1926-03-02

OBJECTIONABLE PRINTED MATTER

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton):: I desire to direct the attention of the Acting Postmaster General to the following communication which I have received and which speaks for itself:
League oj Nations

Don't you think that something should be done to prevent publications such as the Evening Graphic, the Daily Mirror and the Detroit Times coming into Canada? I am informed that the sale of the Miaror in Hamilton is no less than 5,000 copies daily, and they charge two cents for the dirty sheet. Spend a few minutes in looking over these publications. All publishers of decent Canadian newspapers would be glad to have such salacious sheets suppressed.
Will the Acting Postmaster General be good enough to look into this matter and see whether something cannot be done to suppress this obscene literature?
Hon. GEORGE H. DOIVIN (Minister of Customs): We have already received several complaints concerning the Daily Mirror. These complaints have been investigated by our censor and an order goes from the department this afternoon banning this newspaper in Canada. As regards the others, an investigation will be made and if the censor deems it advisable the same action will be taken.



RUMOURED REDUCTION IN AUTOMOBILE DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
wish to lay before the government a short telegram which I have received with reference to the tariff on automobiles. I realize of course that no statement can be made on the matter at this stage but I want to bring it to the attention of the government. The telegram reads:
Rumours of reduction in tariff on automobiles seriously hindering sales here. Our members anxious to learn if any truth in report and desire to point out disastrous effect if dealers are not protected on cars in stock and if tariff is reduced on used cars allowing Americans to flood market.
This telegram is dated Fort William, March 1, and is signed by 0. G. Sturdy, secretary, Lakes Head Motor Trades Association. I simply submit it to the government for consideration at the proper time.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: Next week there is to be a meeting of the council of the League of Nations at Geneva and a special meeting of the assembly for the purpose of making Germany a permanent member of the council of the league. At present the council consists of four permanent members and six other members selected by the assembly from time to time. I see by the press that an effort may be made at this meeting in Geneva to further increase the permanent members of the council, but this cannot be
fMr. New-bum.]
done without the approval of the assembly. I should like to ask the acting head of the government the names of the delegates who will represent Canada on this occasion, whether any, and if so, what instructions have been given them regarding the admission ot Germany to the council and also regarding the question of further increasing the permanent members of the council in case it comes up for discussion in the assembly.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Leader of the House):: As my hon. friend has said, the
Secretary General of the League of Nations has requested the various members of the league to send delegates to a special meeting of the assembly to be held on March 8 for the purpose of considering the request of Germany for admission to the council of the league. The Canadian delegates are Senator Dandurand, leader in the Senate, who was president of the assembly last fall, the High Commissioner for Canada in London and the Commissioner for Canada in Paris, with Dr. Riddell, who is already in Geneva, as a substitute. It seems to be the general opinion everywhere that Germany should be admitted as a member of the league, and even given a seat on the council. As my hon. friend has said, proposals have been made for the appointment, as permanent members of the council, of two or three other nations, Spain, Brazil and Poland having been suggested. The matter was discussed with Senator Dandurand prior to his departure for Geneva, but of course whatever may be my opinion or the opinion of other hon. members it is preferable that the formal applications of these nations be placed before the assembly before any private views are expressed in regard to them. It is understood that communications will be exchanged between our representatives there and this government, but the'matter of making public all the information that may come to the government is, I think, somewhat delicate. I have noticed, as hon. gentlemen may have noticed also, that both in England and in France the government have declined to state their opinion on the matter at the present time. My hon. friend may be sure that the views expressed in Canada by those who are especially interested in questions appertaining to the League of Nations, the views of such organizations, for example, as the League of Nations Association, as well as of private individuals, will be given the most serious consideration. If I were free I might say that my opinion coincides with that of my hon. friend, but I am not free to say so. However, everything will be submitted to the delegates there and the views of Canada will be represented.

Excessive Moisture in Grain



EXCESSIVE MOISTURE IN WESTERN GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: On
January 22 I drew the attention of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce to the fact that owing to congestion in the elevator at Fort William a considerable quantity of damp grain was likely to spoil. I want to ask now what special measures have been adopted by the department to prevent loss of western gyain because of excessive moisture, and what progress has been made.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This morning my hon.
friend advised me that he would ask this question, so that I am in a position to put on Hansard a statement of the measures which the government have taken to take care of damp and tough grain in elevators and in transit. After my hon. friend on January 22 had directed our attention to the serious situation on account of the large amount of tough and damp grain on hand, and following the statement I then made, I obtained a report from the chairman of the grain commission, dated January 28, who advised me that a statement prepared that day showed that of 5,000 cars in the yards at the head of the lakes the Canadian Pacific Railway had 87 with damp and 1,177 with tough grain; and the Canadian National 170 with damp and 923 with tough grain. He further advised me that the terminal elevators were picking [DOT]out the damp cars billed to them so that they might be taken in and dried. He assured me that every effort was being made to take care of tough and damp grain so as to minimize the danger of loss.
Following that, on February 20, the secretary of the grain commission, in a letter directed to the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, advised the department on the situation. In order that the House and the country may have the benefit of this information, I crave indulgence to place the letter on Hansard:
Dear Sir:
Tough and Damp Grain
Owing to the large amount of tough and damp grain now in store in public and private elevators throughout the western grain inspection division, as well as considerable quantities in transit railway yards, country elevators and in farmers' hands, the board had several meetings with interested parties regarding the drying of this grain.
The drying facilities throughout the western inspection division are practically all operating to their full capacity in the drying of damp grain, with the result that most of the damp grain now in store in the elevators will be dried before the opening of navigation.
Under the provisions of the tariff governing the public terminal elevators operating in the western inspection division, tough grain is received from November 1 to April 1 under the same terms and conditions applying to straight grade grains. Such tough grain, therefore, as may be in store at the present time-must be allowed to remain in store in its present, condition, unless it should become heated, in which event sections of the act relating to out-of-condition* grain (130 to 139) must be complied with.
After reviewing the whole situation very carefully the board is of the opinion that all tough and damp grain now in store in the elevators can be taken care of, providing the drying of same is proceeded with immediately, the elevators equipped with drying facilities utilizing same to their full capacity, but there is a danger of the grain now in box cars, both in transit and in railway yards, and that yet to be marketed, going out of condition, if we should experience an early spring.
At the present time the elevators have sufficient tough and damp grain in store to keep their drying facilities working to full capacity continuously from March 1 to the opening of navigation.
The only way in which the drying facilities can be used to the best advantage is to allow the public and private elevators to dry, with the least possible delay, all tough 3 northern and lower grades of wheat now in store, and in addition all tough, coarse grains as may be advisable, so that these facilities will be available at the opening of navigation to take care of grain which is in danger of going out of condition and which cannot be unloaded at the present time.
The board's reason for recommending the drying of only 3 northern and lower grades of wheat is that under section 96 of the Canada Grain Act, the last paragraph under the heading, "Spring Wheat", 3 northern and lower grades which may be dried, may be graded in such regular grades as the inspector determines, whereas, in the drying of 1 and 2 northern, the inspector, in his discretion, issues a certificate for dried 1 or 2 northern, which only commands the price of 3 northern wheat.
Then, on the recommendation of the Board of Grain Commissioners, this order in council was passed on February 26:
The following regulations made by the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, pursuant to sections 20, 87 and 140 of the Canada Grain Act, chapter 33, 15-16 George V, are hereby approved:
(1)	All public and private elevators in the western grain inspection division, except those public and private elevators situated at Vancouver, shall proceed to dry, according to the drying facilities in the elevators in which such grain may be stored, all tough 3 northern and lower grades of tough wheat, and, in addition, all tough, coarse grains as may be advisable.
(2)	On all tough grain dried, the elevator^ shall be entitled to deduct 4 per cent from the amount as shown on the outstanding warehouse receipt to cover loss in drying.
(3) This order in council shall be effective the Jirst day of March, 1926, and shall be subject to such regulations as the board may provide under subsection 1 of section 87 of the Canada Grain Act, to ensure the proper carrying out of this order.
(4) The Board of Grain Commissioners, owing to the urgency of the situation, is empowered to make regulations for the handling of such tough and damp grain, under the provisions of section 87, effective on the publication of such regulations, without requiring to submit such regulations for the approval of the Governor in Council.
Motion for Closure

In addition to that we have, at an expense of S942, provided additional drying facilities at Moose Jaw.
GERMAN REPARATIONS On the Orders of the Day:


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whatever hon. gentleman now represents the Secretary of State what progress is being made in the payment of claims for German reparations? I have had complaints recently from people whose situation is serious. They seem to think that no progress is being made at all in securing payment of their claims. I am emboldened now to make my request because during the latter days of the last session of the late parliament the government, we understood, were in a position to deal with the matter and were talking of introducing a bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Secretary of State at the present time is the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Murphy) who is a member of the second chamber. I shall be pleased to call his attention to the remarks of my hon. friend, and I am sure the latter will receive all the information he needs.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: At some time
Forke,	Mercier (Laurier-
Fournier,	Outremont),
Gardiner,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Garland (Bow River),	Millar,
Gervais.	Morin (Bagot),
Girouard,	Morin (St. Hyacinthe-
Goodison,	Rouville),
Goulet,	Motherwell,
Guerin,	Neill,
Hall,	Parent,
Heaps,	Perras,
Heenan,	Pouliot,
Howard,	Provost,
Howden,	Rh6aume,
Jacobs,	Rinfret,
Jelliff,	Robb,
Johnston (Long Lake),	Roberge,
Kay,	Robichaud,
Kennedy (Peace River),	Robitaille,
King (Huron North),	Ross (Moose Jaw),
King (Kootenay East),	St-P&re,
Lacombe,	Sanderson,
Lanctot,	Seguin,
Langlois,	Spence (Maple Creek),
La pierre,	Spencer,
Lapointe,	Steedsman,
Lavigueur,	Stewart (Edmonton West),
Letellier,	Stork,
Lovie,	Sylvestre,
Lucas,	Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe),
MacLean (Prince),	Tobin (Wetaskiwin),
McLean (Melfort),	Totzke,
MacPhail (Miss),	Vallance,
McIntosh,	Verville,
McKenzie,	Ward,
McPhee,	Woodsworth,
Malcolm,	Young (Saskatoon),
Marcil,	Young (Weyburn).-108.



MOTION FOR CLOSURE

Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Robb:
That the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Elliott for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in answer to his Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird,
Anderson (Toronto High Park),
Anderson (Halton), Armstrong
(Timiskaming South), Armstrong (Lambton East),
NAYS Messrs: Esling,
Fish,
Fraser,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Gott,
Grimmer,
"that this question	be now put", shall not be	fur-	Baker,	Hamilton,ther adjourned.	Bell (Hamilton West),	Hannesson,The House divided on the motion	(Mr.	Boll (St. Antoine), Bennett,	Hay, Johnstone (Cape BretonLapointe) which	was agreed to on the	fol-	Black (Yukon),	North-Victoria),lowing division:	Black (Halifax),	Kaiser,YEAS	Bowen,	Kennedy (WinnipegBristol,	South Centre),Messrs:	Bury,	Ladner,Cahan,	Lennox,Baldwin,	Delisle,	Casselman,	MacDonald (Cape BretonBeaubiefi,	Denis (St. Denis),	Chabot,	South),Benoit,	Denis (Joliette),	Chaplin (Kent, O.),	Macdonald (Richmond-Bettez,	Desaulniers,	Ohaplin (Lincoln),	West Cape Breton),Bird,	Descoteaux,	Charters,	MacLaren,Boivin,	Deslauriers,	Church,	Maclean (York South),Both well,	Dionne,	Clark,	MacNutt,Bouchard,	Donaghy,	Cotnam,	McClenaghan,Boucher,	Dubuc,	Cuiligan,	Macdougall,Bourassa,	Dussault,	Dickie,	McGJbbon,Boutillier,	Elliott,	Doucet,	McQuarrie,Brown,	Evans,	Drayton (Sir Henry),	Maloney,Cahill,	Evanturel,	Duncan,	Man ion,Cannon,	Fafard,	Edwards (Waterloo South), Maybee,	Cardin,	Fansher,	Edwards (Frontenac-	Meighen,Carmichael,	Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Addington),	Messervy,Coote,	Fontaine,	Embury,	Morand,

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
Mullins,
Murphy,
Nicholson,
O'Neill,
Peck.
Perley (Sir George), Pettit.
Preston,
Price,
Quinn,
Rogers,
Ross (Kingston City), Rowe,
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
Senn,
Short,
Simpson,
Sinclair,
Smith,
Smoke,
Spence (Parkdale), Stansell,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds),
Stinson,
Stirling,
Sutherland (Oxford South),
Sutherland (Oxford North),
Thompson,
Tunamon,
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Wentworth).-95.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.) Messrs:
Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough),
Jenkins,
Raymond,
Casgrain,'
Hatfield,
Donnelly,
Lacroix,

Gershaw,
Cross,
Wilson (Vaudreuil-Soulanges),
Laflamme,
Power,
McMillan,
Macdonald (Glengarry), Euler.
Hanson,
Macdonald (Kings), Bell (St. John-Albert), Boys,
Flemming,
Barber,
Robinson,
Foster
Davis,
Tolmie,
White (London),
Langworthy,
Mewburn,
Wright,
Harris,
Hocken.


Mr. McMILLAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Wright). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough):: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JENKINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. MacDonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In order that we may be clear on the closure rule, I would like to remind hon. members that in consequence of the passing of this motion their speeches will be limited to twenty minutes.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. C. Elliott for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to His Speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed motion of Mr. Bird: "That this question be now put."
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, this House has been sitting since the seventh day of January. It was summoned at the earliest possible date after the general election for a special purpose, namely to settle the situation created by that election. On November 17 the Prime Minister (Mr. King) issued a statement giving the reasons why parliament had been summoned for that date, and I am going to read just a few words from that statement. He said:
Once the question of party majority is settled, an adjournment of parliament can be made to enable whichever party may be entrusted with the duty of carrying on the government time within which to conduct the necessary by-elections and have in readiness the further work of the session.
He also added:
The interests of the country will therefore in no way suffer if, as soon as parliament meets, the question of majority support is decided and an adjournment is then made to permit of the party enjoying the support of the majority dn the House of Commons making the necessary arrangements for .the continuance at the proper time of the work of the session.
It was well understood and discussed in the press all over Canada that when this question was settled there would be an adjournment of the House for the purpose already mentioned. On the 8th of January, the day following the opening of parliament, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) challenged the right of the government to summon parliament and carry on the administration. This motion was voted down after a somewhat extensive debate, and on the 18th of January the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) moved the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. This debate went on for a certain time, and on the 26th of January, when the debate was being adjourned, the right hon. leader of the opposition, as may be seen in Hansard at page 473, said:
While this motion is not debatable, certainly we ought to be closing this debate and not dragging it along at such great length with such extended speeches.
The right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), on the 28th of January, as will be seen at page 496 of Hansard, inquired

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
from the government whether it was true that there would be an adjournment of the House, and he added:
The consequence of the intimations has been that members of this House have not been able to make their arrangements for the session, ot the bringing down of members of their families who intend to be here should the session be continued. There has been a constant disarrangement of the programme of very many hon. members of parliament. I thank the government should intimate now-in fact it should have done so sooner- whether it proposes to ask for an adjournment of the House for any considerable period of time; if so for what period, and when.
Answering my right hon. friend I said, for the purpose of his friends making their arrangements accordingly, that there would be an adjournment of six weeks, and that a motion would be presented to the House for that purpose. A notice of motion was immediately given, and on January 28th, when the debate was adjourned, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (,Mr. Stevens), who was then leading the opposition, said:
Mr. Speaker, I would 'like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) as leader of the House how long it is intended to prolong this debarte and, I may say, obstruct the progress of business. Can my hon. friend give to the House any indication of when we may expect it to close, in order that hon. members may adjust themselves to this rather strange and unusual position of a government obstructing its own business?
Belying on these statements, Mr. Speaker, a motion was presented to the House for the purpose of securing an adjournment of parliament for a period of six weeks, 'but immediately this motion came before the House it was fought and opposed from all angles by hon. gentlemen opposite. Still it was voted on and approved by a majority of the members of this House. Then hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of voting the Address, as they had appeared so anxious to do, resumed the debate, and my hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), on February the 8th, one month after the opening of parliament, moved an amendment which would have had its proper place in the budget debate. That amendment was voted down, and my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) then moved the previous question.
In the course of the debate on the motion of my hon. friend from Nelson, as well as on the motion of my hon. friend from South Oxford, we heard statements at different times from hon. gentlemen opposite that they would debate this Address and would speak as long as was necessary to prevent an adjournment being granted. I say, Sir, that this was frustrating the will of parliament; it was treating with contempt the decision of the majority and the supremacy of this legislative body. 
Hon. gentlemen opposite refer to us in terms of contempt as a remnant of a government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear. They know those words have been repeated every day. The terms do not change very much. The government is described as a remnant of a government, as a rump, or a trunk and other expressions of that kind; but, Sir, such as it is, this remnant, this rump, this trunk, has beaten hon. gentlemen opposite every time we have been given the opportunity, and this has happened on eight different occasions this session-and nine, if I include the vote this afternoon. Obviously they do not seem to realize that when they belittle opponents who beat them at every corner and at every opportunity, they but accentuate and demonstrate and exhibit their own weakness. They have lost their own time; they have lost our time, and they have lost the time of the country. They could not defeat the government. I challenge them to defeat us now; they cannot defeat us.


Robert James Manion: Wait till the next election.


Ernest Lapointe: Wait till the next election? But we are in parliament just now. This is the explanation, Mr. Speaker, why we have been so tolerant, so patient, allowing the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite to wear itself out, to disappear of -itself, of its own futility and meaninglessness. But, Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the chief whip of the (Conservative party
4 p.m. (Mr. Boys) on Friday afternoon was a bold and brazen challenge which we cannot ignore. The majority of the members of this House must rule, and the majority of the members of this House will rule. The will of the majority of parliament has been asserted in two main and glaring instances. First, it declared that the government was justified in summoning parliament and in carrying on the administration; second, that this parliament should adjourn for a certain -period of time for -the purposes which were submitted to the House.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I have only ten
minutes more. My right hon. friend knows well the rules of which he is the father.
The attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite has been one of contempt for parliamentary institutions, and they have the unenviable responsibility for the feeling in the minds of

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
*many people which such contempt spreads throughout the country. I was sorry when I heard my eminent friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) use in the course of his speech the following words:
I can tell him that so fair as I am concerned, he will have to change the rules of the House to prevent my obstructing, in order to prevent the forcing through of any such measure as that.
I was sorry for my hon. friend, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, 'because that statement was certainly not worthy of his high reputation. What are laws and what are regulations if not an expression of the will of the majority? And it is setting a pernicious example and giving a nefarious excuse to would-be lawbreakers when political leaders challenge the will of majority and try to smuggle through their own defeated persons and opinions.
Last year a committee sat for the purpose of revising the rules of parliament, and one of the decisions of that committee was that the length of speeches in this House should be restricted to forty minutes, except those of the two leaders. That recommendation was unanimously adopted by the committee ana reported to the House. The leader of the opposition, when the report came up in the House, said that unfortunately it came up too late in the session, but he was giving his support to those rules, and he would see to it that they would carry after the election.


Arthur Meighen: What?	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: My right hon. friend may deny the statement but he can read Hansard. I will not cite any newspaper extracts. If that was his opinion, what can we say about my right hon. friend who resorts to tactics that he himself thought should be suppressed? What is to be thought of the logic of the statement of the chief whip of the opposition when he said: We are prolonging this debate because there is no business before the House. We will wait untif the Prime Minister is back in the House and if he has no business after one day or two days, we will vote and we will adjourn. We will cease obstruction, for the very reason for which we obstructed. Have you ever seen such logic? I was not surprised that the chief whip seemed uneasy when he was reading that carefully prepared statement which had been placed in his hands. How can it be otherwise when statesmanship, broad vision and public interest are to give way to spite, disappointment and narrow partisanship? The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George discovered something else. He said: The acting leader of the government is responsible because he made a motion for the purpose of giving precedence to the Address. Let him withdraw that motion and proceed with business. Is that Tory loyalty when those gentlemen are out of power? When has the House refrained from moving the Address for the purpose of discussing the legislation announced in the Speech from the Throne? It is the first communication of the sovereign and it is always given first consideration. The hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) (sited a case in 1884 when the consideration of the Address was postponed from day to day on account of a vote of censure regarding affairs in the Soudan war. This was so exceptional that Bourinot and May have recorded it. In the same way this year something exceptional was moved in this chamber before the Address was considered. It was the motion of my hon. friend. In the British House of Commons the Address is voted after a very few days of debate. In 1882 the British House of Commons considered the Address from February 7' to February 18, and it is the longest ease recorded in Bourinot. It is preposterous on the part of gentlemen who have a standing in this House to suggest that the Address be withdrawn for the purpose of considering the legislation announced in the Speech from the Throne. Before the Address is voted the House is not properly organized to function. We have no Deputy Speaker, and you, Sir, have been a martyr to your duty as Speaker.
I repeat, the majority in this House is going to rule. We are not those who can be intimidated or discouraged. The majority of the people of Canada, whether you call them Liberals, Progressives, Labour or Independents, have intimated that they do not want the right hon. gentleman as Prime Minister of Canada and we shall see to it that their will is respected and that my right hon. friend does not reach the goal of his ambition. Hon. gentlemen have wasted nearly two months in futile, dull, uninteresting debate, and if I may be permitted, with all due deference, I may say a debate prolific only of abuse, denunciations and very feeble, auxiliary gibes and jokes. The power to decide is in the hands, not of those whom my right hon. friend would like to have as judges, but of those whom the people have elected as judges. His argument is based on what should be done. My argument is based on what has been done.
Since the date of the general elections, the Conservative party has gone through three successive periods. First we witnessed a

The Address-Mr. Meighen
Niagara of vehement enthusiasm which gradually decreased in intensity; second, we were subjected to bitter criticism, sometimes verging on insanity, and, third, some gentlemen of the Conservative party-I do not mean in the House-have suffered from an epidemic of political hysteria. The frenzy of part of the Tory press of Canada to-day is the comic relief of our current politics. Let me tell them once and for aill that we are not going to let anybody shout us out, or abuse us out, or even chloroform us out by meaningless and tiresome speeches. We are going to carry on this administration in the interest of all the people in Canada and not merely of some private business. Many forces are exerting themselves against us and are resorting to spectacular publicity. They are active in our province, but we are there blocking the way and we dare them and their plutocratic methods to defeat us. While they are whining and whistling, Canada is going aheau, Canada is entering upon a new period of not only recovery 'but of prosperity, as all the statistics of trade, employment and public finance demonstrate eloquently. We are going to carry on; we are going to appeal to the best, not to the worst of men, not to their hatreds or their passions. We are going to appeal to unity and harmony in this country, and we shall be victorious.


Arthur Meighen: The acting leader of
the government has delivered himself, I hope to his own satisfaction, of a speech evidently quite carefully prepared over a long period of time-


Ernest Lapointe: That is another one of the right hon. member's mistakes.


Arthur Meighen: the purpose of which, so far as I could judge, was to crowd as many of the offences which he charged against us as could possibly be crowded into the compass of his own twenty minute speech. In the course of his preparation there was one resource which he very distinctly omitted. While emphasizing the dfetermination of his government, which he himself calls a trunk, a chunk and I know not what, to carry on by force of majority-which, by the way, is not its party's majority at all-he became very enthusiastic over the rule which he now invokes. Hon. members who were within parliament prior to four years ago will remember that, of all hou. gentlemen opposite in numbers then almost what they are to-day who condemned this rule, its principle, its initiation, its application, who condemned it day and night with bell,

book and candle, the most vociferous was himself the then hon. member for Kamouraska. He declared that the application ofj this rule was the gag and the disruption of a free parliament. As time is very precious I cannot quote much of what he said. If I could quote . it all, I would piece together from the speeches of the then hon. member for Kamouraska, the present Minister of Justice, a better speech than he delivered this afternoon but one wholly on the other side of the case. He said on the 16th April, 1913, when this very rule was under review:
I wish to enter my solemn protest on behalf of my constituents which I have the honour to represent in this House against this infamous proposal of the government.
This infamous proposal which he now adopts as his own in the House to-day:
When I hand over my mandate to .them, I will be in a position to say: "You are free citizens and you have returned a free representative; I was desirous of fulfilling niv duty, my whole duty; but it happened one day that brute foroe prevented me from doing so, I was gagged.
Who is the parent of brute force this afternoon? Who is the gagger now? He continued :
But, Mr. Speaker, .there still remains with us two sources of energy which cannot be gagged; faith in the righteousness of our cause and the nobleness of o>ur aims.
At another point he declared that by this rule parliament had debased itself and that mails or mail bags could be robbed, and all sorts . of 'crimes could be committed. The people's representatives could never intervene; the freedom of parliament was gone. The hon. member was not alone in that respect. The hon. member who now sits behind him stood up and in a voice fulll of pathos declared that he was sorry to have to admit that he rose for the last time in a free parliament, that parliament had been robbed of functions of which it had boasted for generations. There was scarcely an hon. gentleman 'opposite, indeed not one of those who were in the House at that time, who did not denounce the closure rule, denounce its principle, its application and everything about it, and declared that it was alien to British institutions. One after another rose in his place and said: "The Conservatives want to restrict trade and now also they want to restrict discussion. We are for freedom on both counts of the indictment, and in the cause of freedom we are prepared to suffer and die." The hon. member will recall those words from the mouth of the then member for Red Deer, who excelled in eloquence, if not in vituperation, those who represent the Liberal party

The Address-Mr. Meighen
to-day. Now they have abandoned both free trade and free discussion.
I do not object to closure. I believe the closure rule is essential in all free parliaments. This doctrine I preached in 1913, and this doctrine we on this side of the House sought to drive home to hon. members opposite. This doctrine they repudiated and they declared that parliament debased itself by the adoption of such a rule. Has any explanation come from the Minister of Justice this afternoon of his change of front? Is there anything left for this government to swallow of all its professions throughout all its history?
The closure rule has been open to adoption by hon. gentlemen opposite from the beginning. By the rules of the House we always loyally abide. By this rule, as by every other rule, we are prepared to abide. What is to be thought of a leader of the government who, afraid to use the rule, afraid to resort to perfectly proper remedies at his disposal, sits in his seat for days and weeks, and complains of members on this side of the House?
The hon. minister comes forward and tell3 us, "Oh, we just called parliament together on the 7th January for one purpose and only one purpose, namely, to find out which party had the confidence of parliament, whether the government of the day or some other party. Is that why they called parliament? Does toe leader of the government reaffirm now his statement that that is why he called parliament together? He told us when parliament met that such was the reason. Why then did he put a long succession of misrepresentation and deceit in the mouth of His Excellency in the form of an Address, if parliament was called together for the sole purpose of deciding who was supreme in parliament? If the minister now speaks the truth, that purpose should have been the sole constituent in the Speech of His Excellency presented to the House of Commons. That was what ought to have been the sole feature of the Speech, but the hon. gentleman knew that if he came honestly before this House and stated the purpose of calling the session he could not get a majority in this House. The hon. members knew that on the record of their four years they could not get a majority in the House, and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) admitted this truth in one of the debates in the House this session. After all these blandishments have been held out by way of bribe and nothing else to hon. members to my left-matters that were entirely foreign to the purpose of calling parliament together-the Minister of Customs, speaking for the government, knowing well that on their record they could not be
sustained, looked across to hon. members to my left and said:	"If you vote with us on
this vote of confidence you do not vote support of us or approval of us on our record." And furthermore, he declared that the government would not accept the vote as one of confidence entitling them to the rights of a government at all. By that assertion a farcical and artificial loophole was offered to hon. gentlemen, through which they could escape and through which they could, to the. satisfaction to the government at least, justify the support of the administration. By virtue of such conduct they have gathered round them the support, temporarily, I hope, of the hon. members to my left, and not one of those hon. members will rise in 'his place now and say that for any other reason on earth he supports this government at this time.
This government, the moment they faced a motion of confidence, declared that those who Would vote for them would not be voting confidence in them at all. On the assertion of the Minister of Customs on behalf of the government it was to be no vote of confidence. Can any member of the .government dare say that parliament has voted confidence in them to this day? The government is directing its efforts now to see that the House gets no opportunity to vote on the question of confidence. The government invokes what it declared for ten years to be an infamous closure rule, in order to make sure that parliament never gets an opportunity of voting want' of confidence. In this they have the co-operation" of at least certain hon. members to my left. In this they have the active "co-operation" of the hon member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). After resolutions expressive of what we believed to be fundamental faults in government policy were disposed of, this House was about to have presented to it, as hon. gentlemen knew, as the hon. member for Nelson knew, as every member of the Progressive party knew-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. BIRD:: The hon. gentleman did not
know any such thing.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
from Nelson did not know what?


Thomas William Bird: Did not know what the right
hon. leader of the opposition -alleges.


Arthur Meighen: The leader of the opposition has not stated yet what the hon. member for Nelson knew. He rose before I said it. This was part of the "co-operation." Through the press of this country we had informed this House -more than once that a vote



l-MO COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Meighen
of want of confidence would be moved, and even the name of the mover was given to the press. If hon. gentlemen did not know it, then they are using the word "know" in a sense never before understood in parliament. Right on the eve of the motion, when indeed the member who was about to make the motion was on his feet, the member for Nelson stood up and forced himself on the attention of the Speaker, in order that what we are told was the avowed purpose of calling parliament might be frustrated; in order that hon. gentlemen would not be in the position of having to vote yes or no on the question of confidence. The debate has been prolonged, so hon. members opposite complain. They say that as long ago as January 28 or early in Februa-ary I asked why the government did not get on with business. Certainly I did, and I have asked that question ever since. We on this side have appealed to the government to bring some business before parliament. We have offered, and the government has known that we have been prepared all these weeks, to come to a vote on the Address provided only there was some business for parliament to transact.
The closure rule is all right; it is perfectly defensible, justifiable and necessary. But never in the history of any parliament was closure adopted for the purpose of giving its members a holiday. Those who stoutly resisted this rule when applied only for the purpose of learning the will of parliament on absolutely essential legislation, only for the purpose of getting the decision of this House on important legislation submitted by the government; those who fought day and night to prevent the application of closure for such purpose, come into parliament this afternoon and call upon all their own followers and their allies to the left to stand up and support closure in order that parliament may adjourn.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Support parliament.


Arthur Meighen: Support closure, in order that parliament may adjourn. The Minister of the Interior does not like the expression because it is the truth. Now what position is the government in?


An hon. MEMBER:: A good position.


Arthur Meighen: The government is in a good position just as a criminal about to be electrocuted is in a good position when he takes the chair.
Serious charges are to-day levelled against the administration. Serious charges are under review before a committee of this House; seri-

ous charges have been levelled across the floor in respect of malfeasance of office by this administration. And while one set of these charges are under review by a committee of parliament this government forces closure in order that the work of that committee may be rendered null and void. This parliament, at the instance of the government, denudes ' that committee of all power to enforce its decisions; it leaves the committee stranded and helpless without our moral support and at the mercy of witnesses who may defy its will. For this purpose closure is applied. Charges of defiance of parliament have been levelled against the administration supported by indisputable evidence, supported by their own orders in council-a defiance of parliament as illegal, as utterly indefensible, as brazen as anything that any government in any country in the world ever dared to perpetrate. These charges have not even met with a meed of attempted defence at the hands of any member of the government; and while the administration is in that position its leader rises and, without offering any defence whatever, calls upon a majority in this House, composed of his supporters and his allies, to vote parliament into an adjournment while they themselves proceed with the project which they have undertaken by means of these illegal steps and in contempt of the will of this House.
Is this parliament to sit idly by as a mere spectator while the government dips its hands into the treasury and takes out millions for the execution of projects which parliament has never authorized and does not authorize to-day? Is closure to be applied in order that the control of parliament over the treasury of this Dominion shall be ignored and be no longer effective? I want to know where the defenders of parliamentary rights are this afternoon. Where are those who once talked for days and nights about the "rights of parliament," who indeed have so deported themselves in this House that one would be led to believe a government should be not the initiator of legislation but a mere committee to carry out the specified will of parliament as expressed' in resolutions? Where are the defenders of parliamentary rights now? Hon. gentlemen to my left have sat by and voted for the administration while the administration, by devious, indefensible, illegal means, has defeated the will of parliament and defied its rights. Does anyone for a moment suggest that this government had any justification in the world for ignoring the parliament of Canada last session and projecting this Dominion into an enterprise in the district of Rouyn to the extent of $5,000,000?

The Address-Mr. Forke
If so, I should like to ask hon. gentlemen to my left, and hon. gentlemen opposite as well, this question: why did we debate in parliament, not through one session but two, projects precisely similar in character though of far less importance because far less in cost? Why did we debate them in this House, compelling them to run the vicissitudes of the House of Commons and the perils of the Senate, if the government could simply have turned their backs upon us and through orders in council, contrived by clever American lawyers, have devised a means of defying the Commons and Senate both?
The only defence in respect of this flagrant disregard of the rights of parliament comes from him who is all the time preaching that politics must not be dragged into the railways, but who seems to believe that the converse is entirely justifiable, that the railways may at his single will be dragged into politics. Is it to be said that because some lawyer is able to devise a scheme whereby parliament may be ignored, whereby a bond issue or a construction contract can be labelled a lease, then a government guilty of yielding to a proposal of that kind is nevertheless entitled not only to the support of this House but to closure in order that its desires may be gratified? Yet such is the position in which this government finds itself this afternoon. Parliament, at its instance, is voting closure for the purpose of an adjournment; closure for the purpose of giving the House a holiday; closure for the purpose of robbing the most important committee which has sat here for twenty years of all power to do its duty; closure for the purpose of shielding the government from attack on charges of defiance of parliament as grave as ever were laid at the door of any administration. For these purposes closure is invoked this afternoon. The majority will of course impose its rude will over the minority. But this government will pay a penalty not only for its tragic record in the past but for its blunder of today.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: I do
not intend to occupy the full twenty minutes which has been allotted to hon. members who wish to speak, but I desire to say a few words in regard to the position which the Progressive party holds in this House. We have sat here patiently listening to long, shall I say sometimes tiresome, speeches-I think I may justly describe them thus-and we have heard a great many things said about the Progressives. We have been told what the Progressives have done, what they have not done, and what
they are likely to do in the future. I must say that I am astonished whenever I hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) speaking of co-operation with the Progressives. How can hon. gentlemen expect any co-operation with the group in this part of the House in view of the language which they have used of hon. members in this corner during the past month? Let them read Hansard for that short time and see the terms which hon. gentlemen to my right have applied to the Progressive members during this debate. I will give you a few samples. I listened last night to a wonderful speech from an erudite member representing a cultured constituency in New Ontario.
Let me quote a few sentences from Hansard which he uttered last night:
Their refusal or inability to sit in with the Conservatives was due to what I should term their urban complex, meaning by this a more or less morbid pathological mental process resultant mostly from that diffidence, that timidity, that self-complacency, that parsimony, that narrowness, that simplicity, incident to rusticity.
This is terrible, Mr. Speaker! It is the worst that has ever been said about us. But he is young yet; he will learn better after a while. I read in a newspaper that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) in his youth drove a team of oxen, and was so close to agriculture that he even used language now and again that would certainly not be considered parliamentary by yourself, Sir. I do not know what we may expect from agriculture when we get a minister of railways in his seat who is imbued with "that narrowness and that simplicity incident to rusticity." I am curious to know what large city in his constituency the hon. member comes from. I must confess I do not know very much about that part of the country, but I should be surprised to learn that there are as yet any very large urban centres there. However, this is by the way. I did not intend to refer to it, but I was asked by hon. friends to my right to give quotations of remarks about the Progressives that had been made' by representative Conservatives.
Now, what is the situation? The members of this House did not create it; the people of Canada created it. I have heard members on both sides blame the third party for the situation which confronted us at the opening of parliament. I may be wrong, but I make the guess that had there been no third party the situation would not have been any better than it is, because I am inclined to believe that two parties would have been so evenly balanced that it would have been very difficult for either to carry on the business of the country. Hon. gentlemen to my right have
The Address-Mr. Forke

spoken as if they had a majority in this House. They have even said that the government had no right to function. Well, if that is so, which party had the right to take office? That is what I should like to know. Hon. members to my right apparently take it for granted that they have a right to form the government. But they have not a majority of this House. What would have happened had the government been defeated? Could the right hon. leader of the opposition have carried on?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert Forke: We know perfectly well he
could not. He would have had to appeal to the country. Can any member of this House say to-day what would happen if we had a new election?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Robert Forke: They think they know, but
they do not know. I prophesy to my friends fiom the province of Manitoba that they will never have seven Conservatives from that province within a generation.


Mr. MULLINS:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Robert Forke: I know the peculiarities of
the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). If he will come up to my room after a while I will try to convince him that I am right.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman remember-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman remember-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I understand the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) allows the question that the right hon. gentleman is trying to put?


Robert Forke: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: I am asking the hon.
member if he recalls his prophecies in the last parliament?


Robert Forke: I admit, Mr. Speaker, that
it is very foolish to prophesy. But I am not discouraged. I would turn to hon. gentlemen opposite and prophesy, too, that there are not going to be very many Liberals from Manitoba after the next election. But there are going to be a great many more Progressives. While I am in the prophesying mood I will go a little further: After another election we are going to see this corner of the

House filled up with just as many Progressives as were returned to the last parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Forke: My friends may laugh, but
I ask them to remember when that time comes what I am now saying. When we came to this parliament we found no party had a majority in the House of Commons over all other parties. Consequently the first thing we had to do was to find out which party was likely to be able to secure a majority of the members. We voted first of all upon the question:	Had the government a right to
call parliament together? The government was sustained in that division. The position taken by the Progressives was largely influenced by the legislation we are interested in. We have heard "bribery" mentioned by the right hon. leader of the opposition. He has used that word again and again. It is an ugly word, and I do not like it at all. Bribery has never been practised in this House so far as we are concerned. Can any member on either side of the House assert that I know anything about bribes? I defy any member to make such a statement. A legislative programme has been set forth by the government. Surely we have common sense and good judgment enough, notwithstanding our "rusticity", to understand just exactly what that means. We believe it is a programme in the interests not only of our own constituencies but of the whole Dominion. So why call it "bribery" because we accept that programme? The right hon. leader of the opposition talks about co-operation. I wonder if he would not have been willing at the commencement of the session to co-operate with the Progressives if he could have done so. I would not blame him. It would have been all right on his part and quite honourable. Then why throw innuendoes across the floor at those who have co-operated? Why blame them? I think what was done was perfectly honourable on all sides. We have decided to support the government in their legislative programme, and shall do so until that programme is put through.
Now, we have heard a good deal about the government defying the will of parliament. I say the government has not defied the will of parliament. Parliament can defeat this or any other government any day it likes, and once parliament has made up its mind against the government it can no longer remain in office. Then why all this talk during the past six weeks about the government defying the will of the people? We have heard somewhat similar criticism of the Progressives for the course they have taken this session. I

The Address-Mr. Rogers
want to tell hon. gentlemen, no matter on which side of the House they sit, that when they talk in that strain, they are not insulting members of the Progressive group, they are insulting the constituencies that sent those members down here. Those constituencies have confidence in the members they elected to this House. I believe that every action we have taken this session is perfectly legitimate and perfectly honourable, and I hope that what we have done will enure to the benefit of the whole Dominion.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (South Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, seldom if ever in the history of parliamentary government in Canada has any parliament been called upon to meet conditions similar to those which have confronted this parliament from the first day of the session diown to the present time. These conditions make it abundantly clear that this so-called government has so far not been able to function as a responsible government. Let me say further that this government cannot function as a responsible government in the future, and never can function as a government capable of administering the public affairs of the Dominion of Canada.
Hon. gentlemen opposite two weeks ago realized, probably as no government has ever realized before, the imperative necessity of finding in some form or other a plan which would save them from complete ruin. Of one thing they were certain; of one thing they were sure, that a vote of want of confidence they could not and dare not attempt to face. Something had to be done and that something had to be done quickly. At a given moment all eyes on the other side of the chamber were focussed on the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), who quickly rose in his place and fulfilled the fondest hope of hon. gentlemen opposite by moving the previous question, thereby extending the stricken, helpless and hopeless condition of hon. gentlemen opposite for two or three weeks longer. I say further that the government, as indicated by their course yesterday and today, still feel the strain of their position, and how could it be otherwise? This much comfort they apparently take to-day, that when the motion came before this House last night it synchronized entirely with what is commonly discussed in this parliament as the fifty-day clause, through which indemnities of $4,000 a year have been made safe for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Rogers: There is nothing out of order. Now, Mr. Speaker, the fifty days
were uip and we had the motion as presented to-day by my hon. friend who leads the House (Mr. Lapointe). My hon. friend has been talking about obstruction, and I want to say here and now that my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) and those around him on this side of the House have never undertaken to obstruct hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me say further that if we had wanted to obstruct it would have been impossible to do so, by reason of the fact that there was nothing before the House to obstruct. Hon. gentlemen opposite could not and dared not bring any measure before this parliament for consideration.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How could we do it until the Address was passed?


Robert Rogers: Is that all my hon. friend knows of the rules of parliament? Let me point out to my hon. friend what he could do. He certainly is very lacking in knowledge of parliamentary procedure. The day the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne came to this House, my hon. friend's leader rose in his place and made a motion, as follows:	[DOT]
Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Leader of the House): I move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Seconded by my hon. friend.
-that the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business of the House except government notices of motion and introduction of bills, until disposd of.
Now Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen on this side took no objection to that; we wanted to proceed with the business. There are many motions promised in the Speech from the Throne-government notices of motion-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You agreed to that resolution.


Robert Rogers: Of course we agreed to it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No other business could come before the House until the Address was disposed of.


Robert Rogers: With the exception of government notices of motion. Where was the notice of motion in respect to the Hudson Bay railway? Why was that not brought down for consideration? This House was here for business.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will bring it down.


Robert Rogers: Why did the government
not bring down a notice of motion in respect to rural credits, which is a very important
The Address-Mr. Rogers

matter? Why was not a notice of motion brought down in respect to a commission to be appointed to inquire into Maritime rights, in my hon. friend's own province? Why was that motion not before the House?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The notice is on the order paper; iet it stay there.


Robert Rogers: That is what the hon. gentleman wants; he is afraid to bring it before the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will see whether we
are afraid, when we get this House started.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend acts that
way.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Robert Rogers: Now, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are quite prepared to deal with private bills and questions. We have now almost a book with 180 questions and fifty or sixty or seventy resolutions, and we on this side of the House are prepared to consent at any time to go on with those matters and get them out of the way. But hon. gentlemen opposite have not, since the opening day, dared to take the opportunity of bringing any measure before this House. That is the trouble with hon. gentlemen opposite; we have been here for nearly two months and not one item of business 'has been brought down.
My hon. friend the leader of the government spoke about this question of adjourning and he said that we on this side of the House had obstructed by speaking too long on the Address. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what else we were to do in order to grasp the opportunity which we had of exposing to the intelligent people of this country the weaknesses and the helplessness of hon. gentlemen opposite. Notwithstanding that, we were prepared at any moment and at any time to take up any business brought before us. The fact that we have been carrying on in addressing this House for some time means no additional expense to the country, whether we continued to expose the conditions whicn we met here, or whether we were prepared to support an adjournment.
Still more amazing, Mr. Speaker, was the statement of my hon. friend who leads this House to-day in coupling the present closure with the closure brought in by the Conservative party in 1913. I want to point out to this House, and particularly to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Macdonald)-who I am sorry to see has left the

chamber because he needs a little light on some of these important questions-the difference between the situation that existed then and that which confronts us to-day. Some one has argued that the closure measure of a few years ago was the reason why we had a closure motion before parliament to-day. But, Mr. Speaker, to mention the closure of that time in comparison with the closure measure of to-day is nothing short of an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people. Who is there in Canada that does not know that unpreparedness for war cost Canada untold millions in treasure and many thousands of priceless lives? The Conservative party believed in 1913 that there was danger, and serious danger, and hence our naval proposals were brought before parliament. We were met with the argument that our naval proposals were submitted to the House under false pretences, that we had put in the mouth of His Royal Highness the Governor General assertions that were absolutely unfounded in fact, when we placed in the Speech from the Throne the assertion that a condition of things existed in Great Britain which made it imperative that the naval forces of the empire should at once be strengthened. On this line of argument parliament was kept in session for days and months until the government were finally obliged to bring down a closure measure. Unfortunately for Canada, the Liberal Senate defeated our naval proposals, and for so doing Liberal senators and the Liberal party in Canada received the applause of the enemies of Great Britain and her dominions. I should like to support that statement by an extract from one of the leading papers in Germany, which, dealing with our proposals at that time, said:
Whatever may be decided upon later, the actual decision of the Canadian Senate means at any rate a heavy moral and material loss for the defence of the empire, for Mr. Borden's promise has been foolishly enough counted on. His offer made an enormous impression on the whole world. Mr. Churchill pointed out this fact, especially in the well-known memorandum of the admiralty. This impression will not only be destroyed, but people will everywhere obtain the conviction that England cannot depend on such help from her colonies. "By rivals and enemies," says the Morning Post today, "the decision will be eagerly welcomed. By friends it will be regarded as ominous." The impression must inevitably be created that the solidarity of the empire is a myth, and that those powers which would like to see the overthrow of British naval supremacy need not be discouraged in their efforts by the thought that their challenge would be met by the united resources of the Mother Country and of every one of the daughter states.-
Those were the conditions, Mr. Speaker, under which we brought down our naval proposals to parliament, and in connection with which closure was introduced, and no one

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
will say that those conditions are at all comparable with the conditions to-day.
Before I conclude, I want to address a word or two to my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke), who was good enough to speak of conditions in the province of Manitoba, from which I come. I want to tell the hon. member for Brandon that as long 5 p.m. as he lives he will never again sit for a constituency in the province of Manitoba in this parliament of Canada. Notwithstanding the combined support that he had in the last election, with the Liberal party united with the so-called Progressive party, his majority under those conditions was rather limited, and it will be entirely wiped out upon the next occasion.
Let me bring to the attention of the House a statement made by the Prime Minister in respect to his majority in the last House, and I bring this forward simply because it accounts to some extent for the atmosphere that is to be found in certain quarters of this parliament. The Prime Minister is reported as follows:
"If I went out for dinner, mjr majority of one was gone." When he formed his administration, however, he felt he would get sufficient assistance from the other side of the House to enable him to carry on. There is an indemnity of $4,000 and 'he thought the Progressives would think twice before they voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Prime Minister had in his mind when he said that, but he said something more. The question was asked him:
What about the Progressives helping you?
And Mr. King replied:
Let me answer that clearly. When the Progressives take the attitude that they will support us when we do what they want, and we can go to blazes when we do not, you cannot get very .far that way. You cannot get anything done in parliament under those conditions.
Now let me read something that my hon. friend from Brandon had to say in respect to the Prime Minister. Speaking in the city of Regina on September 7, 1925, lie said:
The Prime Minister Mr. Mackenzie King, is urging the western provinces to send to parliament numerous representatives as members of his party caucus on the ground that that would be the best method of obtaining the necessary changes in government policy. This proposal Is an invitation to keep his party in office, and in return to receive such reforms as the party caucus may concede. The irrefutable answer to his plea is written in the record of his party, whose recurring failures to redeem his election promises and to implement his political platforms are matters of public record.
Just one more reference, and this is a statement made by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, who, speaking at Moose Jaw on September 30, said:
(The Progressives had an opportunity to elect a government in 1921, but in 1925 they had no such chance. Consequently there was no reason for waste of votes on them. Why waste time and effort on a party that can't form an administration? Mr. Crerar admitted the Progressives could be only a sectional party. Other leaders were abandoning them. The light of Mr. Forke was the flickering torch of Liberalism. All the influence he wielded came from association with other parties in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the flickering light of the torch of the hon. member for Brandon has grown strong in the interests of the Liberal party in this parliament. He is as Certain to vote Liberal as my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough; he is quite as safe, quite as sure; he always has been, and always will be. But that is his business, and not ours. I simply want this parliament to know the facts and to understand the conditions. The information may be helpful to hon. gentlemen opposite, and I hope they will take full advantage of it.
I am told my time is up. In conclusion, let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the time is not far distant when we shall find hon. gentlemen opposite in the position to which they were relegated by the electors of this Dominion on the 29th of October last.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, twenty minutes
is not a very long period in which to make a defence, if defence were needed-and I do not think any defence is required-of the action of the government in calling parliament and the steps it has taken since that date. One could not help being interested in the debate that was being carried on in this House although a great deal of it consisted of severe criticism of the government of to-day, criticism that was unwarranted, in my opinion, and that at times descended to what I would call back-door or baek-yard_ discussion, rather than that of gentlemen in this House of Commons. Let me rehearse very briefly why parliament was summoned. The leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) gave us a resume this afternoon of the reasons for convening parliament. It was convened for one primary purpose that the opposition have consistently, in and out of season, ignored, and that was to establish whether or not the opposition or the government who are now in office were to carry on the business of the country. The acting leader of the government enumerated this afternoon tfhe various steps that were taken. The newspapers of the country made very clear to the members who were assembling the purpose for which they were coming, and hon. gentlemen opposite acquiesced to a very large extent in the arrangement that was made for the purpose of estab-
REVISED RDITIOii
1446	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
lishing what should be done in a critical situation such as this. But there is one thing that the oppostion have not learned and that I doubt they ever will learn, namely, that there are changing conditions in this Canada of ours and that those new conditions must be met. They fail to realize that those conditions have arrived already.
What is the situation? We, of course, in order to carry out the traditions of parliament had to bring down the Speech from the Throne, and an opportunity was given to hon. gentlemen to discuss it. A motion was placed on the order paper for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not parliament would vote a recess to enable the government to carry on the by-elections necessary to fill vacancies in the cabinet. What has happened since then? Notwithstanding the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite desisted from discussing the Speech from the Throne and sat silent for three days accusing the government of the day of obstruction, they saw fit to thwart the expressed will of parliament when it voted and carried by a majority the motion for the adjournment of this House until the 15th March. By no process of reasoning, by no camouflage, can they make members of the House or the people of the country believe that from that date to the present they have not been obstructing the clear will of parliament. I am satisfied, after watching affairs very closely, that is exactly the position in which the opposition find themselves to-day. There is no doubt they have made it difficult for the government to fill up the treasury benches; but this government will fill the treasury benches, will be ready on the 15th of this month, and will bring down its programme of legislation. This government will from time to time fill up the treasury benches and it will carry on the affairs of this country so long as it has a majority in this House.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) has complained that the committee that are investigating the customs charges cannot function. The government are not preventing that committee from functioning; the members are perfectly willing to sit, and only for eight days will there be any break if there is a break at all in the investigation that is going on. The government are anxious and willing for this investigation to go on and have nothing to hide in connection with it. If there are guilty people who happen to be attached to the civil service of this country or in the government, let them be punished. This government will move neither hand nor foot to prevent a full and complete investigation. We welcome it and we hope hon. gentlemen opposite are as anxious and 
ready to welcome this investigation as the government of to-day are.
The leader of the opposition also challenges us in respect of the Rouyn railway. What is wrong with the process that brought about the construction of that railway? He knows perfectly well when he challenges us, as other hon. gentlemen know, that except under the authority of a vote of parliament we cannot construct railways in the western provinces because the act does not permit that. The act specifies only that the government of the day have authority to proceed in Quebec and the Maritime provinces with respect to railways.


Arthur Meighen: What about the Lockeport line and the Guysborough line?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not
time to deal with them but there are a few things I want to say about the Rouyn radway. If my right hon. friend wants to investigate the Rouyn railway ample opportunity will be given him to investigate every phase of it to the utmost extremity. He knows quite well that it is his privilege to investigate that or any other railway. There is a committee of the House for that purpose.


Arthur Meighen: How can this House


Charles A. Stewart: I have only twenty minutes.


Arthur Meighen: Will tire hon. member
not permit a question?


Charles A. Stewart: I will not.
I have only twenty minutes to speak and I have a number of things to say to my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It will not do any good.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps it
will do some good before I get through. As this railway transaction has been challenged by some of the most eminent members of the legal profession in this House, I have gone to some trouble to ascertain whether anything illegal has been done in connection with it, and I am free to say to hon. gentlemen that not a single thing illegal has been done and, further, that we shall welcome the fullest kind of investigation. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) challenged the contract by saying that an arrangement had been entered into with the Noranda mines that they had never been called upon to fulfil. I have not time to go into that. He also challenged the fact that 30 per cent of the proceeds of the railway line were to be applied to the Rouyn railway. There is nothing unusual in that. The arrangement in respect to

The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
the Quebec and St. John railway is on the basis of from 40 to 60 per cent and the arrangement with respect to the Vermont Central and the old Grand Trunk is on a basis of 40 to 60 per cent. Therefore if anything is wrong with this it is to the credit of the negotiators who carried through the deal. Very little has been said about the contract in connection with that railway. Seven or eight contractors bid on unit prices and the contract was let to the lowest bidder. I should like to have time to go into this railway question to-day because the contract is manifestly fair to the people of this country and the Canadian National Railways who will profit by the arrangement that has been made. Moreover, the Quebec government is putting up a guarantee of 1250,000 which will be paid at the rate of $50,000 a year for five years. No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with the Rouyn railway in any particular. The whole transaction was carried out legally for the purpose of reserving to the Canadian National railway business that was rightfully theirs rather than diverting it from that railway to competing lines which are not entitled to that business.
It is rather a strange coincidence that the Canadian National Railways should be the institution that is constantly being picked out by hon. gentlemen opposite for criticism. Why? Are they not satisfied with public ownership? Are they not satisfied with the administration of Sir Henry Thornton? I can point to the press of the country that supports them which is entirely satisfied with Sir Henry Thornton and his management. Something was said the other day with respect to his administration in connection with building golf links and installing radios in passenger cars on trains running across the country. That railway is progressing; it is making headway. Let it be to the eternal credit of this government that they were able to discover a man of the calibre of Sir Henry Thornton who has done away with the deficits, to say nothing of meeting the fixed charges, until to-day he is in the proud position' of having a balance of $32,000,000 over and above his operating expenses, and points with pride to a period not less than three years away when this country will be able to say that the National Railways have reached a point where they are able to pay their way and have become a great asset to the people of Canada. Continual carping and criticism of the Canadian National Railways, the first venture in public ownership of people of Canada and one that we all devoutly hope will be a splendid success, comes with poor grace from hon. gentlemen opposite.
Many things have been said in criticism of this government. Why, hon. gentlemen have been talking about their campaigns, the addresses they gave to the electors, and the Lord knows what. I do not wonder that some of the electors were bewildered and befuddled, if hon. members gave them the kind of addresses we have heard delivered in this House during the last four weeks. The Creator has been called upon to witness all the rascality and impotency that these hon. gentlemen have attributed to this government. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has called this a ramshackle government. I want to point out a few of the things we have been able to do, and one of the things we are particularly proud of is the success of the Canadian National Railways. Then the right hon. leader of the opposition, and his associates have been going up and1, down the country claiming that this government have made no reduction in taxation. I challenge the leader of the opposition, and: I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to deny that within the last four years we have reducedJ taxation by $112,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: No, no.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, we
have, Mr. Speaker. I challenge hon. gentlemen to deny it. Do you ever hear them speak about it?


Arthur Meighen: Am I challenged? The minister said he challenged me.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member will have his chance.


Arthur Meighen: No, I will not.


Charles A. Stewart: I make that statement and I make it advisedly, and I will go further. Statements have been made about the reduction of the debt of the United States. I say that per capita the government of Canada have been able to reduce the taxation of the country to a greater extent than has even the far-famed President Coolidge.


Mr. LADNER:: Where are the reductions?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend asks: where are the reductions? I shall be glad to give him details of the reductions when the time comes in connection with the budget.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The income tax?


Charles A. Stewart: I quite understand that hon. gentlemen opposite do not like these statements.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Because they are not true. That is the reason we don't like them.
1448	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Charles A. Stewart: Because they check them carefully; if they do they will are not true?	find them correct.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: I will be glad to prove my statements to the satisfaction of my hon. friend, though that will be a pretty hard job, I admit. I will tell my hon. friend something more. The total disbursements per capita in Canada show a steady decline. They are as follows:
Per head
1922	
$51	851923	
47	861924	
40	161925	
37	53
Is not that a reduction?


Arthur Meighen: What about the railway debt?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is always anxious to drag in the railway. The railway debt, as he knows, has been segregated by the government and kept in a separate item.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.
Mr. S't'EWART (Edmonton): And he will drag it in and compare it with a period when wr were not operating the railways at all.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely, I have heard him, and have read his speeches.


Arthur Meighen: Never.


Charles A. Stewart: Let me give the House one or two figures with respect to this matter.
We have heard a great deal about Australia, and what it costs for government there, and how much they have reduced the cost in Great Britain and in the United States. I think the people are entitled to know where we stand in that respect and what the total- taxes in the country are. My hon. friend leading the apposition to-day gave the figures as of a year ago, and I propose to give them as of to-day and I propose from this time on to repeat this statement, because hon. gentlemen opposite never	think of	these figures,	pass themup if they	can, and	give us fictitious figures	instead. 'The figures	are as	follows	Taxes	Great	UnitedCanada Australia	Britain	StatesFederal .. ..	37.62	42.26	79.00	29.22Provincial ..	5.16	15.86	8.51.Municipal ..	23.33	11.56	18.12	29.66Totals.. ..	66.11	69.68	97.12	67.39
3 commend these figures to the consideration of hon. members opposite and ask them to


Arthur Meighen: No, they are not correct.


Charles A. Stewart: What else has the government done? Have you ever heard any members of the opposition telling you how the Canadian dollar had risen in value since the government -came into office? Not very often.


Arthur Meighen: What about the Brazilian dollar?


Charles A. Stewart: The Brazilian dollar has nothing to do with it. I am taJlking about the Canadian dollar. May I refer to the trade returns? Hon. members boast very much about the trade returns, and they boasted about the trade returns during the war -period. The war is over and in the balance of trade Canada in 1921 was $29,000,000 to the bad, as were the Canadian National Railways, under the leadership of the hon. gentleman who sits opposite. What are they to-day? In 1922, we had $6,000,000 on the right side of the ledger. In 1923, we had $142,000,000 in our favour, in 1924, $165,000,000 in our favour, and in 1925 we had $392,831,447 in our favour.


Arthur Meighen: What about 1920?


Charles A. Stewart: There was a fair balance in that year.


Arthur Meighen: Bigger than ever my hon. friend had.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, for the simple reason, as my hon. friends know, it was the end of the war period and there was need of a great deal of shipping for reconstruction in France and elsewhere. My hon. friend will not deny it. If he were the leader of the government to-day how proudly he would point to those figures. He would make the very roof ring with exultation at what his government had been able to do. How delighted he would be to exhibit a record such as this, because he cannot show it in any government he ever had the honour to lead. Some hon. member on the other side of the House, I think one of the members for Ottawa, was depicting the terrible straits to which the government had reduced the country by the treaties it had negotiated. It is not necessary to discuss the Australian treaty and all the dire things the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) said about it. He declared we should have a brick for brick tariff on agricultural products. I would advise the hon. gentleman to examine the figures. His tariff, he thinks, would suit us admirably and would

The Address-Mr. Manion
bring back all the people who have gone from Canada to the United States, but I would point out that with four exceptions there are heavier duties on agricultural products coming into Canada than on those going into the United States.


Arthur Meighen: What are they for?


Charles A. Stewart: I will give them. I commend that statement to my hon. friend's attention. If he looks up the tariff he will find that the tariff on onions is higher, and that the tariff on butter and eggs is also higher. We have the single exception of wheat which does not count at all. Some hon. gentleman said the other night that we imported flour-the idea of a country like Canada importing flour! Of course, we do; very small quantities, it is true, but we import almost every commodity into Canada.
I will not go into the details of the Australian treaty, but I might tell my hon. friend, notwithstanding the statement he made the other day that the treaty would have a disastrous effect on butter as marketed by the farmers to-day, that in the city of Ottawa butter is dearer at the present time than it has ever been since 1920, and my hon. friend was in office at that time. The member for South Oxford tells us that there are millions of pounds of butter coming from New Zealand and Australia and that some cheese has arrived in his constituency, but apparently it has not depressed the price of our own product.	.
We are warranted in taking the position we do with respect to closure on this occasion. We are warranted in sustaining parliament when parliament decided by a majority vote in this House that a certain procedure should be taken. That is our answer to the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) as to why at this moment closure is applied. It is applied because they and their followers have been attempting to defy the will of parliament dearly expressed.


Robert James Manion: As I have barely twenty minutes in which to address the House I shall not endeavour to cover completely the speech of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), but there are a couple of points in that speech to which I should like to refer for a moment if I may.
In the first place the minister, in regard to the Rouyn railway, suggested that we could investigate the matter in this House or in a committee of the House. I submit however that as this railway was incorporated as a private concern in the province of Quebec
we can do nothing of the sort. A fact that has often struck me is this, that invariably in this House, the shadier the deal the more certain is it that my hon. friend will be put up to defend it. As I said last year, the hon. gentleman looks more respectable than anyone could possibly be in real life; he fairly oozes respectability. Whenever therefore there is a Shady deal of any kind to be defended he is always put up on his feet to defend it.
I want to touch one other point mentioned by the minister, and that is in regard to taxation. He said that this government had reduced taxation to a considerable extent. Well, in the first place it has not done so; but even if it had reduced taxation it has cut down business ten times more than it *has effected such reduction.
Sir, we have had in the last few hours the amazing and amusing spectacle of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who has been described by his admirers and his followers as the tribune of the people, the apostle of 'Liberalism, the defender of free speech, rising in his place and clamping closure on the debate which has been going on, notwithstanding that this procedure has been condemned not only by him, as my right hon. leader (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out, but by most hon. gentlemen opposite, as an infamous gag, an instrument of autocracy, gag law, and generally as the quintessence of Tory autocracy. Yet, as I watched the vote being taken, the only hon. gentleman who had the decency to blush, as supporters of the government one after another swallowed themselves once more, was my hon. hiend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), a gentleman who probably blushes as little as any hon. member in this House.
This act of closure is, Mr. Speaker, the culminating act of a series of humiliating retractions, of flagrant violations of promises, and of a wholesale swallowing of so-called Liberal principles on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. I remember that as a boy I once went to a circus where I saw the performance of a sword swallower, but the ability of that man to swallow swords was nothing compared to the ability of this government to swallow its principles and its promises. The government has long since cast aside practically every one of its professed principles, just as it has broken all its promises; and now this last flimsy principle among all the principles of Liberalism, namely, the principle of free speech, of which hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken so much, the government has sacrificed on the same altar
The Address-Mr. Manion

at which they are all worshipping to-day, the altar of power at any price, even the price of Canada itself.
We have had for four years the spectacle of a government recanting all its promises and its principles. Let me mention a few of these recantations. The tariff plank of 1919 is burned; Senate reform, of which hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken so much from one end of Canada to the other, is forgotten; national economy, of which they have made a great boast, has been replaced by the political pork barrel; trusts, combines and mergers, of which Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. Murdock talked so much, are merely given a new title,-they are now called monopolies by land and sea; the cost of living, over which Mr. Mackenzie King has literally fumed for the past seven or eig!ht years, has gone up instead of down; free speech is now wiped out by closure; and national unity is eliminated, sacrificed on the same altar. Why, speaking of national unity, it seems to me almost a sacrilege for some of my hon. friends opposite, although by no means all of them, to use this phrase at all after the very wicked and vile methods which were adopted in the province of Quebec by some of them in the last election, methods which showed that they were more anxious to defeat my right hon. leader than they were to advocate such policies and defend such principles as they knew were vital to the prosperity of the people of that province. And the result of these various recantations to which I have alluded has been that we have had serious business depression in this country, marked unemployment, and an appalling exodus of our population such as we have never before experienced in the history of Canada. So much are these facts recognized by the people of the Dominion that on October 29 the government was overwhelmingly defeated, the Prime Minister and eight of his ministers being completely rejected. The Liberal party had 200,000 votes less than this party, and to-day in this House they have fifteen members fewer than we have on this side. At the present time four provinces in this great Dominion are without representation in the cabinet, and we have the humiliating spectacle of the province of Ontario, the greatest province in Canada both in point of wealth and in the matter of population, without a single minister in the government, while the little province of Saskatchewan has a representation of three. Yet the Minister of Justice declared a few minutes ago that we were obstructing parliament. Why, Mr. Speaker, the government has been guilty of a far more serious

obstruction than the obstruction of parliament, even if that charge were true in respect of this party: the government has obstructed the will of the people. That is what my hon. friends opposite have done. We have obstructed, it is true, but, we have obstructed not any business of parliament-there has been no business before parliament to be obstructed-but the efforts of the government to vote itself a holiday.
What was the reply of the people on October 29 to the Speech which had been delivered by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King at Richmond Hill, in which, for a few brief moments, he played the part of a sportsman, when he declared that he would not come back to parliament and attempt to carry on unless he was in a better position from a parliamentary standpoint than he had been in the past to implement the promises he had made the country? What was the reply of the people to that speech? Their reply was to wipe out altogether not only the Prime Minister himself but his ministers in the province of Ontario and in various other parts of the country as well. Yet to-day, in face of this unequivocal verdict of the people on October 29, Mr. Mackenzie King says that he is going to carry through a great deal of legislation forecast in the Speech from the Throne,-a Speech which, by the way, ought never to have been introduced at all if the government had been really sincere in its announcement that parliament would meet merely for the purpose of ascertaining what party should govern.
Mr. Mackenzie King had in the last parliament, between 1921 and 1925, 80 per cent of the members of the House of Commons, including the sixty-five Progressives who voted in support of the government on every vital occasion. What is the situation to-day? To-day he has, including the three or four groups outside the Conservatives, only 53 per cent of the membership. And yet, although in the last parliament, with such support as I have indicated, he found it impossible to go on with the Hudson Bay railway, to give Alberta her resources, to bring in rural credits, to enact the single transferable vote, or to carry out one single promise of all the multitude of promises he had made to every section of the country, to-day he declares his intention of undertaking all or most of these things. If he could not fulfil any of these promises or institute any of these policies with 80 per cent of the membership of this House, how on earth is he going to do so with 53 per cent of the members? If he could not carry on with majorities ranging from 77 to 116 between 1921 and 1925, figures which I

The Address-Mr. Manion
have taken the trouble to verify, how will he carry on with majorities of from 1 to 10 as they have had this session? That very fact, Mr. Speaker, that his majorities to-day range between 1 and 10, is the most outstanding proof that we were absolutely right in saying that he and his party were indisputably defeated in the country on October 29.
The present situation would be a laughable and hilarious farce were it not so tragical from the standpoint of the people of this Dominion. Notwithstanding all this, however, the hon. member for Brandon gets up in this House and votes for closure in order to keep this ragged remnant of a government in power, this alleged government which since coming into office has broken every promise it ever made to western Canada itself. My hon. friend (Mr. Forke) is apparently still willing and happy to accept that same useless coin, that same gold brick which he got from Mr. Mackenzie King in the past. In other words, Sir, his political partisanship is so strong that he prefers to see Mr. Mackenzie King in power rather than see the policies carried out which he stands for in the west. His independence, Mr. Speaker, is only a mask, and everybody knows it is only a mask, just as they know that Mr. Mackenzie King has been the greatest failure as a political leader that this country has ever produced; just as they know that he has been the greatest master of political dodgery in the history of the Dominion, so much so that to-day, instead of being spoken of in many circles as the leader of the Liberal party, he is spoken of as its misleader.
Now, what are the purposes of this closure motion that the hon. member for Brandon so loyally supported a little while ago. It is true we put on closure in the past on important questions such as the naval policy of the Dominion, the Canadian Northern railway purchase, and the railway incorporation. But those were all important questions. What are the purposes, I ask again, of this closure motion? They were mentioned by my leader, but I shall enumerate them again. The first is a desire for a holiday-that the members of this government may go home and laugh in peace and quiet at the country which they are betraying instead of serving. The other purpose is to close up the customs investigation, which of course will help all the lawbreakers, the smugglers, the thugs and the thieves to join them in their laugh at the expense of the people. And yet my hon. friend from Brandon stands up and trails along behind them with a large portion of his group. By his attitude he aids and abet3
those purposes, in fact, to use a term current among lawyers, he is an accomplice before the fact in this case.
We also are tired of the debate; we are tired of the way in which things have been dragging along while we have been trying to spur this government into action, but we felt it a duty we owed to the committee appointed by this House to keep members sitting here in order that we might at least give them moral support in their investigation of the charges made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who is endeavouring honourably and honestly to save tens of millions of dollars that the people are now being robbed of by those who are breaking our customs laws.
I well remember, Sir, a book I read many years ago by Victor Hugo, in which he describes a man whose cheeks when a boy had been slit by some human monster so that the poor fellow appeared always to be grinning from ear to ear, and he was exhibited throughout Europe as the "laughing man." Well, to my mind this is nothing more than a laughing government. We have had the House sitting for almost two months with the members on this side, as my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior said, telling the government their faults and their failures in every accent from every section of the country. What have we had in reply? Nothing but laughter. Certainly no defence because there is none; our accusations are true. This attitude of laughing instead of acting is in keeping with the whole record of the government for the past four years or more. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Because they have laughed at everything worth while that has been proposed. They laughed first at the promises of Mr. Mackenzie King, their own leader-they laughed at the platform of 1919; then they laughed at the people for allowing themselves to be duped by that platform and the promises of Mr. Mackenzie Ring; they laughed at the appalling unemployment of our Canadian working people; they laughed at the appalling exodus of our Canadian-born; they laughed at a real Canadian policy of "Canada for Canadians" which we tried to persuade them to adopt; they laughed at our proposal to inaugurate a national fuel policy-to use Canadian coal on Canadian railways, and Canadian coal in Canadian homes; they laughed at our policy of using Canadian-made products rather than imported goods; they laughed at all our great national problems instead of trying to solve them; and finally, Mr. Speaker, they have been laughing at the people of Canada ever since October 29, when the electorate
The Address-Mr. Manion

gave a verdict against them, which verdict they have been ever since ignoring instead of accepting.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are laughing at you.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
Mr. MANlION:	I do not know the concealed gentleman who says he is laughing at me.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Interruptions
from outside the House are not allowed.


Robert James Manion: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker; interruptions from behind a curtain are the "courageous" remarks that some type of men like to make. Now, in their laughter at all the various propositions that have been put before them and which I have just enumerated, the government will be joined by all the thieves and thugs and smugglers who will thus get a respite, because the Customs committee cannot function properly unless the House is sitting. They are going to get a temporary or permanent respite because, I repeat, the Customs committee cannot deal effectively with any recalcitrant witnesses unless they have at least the moral support of the House.
But I want to remind the government of the old saying-those who laugh last laugh best. And the people are going to have a last laugh, because ultimately they are going to rid themselves for all time of this odious government; they are going to send Mr. Mackenzie King and the member for Brandon-as mentioned by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) a moment ago-and a number of their friends to that place where weeping and wailing^ and gnashing of teeth prevails instead of laughter. Sir, at one time in the English House of Commons a leader was impeached if he took a vicious or disloyal attitude that was detrimental to the country, which he was supposed to serve. I think the last impeachment took place about a hundred and fifty years ago. It seems to me it is quite possible we may have to re-establish that old practice in Canada, should it be the only way open to us to get rid of a Prime Minister whose mind is impervious to any realization of defeat and whose character is impervious to any appreciation of fair play and sportsmanship-a man who is so impervious to this quality that he is to-day retaining the reins of power long after the people have shown him that they recognize the failure he is, long after they have shown him that they no longer retain any confidence in him.
Closure at this time and under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, simply adds another to the long list of charges against this make-

shift of a government, and it is going to be only another reason why the people will amply revenge themselves when the time comes against an administration which has been such a failure in grappling with the great national questions that urgently demand attention. Mr. King and some of his political accomplices will be sent to the political wilderness directly the people get an opportunity. That opportunity will come shortly, and when it does come, the people will correct the error they made during the last election under the impression that the province of Quebec was voting on the issues of the day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You b*ve your chance out in Regina.


Robert James Manion: I will probably be out
there myself before long to help my party. I hope so. The people wild try to correct the error they made in thinking the province of Quebec was voting on the issues of the day instead of against an old conscription law that has long been dbsolete, and against an imaginary Turkish war. My hon. friend speaks of Regina. Well, I notice that the Prime Minister goes to Prince Albert; he does not dare open a constituency nearer home. This great province of Ontario, as large in area and as important in population and resources as any ,other three, ot probably four, provinces, with ;the exception of the province of Quebec, is to-day in the disgraceful position, from the Standpoint of the government, of having no representative in the cabinet. The Prime Minister goes to Saskatchewan to get a seat, ibut he did not dare open any in the province ,of Ontario. When the next election comes, no matter what happens in the province of Quebec-and what I have said of that great province is not in derogation of it, for I have the greatest respect for its people, but I have .little respect for some of the Liberal leaders ,who have misled them-I say, that in the next election, no matter what way the people of Quebec vote, their fellow-citizens throughout the rest of the Dominion are going to raise up such a hurricane of indignation against this government as will sweep out Mr. Mackenzie King, the member for Brandon and his other supporters and sweep into power the Liberal-Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I hear one of my hon
friends laughing somewhat loudly at that. I do not wish to be offensive, but there was a poet some time ago who referred to "The loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind." I say that, I repeat, with no desire to be offen-

The Address-Mr. Bcaubien
sive in any way. I repeat that the electors are going to put into power the Liberal-Conservative party, standing for a stable tariff policy for all the people of this country; for p sane, economical railway policy; for a lower taxation policy and for a progressive immigration policy in Canada. Those policies are the foundation stones upon which the greatness of Canada must be built, and they must be held together by the cement of fair dealing between the different sections of Canada. .The country knows that this government will not put those policies into effect; the country knows also that those policies are absolutely necessary. With the exception of the government itself, everyone knows that this is what we must have in order that we may join up with those advancing, progressive and prosperous nations in other parts of the world.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Proveneher):: In rising to make a few remarks on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I do so with the view of justifying my actions in this House during this session of parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: It cannot be done.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Possibly not in the eyes of some people, but it can in the eyes of the electors whom I have the honour to represent.
I am not concerned with what the Liberals said) against or in favour of the closure; I am concerned with the conditions as they exist to-day, and I say that if the electors of this country are going to be subjected to obstruction in this House for weeks and weeks, consisting largely of reiteration of what happened during the campaign, of what the political leaders said or did not say during the campaign, or what they said that they should not have said, I am afraid1 the electors will lose confidence in our parliamentary institutions.	.
What is the duty of a member? The first duty of a member is to his electors, in my opinion. When we came down here no party had an absolute majority over the others, and we had to consider what course we should follow; we had to form a plan of action in order to be true to the principles upon which we were elected. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the principles upon which I was elected. I was elected to come down here to force the two parties which have existed since confederation to put their promises into effect. I happened to be in Montreal two or three weeks ago, and while there a man said to me, "What do you wild westerners want?" To which I replied: "We want what both political parties have been promising us for the last twenty-five years." Is it too much to expect?
That is what I ask. The Hudson Bay railway ; rural credits; the return of their natural resources to the western provinces-those are all in the Speech from the Throne, and those are the promises made by both political parties for years, on public platforms, in this House and everywhere else.
We came down here and the government presented His Excellency's Speech. The return of the natural resources to Alberta was mentioned in that Speech; the completion of the Hudson Bay railway was mentioned, as well as the question of rural credits. What is left for us to do? I am not partial; I am not here to defend the Liberal party or praise the Conservative party; I am here to defend my actions and I can defend them before my electors.
What was there to do? The Speech from the Throne was drafted by the government, because it was presented by the government. The Speech from the Throne was acceptable to the Progressives and they voted against the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). The Independent members also accepted the Speech from the Throne in voting against that amendment. The right hon. leader of the opposition accepted the Speech from the Throne, because in moving his amendment he used the words "that the following be added," and my understanding is that when you add anything you accept what is already there. My knowledge of English may be limited, but that is my understanding of the word "add" and I do not think anyone who understands the English language can take any other meaning from it. Then, if the government accepts the Speech from the Throne; if we accept it and the leader of the opposition accepts it, what is there for us to do? Have we done anything wrong? Where is the bribe? I have not seen any bribe, and I do not know of any. I have acted according to my conscience and according to the expressed desire of my electors. That has been my only ambition in this House and will be my only ambition as long as I have the honour to represent a constituency in this parliament.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said some two years ago, and I repeated it in this present parliament, that the speeches should be curtailed to the shortest possible time. I am rather glad to see this closure; I would like to see closure applied quite often when there is obstruction, and I think the government would be justified-if they are going to be a government-in showing some backbone and saying, "We are here with certain measures which we have mentioned in the Speech from the

The Address-Mr. Beaubien
Throne, and' the moment obstruction looms up we are going to put on the closure." That is the stand I would take, whether the right hon. leader of the opposition headed the government, or whether the present government remained in power. The people expect results, and not wind; three, four and five hour^ speeches are going to cause people to be disgusted with the members of parliament and with our parliamentary institutions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is just one remark the horn, member for Rainy River made which X think he will correct at the first opportunity. He said that the Progressives voted with the government during the last parliament and during the last session. I want to 'be fair, and I am sure that if the hon. member will look up the records he will find that he and his party voted with the Liberals to defeat the Progressives oftener than we voted with the Liberals.


Robert James Manion: Will my hon. friend permit me an interruption? The hon. gentleman forgets that I said "on all vital matters." And may I add, just in a word, on all matters where there was any doubt of the government carrying the vote.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I will leave it at that, and I say again that the Conservatives voted oftener with the Liberals than the Progressives did. I mention this because I am sure the hon. member for Rainy River wants to be fair, as he is always fair.


Mr. HEENAN:: Will the hon. member
permit an interruption? The hon. member designates the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) as the member for Rainy River, and the hon. member for Fort William evidently desires to be the member for Rainy River, and accepts that designation. I would just like to correct that error.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am very glad of the
correction.


Robert James Manion: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am sorry. The hon.
member CMr. Manion) represented Rainy River last year, which was the reason for my error. It is a good thing to change a constituency sometimes.
Now Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House any longer. In closing I appeal to the government and to every member of this House: when the House meets again on March 15, let us have a programme.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

'Mr. BEAUBIEN: I mean a programme of legislation; let the government present the legislation. I may make a slip in the use ,of a word once in a while; I did not mean that exactly. It does a man good, Mr. Speaker, to see the opposition laugh, because they have been so solemn the last few days that one would think they had a funeral on hand. In fact, the Manitoba Free Press .stated that the committee of strategy of the Conservative party was in distress. I wonder if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) has received an SjOB. call from them, and whether he has sent relief?
Let us forget our political strife. Let us try to work in harmony, because it is the only way we can get anywhere. If hon. members are going to rehash that old political stuff .across the floor of this House, the country is going to suffer, and the members who are jiere are going to suffer at the next election.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to occupy very much of the time of the House in discussing whether or not the Closure rule should be applied aJt this stage of the debate. I am sure every hon. member realizes that the debate on the Address has already occupied1 an unprecedented time; that every subject possible has been brought to the attention of the House by hon. members who have spoken, and that there is no justification or reason why the House should be further delayed from proceeding at the proper time to take into consideration the government programme and to have it crystallized into legislation.
Hon. gentlemen who spoke this afternoon said that this resolution should not be adopted, first, because it only meant that there was going to be a holiday. It will not be any holiday for the government; we expect that every day between now and the fifteenth instant will be taken up in serious consideration, in meetings of council, of the legislation which we propose to submit immediately after parliament resumes its sittings. That legislation which is stated in the Speech from the Throne will be made ready at the earliest possible day for the consideration of the House.
It has been suggested that the committee which has been working so steadily will have its operations interrupted. I have had a long
MARCH 2, 1926	i
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish)
experience in connection with investigating and other committees amd such a suggestion is purely imaginary. If the committee continues to sit as it has been doing during the past weeks, there will be seven days on which it will sit between now and the 15th of March. Up to the present there has been no refusal on the part of any witness to answer questions put by the committee and there is no indication of any such disposition on the part of any witness who has been summoned. My hon. friends know very well that in accordance with the practice that has existed for all time in parliament, the plenary power of parliament to deal with persons who refuse to answer questions extends to detention only during the sitting of the House, so that this theory that the committee is to be hampered in any way is a delusion and a figment of the imagination put forward solely to formulate some excuse for further delaying the business of this country.
My right hon. friend is worried because we have applied to him and his colleagues a weapon which he placed in the rules of the House. Why should we not do so? In 1913 that rule was placed there in the form of an amendment to the rules by my right hon. friend in the midst of a dehate on a certain subject. That amendment to the rules was not made after full consideration of the rules at the proper time, but the government of the day, intervening in the debate which was before the House, framed the rule and had it passed by the majority at that time. It is an accepted situation not only in Canada but in every English-speaking parliamentary body that where obstruction exists or appears in the form in which it appears in this House, that rule should be invoked1 in the public interest in order that the business of the country may be carried on.
I turn my attention to a matter which has been discussed frequently by my colleagues from the Maritime provinces; and for various reasons I want to refer to that question as it has been presented by some of my hon. friends. The matter first came to the attention of the House when the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) delivered an address early in the debate and quoted what he said was the bill of rights of the Maritime provinces, the first one being:
The restoration of the integrity of .the Intercolonial railway, with the western terminus of the system reestablished at Montreal.
It will be noted that my hon. friend is not very clear in his statement whether or not it is intended that the Intercolonial should be detached altogether from the Canadian National and run by the government as a
separate entity, or whether it Should be run as one of the divisions of the Canadian National Railways. The difference between the two is very important and it is desirable that it should be defined in order that the House may recognize it. I understand my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is opposed to either of those tilings being done. As a Maritime man I believe the Fathers of Confederation, when they placed in the British North America Act provision for the construction of what was known as the Intercolonial railway, intended that that railway should be operated for all time in regard to both through and local rates in the interest of the Maritime provinces on account of the fact that they were distant from the central part of Canada. I know for fifty years this parliament and public men on both sides of politics have recognized that as being the manner under which that railway should be operated, and it was so operated until 1918. I have under my hand the order in council, passed on the 20th November, 1918, which took that railway away from the position which it then occupied, by which they removed Mr. Hays and Mr. Brady, who were general managers respectively of the eastern and western lines and the order proceeds:
Ami His Excellency the Governor General in Council, is further pleased to order and declare that the persons, from time to time comprising the Board of Directors of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, shall be and they are hereby appointed a Board of Management of the Canadian Government railways, and are hereby given the powers vested in the General Manager under the general regulations of the Canadian Government Railways adopted by order in Council of the 22nd January, 1914, (P.G. 184).
Mr. Hanna came in and took charge of the railways, and by a subsequent order in December the name of the company was changed and these directors were styled the Canadian National Railway directors. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) became one of the directors of the railway in conjunction with Mr. Hanna, and my hon. friend from Pictou and Mr. Hanna brought into effect these railway rates which have been in existence, with some amendments, since that date. All these rates in force on the Canadian Government railways to-day, so far as they apply to the Maritime provinces, were brought into effect when my hon. friend for Pictou was one of the directors of the company. In order that *there might be no doubt about that, I wired to Mr. Dalrymple, the chief traffic manager and vice president of the Canadian National, and this is what he said:
Many changes have been made in downward direction in Maritime rates since 1921 including building material,
J456	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish)
iron and steel articles, lumber, potatoes, grain and grain products and fertilizers. Rates between Prince Edward Island and mainland have been placed on main line basis; export and import via Halifax placed on St. John basis; reductions in class rates between Maritimes and points west of Montreal.
Those have been made since Mr. Hanna retired and since my hon. friend retired as one of the directors of the company, and since Sir Henry Thornton came in. I did not hear my hon. friend from Pictou, or any of those gentlemen previous to 1921 raising their voices in objection to the system of rates. We hear it now. At the instance of this government at the present time an investigation is going on for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the discriminatory rates should be removed!. [DOT] For the information of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn), let me state that when his party were in power down to 1921 there was discrimination against St. John and' Halifax in favour of American ports in regard to grain passing through Canada. That discrimination was removed two years ago by Sir Henry Thornton, and to-day grain can be carried to Halifax and St. John, although it is a longer distance, at exactly the same rates as to Portland and Boston. That objection has been removed. Last year objection was made to the construction of proper elevator facilities.


Mr. SMITH:: Before the hon. gentleman leaves the Intercolonial-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I object to interruptions. I have only twenty minutes to speak.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I would like to say-


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order, order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am mentioning these facts to show the House that I agree that there are matters to be investigated and considered, but in regard to the question of coal duty I desire to remind my hon. friend that the miners of Cape Breton have passed a resolution objecting to any increase in the coal duties.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: When?
Mr. MACDONALD' (Antigonish-Guysbor-ough): Two or three months ago.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Have you a copy of the resolution?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. My hon. friend knows it was passed just before the beginning of the negotiations with the Besco Company.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I would like to see a copy of the resolution. .


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can get it for my hon. friend. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) addressed the House on the subject of the fisheries down there. I sympathize with him in full in regard to all those matters he mentioned. I think that industry deserves the greatest possible encouragement from all parts of Canada, but it is rather difficult for the government to make people eat fish if they do not want to. However, we are ready to do anything in our power to assist in the transportation of fish and the development of that industry. But let me call attention to a resolution which was passed in the provincial legislature, moved by the Conservative leader, Mr. Corning, on April 23, 1923. I would like to put this resolution on Hansard1. I quote a portion of it:
Whereas, the spirit of the confederation compact with respect to the Intercolonial Railway, now a part of the Canadian National Railway system, has been violated and Nova Scotia as a province of Canada is not receiving fair and equitable treatment with respect to freight rates, railway, shipping and other matters on which the province's economic development depends.
And whereas, handicapped by high freight rates and our remoteness from the populous centres of Canada, Nova Scotia cannot compete in Ontario and Quebec with the farm or forest products of those provinces.
And whereas, the markets of Nova Scotia are now being invaded with the surplus farm, dairy, orchard and industrial products of Ontario, Quebec and other provinces which offer no reciprocal markets for the similar products of this province.
And whereas, Nova Scotia as a part of Canada is supporting the policy and practice of heavy protective duties, mainly foT the advantage and benefit of the manufacturing and farming communities of Ontario and Quebec thereby increasing the cost of living in this province without any commensurate benefit to our people.
And whereas. Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces are indifferent to the development and use of the Canadian Atlantic ports, and the policy of the Canadian National Railway is diverting Canadian commerce and shipping traffic through foreign ports to the detriment and injury of the Canadian Atlantic ports and at the sacrifice of Canadian economic independence.
And whereas, confederation has hindered the natural development of this province, impairing its markets at home and abroad and compelling increasing thousands of its most thrifty citizens to emigrate to other lands.
And whereas, the burden of taxation, federal and provincial, has become intolerable to the people of Nova Scotia who have to bear their full share of heavy tariff duties and the loss from the operation of huge railway systems, which railways are building up the commerce of American ports at the expense of the Canadian Atlantic ports and the Intercolonial Railway.
And whereas, Nova Scotia if an independent, selfgoverning British dominion, would be able to protect its farmers, fishermen and industrial workers through tariff measures and trade treaties, thus preserving its home market and furnishing employment

The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish)
to its people and profitable investment for capital and build up the enterprise and population of this province,
Therefore resolved, that in the opinion of this House a vote of the electors of Nova Scotia should be taken by way of referendum for the purpose of ascertaining whether the people of this province favour its withdrawal from confederation and the reconstitution of Nova Scotia as an independent, self-governing British dominion.
That was the Conservative policy in Nova Scotia in 1923. The resolution in amendment moved by the then leader of the government set out the policy of the provincial government, on that subject.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You drove them to it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I propose also to put on Hansard the amendment to the Corning resolution adopted the same day by the Nova Scotia legislature:
Whereas it is the declared and well considered policy of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, while asserting and upholding constitutional rights and the fullest autonomy for the province, to promote and strengthen the unity of our country;
And, whereas, the Liberal party, as the historic party of progress and reform, fought and won the battle of responsible government, against all the odds of privilege and reaction, and as a party opposed to the last resort the unjust terms of confederation forced upon this province, the crippling effects of which still cause unrest, discontent and a strong sense of grievance among the people;
And, whereas, in the opinion of this House, the final adjustment of those terms must be pressed upon the federal government until full justice is secured and ample redress is made;
And. whereas, it has been and is the policy of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia to advocate and support a Customs tariff which bears lightly and equitably upon the people, for the relief of the burden of taxation and the encouragement of trade and industry ; and to that end it gave its whole-hearted support and advocacy to the reciprocity agreement of 1911, which beneficent measure for the freedom of trade and the relief of taxation, the Conservative party and its leaders opposed and succeeded in defeating ;
And, whereas, that reciprocity agreement, negotiated by a distinguished Nova Scotia statesman and Liberal leader, would have been of immense advantage and benefit to the people of Canada and especially those of this province and would have materially contributed to the amelioration of the difficulties and the removal of the disadvantages imposed upon the industries of Nova Scotia as a constituent part of the Dominion;
And, whereas, this House has already taken active measures to secure concerted Maritime action to the end that discriminations in freight rates, the operation of the Intercolonial Railway in its relation to the commercial and industrial prosperity of Nova Scotia, and the enterprising development of Maritime ports may be speedily adjusted-a consummation there is every reason to anticipate will be accomplished through the new administration at Ottawa which has taken definite steps to restore the constitutional rights of which these provinces were deprived by the former federal government;
Whereas there are growing evidences, under the Liberal administration, of industrial revival and increasing confidence in returning prosperity which is being steadily encouraged and vigorously stimulated by the efficieijt methods and sympathetic attitude of the federal government toward this section of the Dominion, in its endeavour to administer in an enterprising and successful way the tremendous railway undertaking which it inherited from its predecessor in office;
Therefore resolved that this House, recognizing that the factors which have militated against the complete development of this province, have been and are beyond the control of this legislature, and are largely the outcome and the results of action taken at confederation and of policies pursued thereafter by the Conservative party and its leaders, which the Liberal party opposed and resisted through its representatives and by all constitutional measures, place on record its strong and unshaken faith in the future of Nova Scotia and its confidence in the good will and the earnest desire of the present federal government to co-operate, in the most generous spirit, in safeguard-[DOT] mg the rights and promoting the welfare of the people of this province;
Further resolved that this House record its firm determination to maintain, as its paramount duty, the historic policy of the Liberal party and of the government, of loyalty to the best interests of Nova Scotia;
And further resolved that this House, while recognizing the importance and value of the measures already taken by the present parliament of Canada to deal with the problems mentioned in this resolution, reaffirm its determination to exert its full powers and influence in expediting the necessary action to improve and cheapen the means of interprovincial transportation. to enlarge the commercial opportunities of the people, and to develop and expand the foreign trade of Canada through Canadian sea ports; and to the end that Nova Scotia may profit in fullest measure from the advantages of its geographical position and natural resources, urge the renewal of the efforts to secure by negotiation a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, and freer access to the markets of the world for the products of the Dominion.
Then in 1925, one year ago, the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia passed a resolution from which this is one quotation:
Resolved that in the opinion of this House the Governor in Council should proceed with the least possible delay to prepare or cause to be prepared a statement of the particulars in which the interests of Nova Scotia have been prejudiced by the economic system of the Dominion of Canada, and should make application to the government and parliament of Canada for appropriate redress and equitable remedies.
A commission was appointed in July last by the then provincial government which was not .allowed to function by the new government. The present Premier of Nova Scotia, in an .Address on the Speech from the Throne, announced that they proposed to submit to the legislature a resolution setting out the grievances of that province. Hon. members are pot all at one on this subject. Take Mr. ,McCurdy, Minister of Public Works in the government of my right hon. friend-


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is he now?
1458	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Macdonald (Antigonish)


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He is in the
Liberal party.


Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guj'sbor-ough):: In a manifesto issued some time ago
he said:
And first let me speak of the so-called national policy or system of protection, under and by virtue of which it is certainly true that the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec have fatten fd and grown rich, even although they are now passing through a lean period.
We who live in Nova Scotia must pay the tribute to Ontario and Quebec exacted by the so-called national policy, but when we come to a question of protecting our interests and our ports, that we are told is another matter.
And he goes further and says in a letter:
The present customs tariff of Canada protects principally the manufacturers of central provinces who, taking advantage of it, raised their prices to the point that the cost of living of our people and the production costs of our natural industries are so great that our producers cannot compete successfully in foreign markets with the producers of other countries where living and production costs are lower.
That is the statement and the position-taken toy the Hon. Mr. McCurdy.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is not a Conservative.


Finlay MacDonald: You had better go and tell him
that. Then again he reiterates on another page:
We believe that the policy of protection as applied to Nova Scotia to-day constitutes a burden which is crushing us.
That is the position taken by Mr. Mc-McCurdy. Mr. McCurdy has a right to his opinion, just as much as my hon. friends. He has a right to express his views in regard to these matters, and his views differ somewhat from those expressed by my hon. friends. It seems to me that the attitude of the government that a commission be appointed in order to arrive at just what the difficulty in the Maritime provinces is, is -a reasonable one. My hon. friend from Labdlle (Mr. Bourassa) made the suggestion that the matter might be inquired into by a committee of the House. That is well worthy of consideration. But here we have these varying and different views as to the real situation and the cause of it. On the one hand hon. members want more duty. On the other hand one of their confreres in the legislature of Nova .Scotia declared quite two years ago that protection was injuring the Maritime provinces, ,and moved a resolution that a plebiscite should be taken to ascertain the feeling in that province.


Mr. QUINN:: Did you not ask for duties on coal and steel?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend knows that I have a record of which I am not ashamed, and I am here to say that as a Nova Scotian and a Maritime man I stand firmly for everything that will make for the progress and the prosperity of that part of the Dominion. In my judgment, the intention of the Fathers of Confederation in regard to the Intercolonial railway should be clearly recognized and carried into effect, in the interests not only of the Maritime provinces but of the Dominion as a whole. I realize that the Maritime provinces have been handicapped by difficulties which deserve the fullest consideration of this House, and something must be done to remedy the situation. But we must proceed in the .proper way. We do not want hysterical speeches by hon. gentlemen who one year fix coal rates and two or three years afterwards come to parliament and apply to have these rates altered. We do not want them calling themselves Maritime rigbters and on the vital question of railways standing behind the leader of -the opposition, who is opposed to the Intercolonial being put back in the place where the people of the Maritime provinces want it. That is not the way to get results. Those of us who are anxious to see that part of Canada make progress must look at the facts. There are differences of opinion and there is no reason why these differences should not be inquired into. The government is sympathetic to difficult conditions wherever they exist in any part of this Dominion, and are anxious to devise and to find and apply whatever remedies can be found to make for the unity and upbuilding of Canada.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington):: We have had something in the nature of a confession from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), when at the outset o'f his statement to-night he declared that the ensuing adjournment would be no holiday for members of the government inasmuch as they would require all the time at their disposal to prepare legislation for submission to parliament when it meets again.


Finlay MacDonald: To perfect legislation, I said.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend forgets that besides the members of the government there are in this House possibly 230 hon. gentlemen for whom- it will be a holiday, and a holiday to which we object, which we do not ask for, which we do not desire and for which

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
the counrtry will have to pay. It has been charged by the opposition in this House for the last four or five weeks at least that the government had no business to lay before parliament and was not ready to do business. It has been intimated for weeks now, at least since the motion was made for the adjournment, that those on your left, Mr. Speaker, were prepared to get down to business and to vote on the Address at any moment the government would come forward with business to be done. Buit until this moment nothing has been brought forward by the government, and the government now seeks an adjournment practically for its own purposes to prepare legislation against the r.e-assembling of parliament on the 15th. I for one take no exception whatever to the present motion of the government for the application of that parliamentary rule which we know as closure. I was one of those who in the year 1913 voted against the introduction of that rule, but after reflection during the intervening years-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, Oh.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friends laugh,
but their reflection has taken place only in the last twenty-four hours. In a few hours they have made a complete change of front. After reflection, I say, I have come to the conclusion, which I state wholly on my own authority, that no large deliberative body can operate satisfactorily without some form of closure. I do not believe that the proceedings of this parliament can be properly carried on now or in the future without the reasonable application of the closure rule. All the proceedings in the parliament of Great Britain are conducted practically under closure. It is not formally moved in that House for the reason that there is no necessity for so doing; the rule exists and the Prime Minister merely gives notice that at such and such a time on a certain day the vote will be taken, and the vote is taken accordingly. Closure is the rule in the United States House of Representatives, and1 it is also in our book of rules in this parliament. It should be a rule generally accepted and generally adopted if we in this parliament are going to transact properly the necessary business we are called upon to transact at every session.
Now I do not know that I have any protest whatever to offer. I feel rather like congratulating the government on the step it has taken to-day in moving this motion of closure. It is the first sign of life the government has exhibited for many weeks. It would have been far more to the credit of the government had it taken this step four or
five weeks ago; the present departure suggests not only here but in every part of the country that the government has been driven into a corner and as a last resort has adopted rule 17 which has all the time been on the rule book of the House of Commons. I cannot say I commend the courage of hon. gentlemen opposite in this respect. But there are two kinds of courage, it is true:	There is that
courage that springs from confidence and from manly gallantry, and there is the courage born of fear. Everyone knows that even a coward driven into a corner will show fight; we know, everyone knows, that even a worm will turn if trodden upon. And if I cannot congratulate the government upon the courage it has displayed in this parliament I can at least say that I am heartily glad that as a last resource it has through courage born of fear brought in this measure of closure.
There is no doubt,-you realize it, Mr. Speaker, every thinking man in this House realizes it, and the electors of the Dominion realize it-that for the past eight weeks we have had something like a parliamentary fiasco in the House of Commons. I am not going to place the blame or responsibility for this situation on any party in this House. I am candid enough to say that in my opinion it has resulted from the election 'held on October 29 last. But this parliamentary fiasco might have been avoided, it should have been avoided, and it would have been avoided had the Prime Minister of this country taken the course he should have taken, and which in his Richmond Hill speech he promised to take, when he knew the result of the electoral vote on October 29. All our troubles have their ^ starting point in the unwarranted resolution of the Prime Minister to retain office. From that point our difficulties began to arise and, as time went on, to accumulate and to become greater and Igreater, until at this moment we have what I know I am within the judgment of the House in describing as a practical parliamentary deadlock. I have spoken privately with many hon. members in every quarter of the House, thinking, intelligent and reasonable men. In private conversation in the lobbies or in the rooms of this building there seems to be unanimity of opinion upon this point, that present conditions are not satisfactory, and that they cannot be made satisfactory; that there is only one solution of our present trouble, and the sooner that solution is brought about the better it will be for parliament and the Dominion. That solution is a speedy appeal to the electors of Canada.

The Address-Mr. Guthrie
I do not say it in any language of disrespect, but I tell the government that it has become a by-word and a jest in every city, town and village of the country. Serious people from one end of the Dominion to the other of every shade of political opinion seem to unite in this view, that a situation exists in this House of Commons to-day which can be solved only in one way-by an appeal to the court of last resort; by another appeal to the electors.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: You have had two chances to do that.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us examine the situation without passion or excitement or ill-feeling.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no passion at all.


Hugh Guthrie: We have a government
supported by a 'hundred of its followers, faced by an opposition of 116 intelligent, able, *capable, resolute men, an opposition convinced that it is right, and determined to oppose this government because it confidently believes the government is wrong. Then we have another group, or rather several groups, making up a membership of 29. These hon. gentlemen, although divided among themselves, at the present time accord a very general support to the government; but never up to the present moment have they had an opportunity of expressing their confidence, or lack of confidence, in the government. This lack of opportunity has been brought about simply through the skilful manoeuvring and the finesse of the government. True, there was an opportunity in tlhe early days of the session when a straight want of confidence motion was moved, and when a test of strength might have taken place; but no, it was not permitted; a minister of the crown to relieve the government of its difficulty and embarrassment, had solemnly to inform hon. members of the Progressive party that the government would not treat a favourable vote on that motion as a vote of confidence; in short- tlhe minister had to plead with the Progressives to secure their support and avoid a decision on a straight vote of confidence. Since then we have never had an opportunity of moving one; by closure and by moving of the previous question we have been denied that opportunity.
Now, I think everyone must realize that the tenure of office of a government situated as this is is precarious in the extreme. What assurance is there to us or to the people of Canada of any permanence about the situation, or that we will get anything but

haphazard, and sectional legislation at best? What assurance have my hon. friends of the Progressive group that this government, which for four years has resolutely denied their demands, and which now through force of political expediency says, "Hold on, support us, and we will grant your demands"-I say what confidence can the Progressive members have in such a pledge? What confidence can my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) have in a promise made under such circumstances? He has the honour of a front seat and is looked upon as an out and out supporter of the government-though by the way a few months ago he actually opposed a minister of this government and diefeated him. Why is he now one of their supporters? Simply by reason of the fact that he has induced the Prime Minister to write him a personal letter-promising to do what? To amend the criminal code, to amend the Naturalization Act, to amend the Immigration Act-to amend three acts which this government had resolutely refused to touch through the course of four sessions. Why is that promise made now? Simply political expediency again. A government that has to stoop in that way, that has to hold out blandishments and allurements to those hon. members in the left hand comer of this House and to make other promises to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, cannot be more than temporary and makeshift at best.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the situation is as I have pictured it-and I do not think I have overdrawn it-if my statement meets with the judgment of hon. members, reasonable men in every quarter of the House, what is our duty under the circumstances? Shall we allow the disrespect-the growing disrespect-throughout Canada of parliament and parliamentary institutions to continue and to gather force? Or is it our duty as good, loyal Canadians having respect for this Chamber and for our parliamentary institutions, to seek to solve the problem, no matter if the solution be difficult? It will not be difficult in this case, Sir. My hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) stated this afternoon the absolute determination of the government to continue in office. I suppose he spoke with the authority of his leader, the Prime Minister of this country. In our Prime Minister we have, unfortunately, a man who looks upon himself as practically indispensable in the councils of the Dominion. No man is indispensable in any country. We all pass out of this sphere in course of time and our places are very readily

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
filled; nobody is indispensable. But to continue, I fancy, is the resolution of the Prime Minister. He has resolved to hold on to the salaries and the sweets and the emoluments and the honours of office which he pictured in his Richmond Hill speech last September. I ask again: What is our duty under the circumstances? If the government would resign the problem would be solved and an appeal to the people would take place immediately. But the resolution of the government, as expressed to-day, is that it will carry on. Well, then, I appeal to my friends of the Progressive group, I appeal to hon. members who have the interests of this country at heart, who are able to look a little beyond the success or failure of political parties as represented in this House, to weigh the matter and inquire of themselves what is their duty. This afternoon I heard my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) say to the House that the Progressive party had no fear of an election, that they would come back stronger than ever before. That being the case, they have it in their power to-night to solve this situation, they have it in their power this very night to force an appeal to the electors of the Dominion and break this deadlock which is so injurious to parliament and so injurious to the country. Will my hon. friends of the Progressive party rise to the occasion? Will they at this critical moment say: We will stand with you and make the appeal; we are not afraid of the electorate. They profess that they are not afraid of such an appeal. The only party evidently that is fearful of the electors is the government of the day.
Now I have made my appeal and in a closing word I say: We have on this side a united party, convinced that we are right, ready to stand up and vote on this question in order to solve this problem, to cut this Gordian knot by an appeal to the electors of Canada. I ask those of the Progressive party who are above partyism, who look to the present and to the future of this great country as the main theme in this debate as the great issue before us-I ask them whether they will join us and send this whole question back to the people for a solution at a general election.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Te-miscouata): Mr. Speaker, the speech to which we have just listened is a new evidence of the fact that dreadnoughts are not dangerous. As I am rather a new member in this House, a friend of mine asked me the other day why I spoke without notes the last time. I said that was very easy to explain, because I have my inspiration just in front of me; the present opposition is composed of "can't believe'' men. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) can't believe that he is not the
Prime Minister of this country; he can't believe that his child, the closure, is no longer under his control. That is why he is so sad about it. The hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) can't believe that he is no longer the Minister of Public Works and the superintendent of all public buildings in Canada. The hon. member for Victoria-Car-leton (Mr. Flemming) can't believe that he is not the Minister of Railways.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are your
notes?


Mr. POULIOT:: Notes? Well, this time the pictures of the members of the opposition are on my notes. The hon. member for Hants-Ivings (Mr. Foster) can't believe that he is not Minister of Agriculture, and the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) can't believe that he is not the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland) can't believe that he is not the Minister of Health. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) can't believe that he is not the Solicitor General. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) can't believe that he is not a church minister. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) can't believe that he is not the twelfth apostle. The hon. member for St-Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) can't believe that he is not speaking any more. The hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet) can't believe that he is not a great man. The hon. members for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) and Mount Royal (Mr. White) can't believe that they were in favour of Mr. Patenaude. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) can't believe that he is not the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) can't believe that he is not a Mussolini.
Sir, I have just returned from my constituency where I was yesterday, and my constituents said to me that I had forgotten to say something very important in my last speech in this House. They thought I should have repeated what my opponents, Mr. Pate-naude's friends, told me during the last election, namely, that I should have crossed the floor of the House and grasped the right hon. leader of the opposition by the throat. I like to acquaint the members of the House with the kind of campaign carried on in my constituency, which I did not mention in my last speech. My hon. friends on the other side of the House are bad losers; they always raise the cries of prejudice and hatred, and when they lose they 6ay we are doing it.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot

I have been in polities for several years. I started to fight for the Liberal party in 1908 at a big meeting which was attended by our late beloved leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and since that time I have never in my province heard a single Liberal speaker say that we should vote against the Ontario people or against the Protestant people. Quebec people are fair. But when the Conservatives lost, what did they say? They said, "AlasI we have lost the election because the Liberals raised the cry of prejudice." I remember also that in Quebec it used to be said that Laurier was against the French-Canadians, but in the English-speaking provinces the same Tories advised the electors to vote against Laurier because he was too much French-Canadian. In 1911, Mr: Speaker, in the province of Quebec, the Tory candidates used the same tactics as in the last election. They said then that they were as much against Borden as against Laurier, but when they were elected, were they free and independent? No; they voted as genuine Tory members. It has been the same all the time, and I think it time this was stopped.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we sometimes hear that Quebec will become Conservative again. The Quebec people have too much honour to elect any more Tory candidates. In 1917 what did we see in Ontario papers? We saw it stated that "Quebec must not rule," and that "only a solid Ontario could defeat them." That is what we saw, and it was signed by the Tory candidates in the holy city of Toronto. They took the responsibility of that slander against my native province, and is there now one member on the other side of the House who will dare repeat it? This is real prejudice, and it is the first time in the history of our country that a party has slandered a province just for the sake of power. There were cabinet ministers who put their names to those infamous libels against my province, which appeared in every issue of those papers, not for one day only but for three weeks during the election, and the members of the Union government at that time were responsible for it. Those people who say that they love Quebec would have stopped that sort of thing long ago had they been sincere. My friends on the other side of the House are surprised that we are on good terms with our friends from the prairie .provinces, but the Conservatives made an alliance with the Liberals who betrayed Laurier in 1917, and now they are allied with people who insult the province of Quebec every week in this dirty paper, the Orange Sentinel. If I were the leader of a party, Mr. Speaker, I would not
(Mr. Pouliot.]
accept as my supporter a man who would defame 2,500,000 people who are honest and deserving of better than that.
May I read something now from the Orange Sentinel, a paper whose editor is a supporter of the right hon. leader of the opposition in this House. I am the more glad to read this because it is in an article praising the defamation of the French-Canadians of Quebec by the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Doucet). I do not mind the Orange Sentinel, Mr. Speaker, because as soon as the orange is peeled, anybody can see that it is rotten. It says:
No conquered people have ever been treated with such exceeding generosity as the French in Canada. But if they presume to dictate their will to all the other provinces, they will discover that they are unable to do so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear some hon. members opposite pounding their desks. Will any hon. gentleman opposite rise and say that Quebec is not doing her duty? Does the right hon. leader of the apposition approve of those gentlemen opposite pounding their desks as I read? To continue:
Quebec must take its place with the other provinces of Canada and observe the terms of our constitution if the people of that province hope to preserve the special privileges they enjoy, and exercise their proper influence in the government of the country.
I see the hon. member for Kent, N.B., laughing. I should like his electors to see him now. I think they would change their representative at once. I have no doubt he will be the next editor of the Orange Sentinel.
May I also quote from the last issue of the Orange Sentinel, under date of February 23 last? In an article headed, "The Service of the Orange Order in Canada".-evidently the readers of this paper are living on an orange diet-I find this:
Frequent attempts to place the French language on an equality with English as a medium of instruction have also been successfully defeated. The Orange Order has saved the educational system of Ontario from becoming completely Romanized and bi-lin-gualized. It has helped to keep Ontario Englishspeaking, British and Protestant.
Is not this religious and racial fanaticism of the worst kind? Is there a member of this House who oan approve of these dirty things being said against the province of Quebec? I am sorry the editor of this paper is not in his seat. I do not think he has any friends now in the House, or if he has, they are not courageous enough to stand up and take the responsibility for what he has written in this dirty paper. Perhaps his

The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
absence is explained by the fact that he is now writing another article similar to these I have quoted.
Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from my constituency. I have seen my friends there, and I have asked them what they thought about closure, and the unanimous answer was:	"We are mighty glad. Give
them what they deserve. We are well satisfied that you shall use against the right hon. leader of the opposition the weapon which he himself forged and used against the beloved leader of our party in 1913."
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from the speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on April 9, 1913, when closure was first introduced into this House. He had a vision of the future, and referring to the present leader of the opposition, then the Solicitor General, he said:
My right hon. friend has not forgotten the words of Shakespeare:
-this even handed justice
Commends th' ingredients of our poison'd chalice
To our own lips.
The poison that he offers to us to-day will come to his own lips at some future day. We are in the minority; we can be gagged; we can be prevented from expressing our opinions; they can trample upon our rights. But, Sir, the day of reckoning will come, and it will come as soon as we have a dissolution of the present parliament."
Mr. Speaker, the day of reckoning has come, and it is to-day. Neither the right hon, leader of the opposition nor any of his cabinet ministers of 1921, nor any of the cabinet ministers of 1917, if they are still supporters of the right hon. gentleman, will ever get more seats for their party ithan they have to-day in the province of Quebec. In the last campaign we had Jacob and Esau in the province of Quebec; the 'hand was the hand of Patenaude, but the voice was the voice of Meighen. But the people of the province of Quebec cannot be fooled any more, and so long as our friends on the other side of the House continue to insult the French-Canadian people, as they do daily and weekly in their papers and in their conversation, their party wild have no chance in the province of Quebec, where there is no greater insult to any man than to say he is a Tory.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, the plenteous showers of congratulations which have fallen upon you during the past two months must now be accompanied by universal regret that it has fallen to you, one of the most highly respected first commoners in the history of our country, to preside over the most unconstitutionally founded parliament, t/he most futile and the
most insincere parliament in our history. It is a parliament, Sir, without a head, a parliament Without a policy, and a parliament existing for one purpose only. The reasons for the Statements, Sir, are very well known. For four years the country has entrusted the administration of its affairs to the Prime Minister and his government, in order that he might implement the promises he made during the election campaign. For four years we have had parliaments of 9 pm.	barter and trade, parliaments
which have existed for nothing else than to sacrifice policies for power. This government, Sir, arranged an opening, but it staged an auction sale. This government	brought in a Speech from
the Throne, but they destroyed every principle, every law, which made the Speech from the Throne possible. They moved an Address in reply to the Sipeech from the Throne, but they destroyed the spirit and the soul of parliament. This action too was taken under the influence of the Prime Minister, who on October 1, 1925, at Moose Jaw made these remarks:
There was one thing which as a person grew older, he realized more and more and that was that one of the fine things which the men of the old parties had handed to their sons was the desire to fight for /the freedom of the institutions which their fathers had helped them to establish.
Yes, they moved an Address but they destroyed the institution which their fathers by sacrifice and service had established in this country. The institution which we have always looked up to perhaps more than any other has been that of the recognition that a government not elected at the polls should retire. On the 29th October of last year this country spoke with a strong, certain, clear and distinct voice and it said1: We do not want the Mackenzie King government. I am not concerned whether they call the "hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) or the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) or anybody else to form a government; the one voice spoken by the country on the 29tlh October last was: We do not want the Mackenzie King government. The country rejected him; his own constituency, a constituency that had been carved and strengthened for him, a constituency patched and1 quilted as an easy seat for him to lie down upon, rejected1 him. The voice surely was strong enough to demand the retirement of such a leader.
If he did not care to accept that step of retirement, another step was open to him and that was to accept the first seat offered.

The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
A number of seats were offered to the rejected Prime Minister but none of them he accepted. Nature came forward and gave an opportunity but to that opportunity he had not the courage to rise. After an interval the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Goulet), we are told, was called but the bargain did not go through. We are told that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) came down,. We can imagine this member once elected as a Labour Progressive, having served in that legislature under the Minister of Labour, very talkative but with very little action, saw his opportunity, when the Minister of Labour was defeated', of having the office offered to him. He came to Ottawa quite expecting an offer to be made to 'him, but we are told the offer made was: What would1 you think of giving up your seat for the Prime Minister? That was not accepted. If the Prime Minister had not the courage to accept any of these opportunities or to make a challenge again, why should he take the seat nearest to the North Pole for an election? Why should he run away so far that it would) be impossible to follow him? No, Sir, he lacked courage to come to grips just as the party lack courage to-day to come to grips. They could not be screwed up to put the first motion to restrict debate in this House,-no, the burden was laid upon one who was aided and abetted in his election by this government.
Does the opinion of such members as the member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) justify the support of the government of to-dtay? Let me read a few extracts from Hansard of last year. In the debate in regard to a motion brought forward by Mr. Knox;, Mr. Knox made this statement:
A party like the Liberal party which has made no further advance, during the ifour years in which it has held office, to carry into effect its platform and published policy, will certainly not be received with open arms by the thinking pontiom of the electorate, especially in that part of Canada lying west of the Great Lakes.
Additional interest will be found in the remarks of the reverend gentleman, the hon. member for Nelson who, on that occasion spoke about the government as follows:
Now, where does the Liberal party stand in regard to the Hudson Bay railway? Who knows, who can tell? Nobody.
Then he goes on to say:
There is some paraflyzing influence within the ranks of the Liberal party which makes it impossible to proceed with this venture.
I might add to this the remark of another member of the Progressive party who are now coming forward in support of this gov-

ernment. During the same debate a reference was made to a former Liberal government, and this was said1:
Hon. Mr. Graham: That was a good government.
Mr. Forke: They have been living on their reputation ever since.
These are the opinions of this government who for four years failed to do their duty and brought about the predicament in which this parliament is to-day. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) made interruptions about the election in Regina. Why Regina? Why is an election to take place in Regina? Why is an outside member to be called to the support of this government? In the 100 members across the way was there not one supposed to be capable or efficient to be put up as a minister for this dying and dead government? Not one. One can imagine the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) wishing that he had not taken the platform he had in the last election, thinking if he had not been an Independent he might be absorbed to-day; but having denounced this government, refusing to run as their candidate, he sees himself passed over to-day by a man from Regina. The chief whip (Mr. Casgrain) and the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) would be available as cabinet material. Why are they passed by? The hon. member for Labelle would have gladly stepped into the vacant place. Was he not supposed to be fit or efficient? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would gladly have come in now that they have agreed to wipe out these awful and outrageous resolutions in regard to naturalization and the Criminal Code. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) would offer himself. But out of the 100 members sitting on the opposite side who were elected in the last election, not one is considered efficient or suitable for the vacant place.
What is a closure for? It is to stop debate in order to proceed with some business. Never was closure adopted but a government had some important measure to bring immediately before the House. Who ever heard of a closure in order to go off and take a holiday? This is the most unconstitutional parliament that any person ever heard of. A closure for a holiday! WThat is the holiday for? An adjournment for six weeks! Then why accept two weeks or a week and a half? If six weeks were necessary, why take one and a half weeks now? If one and a half weeks are sufficient now, why was it thought necessary to take six weeks before? This is the position we are in. The whole thing is ridiculous. The stand of the government is ridiculous and

The Address-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
childish. This adjournment is to rig up an old waterlogged, storm-ridden ship, foundered upon the shores and upon the rocks, and to bring out an old despised pilot, that pilot who, we heard last session, was to be thrown overboard. The ship, storm-tossed and wrecked is now to 'be taken into dry dock, a few planks put in it, and a little bit of stern and stem constructed. Why is it necessary?
We are told that in the old ancient city of Troy there was an image called the Palladium -that is, a wooden image in the fortress of Pallas Athene. There were two themes about it: it was supposed to prevent the destruction of the city, and it was supposed to be sent from heaven. This holiday to-day is to find the palladium of the Liberal party, this heaven sent palladium that will save it from destruction, and the holiday is for no other purpose. The Minister of the Interior tried to remind us to-day that this was a new era. I do not think any person will object to that. It certainly is a new era in the political life of this or any other country. It is an era marked by destruction of principle, and it is an era where we have an exhibition of the Minister of Justice standing up in this House and defending principles which he sought to tear down some years ago. If this is a new era, do principles of right and justice change? No, principles cannot change with regard to right and justice.
I would like to draw attention to some further remarks by the Minister of Justice in 1913. I should like to place two passages on Hansard, because I think the remarks would correspond with the remarks he would make now, if he spoke from his heart. The then hon. member for Kamouraska, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said:
The resolution which we are asked to pass will put in the hands of some ministers a dangerous weapon. That weapon will be still more dangerous when such ministers owe their position to lobby wire-pulling, to services of a suspicious character, to a deep knowledge of intrigue. These ministers may then without apprehension purchase padlocks or mail bags for several generations, they may appoint to positions of public trust-*
Mark this now, in the face of what is occurring at the present time.
-blackmailers and perjurers as a reward for their work in election time, because they will ibe in a .position to apply the infamous gag which they are preparing for the purpose of preventing any criticism of their misdeeds. Freedom of speech will be reserved exclusively to the men in power and subject at all times to be denied to others. Freedom which is granted only by way of sufferance is really not freedom.
1 would like to quote a few further remarks by the Minister of Justice from the same
speech, which fit in at this time most aptly. He said in regard to closure:
It is the result of a fit of bad temper; it means the sacrifice of one of our most beloved franchises for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to a discredited administration.
Now in the face of those remarks, I quite agree with the Minister of the Interior (Mr Stewart) that a new era has arisen when the Minister of Justice, having conscientiously made these remarks some years ago, to-day brings forward the same measure which he thought was so damaging to parliament in the past.
The Minister of the Interior in this debate referred to the fact that the matter picked out by the opposition was always the National railway. Well, it. is the purpose and the function of the opposition to criticize, and to criticize severely, any departure which directly or indirectly comes under the direction of this parliament in regard to their actions, and why should we not criticize the National railways? Have we not had the experience of the Scribe hotel? We were told by their own Minister of Railways that, it would be the last thing of this nature that: would occur. But following that immediately came the purchase of the corner of King and Yonge streets in Toronto, and now comes the-Rouyn railway. What is the object of it?" If they want to bring the freight out, they have only one of two ways to do it. They have to bring it out by Quebec, or by Cochrane and1 then over the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railroad. If their profession of economy is sound and is to be followed, the natural course would be to go by the shortest route, and that would be by the present Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway.
The Minister of the Interior says: "Look at our trade returns and statistics in this prosperous country." The people of this country are crying out for a change. Men are unemployed; women and children are hungry, and all that the Minister of the Interior and this government have to offer to them are trade returns and statistics. People who are hungry are looking for some further signs of prosperity than trade returns and statistics.
I started out with the statement that this was a discredited government. There are many signs which show that they were discredited and that they should not be in the position which they occupy to-day. At the front we always took it as a good sign when the message went out that the trenches were solid and sound and there was a possibility of retaining them. The trench holders then stood in their positions, and it is the same in the matter we are considering now. Ones
1466	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mercier (Laurier-Outremont)
the report goes out that the country is prosperous and that this government is going to be sustained, the seat holders on the government side remain there, but what were the signs last October just before the election? Never in the history of any country did we see such a rush for cover as we saw among the supporters of that government, indicating its instability and impossibility of their retaining power.


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, even at this late stage of the debate, when time is so precious, it would be remiss on my part if I did1 not seize the opportunity, owing to the old friendship which exists between you and myself and between your family and mine, to offer you my congratulations on the great honour conferred upon you by this House. For the first time in the parliamentary history of Canada the Speaker has been elected to the chair of this House for a second1 term, and it was the recognition of your eminent qualities, Sir, that brought you this honour. Your friends back in Montreal, your native city, have followed your career with pride and they look forward to further honours being bestowed upon you by your grateful country. Their desire and their hope is that you will long live to serve this Canada of ours. Your mature judgment and the great qualities which qualify you for the position that you occupy with so much credit to yourself and to this House should, in my opinion, be made use of to a greater extent, and it is unfortunate that our constitutional rules will not permit you to advise the various parties in this House how they should) carry on the business of this country. If it were possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to lend the benefit of your experience to these parties, you would no doubt tell the opposition that they have been absolutely wrong in obstructing the business of parliament for so many long weeks. You would tell them that they have been forfeiting the confidence of the people of Canada and losing the esteem of their friends by hindering the government from getting down to the important business that waits to be done.
The opposition are losing their friends steadily, and we have only to refer to the newspapers of the country of very recent date to find proof of this statement. If we look at yesterday's Gazette, of which the bon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) is editor, we shall see that this paper blames the apposition for the manner in which they

have been obstructing parliament. Yesterday morning's Gazette had this to say:
Can the opposition grant an adjournment under the conditions set forth in Mr. Boys' statement without acknowledging the government's right to govern and thereby condemning the "obstruction" of which the government have complained so bitterly? It looks very much as if the Boys offer comes down to this, that Mr. Mackenzie King can have his adjournment if he is prepared to admit that he 'has no right to it. If that be good strategy it is certainly not good logic, and it will not impress (the public who are becoming mightily out of temper with the House of Commons and its windy futility. There is some strange mystery behind the declaration of the chief whip, which mystery is only partially dissipated, if at all, by the first part of Mr. Boys' address, which may be summarized in the words-Master, go on, and I will follow thee to the last gasp, with truth and loyalty.
A reference to last night's Star also confirms the opinion that the leader of the opposition is losing another friend, if ever he could count upon the Star as a friend. We in the province of Quebec had not the honour of greeting the right hon. gentleman during the last electoral campaign although we were mystified for a considerable time by his continued absence from that part of the country. He passed through the province of Quebec on his way to the Maritimes and on returning he again came through the province, but he did not honour us with a visit. It was only when the by-election came on in Bagot that, ignoring the advice given him by his friends at that time, and realizing then that Canada was not so large a country after all and that it was possible for him to visit every section of it, the right hon. gentleman entered the province and visited the county of Bagot where many of us had the pleasure of receiving him. The reception given him in that county belied the advice he had got from his friends, for it was quite charming; the people of Bagot were delighted to see him. But they did not have any more confidence in my right hon. friend after his visit than before, as is evident in the fact that the hon. member for Bagot sits on this side of the House. Mr. Fauteux, the Conservative candidate in that by-election, suffered his eighth defeat, and when the elections come around again in the province of Quebec he will suffer his ninth or possibly his tenth defeat.
So that if we consult the newspapers of Quebec we shall see that the conduct of the opposition so far in the present session is being criticized; hon. gentlemen opposite are being censured for holding up the business of the country. The French newspapers of the province are blaming the right hon. gentleman and his followers for all these weeks of

The Address-Mr. Merrier (Laurier-Outremont)
obstruction, and rightly so. The only reason the leader of the opposition has advanced for this obstruction is the desire of the opposition to allow the committee investigating the charges in respect of the Customs department to continue functioning. But as the acting leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) pointed out this afternoon, no witnesses who have so far appeared before the committee have shown any desire to refuse to answer any questions put to them, nor have any witnesses failed to appear when summoned. I will go further. A great number of the employees from the various departments will appear before the committee, and if the House does take a recess, as it will, it will be an easy matter to examine these government employees in the interval. They will not dare to refuse to appear before the committee and the few days during which this House will be adjourned can very well be occupied in examining these particular witnesses. So that this excuse for not agreeing to an adjournment does not hold and the opposition deserves censure on that ground.
I stated a moment ago that hon. gentlemen opposite were losing their friends. The parliamentary correspondent of the Montreal Star last evening wrote an article against the leader of the opposition. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said that on his side of the House there was a united party. If that is so, we on this side do not understand why the editor of the Montreal Star, one of the supporters of the right hon. leader of the opposition, should write in his paper only yesterday an article against him. J>uring the present session that journal has at least shown itself friendly towards the fight hon. gentleman, but last night it contained the following article:
Conservatives in those days were not Bagot-chasing. When they answered, "Ready, aye, ready" to the bay of the hon. they did not go to Hamilton and recant.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Cahan) does not seem to have .any too great a liking for his right hon. leader. We all remember the speech he made jn Toronto. We in the province of Quebec have great .respect and1 admiration for the hon. member. When he came to Montreal from the province down by the sea we welcomed him with open arms

just the same as the county of Bagot welcomed the right hon. leader when he mustered up courage enough to come into the province. He is one of the front-benchers of the opposition. I have noted with much surprise, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition is referred to as
the Tory party. The Conservatives of Quebec ,do not call themselves Tories; the only association we have with the Tory party in that province is a souvenir of the burning of the houses of parliament in Montreal. They are known by several names-the Liberal-Conservative party, the National Liberal-Conservative party, the Unionist party; but in Quebec our good honest Conservatives will not allow anyone to call them Tories. As I said, this very important member of the Conservative party apparently has not much love .for his right hon. leader. His speech in Toronto soon after the election shows it. He said in the House the other day that he would explain that speech, but if I be not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, he failed to remember his promise. We are anxiously awaiting his explanation of how he can 'be a member ,of such a united party in view of his Toronto speech against his leader. Rumour hath it that a sage from the west, the member for one of the Winnipeg constituencies, likewise does not regard his leader with any great affection. Rumour hath it likewise in the corridors-and the vehement denial by the chief whip of the Conservative party would lead us to believe that it contains an element of truth-that all is not love and loyalty in .reference to the procedure of the Conservative party in the present debate. Of course, we do not know whether that is so, but there is no smoke without some fire.
We were very much surprised that in this free country the chief whip of the Conservative party, a party that is in a minority in this House, should try to lay down the law to the government and dictate what should be done in this House. The hon. gentleman on .Friday afternoon said that his party in its might and strength had' decided to allow the .Prime Minister on his return to the House ,one day, two days, or possibly three days to announce whether he had any business to bring down, and if he acknowledged his unpreparedness, why then the official opposition, in the greatness of its heart and with that spirit of charity which the Conservative party pas always admitted to be one of its distinguishing characteristics, was willing to allow the Prime Minister the recess which he has ,been asking for. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, it .raised1 our ire to think that the hon. gentleman in such bcfld' terms should try to dictate to the government. Since the opening of the session the Conservative party has been seeking to defeat the government, but in every .division so far they have not succeeded. This very afternoon they tried once more, but they
The Address-Mr. Mewburn

failed. And they will fail in every other vote this session. The government is to be commended for the firm stand it took .this afternoon in moving the closure. The .government is in power, it commands a majority in this House; and it is the majority that rules. Therefore the government did .quite right in taking this course and has the unanimous endorsement of its supporters. We want the business of the country attended to.
We do not protest and brag about being a united party. It is not necessary. There is no question about our unity. We stand firmly behind our leader. There is no criticism of him, there is no desire to displace him. We stand enthusiastically behind him. We believe that the best interests of Canada will be served by the Liberal party, and we will support the Prime Minister to the very limit of our strength so that the business of the nation may be proceeded with and Canada may enjoy that prosperity which she deserves.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I am sure, Sir, that you, in common with all the other members of this House irrespective of party, will join in wishing our youthful member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers)- young in years but old in parliamentary experience-many happy returns of this his sixty-second birthday.
This, Mr. Speaker, being my first offence this session, I hope you will bear with me with your usual courtesy and kindness. I feel that instead of joining with the 239 members who have tendered their congratulations to you on occupying the chair again, I should extend to you my very heartfelt sympathy on the trying ordeal you have been subjected to while sitting through the many weeks of this burlesque show.
In the early stages of the debate there were some interesting and dramatic events, particularly when our good friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) did everything but turn handsprings up and down the centre of the chamber. I wish to congratulate, Sir, the acting leader of the party to your immediate right on having regained his nerve. We were worried about him at the end of last week, but he was apparently strengthened over the week-end sojourn by the coming dominator of the party, that fresh breath from Saskatchewan, the new Minister of Railways and Canals. He has apparently been in consultation with these gentlemen outside of the House, who told him to forget all about his opposition to

closure, to bring it in and have done with it. I congratulate him on regaining his nerve, and if he had only had the spunk to do it three weeks ago he would have received greater admiration and respect from all in this House.
It seems to me, Sir, that this debate has been threshed all over, from the North Pole to the South Pole; the .whole compass has been boxed. We have heard about everything from coal to Chinese eggs, and still we are here, having accomplished .nothing. Two hundred and forty-five able-bodied men, elected on October 29 last to represent constituencies throughout the whole of Canada, were called here at the suggestion and on the orders of the present acting leader of the government, or the Prime Minister that was-and will be again in a few days. For what purpose? I am wondering what the people of Canada are thinking. We have been here since January 7 and have accomplished nothing. What is the reason for that? I know every member to your left, Sir, comprising the Liberal-Conservative party, 116 in number, came here on January 7 with the full intention and the honest desire of carrying on the business of this country and fulfilling those duties for which they were elected. We have been prevented from doing so by the egotism, the incompetence and the irresponsibility of that party which might well be called from now on the Liberal-Progressive-Lafoour-Independent party. It is a wonderful alliance; extraordinary bed-fellows, and how long will it last? That is the question the people of this country are asking.
Coming to the Speech from the Throne- and I do not wish to take up much time with it-the Speech delivered by His Excellency on January 8 sets forth the programme or suggested programme of the strap-hangers or the hangers-on of power in this country. The acting leader of the government to-day informed us-and I think had the audacity to try to give out to the people of Canada-that the only reason why this parliament was called together on January 7 was to prove to the people that his government had the right to carry on and function. That being the case, why does he insult the intelligence of the people and of the members of this House by bringing down a Speech from the Throne in which it is stated, among many other things:
Our manufacturing and related industries throughout the Dominion have experienced a development not enjoyed in many years.

The Address*-Mr. Mewburn
Surely one does not have to travel very much about the country to know that that is not correct. Then the Speech goes on:
In the opinion of my ministers the improved conditions warrant further substantial reductions in taxation.
Further, among other things-and I do not wish to quote them all-I find the following:
Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population, to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries.
When our good Canadian citizens, who have been forced by this government to leave the homes of their birth and1 adoption and go across the border, read that in the press, their first answ'er is, "What is the good of going back to Canada? We will return to Canada just as soon as we can get work, as soon as we can get on the pay roll there, and not before."
Then, Sir, further in the Speech I find:
To this end a measure wilt be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House to-night by referring to that extraordinary measure. We all know how a year ago, in the dying days of the session, the government decided to bring in a rural credits bill to satisfy some of our friends from the west. They had promised it all session. During the last week of that session a bill was forced through this House authorizing the expenditure of some $10,000,000 of Canada's money, with the government praying to the Lord Almighty that the Senate would kill it, which they did. Now we have the same promise again. I have an open mind on the question of rural credits, but I do say with all sincerity that I think the time has passed when any great facility should be adopted for a rural credits scheme in this country. If any such bill is brought in I hope and trust that the government will get beyond those ideas suggested in the bill brought in last year. I hope that the loan corporations of this country which includes mortgage companies, trust companies and insurance companies, which have met and are meeting the situation; which have been the backbone and the strength of the development of the whole of this country, including the west-will be brought into consultation to give some practical views and the results of their experience as to the working out of this problem. They were refused permission to give evidence before the committee a year ago, and I think that was a great weakness on the part of the government.
The next thing I notice in the Speech from the Throne is that a tariff advisory board will be appointed forthwith. It is not a tariff board, but a tariff advisory board. We all know what a joke that will be; a lot of gentlemen appointed, drawing large emoluments from the crown and going round the country advising the government on this and on that. I think the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the Conservatvie party, expressed in his resolution of June, 1925, sets out distinctly what he means by a real tariff board, which is what we need in this country.
Another thing I notice in the Speech from the Throne is this:
My government propose to submit provisions tor the completion forthwith of the Hudson Bay railway.
Well, Sir, these are very important matters which the government, in the Speech from the Throne, led us to believe they were prepared to submit to this House, but we have not heard a word about them. We have gone on debating the Speech from the Throne, looking daily for some effort on the part of the government to bring down some of these measures and thus implement their promises. I am not appealing to my hon. friends to my left, but surely after four years' experience they must know-it must have been demonstrated to them beyond question-that this government is absolutely impotent, absolutely unable to function, and that there is very little likelihood of their fulfilling the promises they have held out to the members of that group.
I do not propose to take up much time going into a lot of other details. I could speak for some time, but it seems to me that what the people of this country are interested in are four vital things, and the first and dominating one is the fiscal policy of Canada. I say, the fiscal policy of Canada-not a tariff policy, but the fiscal policy; and when that fiscal policy is settled and stabilized and has become permanent, when it has got away from being a political football, then the people of this country will be encouraged and will be able to function and expand as they ought to do. I concur entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) when he described what was meant by protection. I think his words are well worth repeating. Referring to the tariff he said:
Sir, to me those are words only, purely a matter of terminology. There is no such thing as high, low, or moderate tariff. Those words are* relative terms only, and indicate no principle. You may have a duty that is higher than a protective duty; you may have a duty that is lower than is a protective duty; bait the policy of the Conservative party has never been any of these. The word-to be used in describing the policy of the Conservative party is a simple word-"protection." Its meaning is clear. It is unmistakable, understandable. It does not mean a tariff that gives a bonus to a farmer
The Address-Mr. Mewburn


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, in common with speakers on both sides of the House who have preceded me in this debate, I wish to tender to you my sincere congratulations. Coming as you do from an eastern province down by the Atlantic coast, you understand our problems, and I know that you will be sympathetic towards them and fair with the members from that part of the Dominion as they endeavour to present these problems to parliament.
I am not here to attempt in any way to criticize our friends on the opposition side for the attitude they have taken in this debate. They are free to choose their own course, and if the course they
10 p.m. have adopted appeals to them as the right course, they are, of course, at perfect liberty to adopt it, and it remains for the people of this country to pass judgment on them at a later date. I have been delighted with the number of speeches that we have heard from all parts of the Dominion. I do not know that the time of parliament has been altogether wasted. I think the views that have been presented have been presented in good faith by the members representing the different constituencies. I believe that each member has come to this House with the object of representing his district to the best of his ability, and of presenting to parliament the difficulties that confront his constituency, and of seeking, if possible, a way in which those difficulties may bo overcome.
Some hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this debate have taken very strong objection to the course which the government has pursued. They have criticized the Prime Minister very severely and said that he has not dealt fairly with the people or fairly with parliament in not having a seat in this House before parliament was summoned. This may or may not be correct, but there is one thing I can say: The Prime Minister in adopting the course which he did possibly has not taken the best course from a political standpoint, for I believe it might have been more to the advantage of the Liberal party if he and his ministers had been elected to parliament and had their seats in this House when parliament met. If it was political advantage they were looking for, perhaps that would have been the better course, but I think the Prime Minister and the government acted fairly with the people of this country and with this House in meeting parliament and allowing the elected representatives of the people to pass judgment on who should rule.

The Address-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
Our friends on the opposition side seem to be very much peeved that the Progressive party has supported the Liberal party during this session. 1 do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we are here to criticize each other's actions. The members of the Progressive group have a perfect right to use their own judgment and support in this House whichever party and whatever policy that appeals to them. As the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) stated on one occasion, the policy of the party was far more important than the party itself, and if the policy of the Liberal party has appealed to our Progressive friends and they have supported the government, I do not think it comes with good grace from any member of this House to criticize them for the action they have taken.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) the other night, when the hon. member for Nelson moved the motion which is now before the House, seemed to be very much annoyed that he did not have the opportunity of moving what he called a motion of direct want of confidence in this government. He attempted to the best of his ability to secure the floor on that occasion and to address the House. I think his intentions were to move a straight want of confidence motion. Perhaps that matter is worth looking into just a little further.
First- we can ask ourselves: What was the object of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in attempting to move a want of confidence motion in this House? I think there was something behind the apparent object of defeating our friends on this side and forcing them from the government benches. If we look into British history and British parliamentary procedure we find that an hon. member who moves a want of confidence motion and is successful in having that motion carried is called upon by His Majesty the King-in the case of Canada, by His Excellency the Governor General-to form a ministry. It looks to me as if the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, had in view not only the object of defeating the government and forcing the Prime Minister and this cabinet from the treasury benches, but he also had the idea of forcing the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Meighen) from his .position as leader and having the Governor General ask my hon. friend to form a government and carry on the business of this country. If my hon. friends will read British parliamentary procedure they will find that is the course which has been adopted. I have no quarrel with my hon. friend's ambition, but it is only fair in passing to make this comment and I am not
surprised that my hon. friend was so disappointed when he found that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) had the floor and he was prevented from moving that want of confidence motion which he so much desired to move.
The question of Maritime rights has been brought up at different times, and I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to hon. gentlemen representing Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and our own province who have spoken in regard to that question. Our hon. friends criticized the Prime Minister for stating that he did not know what Maritime rights were, and former members in this House were criticized for not, during the last four years, presenting to this government Maritime rights and emphasizing what those Maritime rights were. Our friends have brought to the notice of the House one particular instance and that is the question of the Intercolonial railway. They have centred all their efforts on the question of the Intercolonial railway and have claimed that the withdrawal of that railway from the Canadian National system will solve the difficulties of the Maritime provinces. At least they seem to think that is one of the main questions and that would be the great solution.
We on this side of the House have been charged with doing nothing during the past four years with regard to that same question. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) to-night brought very forcibly before the House which .party was responsible for the condition that we have in railway matters in the Maritime provinces and for having the Intercolonial railway made part of the Canadian National system. He pointed out that in 1918 under an act of the then government the Intercolonial was brought into the Canadian National system, and that prior to this government assuming .power in 1921 no effort was made by our friends who were supporting the party which they are now supporting over there to have this matter put right. It is only fair to members from the Maritime provinces who were in the last parliament to state that one of the very first things we took up when the 1922 session opened was the question of Maritime rights. I think our friends on the other side of the House should be the last men to come to this parliament or to go on any platform in this country and state publicly that the Liberal party is responsible for the situation down there.
What happened when our friends took charge of the Intercolonial and made it part of the National system? The first thing was to take the general manager from Moncton and to transfer the head offices from Moncton

The Address-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
to Toronto. In 1922 I remember our meeting in the reading room in this parliament building and drawing up a memorandum which we presented to the Minister of Railways and the president of the Canadian National Railways, making the distinct request that the first thing we required was the return to the Maritime provinces of a general manager at Moncton. We made that request unitedly. The Minister of National Defence neglected to emphasize that to-night, but he was one of the prime movers in that matter and the memorandum was drawn up and signed by every Maritime member with the result that we have the general manager returned with head offices at Moncton. We had put in charge there as general manager. Mr. Brown, a Maritime man who, we claimed, knew Maritime questions, was sympathetic with Maritime conditions and would give us a better service than we had when the management was in Toronto. The moment we got the general management back to Moncton we had an improvement in conditions and I wish to place on Hansard some of the improvements that took place. Some hon. members opposite the other day charged this government with increasing rates and with making no effort to have a reduction in rates. As was pointed out by the Minister of National Defence to-night the question of reduction of rates was taken up immediately after this government came into power. Prior to that time there had been an increase and no effort-was made to have a reduction. I have in my hand a letter which I should like to read in full in order to show that this government took action immediately, but as we are limited to twenty minutes I am going to read .part of it and ask that it be put on Hansard in its entirety, because it emphasizes very clearly the facts I wish to emphasize. The letter, which is dated February 11, 1925, is as follows:
A. E. MacLean, Esq., M.P.,
Room 409, House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Referring to telephone conversation of date, when you requested to be advised briefly and in a general way as to reductions made in freight rates on the Atlantic division of the Canadian National Railways since the rates reached their peak in 1920:
The first decrease was effective January 1st, 1921, when the rates in eastern Canada were reduced from 40 per cent to 35 per cent over the rates in effect prior to September 13th, 1920. The next general decrease was effective December 1st, 1921, when the rates in eastern Canada were again reduced to 25 per cent over the rates in effect prior to September 13, 1920.
Effective August 1st, 1922, the following reductions were made affecting rates in eastern Canada:
(1)	On forest products; building material (brick, cement, lime, plaster); potatoes; fertilizers (other than

chemical): ores; pig iron; blooms; billets; wire rods; and scrap iron, the rates were reduced to 17J per cent over those in effect prior to September 13, 1920.
(2)	On coal, other than anthracite, all increases provided for effective September 13, 1920, were rescinded.
(3)	A reduction was made in the rates on traffic between Maritime province points and points west of Port Arthur and Fort William.
Up to this time, the freight rates between points on Prince Edward Island and mainland stations on the Canadian National Railways had been on a somewhat higher basis than the rates between points on the mainland, and there was also an additional charge to cover cost of transshipping from standard- to narrow-gauge cars, or vice versa. In 1923, as a result of representations before the, board by yourself and Mr. J. J. Hughes, a revision was made in the freight rates as affecting Prince Edward Island, with the result that the rates between points on the Island, and also between the Island and mainland points, have been reduced so as not to exceed the rates on the same traffic for the same distances on the mainland. With respect to class rates between Island territory and points in Quebec and Ontario, these were revised placing the Island territory bounded by Borden. Sum-merside and Charlottetown on the same basis as Halifax, and the balance of the Island territory on the Mulgrave basis, which brought about reductions in these rates. The various changes that were made at this time resulted in quite substantial reductions in the aggregate.
The next change that particularly affected the Atlantic division of the Canadian National Railways was a reduction of approximately 10 per cent on all class rates between points in the Maritime provinces, and between Maritime province points and stations in Ontario, which was made effective April 14th, 1924.
The general basis of freight rates has not been reduced subsequent to the date last mentioned although there have been numerous reductions made covering various individual rates and traffic movements since that date. By this I mean that rates on certain commodities between specific points have been reduced to assist in the development of 'business and to provide for new markets, but it would be a matter of some labour to go through all the tariffs and give any detailed statement of these changes.
I might also mention that in January, 1925, as an emergency measure, a tariff was issued covering the movement of potatoes from Maritime province points to western Canada at substantially reduced rates for a limited period to assist in the marketing of the surplus that was on hand in the Maritime provinces at that time.
I trust that this information will serve your purpose. but if there is anything further you require, I shall be glad to hear from you.
Yours truly,
W. E. Campbell,
Chief Traffic Officer
Hon. members will note that the rates reached their peak in 1920. This letter shows that these reduced .rates became and were effective only at the request of Maritime members and it is very unfair for the hon. member to charge us with doing nothing in that regard. I am not saying that those rates are as low as they should be; I hope we will get further reductions and I am willing to join with any Maritime members in seeking for a further reduction in rates and for justice so far as justice can be done for

The Address-Mr. Smith
the Maritime provinces. I do not however think that the whole question of reduction of rates will solve our difficulties in that connection.
Another statement was made that when the Prime Minister went to the Maritime provinces he made no attempt to solve their difficulties and offered them no relief. The right hon. leader of the opposition went down at the same time and openly acknowledged, I think, in his first speech in Nova Scotia that the National Policy had not been beneficial to the Maritime provinces, and that he was of the opinion that a high tariff was not in the interests of the Maritime provinces, and of Nova Scotia particularly. He said, "To offset that, we will give you something else; we will give you a subsidy on freight rates, and if that will not do we will give you something further." In the last contest the gentleman who opposed me took a very decided stand on this question of freight rates. His whole contention was that the rates from western Canada were too low, and that the products of western Canada were displacing the farmers' products in the Maritime provinces very rapidly. The whole theme of his argument was that the western people were given a preference over the people of eastern Canada, and it was charged that in the introduction of the Crowsnest pass rate that we had sacrificed the Maritime provinces for the western provinces. If my hon. friend's contention is right that the Maritime provinces were affected by the cheaper rate from western and central Canada which allowed products to come in to the Maritimes, the suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the opposition to subsidize freight rates east and west of the Maritimes would only make our difficulties down there ten times worse, that is, if the contention of the gentleman who opposed me is correct.


Mr. PRICE:: Will the hon. member state what the leader of the opposition said on that occasion? Do not deal in innuendoes; give us facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. MaoLEAN (Prince): My hon. friend will have a perfect right to discuss that matter any time he likes. He will find1 in the newspapers what the right hon. leader of the opposition said, and I dlo not think he will deny my statement. I think the gist of his remarks was to the effect that the National Policy had not been altogether beneficial to the Maritimes, and to offset this effect which the National Policy had on the Maritime provinces he would supplement out of the treasury of the Dominion the rate on the
Canadian National system from western and central Canada to the Maritime provinces and vice versa.


Otto Baird Price: May I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Otto Baird Price: I want to point out that the hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Otto Baird Price: He dare not say it-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Otto Baird Price: The hon. gentleman is misrepresenting what the leader of the opposition said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Otto Baird Price: Absolutely misleading-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. MaeLEAN (Prince):	I will give my
hon. friend (Mr. Price) a chance to discuss the question in this House any time he wishes but not now.


Otto Baird Price: Give the facts.
Mr. MaeLEAN (Prince): Mr. Speaker, I understand that my time is up. I thank hon. members for their courteous attention.


Robert Knowlton Smith: My
purpose in participating in the debate at this juncture is to register a vigorous protest on behalf of the Maritime provinces, and particularly the province of Nova Scotia, against the cessation of governmental activity because of the very serious situation existing in the Maritime provinces this very day. Before, Sir, taking up that matter, I want to refer for a short time to some of the remarks made by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald).
Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, that I bow very low to his long public record, his long parliamentary experience, his position as a minister of the crown in this so-called government, and to his seniority. But I take issue with him firmly and absolutely on some points he raised in his address this evening. I take issue with him also Mr. Speaker, in regard to some of the statements he made during the election of 1921 and his refusal, when he had the opportunity in this parliament, with a solid sixteen from Nova Scotia behind him, to implement the solemn promises he made to the electors of Pictou county in 1921. As he has seen fit to quote me, which is his perfect right, I see fit Mr. Speaker, to quote some of the remarks made by him in 1921 and
The Address-Mr. Smith

to ask this House and this country, and particularly the Maritime provinces, to say whether any of the promises and the pledges he made in 1921 were carried out by him on the floor of this House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did he go back to
Pictou?


Robert Knowlton Smith: No, he went to Antigonish-
Guysborough for a very good reason. He told the electors in the county of Pictou in 1921 that if they elected him to parliament and the Mackenzie King government was returned he would bring hope and sunshine into every home in that county. But the hope and sunshine did not arrive in that county, and the result was that he crossed the border and went to Antigonish-Guysborough, and1 I presume he told the electors of that county that he would bring hope andl sunshine to every home in that county. In the town of Stellar-ton, just a few days before the 1921 election, the hon. Minister of National Defence said:
I shall, when at Ottawa, insist that they take up and deal with the question of old age pensions and with tho matter of unemployment insurance.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the labour representatives are not in the House at the present time. This promise of old age pensions bears some relation to the promise of the Prime Minister in the supplementary Speech from the Throne. If either one of the Labour members were in the House at the present time, I would ask him, and I believe this House has a right to know, what was promised with respect to old age pensions. What was promised by Mr. King to the Labour members as an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada? What was promised by the Prime Minister to be brought down as amendments to the Naturalization Act and the Immigration Act, and other assistance they were demanding for the cause of labour?
I am in hearty accord with a great many of the policies which labour is advocating. I do not think they have been treated fairly in the past. I received a great measure of support from them in my constituency in the last election. I believe when we are in a financial position to carry out further reforms that it will be our duty to carry out those reforms. But in regard to old age pensions, Mr. Speaker, the people who would be entitled to receive them will have starved or have left the country before they can benefit by such a provision. It is not fundamental legislation so far as labour is concerned. You must first provide work for the labouring classes of this country, or they will not live until they get to the age at which they would be entitled

to a pension. The fundamental question so far as labour is concerned to-day is that we should inaugurate a policy in the Dominion of Canada that will provide them with work so that they may keep themselves and their families from starvation.
I said I would refer to the distressed situation in the province of Nova Scotia. This government decides to have a recess, suspending the country's business and thus making a mockery of our parliamentary institutions, in order to go to the country for the purpose of patching up its shattered forces. Do the actual facts bear out the flattering remarks that appear in the Speech from the Throne in regard to this prosperity which it is alleged exists in this country to-day? I have in my hand a telegram sent to-day from Sydney Mines to the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone) which reads:
Conditions at Sydney Mines rapidly approaching crisis. Sixty four hundred dollars subscribed jointly by coal company, United Mine Workers and citizens exhausted. Have no information when work shall be resumed at collieries.
Listen to this:
Five hundred and fifty families in dire distress. Citizens can do no more and felt government assistance absolutely necessary to deal with the situation. Copy of this sent to Premier.
M. Dyer, Mayor.
In face of the fact that 550 families in Cape Breton island are in dire want, the House of Commons, for the pure purpose of political expediency, decides that it must have a recess in order to enable the government to elect ministers to fill the gaps which are so pronounced on the opposite side.
Mr. McM.ILLAN:	Where is your great
Messiah in the Rhodes government?


Robert Knowlton Smith: I can tell the hon. gentleman a lot about the Rhodes government. That government found conditions, bequeathed to them by a Liberal regime, which it will take a considerable time to clean up. But they will be cleaned up, even after forty-three years of trespassing on the rights of the province of Nova Scotia. Moreover, the Rhodes government would never grant any charter such as the late Liberal government of Nova Scotia gave to the British Empire Steel Corporation which created in Nova Scotia a monopoly that has caused considerable distress in that province, and particularly the distress to which reference is made in the telegram I have just read from the mayor of Sydney Mines.
It is fitting at this time to ask what policy will be for the general good of labour, a

The Address-Mr. Smith
policy which is fundamentally sound and not one that will provide the working men with something to which they are entitled but which they will never receive for the reason that their days will be cut short by the distress in which they are living at present. I am glad to see the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in the chamber; I believe he is a champion of labour. I hope he will represent labour in this House. I am informed, and he will correct me if I am wrong, that in the election he opposed a candidate of the very government which he is now supporting. Well, if at that time he opposed a candidate of the government he must surely have been opposed to the policies of that government, and what is responsible for his changed attitude since he has come to this House. I know not.


Mr. HEAPS:: I also opposed a Conservative.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That brings up a question
which I intended to refer to later. It is not the question whether Conservatives or Liberals should be in power at this time. Mr Mackenzie King issued a manifesto to the people of the country in October when he asked them to return him to power upon certain policies which he submitted to them. What was the result? Leave out of consideration for the moment the Conservative party, the Progressives, the Labour and Independent members. What was the result, I ask? The people decided against Mr. Mackenzie King in the proportion of 101 candidates elected in his party to the rest of the membership of this House of 245. In view of this decision Mr. King had only one plain duty, and that was to resign. The issue was not whether the government should corral enough support from independent sources to enable it to carry on; that was not the issue at all. The issue was very clearly stated by Mr. King at Richmond Hill and throughout the Dominion; he said, "I want the electors to give me a sufficient majority to warrant me in going back to parliament and putting into force those policies which I have not been able to make effective so far because of the meagre majority I have at my command." I say, therefore, to my hon. friend from North Winnipeg that it is not a question of his being opposed to the policy of the Conservative party or the policy of the Liberal party and having to choose between the two. No; that is not the question. His constituency, I presume, sent him back to parliament to oppose the King administration, as did all the other constituencies
represented in this House by hon. gentlemen in all quarters who were elected in opposition to the government; and' the government has no right to accept, nor is it just in accepting, the support of either Progressives, Independent members, Labour members, or any other faction in this House. The people, I repeat, decided against the King government, and Mr. King, if he wanted to keep faith with them, would not now accept support from these sources, for the constituents of hon. members who were elected in opposition to the government and were returned to parliament for the express purpose of opposing the government, and they should oppose it, irrespective of what the policies of the Conservative party may be.
The Speech from the Throne promises the building of the Hudson Bay railway. Now we from the east have little knowledge of that undertaking; we do not know what it is going to cost nor whether it will be under the control of the Canadian National Railways or not. Has any report been received from Sir Henry Thornton and his engineers on this project. We should like to know these things. We want to know whether there is going to be set up in this country a distinctly dual system of governmental control of the National railways. As matters are now, I for one have not been made acquainted with the intention of the government in this respect. Is this new railway to become a part of the Canadian National system, or is another Canadian National system going to be brought into being entailing high paid officials and all the inevitable paraphernalia of such a system all over the Dominion? These are some of the things we want to know before committing *ourselves to such a gigantic project as the Hudson Bay railway, and we are entitled to have that information. The people should know all about the matter before being asked to undertake this project.
Other questions are dealt with in the Speech from the Throne such as rural credits and various other matters which have been carefully gone into by hon. gentlemen who have already spoken. There is, for example, a proposed commission to inquire into Maritime rights. As I said in my maiden speech in this House, we do not need a commission to ascertain what these rights are; we know what they are and we are here to insist upon their recognition.
Reference was made to myself a few days ago by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud) who observed that we Maritime righters were not in our proper place when
The Address-Mr. Lacombe

sitting on the left of the Speaker. I want to ask the hon. gentleman where we should go to have Maritime rights recognized. Certainly not to the Mackenzie King government. We sent a delegation of 200 to Ottawa a year ago to urge recognition of our rights without any benefits. We sent 16 representatives in 1921 to support the Liberal party, but our cause was not recognized, and in 1925 they do not know what Maritime rights are. I extend my heartiest congratulations to the hon. member, he is the sole survivor of the virtually extinct species of Liberalism from the province of New Brunswick in this House. Might I say while on that question, Mr. Speaker, that in Nova Scotia to-day the parties in both houses of parliament, local and federal are made up of one Labour member, six Liberals and fifty Conservatives. The hon. member no doubt will receive the reward he is entitled to and be asked to accept a seat in the cabinet now to be reconstructed. New Brunswick is too important a province to go without representation in the government, and I have no doubt that his past services to the party and his ability merit that reward.
Referring again to the hon. Minister of National Defence I would ask him-if he were in the chamber-why the Guvsborough railway was not built under the same procedure as the Rouyn railway. The Liberal party made great claims down in Nova Scotia with respect to the building of the Guysborough railway, and said they had done everything in their power to get the road built for the benefit of the people in Guysborough and the adjoining counties. But evidently they did not do everything in their power, because I understand that a certain act was placed on the statute books in 1915, and according to the way they 'dealt with the Rouyn railway, I believe they would have been able to pursue the same procedure to bring about the construction of the Guysborough railway. But I do not admit that they were really entitled to build the Rouyn railway in that way, nor do I admit they they could have built the Guysborough railway by following a similar course. But having taken the wrong course in that case, they could easily have repeated the wrong and built the Guysborough railway, instead of bringing in a bill to authorize its construction, which bill they knew was a sham because it would be and was rejected by the upper chamber.
Mr. L. LAOOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains). (Translation): Mr. Speaker, allow me to make a few comments in my mother tongue -were it but to assert again the principle, already acknowledged' long ago, of the use of

the two official languages in this country- that tongue of which Andre Chenier was able to say: The most beautiful language born on human lips.
I am happy, Sir, to take part in this debate and support, as a member of the Liberal party, the so dignified, tactful and energetic attitude taken by the acting Prime Minister, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). It really is a pleasure to assist in the efforts made by all the members of this government and I shall add, moreover, in the offorts made by our congenial colleagues in this House, the Progressive members. I cannot, however, pay the same compliment to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and to his followers who, for weeks, have been obstructing legislation and will have to answer to the people of Canada for the enormous expenditure which, each day, they are the cause. Where are these gentlemen who, in the course of the last electoral campaign, proclaimed themselves the champions of economy? I ask you, Sir, were they sincere? Were they in earnest when they advocated economy and when, to-day, they confine themselves to obstruction which threatens to become everlasting? That is why the government has thought fit to take energetic means, and I deny the leader of the opposition's right of being shocked with regard to this measure since it is his own child. He was its father not under similar circumstances as do now apply to it; but he was the author of it at a time when all men having the interest of their country at heart, wished to protest as to Canada bleeding itself to death in order to participate in the wars of the empire; he was its father at that time just as he charged, this afternoon, the hon. Minister of Justice of being the father of the measure to-day.
I must congratulate the Minister of Justice who in a way comes forward as the standard bearer of the rights of the people in this House. He is the bulwark of these rights because knowing himself well supported by us, he wants to put an end to this deluge of words characteristic of an incompetence unsurpassed but by its own insignificance.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot refrain from pointing out to the energetic and strong stand taken by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I am happy, although not always agreeing with him in his views and principles, to offer him this sincere mark of my admiration, and to observe that he has lost nothing of his eloquence and energy of days gone by, that this eloquence also is still persuasive and

The Address-Mr. Bennett
fiery and can only find its equal but in his high intellectual culture.
When I speak thus, when I express myself frankly, clearly and precisely, I know I am voicing the general feeling of my county. Have we not obtained in this House, the sanction of the people through the unquestionable majority we repeatedly have been registering up to this day? Are- not the . people backing us up? Is not the established authority of this country supporting us, and does not the majority of the representatives of the people constitute the established authority?
That is why, to-day, we are fearless in suppressing the unceasing obstruction of those who oppose our measures. We are in duty bound to govern because the people, through their representation in this House, have decreed that we were the government. This is why we have no fear in saying: desperate diseases require desperate remedies.
I state that it is absolutely wrong for the opposition to have, week after week held this House in suspense, when the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stated a short while ago, that the opposition had no desire for a holiday, I was in no wa5r astounded, as the opposition has been enjoying a holiday for already five weeks. And when the hon. member further stated that after giving it serious consideration he had changed his mind, I would ask him to also return to his first love, to the sacred ties of the Liberal party whose cherished aims are the country's happiness, prosperity and glory.
I was listening, a few moments ago to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn). Hamilton! The prophetical word of to-day, .since it sums up the new political policy of the right hon. leader of the opposition. Hamilton! The famous Hamilton speech! which, thank God, the province of Quebec did not swallow down at the last election in Bagot. And how could they believe in that speech when the most intimate satellites of the leader of the apposition were criticizing him throughout Ontario? It is not necessary to name these members, however, beneath the velvet paw we felt the claws of these satellites of the leader of the opposition.
I do not wish, Sir, to further impose on your kindness. Allow me, by the way, to add a few words with reference to the hon. member for St. Lawrence^St. George (Mr. Cahan) who, the other day, in this House, made a speech lasting five hours and a half. His attitude seems somewhat strange, especially when one beholds him sitting on the same row as the right hon. leader of the opposition, he who always acknowledged Mr. REVISED
Patenaude as his leader in the province of Quebec. The same remark applies to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) whose newspaper so strongly condemned the attitude taken by the opposition these last days.
I trust that the high ideals of these two hon. members will have a beneficial influence on the opposition.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, allow me to state that I rose not to harshly criticize the opposition, but because the interest of the country at large demanded it, and because we need, we on the government side, to reorganize the cabinet, to complete our legislation and bring it down before parliament in order to carry out our sessional programme. That is what the people demand of us, to-day, and that is why I have taken part in this debate.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. friends opposite on the courage they have displayed in moving closure. It is a courage, of course, born of necessity, but nevertheless I congratulate them because it indicates a recognition on their part that closure is an efficient instrument in the hands of a government to permit public business to be transacted. I have nothing to say as to the reasons why they have changed the views they held in days long since passed. I feel that it is not to be held against those who govern that they see fit to change their minds and adopt more modern methods when they have seen the error of their ways and realize the virtue of that to Which they were opposed.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it must be rather difficult for the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) to contemplate the situation which has arisen. There are two forms of closure. The closure that we have in this House dates back in the British House, if my memory serves me right, to 1858, but long before that, for three centuries, there was a form of closure known as closure by debate, whereby a member moved the previous question and that had to be disposed of. It is true that members might speak on it, but that was closure by debate. Now we have in this House the beautiful spectacle of the bon. member for Nelson conceiving in a moment the happy idea of availing himself of the rules, making it known to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-who received the intimation with pleasure, if not with gratitude. And when it was known that the hon. member for Nelson proposed to do this, everyone on the opposite side of the House expressed his pleasure and admiration at the genius of the hon. member in dis-



EDITI0N

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
covering this method of terminating the debate. When this closure by debate was proposed, smiles adorned the faces of my hon. friends opposite, who looked so sad in days past-the	Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) for example, when he saw this debate dragging on. When I saw the smile on his countenance my heart rejoiced within me, but now what have we in the way of gratitude?-"A lively hope of favours yet to come." Imagine if you can, Mr. Speaker, anything more cruel than to see the hon. member for Nelson called upon this afternoon to vote for closure by force or by majority as against that closure which he proposed, by debate. I have seen some amusing spectacles in my time, but never one more amusing than the way in which the hon. member faced the bullets of the enemy and rose like a hero to cast his vote. Such a man is fit subject indeed for an epic poem.
So closure by force, by brute force, by majority, has taken the place of that other closure by debate about which, in days long since past, my hon. friends to the left used to proclaim so loudly. And my hon. friends from Winnipeg! Oh, dear; closure by force; free speech; the gag! Is it possible that they have forgotten the closure by debate and are now no longer against closure by gag? New times, new manners, new methods, new morals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the debate to which we have just listened has not been wholly without merit and without benefit to the state. We have heard many things we would otherwise not have heard. We have heard of the difficulties that confront the people of the lower provinces in carrying on government, and I am sure no one in this House who has listened to the tale which has been unfolded has not been stirred in his heart and made willing and determined to do what he could to better their conditions. I would be recreant to the country from which I came and in which I was born if I did not feel deep sympathy. I count it the only merit I have that I was born in the lower provinces. When I think of the contributions which those provinces have made to this House, to this country and to public service; when I think of the contributions hon. gentlemen sitting on this side of the House are making to-night and which they have made in their speeches during the last few weeks, I cannot help thinking that there must be, in the intelligence, enterprise and industry of the .Canadian people, the skill and power to evolve some scheme which will bring peace, happiness and prosperity to these provinces which are now suffering. I do not for a single moment think-nay, I do not even
fMr. Bennett.]
suggest-that there are in this House, even on the government benches, men who would not better these conditions if they knew how, if they could conceive some method by which that could be done. These conditions can only be improved if we bring to bear upon their improvement a clear conception of the desirability of maintaining confederation as it was originated, by a system of compromises. After all, compromise government is what must be resorted to by all parties if we are to govern and rule. When I find one of the provinces of this Dominion represented in this House by men of the talent and calibre and capacity to think and speak that we have heard during the last few weeks, then I say if for no other reason this debate has not been in vain.
But, Sir, there has been one other matter bi ought up in this parliament that I regard as of paramount importance. It has been shown beyond peradventure of a doubt that there has been abuse of the powers which are falsely alleged to rest in certain parties with respect to the construction of railways. I cannot read the statutes as carefully as I have endeavoured to read them, the statutes of 1915 and of 1919, and believe for a single moment that the hon. gentlemen who constitute the government of this country will, when they soberly and calmly consider ithe matter, regard the action that has been taken with respect to the Rouyn railway except as an open defiance of the power and authority of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it strikes further than the mere construction of a railway. It is not a question of whether or not you may construct forty-five miles of railway in any province; it is whether or not the money of this Dominion shall be expended without the authority of this parliament. I understand that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said this afternoon that they were not in the least concerned or worried about that, because the proceeding was regular in form in every particular, and had behind it the sanction of high legal authority. But, Sir, may I remind you of a matter of which you are well aware; when the great Gladstone had to appoint to the Privy Council a judge, and the statute said that those eligible for the position should be men who had held high judicial positions, Sir John Collier, an eminent legal practitioner, a man whose capacity was undoubted, was appointed to the Court of Common Pleas, and then, after he had remained there a few days, sent on to the Privy Council. Public opinion on the matter in England was so strong that Mr. MARCH 2, 1926
The Address-Mr. Bennett
Gladstone had to apologize, in almost abject terms, to the British people for having thus violated the sense of a statute. The statute of 1915 was passed long before the Canadian National system was created, long before we had an amalgamation and consolidation of government roads. Yet that statute is resorted to to justify the passing of an order in council declaring that a branch of railway not yet under construction to be in the interests of the people of Canada, to be operated as part of the government system of railways, a system, Sir, which no longer exists, because there is no longer a government system of railways-the system of railways we now have is the Canadian National system; its name, its power, its corporate rights being determined by statute. Despite the provisions we have inserted in our statutes to protect the public exchequer, we are now told it is in the public interest, not that a branch line should be acquired, but that a branch line should be built and then acquired by a form of lease that is nothing better than a bond guarantee. Under these circumstances I say parliament should be consulted.
I am not concerned about the construction of the railway. I believe it is essential1 that that road should be built into that country, in order that that great mining camp, the richness of which we do not yet know, should be developed. I believe in all
11 p.m. that; 'but, Sir, I am vitally concerned, and every man in this House must be vitally concerned, that parliament's rights and powers should not be abrogated, and that defiance should not be flung at this parliament by any set of men however eminent they may be. It is for that reason I ask my friends carefully to consider the situation, and if for no other reason this debate had dragged along, it would have been justified on that ground alone, and the position we have -taken would have been vindicated. I ask hon. gentlemen to consider these statutes, that agreement, that lease, and the order in council.-by which hon. gentlemen opposite, when they have read it for the first time, will have learned how easy it is to make a lease into a bond guarantee and how facile indeed are the conditions that have been inserted by men who do not practise their profession in this country to see to it that this Dominion, with all its power and might and financial resources, is put behind an ordinary harmless lease by the government of a branch line not yet built-I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) calmly and carefully to consider this agreement in the light of the statutes, in the light of their plain
meaning. It is true that in a court of law Hansard is not to be quoted as an authority, but it is clear that the statute of 1915 applied only to existing lines, branch lines in the lower provinces and Quebec. The very terms of it will abundantly make that clear.
Sir, I have a suggestion to make to my friends opposite with respect to the Canadian National Railways, and this gives me an opportunity to do so. If I venture to criticize the Canadian National Railways, I am told that I am an enemy of its president. If, on the other hand, as a shareholder of the Canadian Pacific railway I attend its meetings, I am not criticized for exercising my right as a shareholder. Mr. Speaker, I am a shareholder to-day in the Canadian National railway system; I in common with every member of this House am a shareholder in that road. We people of Canada are the shareholders, and how may we express our criticism of the conduct -of that road unless we are afforded an opportunity to do so? I deny, Sir, the right of any person to say that it is high treason or lese majeste for any member of this House to criticize the chief executive of that system. I hold I have a right as a shareholder to point out conditions as they arise, suggest remedies, and offer criticisms. That is all I claim. The real weakness of the Canadian National railway system to-day is that there is no provision for a meeting oi its shareholders. With every other corporation there is an opportunity afforded for men to meet together and criticize and discuss the corporate actions of the executive. But no such power is here, and we have no body of directors except those appointed by the governor in council, and that body of directors happens to be a perfectly useless body, composed of men selected for political services. I do not for a moment say that the party who sits to your left, Mr. Speaker, would not do the same; I am not that sort of man at the moment, but I do desire to point out -that the board of directors we now have is a board of directors wholly unequal to the task imposed upon them by law of determining matters of interest to the railway.
Mr. Speaker, I have a suggestion to make; it may or may not be constructive. My proposal is that we should have nine directors of the Canadian National system, one from each province in this confederation, little and big, Prince Edward Island having one, Ontario and Quebec each having one, and one only, making nine in all, because the Canadian National system functions in every province in Canada. I suggest to you, Sir, that these nine directors be elected on a joint ballot
14S0
The Address-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
of this House of Commons and the Senate and of all the legislatures of all the provinces of Canada.
Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Unwieldy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would not be the least unwieldy because we would profit by continuity of service, with three directors say, retiring each year, as they do on the Canadian Pacific. They would1 be elected free from political direction and control, because, by a joint ballot, with the ballots written or printed, you may be able to get and would in time be able to get men of light and leading and of business capacity who would give that support to the chief executive that the duties of his office require. I make that suggestion; it may not be worth anything, but I have given it after time and attention spent to ascertain some method whereby the shareholders of the Canadian National Railways, the people of Canada, might be able to make their voice felt in its management, and criticize without being held to be enemies of the system. I regard that as fatal alike to the aiccessful administration of the property and to the interests of the Canadian people. So upon that ground, too, I submit, Mr. Speaker, we have been justified in maintaining this debate.
But there is one reason that I cannot appreciate; there is one action that has been taken that I find it difficult to fallow. When was this closure moved? It was not moved until the hon. member for North Sirncoe (Mr. Boys) said that when the Prime Minister came into the House we would adjourn. Since when did my hon. friends to the right desire to keep the Prime Minister out of the House? I know what was bothering my hon. friends opposite. They knew perfectly well that if the Prime Minister came into this parliament by the front door, with the Speech from the Throne not disposed of, he would have so many explanations to offer, so many Richmond Hill utterances to explain, so many Moose Jaw speeches to reiterate, that my hon. friends who sit to my left might desert him in a body and he who came in at the front door might ignominously go out at the back. I cannot but congratulate my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon the skill and enterprise that he has shown in leading this House through the chaos that has developed during the absence of the Prime Minister, but never was his skill greater or his touch finer than when he saw to it that tihe closure was moved before the Prime Minister entered this House. Can 	i
one imagine the look on the faces of hon. gentlemen to the left listening to the explanations given to those who are no longer "outlaws", no longer outcasts, but have become the bosom friends of the Prime Minister? Do you remember, Sir, the great recantation of Galileo when he said: "But the world still goes round" ? I can fancy the Prime Minister, after he had made his great recantation, after he had forgotten his Richmond Hill, Moose Jaw, Calgary and Edmonton speeches, resuming his seat and looking disgustedly over at the twenty-five or thirty members who sit to our left, thinking of the day when he would get along without them and saying: "They are still outlaws". Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Nothing was finer than the courage which kept out of this House, until the Speech from the Throne was disposed of, the medium of communication between the Sovereign and this House.
But that is not all. Why, we have my friends to our left telling us of the glories of democracy and what they must do to maintain their high ideals in this House. I put them this question: In a moment or two you will vote. By your votes if you unite with us you will give the sovereign will of the people once more an opportunity to express itself at the polls. By voting with my hon. friends opposite for closure by force and not by debate, you will say: We have wrung from these people that which in days gone by they opposed and they who were our enemies have now become our friends. How long do you suppose you will be useful after your usefulness has gone? It is difficult to understand intelligent, high idealists, as my hon. friends to the left are, concluding that they will be more useful than an old shoe after they have served their purpose. Why, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in moving the closure saw in a moment that he had put them into the position of voting to closure their own motion. He can hereafter say: "It was your act, not ours, because without 3rou we could not have done it."
But there is something more important I say to my hon. friends to the left and it is this: I ventured to say it when I first spoke in this House, and I repeat it. What think you,, after all, you are doing with the great democratic institutions of this country? If to-day because you have power, authority and weight in numbers and are able to throw yourselves into the balance to save our friends to the right from being destroyed, what do you think you have done to democracy? You have sacrificed your principles. You say not, but the very moment you wring from men

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
by force that which is not supported by the voice of the people, you have done an injury to democracy. The cry of my hon. friends to the left has always been: Let the will of the people decide. The people have never had an opportunity to decide on the measures my hon. friends are now compelling this government to give them in order that it may remain in power. No longer can my hon. friends to my left be true to their great traditions and high ideals and still support this administration. I say to them: To-night you have your chance, and if you let it go it goes forever into the darkness of the night. But I hope the light has come and we shall find) my hon. friends to the left voting not with the goats but with the sheep.
Mr. C. R. MoINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, after listening to the splendid address of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) I am convinced that the time has about arrived for us to have another vote in this assembly, but before that vote takes place I would crave the attention of not only yourself, Sir, but the members of this House. The hon. member for West Calgary intimated that the Prime Minister would be kept from appearing in this chamber for a certain number of weeks. The Prime Minister of Canada, for we actually have a Prime Minister of Canada, will be in this chamber a few weeks hence. We all know how he was elected by one of the most splendid majorities in the history of Dominion politics. Before the Prime Minister comes into this assembly-and he will come in by the front door-he will be in good hands because he will be in the hands of the people of the Dominion of Canada.
The hon. member for West Calgary touched on the question of the Canadian National Railways. I have no doubt about the future of the Canadian National Railways. A railway that belongs to the people of Canada, a railway that showed an operating profit four years ago of $2,000,000, three years ago of $20,000,000, two years ago of $17,000,000 and this last year of $32,000,000, or an increase in surplus in four years of from $2,000,000 to 832,000,000, has certainly a splendid future before it if the people of Canada will give it the backing it ought to have. I congratulate the hon. member for West Calgary upon one special point he made in connection with the Canadian National Railways. I believe the railway board should be a representative one, representing every province in Canada, because in that way we can get better results in the days to come.
One of the opposition speakers, I think it was the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), referred to the question of Maritime
rights and endeavoured to show that the Liberal party and those who support it do not know what those rights mean. That is just the point: I do not believe the people of the Maritime provinces themselves know what they want. The people of the west do not know what the Maritime provinces signify. The people of Canada as a whole do not, but the policy of this government is to appoint a royal commission and have the matter investigated in order to give the facts to the Canadian people. Let us go to work and solve that problem for the benefit of a United Canada.


Otto Baird Price: What about the royal commission-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The hon. member used
the expression, in connection with an hon. member on this side of the House, that he was the sole surviving species of Liberalism.


Robert Knowlton Smith: In this House, I said.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is what I said.
When we have in my hon. friend the sole surviving species of Liberalism, especially when the species is an outstanding one, we can have great hope for the future. Liberalism will grow and develop, and if it will propagate ideas it will save Canada just as much as any other party in the future.
The same hon. gentlemen stated that the Mackenzie King administration lost the support and the confidence of the Canadian people on October 29. From a purely political standpoint there may be some truth in that argument; but this is a day of cooperation, and from the standpoint of political co-operation, from the standpoint of party co-operation in this House, there is nothing in the argument. Time and again during the last two months this has been demonstrated. After all the addresses we have heard, after all the speakers we have listened to-and they have been many and splendid-I have thought of an expression which was used in the early days of Canadian development. When the Canadian Pacific railway project was in its early stages; when there was doubt whether the road would be built, and when it was thought that if built it would be a failure, that financially it would not be what it ought to be for the Dominion, leaders on both sides of politics in those days were decrying the proposal. Many prominent Liberals and Conservatives thought the Canadian Pacific railway might not be a success. Others thought otherwise. The Hon. Edward Blake, in an article on the Canadian Pacific railway,

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
concluded with the statement that the Canadian Pacific railway when it would be built would be lost in a sea of mountains. That is, that when the Canadian Pacific railway ghould wind its way from east to west, from our great chain of inland seas, lakes and rivers across the great divide between Ontario and Manitoba, over the prairies and .on to the Pacific coast, it would be to a certain extent a failure on account of the mountains between the prairies and the coast. So to-day in listening to the many addresses in this House I have thought that hon. members of the opposition and their arguments have been lost, if not in a sea of mountains, in a sea of majorities.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are they?
Mr. McIN'TOSH:	Now, what about majorities in connection with the work of the House since this session opened? Parliament was convened on January 7 and officially opened on January 8. The first real debate we had in the House was on the question of the right of the government to carry on. Our opposition friends said:	"You are violating
all the principles of parliamentary procedure, all the principles of parliamentary life, all the rights of parliament." They said that the Liberal government was not a real committee of the House and consequently was not competent to carry on. That dkbate lasted a week, and upon its conclusion the government had a majority of three, the vote being 123 to 120. That is one majority in which the contention of our friends opposite was upset. Then another majority was given on February 1, when the protectionist amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) was lost on a vote of 125 to 115, being a majority of ten against the loyal opposition of the day. Then we had another vote on February 2, on a motion to adjourn the debate.. That motion was negatived by a vote of 124 to 114, another majority of ten. We had another vote on February 2 to adjourn the House, the government being sustained by a vote of 119 to 118, a majority of one. Then on February 5 we had two votes in connection with the adjournment to March 15. On one vote the figures were 119 to 112, a majority of seven. Then we had the vote on the main motion, and the figures were 120 to 112, another majority against the opposition in this House. Then on February 8 we had the Speaker's ruling upheld by a vote of 87 to 71, the government having a majority of sixteen. On February 16 the Australian treaty amendment, as it might be

called, was defeated in this House by a vote of 119 to 108, a majority of eleven, and then we had the closure motion upheld in this House to-day by a vote of 108 to 95, one of the best majorities we have had during this session. The fact that our majority was thirteen will not prove unlucky, because politically the number 13 is said to be a very lucky number. The result of the different votes in the House gave the government a majority on the different dates as follows:
Government
majority
January 15	 3
February	1	
10February	2	
10February	2	
1February	5	
7February	5	
8February	8	
16February	16	
11March 2	
13
In all we have had a majority of 79, or an average majority on every motion brought up in the House of approximately nine.
Then we have our opposition friends going around the country and talking in such a way as to create the impression that they should constitute the government. Why, if they organized a government and the right hon. leader of the opposition became the leader of that government to-morrow, cooperatively speaking, having regard to the majorities I have mentioned, he could not hold office. The consequence would be that there would1 have to be another general election, and if there were another general election the chances of the Conservative party would not be improved.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us have it.
Mr. McINTOSH. You will get it when the time comes. In respect to the question of closure, I believe that, the introduction of closure at the present time can be justified. This House has been in session for two months. We have talked and talked. I believe the general opinion of the country is that all parties in this House have talked too much during the last two months. I believe the wish of the .people of Canada and the verdict of the people of Canada, if you could get it, would be for this government to get down to business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My hon. friends on the other side pound their desks, but I know the thought I am giving expression to is the one that they have in common among themselves, and with their co-operation and the co-operation of all parties it may not be a difficult

The Address-Mr. McMillan
matter to get down to business. I believe the majority should rule, and since I have proved that on every occasion when the vote was taken in this House the ministerial party have had' a majority, we have a perfect-right to introduce closure, to put the clamps on the opposition and1 to say: "Now is the time for this parliament to clear the decks for action, bring down the programme of the government and introduce legislation to carry out that programme."
There is another reason why the closure should be upheld1 at the present time. I believe the Speech from the Throne involves policies which will redound to the glory of Canada, and when we analyze the programme question by question we shall find that the legislation which it foreshadows will prove, when enacted, the best that has been passed in this Dominion during the last quarter of a century. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) not very long ago, in referring to this portion of the House, characterized it as the Saskatchewan colony. Well, I am proud to belong to the province of Saskatchewan; I am proud to come from that sunny part of the Dominion, the land of the west where Canadian development is taking place on such a large scale and where perhaps the destiny of Canada lies to a greater extent than in any other part of the country. Let me tell the right hon. gentleman that, whether the Saskatchewan members constitute a colony in this House or not, that colony has performed a very useful service in supporting this government. Without the support of the members from Saskatchewan it would not be possible for the government to carry on to-day, and I believe that with the combined efforts of Quebec and Saskatchewan, two of the banner provinces of Canada, we can go forward and realize those high ideals of Liberalism and national (progress which will make Canada a great and prosperous nation.
Before I conclude there is just one point I wish to touch upon. From the standpoint of colonial development Saskatchewan has proved most successful. The old Tory idea of colonial development was that Canada existed for the profit of the Motherland; it was a land of snow and ice and of forests, and in the early days at any rate the prevalent notion among Tories was that Canadian development was synonymous with the profit of the empire. We have got beyond that stage of thinking; we are to-day a free nation within the British Empire. Canada, if it is properly developed, has a great future before it. Tories of old had the idea that she would never enjoy the political rights which are hers to-day; but Canada has gone on and prospered, and I
believe that the province of Saskatchewan will play an increasingly important part in the future development of this Dominion.
In closing, may I express the hope that after this test vote is taken to-night and we return to our homes for a week or so we shall come back later on prepared to enact such legislation as will be a credit to this House and to the country as a whole.


Thomas McMillan: In the midst of this river of discussion, "a little nonsense now and then is relished by the best of men". I have heard so many members on the floor of this House say that their homes are in the province of Nova Scotia that I have naturally recalled the occasion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's first visit to the west. He was entertained at Ladner's Landing, on the delta of the Fraser, by a warm friend of my own named William Ladner. In the course of that function, acting as host, he told the gathering which included Sir Wilfrid and another good friend, Mr. D. C. Fraser, afterwards Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia, that if they wanted to see the finest country in the world they had only to go outdoors, where they would behold land, that would produce 14,000 bushels of wheat to the acre. Mr. Fraser at once declared, "We had some liars in Nova Scotia but I never knew that any of them had settled here."
In my opinion the application of closure in this discussion has not come before its time. Many of us consider that it was due weeks ago; but possibly it is well that hon. gentlemen opposite have been allowed to go the limit, in an almost continuous exhibition of their policy of obstruction,-a scene, tragic to the Tory party,-a scene deeply expressive, in almost every Tory countenance, of those momentous words, "so near and yet so far". You, Mr. Speaker, may be able to recall the famous expression of a one time respected member of this House, uttered in true Irish brogue, that a Tory out of office was like a she bear deprived of her cubs. Well, Sir, this House has fully demonstrated that the Tory party, at bay on the floor of parliament, is even worse than that. But every unjust accusation, every epithet hurled across the floor in their desperation, both ungenerous and uncalled for, has been met by that feeling which is conscious of the right and that quiet dignity of reserve which will always appeal to the 'best judgment of the House and of the country.
To think that the once great Conservative party, that party which has always plumed itself on the possession of a monopoly in its loyalty to the crown, is now represented by a class of men in this parliament who make

The Address-Mr. McMillan
themselves ridiculous by refusing to allow even an expression of.thanks to the crown for the gracious speech which His Excellency has been pleased to convey to us. At all times it is the difty of every member to uphold and maintain the dignity of parliament. We have seen too much in the public press. Too much has fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite, who by their words have shown themselves unworthy of those they would revile. Never was any body of independent representatives less open to such sordid charges. These men from the west, both Liberal and Progressive, represent the very soul of honour and they have the highest conception of the duties and responsibilities of their position. As befits the great section of the country from which they come, they are not narrow or circumscribed in their opinions; they are like the rest of us here, endeavouring to do their duty, and in doing so they ally themselves with men of vision, men of high purpose, that together we may maintain Canada on that great highway which will lead to a just realization of the possibilities that lie before us.
Sir, the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) pulled off a good joke the other night in his reference to Mr. Mackenzie King's ability as an angler after Progressive support, and also to the unavailing efforts of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Rogers), and to the fact that the Hon. Manning Doherty had been down here for a whole month fishing and never got a bite. The hon. member gave Mr. Mackenzie King credit for being the only expert angler in the bunch. But, Sir, one weakness of the hon. gentleman's reference lies in the fact that he did not go far enough; he did not complete the picture; if he had done so, the mystery would have vanished, and the whole picture would be as clear as the noonday sun. When these hon. gentlemen were busy fishing they were not fishing for themselves, they were fishing for their leader, the right hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), and in their sport they mistook the calibre of their game. They thought the Progressives were men of their own calibre, and so they loaded their hooks with Arthur Meighen-Hugh Guthrie-Bob Rogers^Manning Doherty bait. But it was the wrong kind of bait. No wonder they dropped their fishing in disgust. They now know to their sorrow that they might have fished till doomsday and never have caught any of the fish they were after with that bait. Mr. Mackenzie King had nothing to do with the fishing. His only duty was to provide the right kind of bait. It was the leader of 
the House (Mr. Lapointe) who loaded his hook with the right kind of bait, with "Mackenzie King bait," otherwise known as the "best-interests-of-Canada" bait. And he went off in his own jolly way, and1 by his continuously overflowing good nature was able not only to squash the opposition but to captivate this House so that he has to-day behind him and across the way more loyal support than any government has had in years, a support that will be continued so long as the government do their duty. It is the earnest hope, it is the feeling deep down in the heart of every member on this side of the House, including the members of the cabinet, that the government will go forward and do their duty-do it as they have done in days gone by, with honour to themselves and benefit to the country.


Mr. BOURASSA (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, before the House divides on the main motion I wish to state that, in order to accommodate the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), I paired with him, otherwise I would have voted against the amendment.


Robert Harold Jenkins: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. FONTAINE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was paired with the hon. member
for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Elliott) which was agreed to on the following
Geary,	Stansell,	division:	Gott,	Stevens,	YEASGrimmer,	Stewart (Leeds),	Messrs :Guthrie,	Stinson,	Hamilton,	Stirling,	Baldwin,	Brown,Hannesson,	Sutherland (Oxford	Beaubien,	Campbell,Harris,	South),	Benoit,	Cannon,Hay,	Sutherland (Oxford	Bettez,	Cardin,Hocken,	North),	Bird,	Carmichael,Hubbs,	Thompson,	Boivin,	Casgrain,Johnstone (Cape Breton	Tumimon,	Bothwell,	Coote,North -Victoria),	White (Mount Royal),	Bouchard,	Delisle,Kaiser,	Wilson (Wentworth),	Boucher,	Denis (St. Denis),Kennedy (Winnipeg	Wright.-95.	Bourassa,	Denis (Joliette),South Centre),	Boutillier,	Desaulniers,
The Address-Division

Descoteaux,
Deslauriers,
Dionne,
Donaghy,
Dubuc,
Dussault,
Elliott,
Evans,
Evanturel,
Fafard,
Fansher,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Forke,
Fournier,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Gervais,
Girouard,
Goodiison,
Goulet,
GuSrin,
Hall,
Heaps,
Heenan,
Howard,
Howden,
Jacobs,
Jelliff,
Johnston (Long Lake), Kay,
Kennedy (Peace River), King (Huron North), King (Kootenay East), Lacombe,
Lane tot,
Langlois,
Lapierre,
Lapointe,
Lavigueur,
Letellier,
Lovie,
Lucas,
Macdonald (Glengarry), MacLean (Prince), McLean (Melfort),
McIntosh,
McKenzie,
McMillan,
McPhee,
Malcolm,
Marcil,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont),
Mercier (St. Henri),
Millar,
Morin (Bagot),
Morin (St. Hyacanthe-Rouville),
Motherwell,
Neill,	,
Parent,
Perras,
Pouliot,
Power,
Prevost,
Raymond,
Rheaume,
R infret,
Robb,
Roberge,
Robichaud,
Robiitaille,
Ross (Moose Jaw), Sanderson,
Seguin,
Spence (Maple Creek), Spencer,
Steedsman,
Stewart, (Edmonton West), Stork,
Sylvestre,
Tobin (Richmond-Wolfe), Tobin (Wetaskiwin),
Totzke,
Vallance,
Verville,
Ward,
Woodsworth,
Young (Saskatoon),
Young (Weybum).-111.
MacPha il ( Miss ),
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto High Park),
Anderson (Halton), Armstrong
(Timiskaming South), Armstrong (Lambton East), Arthurs,
Baker,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine), Bennett,
Black (Yukon),
Black (Halifax),
Bowen,	.
Boys,
Bristol,
Bury,
Cahan,
Cantley,
Casselman,
Chaplin (Kent, O.), Chaplin (Lincoln), Charters,
Church,
Clark,
Cotnam,
Culligan,
Dickie,
Doucet,
Drayton (Sir Henry), Duncan,
Edwards (Waterloo South),
Edwards (Frontenac-Addington),
Embury,
Esling,
Fish,
Flemming,
F raser,
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Got/t,
Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Hamilton,
Hannesson,
Harris,
Hay,
Hoc ken,
Hubbs,
Johnstone (Cape Breton North-Victoria), Kaiser,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre),
Ladner,	Price,
Lennox,	Quinn,
MacDonald (Cape Breton, Rogers,
South),
Macdonald (Richmond-West Cape Breton), MacLaren,
Maclean (York South), MacNutt,
McClenaghan,
Macdougall,
McGibbon,
McKiilop,
McQuarrie,
Maloney,
Manion,
Maybee,
Meighen,
Messervy,
Mewbum,
Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Nicholson,
Peck,
Perley (Sir George), Pettit,
Preston,
Ross (Kingston City), Rowe,
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
Senn,
Short,
Simpson,
Sinclair,	t
Smith,
Smoke,
Spence (Parkdale), Stansell,
Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds), Stinson,
Stirling,
Sutherland (Oxford South),
Sutherland (Oxford North),	.
Thompson,
Tuimmon,
White (Mount Royal), Wilson (Wentworth), Wright.-102.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.) Messrs:
Jenkins,
Macdonald (Antigonish-Guysborough), Hatfield,
Donnelly, [DOT]
Lacroix,

Gershaw,
Cross,
Wilson (Vaudreuil-Soulanges),
Lafiamme,
Euler,
St-Pere,
Cahill.
Macdonald (Kings), Hanson,
Jones,
Barber,
Robinson,
Foster,
Davis,
ToLmie,
White (London),
Langworthy,
Hodgins,
Bell (St. John-Albert), O'Neill.


Joseph-Éloi Fontaine: I was
paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


James J. Donnelly: I was paired with the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Mr. O'NEILL:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.	'
On motion of Mr. Lapointe,, seconded by Mr. Robb, it was ordered that the Address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 1255 a.m. (Wednesday), until Monday, the fifteenth of March, at three o'clock.

14S7
Locarno Treaty
Monday, March 15, 1926