elements are of a pure and undefiled Liberalistic type. Well, according not only to the press, but according to hon. members of this House, that is the case through no fault of the Prime Minister (Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King). I know it is in his mind at the present time that he preceded the elections by loud denunciations of coalition. I know that be depicted the extravagances, the evils and the compromises that coalition engendered, and declared time and again that the country was sick of coalition and that he would have nothing to do therewith. Speaking at North Bay on the 1st of December last he stated:
The country is sick unto death of coalition with their log rolling and expensive attempts to satisfy this party and the other.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: "Hear, hear," say hon. gentlemen behind him. We will wait for the "hear, hear," when we see the other side of the picture as presented by the present leader of the Government. When we come to actions, very often the colour is wholly different than when we are in the realm of promises. That, however, was not the only place. Speaking at Newmarket on the 20th Of January-this wa's after the election-he declared himself as against coalitions;'but before, at Saskatoon and in many other points in Western Canada, he warned the Progressives that unless they supported him before the election, they need look for no favours at his hands, nor for any share in the government afterwards.
As for what took place, the country is not yet advised by the leader Of the Government. I am not one of those who would argue that it is the duty of the leader of a government, elected as the head of a party, to disclose the invitations, to disclose the negotiations, if you will, he may have had with one of his followers, one elected with him, bne supporting him in his campaign, as to admission to Ms Government. I am aware that I was held responsible for disclosure of even such negotiations as that. I will make no such claim with respect to any leader of a government; it is not proper, it is not right. But when a leader of a government sets about to negotiate with a leader of another party not elected on his platform, not supporting Mm in Ms campaign, not one of his own party at all, the leader of a wholly separate grou-p, a wthblly separate party, then it has always been the practice and it is the duty of the leader of the Government to make known to Parliament and to thb country what those negotiations were, what the offer was, and all the details thereof.
That duty the leader of the Government has not yet performed.
It was possible that he approached the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), the leader of the Progressive party, and invited Mm to desert the Progressive forces, to abandon his party as a separate organization and entity, and to come over and join the party of which the Prime Minister is the head. That was one course which he might have adopted. Another course that he might have adopted was to have gone to the leader of the Progressive Party and ask to negotiate on a coalition basis for the joining of their forces and arriving at a

The Address
common line of policy. Coalition is one thing; abandonment of party and alignment with another is a wholly different thing. Those are the only two courses, and what we deisire to know, what Parliament has a right to know, what Parliament cannot be denied, is which of those two courses was adopted. Does anybody opposite know which course was followed? Do hon. members for Montreal know which course was followed? Do they know which course was prevented? Do they know what were the terms given to the missionary of the hon. gentleman who proceeded to the city of Winnipeg to lay them before the leader of the Progressive party? Do his following in this House know what those terms we're?


Mr. DUFF:: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: They certainly do. Who is the hon. member who knows? Speak out. Since the Gordian knot was cut, not by the leader of the Government, but by the master of the Government who sits to hlte left, since the banns were forbidden by him-


Mr. MARTELL:: You are the King maker.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon. member mean by that?


Lewis Herbert Martell: You say the banns were forbidden by the hon. member. You have made him Prime Minister and you have made the hon. member a member of the administration by your autocratic actions.


Arthur Meighen: I have been charged with autocracy; I have been Charged with much that is wrong; but I have never yet been Charged by a chagrined and disappointed country, nor even by the Prime Minister himself, with having made him.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Your record has made him Prime Minister, apart from 'his ability.


Arthur Meighen: It is true that since the contest, since the banns were forbidden, the Prime Minister has made reference to the negotiations, but the attenuated character of his utterances is very marked indeed. He stated, speaking in Quebec, that he had invited the Hon. Mr. Crerar, leader of the Progressive party, to come into his Government on one condition and one only.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my right hon. friend? Would my right hon. friend read any remarks of mine in which I mentioned Mr. Crerar's name?
3i


Arthur Meighen: When my hon. friend was speaking at Newmarket on the 19th January, the following assertion was made. If it did not refer to the leader of the Progressive party, it would be interesting indeed to know to whom it referred.
Over and over again, I have said that the Progressive party was a sort of advanced Liberal group. I decided I would be true to what I said in that regard and I made known to Progressive leaders that I was prepared to take into my Cabinet representatives of the Progressive party on one condition, that they come into a Liberal Cabinet.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Did that refer to the leader of the Progressive party, or did it not? I do not know what the purport of the Prime Minister's interruption was.
The explanation given was that he invited Progressive leaders to join his Government, but to join it "as a Liberal Government"-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I hope the Progressives will note the enthusiasm with which that Quotation is received by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I hope as well that hon. gentlemen opposite will note the coolness with which it is received in the Progressive party. That is to say that they desert the party, that the leader deserts the party that he led into the contest, abandon it and join this Government as a Liberal Government. That is one course that might have been followed. Do hon gentlemen think that was the course that was followed? Apparently, a few minutes ago there were some hon. gentlemen who would like to proclaim that they did think so. I know they would desire that that was the course followed, but I am afraid we cannot accept it unless we impugn the honour and the word of an hon. member of this house. We have had no version of those transactions from the leader of the Progressive party himself. I think we should have had a version from both leaders. When in 1917, the then leader of the Government, Sir Robert Borden, approached the leader of the Opposition of that day with a view to coalition, the negotiations between the two were embodied, under the joint supervision of both, in written documents !whieh immediately afterwards were given to the country, and indeed were later placed upon the pages of Hansard.
This country was advised fully of the negotiations. But how different to-day at the hands of him who never tires of pro-
The Address

testing about the rights of Parliament- who never ceases so to protest save to violate those rights himself. Yes, he said, I adopted the first way, I only asked him to leave his party and join us.
But we did get an insight into the negotiations later, and, I am bound to say, if my judgment is of any value at all to lion, members, a pretty faithful insight. The present hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gardiner), speaking on the 15th day of January last at the city of Calgary before the United Farmers of Alberta in convention assembled, lis reported in a Canadian Press despatch as follows-and if this report is in any sense incorrect, I would be glad indeed to have it corrected by any hon. gentleman here, particularly by the hon. member for Medicine Hat:
Mr. Crerar stated, he said, that there were two sections of the Liberal party,-
I have heard that belief expressed before. -one progressive and the other autocratic-
Think of it!
-but that the larger portion was progressive. The position, he said, was that if they allowed the Progressive party to take the place of the Opposition, the autocratic members would seek to take control of the progessive section of the Liberal party, and that it was up to the progressive farmer members to see that that did not occur.
These are the words reported by the present hon. member for Medicine Hat as spoken by the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar) at Saskatoon, for be it remembered that after the terms of the present leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) were laid before the leader of the Progressive party through ibis missionary to Winnipeg, that leader *thought it worth while to call together his followers at the city of Saskatoon and to take their opinion of the suggestions made and of the terms offered by the leader of the Government. Does any man who knows the hon. member for Marquette imagine that he would call his followers together at Saskatoon in order to put before them the suggestion that he should abandon them and go over to the Liberal party? Then the report of the hon. member for Medicine Hat as to this Saskatoon conference goes on as follows:
Mr. Crerar therefore proposed that a coalition arrangement-
Remember, a coalition arrangement.
-should be effected between the progressive Liberals and the Farmers, and a resolution was [DOT]offered embodying the arrangement, but atten- .
tion was called to the fact that the Alberta delegate, Mr. Gardiner, had not expressed his opinion.
Then Mr. Gardiner's opinion in antagonism to the suggestion of the resolution is recited. The hon. member for Medicine Hat goes on to say:
There was no question in my mind but that Mr. Crerar was there for the purpose of forming a coalition of the Progressives with the Liberal party.
A much more detailed, a much more understandable, and infinitely more creditable account of the proceedings than that contained in the mere assertion that all the leaders of the Progressive party were asked to do was to leave the party they were leading and come over to the Liberal fold as members of the Liberal government.
Now, let us have the facts as between these two versions. On the one hand is the assertion of the Prime Minister; on the other are not only the assertion but the detailed revelations of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, and as well the inference, naturally arising in the minds of reasonable men, that any such naked proposal as that declared to have been made by the present leader of the Government would never be such as would warrant the leader of the Progressive party calling his followers together, even to suggest to them that it be accepted. The country should know what was offered. What were the articles of policy that were offered to the Progressive party as the terms of coalition? What was to be the membership of the Government? What were the inducements laid before hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party that as a party would warrant them in taking such action as this?
I can not leave the subject without commenting that the resolution passed by those assembled at Saskatoon, according to this report, was to the effect:
That the leaders of the Progressives, especially Mr. Crerar,-
Those words " especially Mr. Crerar," apparently were struck out before the motion was put.
That the leaders of the Progressives were tc be at liberty to do so that is go in on a Coalitior basis but "on their own responsibility."
I am somewhat mystified as to what the effect of such a resolution would be. Would "tacit consent" be given to the formation of a coalition provided the leaders proceeding to do so " on their own responsibility?".

The Address


Mr. CRERAR:: I am not at all clear what my right hon. friend is quoting from. Will be kindly inform me?


Arthur Meighen: As I stated, I am
quoting from a Canadian Press despatch from Calgary the statement made there by the present hon. member for Medicine Hat as to the occurrences that took place in the city of Saskatoon on the occasion when the hon. member for Marquette met his followers there.
So we will expect to-night when the leader of the Government speaks that he will for the first time take us into his confidence and frankly and fairly tell us what the terms of those negotiations were, whether he only offered the hon. member for Marquette and the other Progressive leaders inducements to come over to his party and enter his Government as members of his party, or whether on the other hand he did what the hon. member for Medicine Hat in detail declares he did, and what all the circumstances of the case would lead us to believe was actually the fact-whether he offered terms for a coalition of another party with his own in order that he might have the numerical strength he desires for the conduct of affairs in this House.
Now, I have passed from one article to the other as the subject is remotely referred to in this Speech from the Throne. There is not enough of legislation proposed in this document to occupy much of the time of Parliament. There is not indeed enough foreshadowed in this Speech from the Throne to cover as much work as the late Government, when they were in office and when immense work had to be done, disposed of in a day or at most in a week. All that is here foreshadowed can be dealt with in a very short time indeed.
Oh!	I note one omission. I wonder
if it has not occurred to hon. members. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is no announcement whatever in the Speech from the Throne that responsible Government has been restored in Canada; no declaration to an anxious public that our emaciated and mutilated constitution has been resurrected and rehabilitated to its pristine integrity? Why, even the hon. member for North Winnipeg was impressed by the protestations of the present Prime Minister in the election contest on that subject. Look, he says, at the Speech from the Throne. Are we not actually told that the treaties into which Canada has entered at Washington are going to
be submitted to Parliament? What a concession to democracy! What a vindication of Parliamentary practice! What a restoration of the rights of the people! Well, were treaties never brought to Parliament before for ratification? Were treaties ever accepted, save only when there was no possible way of avoiding it and in cases of virtually no consequence, except after those treaties were brought before this Parliament and ratified? The late government always did it. But the member for North Winnipeg says: Order in Council government is gone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: Order in Council government is gone; "Hear, hear" say hon. gentlemen opposite. Will the hon. gentleman tell us when he speaks how many Orders in Council he has passed since he attained office two months ago? Will he tell us anything his Government has done save by Order in Council? Does the hon. gentleman have in his mind Orders in Council passed by the late administration in unnecessary anticipation of the will of Parliament, subject to ratification-orders that he believes should not have been passed? Let him name one and I will undertake now-yes, if he will permit me, I will do it before this debate is over, though I have not the right to speak twice -to name him one passed in his two months of office that offends more in that respect than any offence he can even attribute to any Order in Council passed by the late administration. I will undertake to name him Orders in Council that not only unnecessarily transcend the ^powers given this Government by the Parliament of Canada but that in my judgment, transcend even the powers of Parliament itself. The hon. gentleman has laid on the Table some of the Orders in Council that he has passed. He has laid on the Table Orders in Council that do not even pretend to be within the powers of the Government. I am free to say that there come times when a government must, in the discharge of its bounden and inescapable duty, take courses in anticipation of the will of Parliament. This Government has taken those courses, but the most extreme exercise of Order in Council government that this or any Parliament has ever witnessed has been that indulged in by the very gentlemen who sit opposite us now, led by him who made it his boast on every platform-and an easy boast it was; it
The Address

really meant nothing in the world; it was only the text of a sermon at his hands- made it his boast that he was going to abandon Orders in Council and restore responsible government to a waiting people. Yes, my hon. friend is in office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite aware that hon. gentlemen opposite conceive that to have been really the only thing they ever had in mind. I must say their conduct through the campaign made it only too evident that the mere triumph of party was their ultimate ambition. They conceived that to be the whole purpose of politics. No principle can be said to have been decided in the late contest; if so, what was it? I pause for a reply; does anyone penetrate the silence? Was the principle of our railway policy decided? If so, will the hon. Minister of Justice tell us what the verdict was? Was the principle of our tariff policy decided? If so, will the hon. Minister of Agriculture and the hon. Minister of Justice just confer with the hon. Minister of Militia and tell us what the verdict was? No; carrying a campaign on in that way does go to the very roots of responsible government. The course pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite was that of adopting a platform in every constituency-any platform in any constituency moulded to suit what they believed would best appeal to that special district. Following a course of that kind in a campaign puts it above the power of any people to declare their will on any definite subject that comes before them. No; hon. gentlemen are there because, assisted by the influences that I described before the House rose, they suceeded in raising a veritable deluge of misinformation and misrepresentation a deluge that submerged the deliberate judgment of the people of this country. Hon. gentlemen rejoice in glee because of that success. Ah, let them rejoice; but those practices cannot be indulged in without thought of the penalty to come, without rememberance that the day of reckoning is sure to follow. I venture to suggest that as the hours of this session advance, still more as the weeks and months of this Parliament pass by, hon. gentlemen will come very definitely to the conclusion that more and more surely the day of reckoning is at hand. The people of this country, witnessing from every quarter of the Dominion how they have been deceived and how infamously pledges made to them have been broken-[DOT] 
because no matter what this Government does its pledges are bound to be broken- witnessing, I say, how they have been deceived and betrayed, will visit upon the heads of hon.' gentlemen opposite the penalty that they have earned and from which I assure them they shall not escape.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my first word must be one of congratulation to you, Sir, upon having received the unanimous election of this House as its presiding officer. I only re-echo the sentiments we heard expressed on Thursday last when I say that hon. members, irrespective of party, feel confident that you will discharge the great responsibilities and obligations of this important position in a manner worthy of its highest traditions.
May I at once thank my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) for the kind personal words at the beginning of his address. It is a pleasure to me to recall that some twenty-five or thirty years ago we were associated as fellow undergraduates of the same alma mater, and that since then, notwithstanding the severe strain that the differences of public life and opinion sometimes place upon personal relationships, we have continued our friendship unbroken. I reciprocate the good wishes he has expressed in reference to myself; indeed, I will go further than my right hon. friend and say that I hope he may be spared many years to fill the position which he now occupies.
I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, to join with my right hon. friend in the words of congratulation which he extended to the mover (Mr. McMurray) and to the seconder (Mr. Mercier) of the Address. As the right hon. gentleman has said, it is never an easy matter to address Parliament; it is always a difficult matter for one to speak in Parliament for the first time. But when that effort comes at the beginning of a new Parliament, it is indeed under circumstances the most trying and the most difficult with which a new member can possibly be faced. I think that all of us who have had the privilege of hearing the hon. member for North Winnipeg and the hon. member for Westmount-St. Henri this afternoon will feel that they were singularly fortunate in their broad grasp of public questions and in the vision they manifested in presenting their views. They bring to this House not only wide

The Address
information but a high degree of debating ability. In their able addresses they have done great credit to themselves and honour to their respective constituencies.
It is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, at this time, having regard to the motion for an Address to His Excellency, that we should make some reference to the circumstance that not only have we a new Parliament and a new Government, but that we also have in our midst a new Governor-General. I am sure that aill the hon. members of this House are glad to 'have this opportunity of welcoming to our Dominion Their Excellencies Lord' and Lady Byrng. We have been singularly fortunate ever since the days of Confederation in having had as the representative of the Crown in Canada illustrious and distinguished statesmen, men distinguished in arms or in politics, who have brought to our new country many of the benefits which come from the larger life and thought of the Old World; but never before have we had a Governor-General whose life and fortunes have been so intimately linked with the lives and fortunes of our own citizens as is the case with the present Governor-General. We welcome him to our country. Perhaps I could not better express what I believe to be the national sentiment than to say that the people and the ministry have the same confidence in His Excellency as a constitutional ruler that our brave soldiers had in him as their general when he led them to victory in the Great War.
I think, Sir, it is also appropriate that we should make mention on this occasion of the recent marriage of Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary. I am sure that the members of this House will be pleased to have conveyed to His Majesty through you, Sir, the Speaker of the House, the congratulations of the Commons of Canada upon the marriage of Her Royal Highness to Lord Lasce'lles, who for some time was on the staff of a previous Governor-General, and is well known in our country. We hope that their marriage will be fraught with great happiness and blessing upon their lives and other lives associated with them.
May I also, Mr. Speaker, join with my right hon. friend in welcoming to this Parliament the lady member who has come to us from Southeast Grey (Miss Agnes C. Macphail). I could not but think that my right hon. friend's remarks would have been still more felicitous had he not been a member of a government which at a previous election denied to a very large proportion of
the women of this country the right of the franchise. It is still more unfortunate that among the women of this country who ware denied that privilege and right was the hon. member for Southeast Grey who is sitting in this House of Commons to-night. My right hon. friend has at last received his answer from the women of this country to the action which disfranchised such a large percentage of their number in the election of 1917.
Mr. Speaker, I turn now to make mention of a regrettable incident that serves to remind us of the passing of time and the brevity of human life. I wish to recall the sad circumstance that even before Parliament was summoned, one of the hon. mem-bers-elect was taken from us within twelve days after the last general election. I refer to the hon. member-elect at that time for Argenteuil, the late Mr. Peter McGibbon. Mr. McGibbon sat in this Parliament with members of the previous House. He was of a retiring disposition and did not take any very actiVe part in the debates, hut he was always faithful in his attendance in the House of Commons and very faithful in the discharge of his duties to his constituents. I know I express the wish of the members assembled here when I say that we desire to convey to the widow of the late Mr. McGibbon our sincere sympathy with her in her bereavement, and with the members of her family as well.
May I come now to some of the remarks of my right hon. friend? Perhaps I should congratulate him on the length of his remarks. He has kept the House for a long time for one who has undergone the strain that he has of late. He does mot seem to have lost his power of utterance in regard to many questions. I was hoping that he would be perhaps a little more chastened than he appeared to be. My hon. friend has a way of speaking which at times savours considerably of bitterness, and I fear that his remarks to-night had just a shade of disappointment in them as well. There were many things he said which under other circumstances I am sure he would have expressed a little more happily. However, I do not wish to dwell upon what to him are painful recollections of the late campaign. I would not refer to them at all except for the circumstance that my right hon. friend took up a good deal of the time of this House in recalling many of the incidents and matters connected with the campaign.
He also found fault with us because certain matters were not
The Address

mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. He said that we should have included mention of - the census, that we should also have included some mention of the return to responsible government. Why, my right hon. friend has only to look across to this side of the House to see that responsible government has come back again in this country. Why should we make mention in the Speech from the Throne of anything so obvious? The election was fought on that issue. My right hon. friend has not yet wakened up to the significance of his own defeat. We on this side of the House who during the last Parliament were on the other side contended that when my right hon. friend held the position of Prime Minister he held it, not as the elected representative of the people, but as one who had usurped the rights of the people. We carried our appeal from this Parliament to the country, and the country supported us in that appeal.
I whs somewhat surprised that my right hon. friend should have made the reference he did to the province of Quebec. As far as I could judge his remarks, their purpose was, if possible, to stir up anew racial strife and differences in this country. That is a very bad beginning for my right hon. friend in the position which he now holds. May I bring this significant fact to the attention of my right hon. friend? If the verdict of the province of Quebec was solidly against him and those who surrounded him in the last election, so was the verdict of six out of the nine provinces of this Dominion. . My right hon. friend tries to attribute his defeat in one province to special reasons. Let me tell him that there was but one main issue in the recent campaign, and it was equally the issue in all the provinces of this Dominion. The people wanted in power a government that would represent the people, and they wanted out of office a government that had usurped the rights of the people. It is perfectly true that in the province of Quebec the following of my right hon. friend was completely obliterated. Every seat in that province was lost to him and carried to this side of the House. But what was true of the province of Quebec was equally true of the province of Nova Scotia. There my hon. friend lost every supporter that he had, and today every member from the province of Nova Scotia is sitting on this side of the House.


William Duff: He deserved to lose them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was
true of the province of Quebec and of the province of Nova Scotia was equally true of the island province, Prince Edward Island. Every single member from the province of Prince Edward Island occupies a seat on this side of the House.
Now I come to the western part of this country. Take the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, and the province of Manitoba; my right hon. friend has not sitting behind him to-day a single member from any one of those provinces. How can he endeavour to stir up strife in this country along racial lines?


Arthur Meighen: How many supporters has the hon. member behind him from those provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say
one word further:	I have spoken of six
provinces out of nine in which my right hon. friend has not a single follower in the present Parliament. Take the remaining three provinces. My right hon. friend, I believe, has behind him at the present time some fifty representatives from the three remaining provinces. Mr. Speaker, if you deduct the number of constituencies that returned him followers by a minority of votes, it will be found that his following is reduced in numbers to a number equal to the number of Cabinet Ministers with whom he went to the country.
Was there ever such a humiliating defeat! Twenty-two followers is all that my right hon. friend has back of him of hon. members who have been returned to the present Parliament by a majority of the votes of their constituencies. Under these circumstances is it not surprising that my right hon. friend finds it difficult to discover what the true significance and meaning of the verdict of the people of this country is?
My right hon. friend made reference to some of the literature issued in the late campaign. He seemed to have a particular fondness for producing documents which carried portraits of one kind or another. I would say to my right hon. friend that he should not take too seriously much of the campaign literature that was issued on any side. I think I need only remind him of one poster that had something to say about a very distinguished public man. This poster asserted that the statesman in question was much needed by Canada; but the country did not think so. My right hon. friend ought to be the last to take too seriously to heart the literature or

The Address
the pictures that appeared in the newspaper press and on the bill boards, during the campaign.
We contended in the last Parliament that the House of Commons was not a representative House, that the Government was an irresponsible and not a responsible one, that my right hon. friend was an unelected and not an elected Prime Minister, and it was with that appeal we addressed the people of this country. To-day we have a Parliament that is representative of the people, to-day we have a Government that in the truest and broadest sense, is responsible to Parliament as well as to the people and I think my right hon. friend may cease to be alarmed as to how the affairs of this country will be carried on during the next few years under these new auspices.
To come now, Mr. Speaker, to some of the concrete matters touched on by my right hon. friend, may I speak first of the question of the return to the western provinces of their natural resources? My right hon. friend said that for ten years past an offei had been made to the western provinces along the lines of the proposal that has recently been made by the present Government. He pointed out a little later, however, that the offer which had been made by the present Administration was not confined to one method of solution only but that an alternative method was also suggested. My right hon. friend spoke about an offer of an arbitration, and seemed to think we on this side should endeavour to settle that question by appointing arbitrators from the different provinces of the Dominion. No one knows better than my right hon. friend himself, that that is the very course that the western provinces have objected to so strongly in the past. There was nothing in my communication to the Premiers of the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and (Saskatchewan which spoke of arbitration. I made a reference to an accounting in matters of financial obligation between these provinces and the Federal Government, but that is a very different thing to an arbitration ,of a character likely to cause embarrassment and that will bring no fruitful results. May I read from the letter which I sent to the Premiers of the different provinces. The apposite paragraph is as follows:
If however, the Government of the Prairie Provinces would not be satisfied with such an arrangement,

That is the one similar to the offer which had previously been made-
-but would prefer an accounting between the Dominion and the Provinces from the beginning, by an independent tribunal, we would not object to such a plan. In any agreement that might be come to along these lines it would be, of course, necessary that adequate provision be made for crediting the provinces with all monc fs received by the Dominion and charging to the Provinces all outlay by the Dominion, directly or indirectly, in relation to the management of the resources. Any award duly made by the tribunal should be binding on both sides. Any sums found to be due by the Dominion to a Province or by a Province to the Dominion might be capitalized and interest adjusted in connection with the annual Provincial subsidy.
Another point to which I would like to draw attention is this: The concluding paragraph of the letter from which I have just read is in the following words:
I need hardly add that of course any arrangement that might be made would be subject to the approval of the Dominion Parliament.
My right hon. friend tried to convey the impression that in some way the Government was prepared to hand over their natural resources to the western provinces and under the arrangement deny to the other provinces of the Dominion any rights that they might have. Nothing can be clearer than what I have just read to show that the proposal the Government has made is one which carries with it the right of every province of this Dominion to have any claims it may have against the western provinces taken into due consideration in any accounting that will be made in the settlement of these natural resources claims.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps I misunderstood the letter. Does my hon. friend mean that when this commission makes its award, on the basis of accounting as he states, that award shall be submitted to Parliament afterwards for its approval?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It need not necessarily be a commission. We have offered the western provinces to meet with their representatives. As a Government we are prepared to discuss with them the return of their natural resources. It may be necessary to go into a strict accounting of all the moneys due by the provinces to the Dominion, or by the Dominion to the provinces. Whether or not it will be necessary to do more than employ expert accountants for that purpose will depend largely on the attitude which the western provinces take. Whatever course may be necessary-and that is a matter for negotiation-to arrive at a final conclusion as to what is just and fair, it must carry
The Address

with it the condition that the arrangement reached must be subject to the approval of this Parliament. This means that every province represented here will have, through its representatives, the right to say whether or not the settlement made is fair and just in the interest of all the provinces of the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: What is the meaning of the words "That the award shall be binding on all parties"?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend and I were trying to settle a difference between us, and we made that difference subject to the finding of some third party, conditional upon that finding being accepted by the representatives assembled here, we would have exactly what I propose now.


Arthur Meighen: It is not final at all. If it is, the word final has no meaning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It reaches a degree of finality that my right hon. friend and his Government were never able to reach. If there is any possibility of getting this question settled-and it is a question that ought to be settled, and settled as quickly as conveniently can be effected-this method which has been proposed would appear to be the most effective and the best.
My right hon. friend made some reference to the question of treaties. He spoke, and I thought rather slightingly, of the remarks of the mover of the Address when my hon. friend from North Winnipeg made reference to the clause of the Speech from the Throne which implies that all treaties should be submitted to the approval of Parliament. My right hon. friend asked: when did his Government not submit its treaties to Parliament? The treaties in question happen to be the recent treaties arising out of the Conference for the Limitation of Armaments at Washington. Whether it was to matters concerning that Conference to which my right hon. friend alluded or not when he said that certain misrepresentations of his attitude had been made during the campaign, I cannot say, but I venture to assert at the present moment, that if it had been left to my right hon. friend to settle the question as to how these treaties were to be finally signed, in all probability our Dominion would have had no representative at that Conference at all. I have here a statement which was made by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Great 
Britain shortly after my right hon. friend returned from the Conference of Premiers. It reads:
As regards the Dominions and India, it was arranged at the recent Imperial Conference that His Majesty's Government should represent the whole Empire at Washington.
That was the position in which the treaty matter was left at the Imperial Conference attended by my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: Are you reading the whole statement? I cannot think that that statement was made in that naked form. If so, I would dispute it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read
my right hon. friend's own statement which is just as naked as the other, and I think he will discover that its meaning is quite apparent. It was during June, July and August that my right hon. friend attended the Conference. On the 18th of October my right hon. friend handed out the following statement to the press of this city:
As the result of recent telegraphic communications between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, it has been arranged that a representative of Canada should be appointed as a member of the delegation which will represent the British Empire at the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments and on Pacific and Far Eastern Questions summoned by the Government of the United States to meet at Washington on November 11th. The Canadian Government have accordingly appointed Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden G.C.M.G. as the representative of Canada for this purpose.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon.
gentleman says "hear, hear," but does he note the date of this particular communication, the 18th October, 1921? It was in June, July and August that my right hon. friend was at the Prime Ministers' Conference. It was between the time my right hon. friend was at the Prime Ministers' Conference in England and the date of his issuing the statement I have just read that the Prime Minister of Great Britain said:
As regards the Dominions and India it was arranged at the recent Imperial Conference that His Majesty's Government should represent the whole Empire at Washington.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to state again, that the hon. gentleman has failed to quote such language from any statement of mine, and I was no party to such an arrangement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me then
say what will be familiar to many hon. members of this House, that after the Imperial Conference the Prime Minis-

The Address
ter of South Africa, General the Right Hon. J. C. Smuts, having read the statement I have just quoted from the Prime Minister of Great Britain in which the latter says that it had been agreed at the Conference that His Majesty's Government would represent the whole Empire at Washington, made the declaration that, so far as South Africa was concerned she did not propose to return to the colonial status, but was going to maintain the status which she had won at the Peace Conference at Paris at the conclusion of the great war, and that South Africa would not be represented by a delegation to be named by the British Government to take its instructions from the British Government but that she would be represented by one of her own delegates acting under instructions from the government of South Africa, representing South Africa as one of the countries belonging to the British Empire, or not be represented at all. If Canada was fortunate enough to be represented at the Conference at Washington by her own representative we have to thank the Prime Minister of South Africa and not the late Prime Minister of our own country for the fact that we had that representation. I might add by way of confirmation of what I have just said, that in a cablegram of October 8th Lord Curzon, British Minister of Foreign Affairs, said bo the British Ambassador at Washington:
We leave to the sole discretion of the United States' Government what powers are to be invited.
He went on to say later:
His Majesty's Government would now prefer to include the Dominion point of view.
So that as regards representation at Washington there seems to have been thpee stages. First the understanding arrived at during the conference of Prime Ministers in which it was apparently agreed that representation at Washington would be by the British delegation appointed by the British Government, receiving its instructions from the British Government and reporting to the British Government, Canada to come in or not to come in according to the decision of the British Government. Then there was the second stage.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order. I have made a statement on the subject to which the hon. member continuously refers, a subject within my own knowledge which he persists in contradicting. He has no
right to do so. I stated I was no party to any such arrangement at the Imperial Conference that Canada should be represented merely by a delegation appointed by the British Government, taking its directions from the British Government, nor was such an arrangement arrived at while I was a member of the Conference. Our negotiations took place in this regard by correspondence, and from the first I insisted that we should name our delegate and that that delegate should take his instructions from us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
desire in any way to contradict my right hon. friend, hut I confess that when the Prime Minister of Great Britain makes a statement which he gives to the entire world, which was accepted in South Africa and which was accepted in Australia as being a correct statement, I find it somewhat difficult not to accept that statement as correct.


Arthur Meighen: I would remind-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: I would remind the hon. gentleman that I was not there to the end of the Conference.


Mr. MACDONALD (Picbou) :: That is a way out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think if my hon. friend is pleading that he was not present, he should not be so emphatic as to what took place.
Mr. MEIGHEN- I am emphatic as to what I was stating.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Arthur Meighen: I am responsible to what I was a party to and only that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what my right hon. friend is responsible for, hut I do know that we prorogued this House in time to ah low him to be present at the proceedings of the Conference, and I am sorry that he has to make the statement that he was not present at one of the most important meetings of the Conference.
May I pass to another matter which my right hon. friend felt somewhat sensitive upon, and that is the statement in the Speech from the Throne in reference to the revision of the Customs Tariff? My right hon. friend, in the course of his remarks,
The Address

repeatedly said to the hon. members of the House that they should not take too seriously what appears in the Speech from the Throne, that probably before the end of the session they would be considerably disappointed. I have here his exact words. In one place he said that the optimism excited in the Speech from the Throne would probably be "greatly depressed" before the session was over, that the Speech from the Throne was apt to be made up in part of forgotten promises and pledges. He referred in his graphic way to the Speech being "an aggregation of the letters of the alphabet". I am not surprised that my right hon. friend has the opinion he has of declarations in the Speech from the Throne, when one considers how he carried out the pledges which were made in the Speech from the Throne as presented to this Parliament last year. May I, for the purposes of making clear the point of view of the present Administration, quote to my right hon. friend the respective paragraphs in the Speeches from the Throne of this year and last year in regard to this important subject of the tariff? The Speech from the Throne of this year as presented by the present Government reads:
You will be invited to consider the expediency of making some changes in the Customs Tariff. While there are details of revision, the consideration of which will require time and care that are not at present available, there are features of the tariff which it is felt may properly be dealt with during the present session.
My right hon. friend characterizes this paragraph as "pallid and barren." Those are the words he applies to the reference in the Speech to the subject of tariff revision. I am quite prepared to admit that the language of that paragraph is not overdrawn. But let me contrast with it the language of the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne of last year which my right hon. friend was responsible for having presented to this House. Here is his reference on the subject of the tariff:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course.
That paragraph may not be pale, pallid, barren; but I much prefer the one to which my right hon. friend has taken exception, 
which means what it says, to a paragraph that proved to be without any meaning and wholly untrue, and that has never been fulfilled in any particular.
My right hon. friend asks: what are the changes that are to be made in the tariff. He knows very well that the occasion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is not a time to discuss tariff changes. I think he may feel well assured that the pledge made will be carried out during the course of the present session, and I think that not only he, but hon. members of this House and the country generally, will rejoice that they have, in the person of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the one man above all others, in this Dominion, in whom the people of Canada, irrespective of party, have the utmost confidence in dealing with financial and tariff matters.
My right hon. friend seemed to be grieved that during the course of the campaign, in touching on tariff matters, I had made use of a little simile which served to describe my attitude in relation to the management of public affairs and to the tariff in particular. He seemed to think that in dealing with these important public matters, I should not have spoken of a chart and compass, and he sought to convey the impression-at least I thought he did- that in some way or another I had resorted, during the course of the campaign, to an attitude which was wholly new, and which was giving me some means of escape from dealing with tariff matters other than that which I had previously taken. He referred to the convention of the summer of 1919 and intimated that at that convention a platform had been drafted to which I was necessarily obligated, and that in some way I was betraying that whole convention, in the recent campaign, in not going forward with that platform in hand and saying that regardless altogether of existing conditions or the language therein contained, I was supporting it exactly as expressed. In order that there may be no doubt as to the position I took at the time of the convention of 1919 in reference to the platform as laid down, let me read the words which I addressed at that time to the assembled delegates. I have in my hand a copy of the proceedings of the Liberal Convention, and at page 199, my right hon. friend will find the following:
I should he unworthy ot any measure of the confidence you have so abundantly bestowed were I not fully conscious of my own

The Address
lack of Parliamentary experience, my own lack of training in public life, my own limitations in a thousand and one directions adequately to meet the obligations of this great duty, this great honour, which you have conferred. I should despair altogether of being able even to attempt to discharge its obligations were it not that I know that one who is called upon to accept the office of leadership must first and foremost be the willing servant of all, and that in seeking in the spirit of service to meet the wishes of those who have chosen him as their leader, he may look for guidance and counsel to the great forces
assembled about him	I hope you will
feel that in seeking to do the work of the Liberal party in the way I believe the Liberal party would wish it to be done, I shall rely upon the counsel of those who are outstanding in the ranks of the party, the Liberal members of the Senate, the Liberals in the House of Commons, the leaders of the party in the several provinces, the representative men who are gathered together here; and that in this way I shall find a compass which will point the direction that ought to be taken, and will point it aright.
If more is needed, that more is to be found in the platform which has been laid down by this Convention. That platform, ladies and gentlemen, is the chart on which is plotted the course desired by the people of the country, as expressed through the voice of the Liberals assembled here. So, with this chart and this compass, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, let us press on from this moment, a great, a united, a mighty force, making ever for new liberty, for wider freedom, for greater righteousness, in the public affairs of this nation; press on, ever more zealous and united, till we have reached the goal where the principles and policies laid down on this historic occasion will have become, through legislation, part of the law of our land.
That was the position which I took on the occasion of being honoured with the leadership of the Liberal party at the convention of 1919. That is the position which I took during the recent campaign, and that is the position which I take at the present time. I look upon these questions of Government, not as questions to be decided by any one man, but as matters requiring the most mature and careful consideration which it is possible for men of many points of view, assembled together, to give to them, and as long as I have the privilege of being entrusted with the responsible position which I at present enjoy, I shall ever look to the able men who are associated with me for the guidance and direction which I need in regard to these all-important public questions.
May I pass on from this subject, because the question of the tariff will come up at an appropriate time and need not be dealt with further at this moment, and speak just for a minute in reference to
the subject of railways which was also alluded to by my right hon. friend? The leader of the Opposition stated that there was no need for having any reference in the Speech from the Throne to the subject of railways because it did not involve legislation. I am sure that if my right hon. friend looks over previous speeches from the Throne with the preparation of which he has had to do, he will find references to many subjects which do not require legislation one way or the other. The reference may not have been necessary on the ground that it did not involve legislation; but it was necessary that the country and Parliament should be informed at the opening of Parliament exactly as to the purpose of the ministry with respect to the National railroads which are in our possession at the present time, and the most appropriate place to make such . a declaration was in the Speech from the Throne. The statement of the Government's position has been made, I think, with sufficient clearness to be intelligible to all hon. members of the House; but I would remind my right hon. friend that the proper person to discuss railway policy is the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy), and I would prefer, until he has had an opportunity of addressing members of the House, to defer saying anything further with respect to the meaning of co-ordination as set forth in the Speech from the Throne. I think the language must be perfectly clear to hon. members. If there is any doubt as to what is in the Government's mind, that doubt will be dispelled by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy) himself.
I cannot however, let pass what my right hon. friend said in reference to the present position of the country and its railways. As I listened to his remarks it seemed to me that they implied that when the Administration of which he was a member took office the country was overburdened with railways, and that that was the reason why we have the serious railway problem we have to-day. If what my right hon. friend says is true, that when the Administration of which he was a member came into office the country was, to use his expression, over-railroaded, I am at a loss to understand how he can defend the extent to which railway construction was carried on after 1911. Let me read from a report which I think he will quickly recognize and not be apt to dispute. I have in my hand the report of the Royal Commission to inquire into Railways and
The Address

Transportation in Canada, made by Sir H. L. Drayton and Mr. W. M. Acworth.
I think the former gentleman is the hon. member who sits to the left of the leader of the Opposition. What does the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) say in that report? To quote from page 10:
In 1901, with a population of 5.371,315, Canada had 18,140 miles of railway in operation ; roughly a mile of railway for every 300 inhabitants. In 1911, the population had increased 34 'per cent to 7,206,643, while the mileage had increased by 40 per cent, to 25,400 miles; a mile of railway to every 284 inhabitants. Since 1911-
Which was the time that the Administration, of which my right hon. friend later became a member, took office,-
Since 1911 the population has, it is understood, not much increased, but the railway mileage open and under construction has grown to 40,584 miles. In other words, Canada has to-day-
That is, 1919.
-taking the present population as 7,500,000, only 185 inhabitants to support each mile of railway.	*
In addition to that statement I have also here the evidence of a gentleman who was called before the Select Standing Committee on Canadian National Railways and Shipping at the last session of Parliament, the evidence of Mr. A. J. Mitchell, one of the directors, and vice-president, of the Board of Management of the Canadian Northern Railway system. At page 107 of the report of that committee the following appears from his evidence:
For the year ending June 30th, 1914, the Canadian Northern Railway system had an operating mileage of 4,563 miles, with gross earnings of $23,781,328. Last year, for 1920, the mileage was 9.788 miles in operation, and the gross earnings were $68,541,393. In other words, there was over double the mileage in 1920 that there was in 1914. To be exact, 5,225 miles were added to the Canadian Northern Railway for operation since June 30th, 1914.
Let my right hon. friend reflect that 1914 was the year the war commenced. Then, if at any time, we should have ceased railway building. He will surely begin to see the extent of the responsibility of his Government in permitting the continued building of railways. We were already over-railroaded, as my right hon. friend says, yet we continued to build to the extent of 5,225 miles. My right hon. friend fails to place responsibility for the railway situation where it properly belongs.
The position we are in to-day is due in large part to this excessive construction 
during a period when construction should have been discontinued altogether. It is due further to the fact that the government which succeeded the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, instead of seeking to carry out in a sympathetic way the large vision which prompted the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, a vision which foresaw a great national highway connecting the waters of the Atlantic with those of the Pacific in a manner which would serve to unite this country, industrially, politically and commercially,-instead of seeking to realize that vision sympathetically, the government of which my right hon. friend was a member did all in its power to make that project a failure.
My right hon. friend had a good deal tc say this afternoon as to the success of government operation depending upon whc was administering national affairs. I could not help thinking that at the time he was speaking of the fulness of his heart and knowledge. He has had to do with the administration of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the other railways and he knows, perhaps better than anyone else in Canada, how a road can be made a failure if you do not wish to make it a success. So far as this Administration is concerned, I will not for one moment accept any of the insinuations or suspicions of my right hon. friend in regard to its intentions in administering the national railroads. We intend to give government ownership of the National system, which as the Speech from the Throne states now extends through all the provinces, the fairest trial under auspices the most favourable it is possible for a government to secure. We go into it with all sincerity and in the hope that we may make it a success. I will say with perfect candour that there are hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, as I know there are hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, who doubt very much whether public ownership can be made the success which private ownership might. But there are others who believe that it can be made a success, and so far as it is possible for this Government to demonstrate what can be done under government ownership, it is our intention to see that it is done.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend had something to say in regard to the marketing of wheat. He took exception tc the fact that there was no mention in the the Speech from the Throne of the method which the Government proposed to adopt as respects marketing facilities for this

The Address
great commodity of Western Canada. If there is an omission in the Speech in that particular, it has been made designedly. I think I am right when I say that the right hon. the leader of the Opposition has one view, which he has expressed, as to the way in which wheat should be marketed, but that view does not accord with the view which my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) holds. I think there are others who hold yet another view. If I am correct, there are three main bodies of opinion a-s to the manner in which the marketing of wheat may best be carried on. The first may be described as the compulsory wheat board method, such as we had in Canada in 1919. The second is the voluntary wheat board method, such as my right hon. friend advocated during the campaign. The third is the farmers' own co-operative method carried on by the cooperative companies, such as the United Grain Growers, of which the hon. member for Marquette is president, and the Saskatchewan Co-operative Company, they holding the view that these co-operative companies should handle the crop themselves. Here are three bodies of opinion, each of which is entitled to consideration. The Government is anxious in this matter to do the best it can to serve the interests of Western Canada. Under the circumstances, is it possible to devise a better method of ascertaining what is likely to be of most service to those interests than that this question should, during the present session, be referred to the Select Standing Committee of Agriculture, with power to go carefully into the whole matter and report to the House as to which if any of the three methods it would recommend, or what course it thinks can be taken with most advantage? I may say that the Government has decided that that course will be adopted with respect to this important question. I hope that on that committee we shall have representatives from all groups in this House so that the policy ultimately adopted will be based upon the best information that can be obtained.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have touched on most of the points which my right hon. friend dealt with in the course of his remarks. He made some reference to the reduction of freight rates, but I think I will leave that matter also until my colleague the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) has occasion to speak on the subject. I might point out, however, that while it is perfectly true, as the leader of the Opposition has said, that the Board
of Railway Commissioners has power to regulate the railway rates, there is nothing which precludes the Administration from using its influence to bring together the different railway companies with a view to their taking, of their own accord, a course which should result in a reduction of freight rates on basic commodities in the best interests of all parties concerned. That step has already been taken and we hope that the railway companies will see the wisdom of speedily bringing about a reduction on basic articles. If it is not successful, then it will be for Parliament to consider other methods which will, perhaps, be more effective.
My right hon. friend concluded his address by making reference at considerable length to negotiations that took place prior to the formation of the present Administration. A little earlier in the course of his remarks he taunted me with having given a somewhat broad interpretation to the word " Liberalism indeed, he went so far as to say that I had made the word almost synonymous with "political dishonesty." Well, may I say to my right hon. friend that at least I have never been ashamed of the name of the party with which I have been connected. When my right hon. friend was in power in a previous Administration, it was first of all, I think, the "Liberal-Conservative" Administration. That name became questionable, and my right hon. friend was one of those who helped to give the new Administration the name of "Unionist." That name lasted for a short while, but it became even worse, and when mr right hon. friend's predecessor went out of office, my hon. friend took it upon himself to insist that the party should have a new name and gave it the name " National Liberal and Conservative "-whatever	that meant.
That was his first act in becoming Leader of the Government. I nov understand that my right hon. friend's party has just held another caucus, and that this time he has insisted on another change. He calls his party once more "Liberal-Conservative." Well, I do not know what interpretation may be placed upon the word, "Liberal" in that case, but if I am to judge the meaning of the word by hon. gentlemen who surround my right hon. friend at the present moment, for my part, I should never stretch the word " Liberal " sufficiently to include any of them. Speaking of "political dishonesty," if he wishes to avoid the charge, I think my right hon. friend should come right out
The Address

and call his following what it is-"Tory"; a Tory administration of the old type. May I suggest to my right hon. friend that when he is criticising others in the language they use he should be a little more careful. If there is one gentleman more than another in this country who is apt to use extreme and at times offensive phrases, it is my right hon. friend.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the negotiations which preceded the formation of the Government, that I have nothing to conceal; indeed, I am only too happy to have opportunity to repeat on the floor of the House what I have already said publicly. I do not know that there is any obligation upon the leader of a Government to explain any of the negotiations relating to the formation of a ministry; on the other hand, I am quite willing, if only to satisfy the curiosity of my right hon. friend, to give him the fullest and most candid account.
When I was called upon to take the responsible step of forming a government, I naturally, Mr. Speaker, looked over the situation as it presented itself as a result of the elections. I saw that in three of the western provinces the representation in this Parliament was for the most part Progressive, with two or three exceptions it was exclusively such. During the campaign I heard, and I read also in a number of papers, declarations made by candidates to the effect that as Progressives they were really Liberals ; that their point of view was a Liberal point of view. I was perfectly sincere when I said, and I repeat it here, that I believe many of the hon. members who belong to the Progressive Party regard themselves, if you like, as Progressive Liberals. May I say that in so far as the word " Progressive " indicates an attitude, my hon. friends of the Progressive party will find the present Government wholly in sympathy with them. The word "Liberal," to my mind, has always stood and will ever stand for progress. To the extent to which my Progressive friends use the word " Progressive " as indicating an attitude to be taken toward questions which come before Parliament for discussion; to the extent to which that word is synonymous with " Liberal," they will find this Government wholl ' in sympathy with them. So far as the word may have any meaning which relates it to Class, there may be a difference between us; because Liberalism implies a point of view which embraces not merely one class but is broad enough to include representatives of 
all Classes Who take a like attitude upon public questions. The fact which confronted me when I was forming the Government was the circumstance I have just mentioned, that in three of the provinces, the representation was almost exclusively Progressive representation. To my mind there can be nothing more unfortunate for this Dominion than that any part of it should have cause to feel that it is not to have its voice in the councils of the country. I feel that the whole purpose of Confederation itself would be menaced if any great body of opinion, any considerable section of this Dominion of Canada, should have reason to think that it was without due representation in the shaping of national policies and in the carrying on of our public affairs. I was anxious,therefore, that so far as the Government I was endeavoring to form was concerned, Western Canada would never be able to say that the Liberal Party adopted other than a generous attitude toward those who opposed some of its followers. So, Mr. Speaker, I made it known to gentlemen who, I believed, were representative of Progressive thought and opinion that I was prepared to consider taking into the Government members of the Progressive Party who enjoyed its confidence; but I made it quite plain that I would1 only consider that representation on the basis of its coming into a Liberal Administration. I was quite sincere When I said during the course of the campaign that I thought coalitions were a mistake. We have only to recall the Government of which my hon. friend was a member to realize how costly coalitions are, to realize how full of compromise and how inefficient they are. What the country needs most, and I believe British parliamentary practice has gone far to prove it, is an administration sufficiently of one mind and sufficiently strong to be able to adopt policies of great national importance and carry them through in a way that will help to make for good and strong government in the country. That was the position which I took in regard to our western friends in the formation of the Government. I take that position to-day and I will always take it as long as I have to do with the affairs of the government in this country. Any body of opinion in Canada which represents itself as Liberal will be entitled to a place in the councils of this country, but it must be for gentlemen themselves to say whether or not they wish to have their views regarded as Liberal, or as of some other point of view. All I wish to

Grain Commission
make plain at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is this: If we are to have a happy, a united and prosperous Canada, we must seek at all times to give, so far as it may be possible, representation to kindred bodies of opinion in the work of the administration of our country. I am sorry that we have not in the Government at the present moment representation from that large Western group. I say it in perfect frankness, and I say it simply because I feel that the more united those of us are who are opposed to Toryism, the more likely wt are to secure the enactment of Liberal policies. But what we have been unable to do as a Government, I hope we shall be able successfully to do in this Parliament. In other words, I hope that it will be possible for this administration to make it plain to hon. members that the Cabinet regards itself not as some group of supermen imposing their will upon the House of Commons, but as a committee of the House of Commons, responsible to the House of Commons, anxious to get the freest and fullest discussion of all public questions, and willing to carry out the will and the wish of the House of Commons to the best of their ability.
May I say, and with this I wish to conclude, that I agree with the hon. mover of the Address (Mr. McMurray) that the people of this country are greatly indebted to the sister province of Quebec for having through one of its constituencies afforded a place in this Parliament and in the Government, to a gentleman who for many years held the position of Prime Minister of the province of Alberta. I think my friends from Alberta sitting opposite to me will agree that he enjoyed the confidence of the people of that province as few men have ever enjoyed it, also that, notwithstanding circumstances which limited followers of the Government so far as Western Canada is concerned to the numbers they are, that in the choice as Minister of Agriculture of this Dominion, of my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Motherwell), -who for thirteen years was Minister of Agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan, and in the choice of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who, as I have just mentioned, was for many years the Premier of the sister province of Alberta, western opinion is represented at the council board and there is reason to feel that full consideration will be given at all times to the needs and to the rightful aspirations of the Western provinces.
We have a great country, but we can only keep it great as we have all parts united and contented. That; Mr. Speaker, above all else will be the aim of the present Administration, to see that every shade of opinion, other than that to which we are diametrically opposed, every shade of Liberal and Progressive thought is duly considered in the shaping of the policies of the Government and in the carrying out of those policies. In that way I believe, now that we have a new Parliament and a new Government, we may look forward to a new era of prosperity, contentment and happiness and, above all, of unity in our Dominion.
On the motion of Mr. Crerar the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
Tuesday, March 14, 1922.