1926-02-17

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: 
George Halsey Perley: What the minister says is quite correct. The memorial would be seen well from every point of the city coming towards it, but the base of this monument is 24 feet by 26 feet, and I submit to the minister that there would be very little space left after the monument was placed there, and that there would be too great a congestion Tight in the heart of the city.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the minister undertake to have the matter discussed in the House before it is finally settled?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Yes, an opportunity will be afforded for discussion.



DEATH OF QUEEN ALEXANDRA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following resolution from the Senate:
The Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in their Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, expressing the deep regret and heartfelt sorrow of the House at the demise of Her Majesty the late Queen Mother Alexandra, and have filled in the blank space therein with the words "Senate and."
And also a second resolution:
Requesting this House to unite with the Senate in an Address to His Excellency the Governor General praying His Excellency to transmit the Joint Address of both Houses to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, expressing the deep regret and heartfelt sorrow at the demise of Her Majesty the late Queen Mother, in such a way as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the Throne, and that they fill in the blank space therein with the word "Commons."



TRANSPORTATION OF COAL


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton):: I would like to read this telegram and to ask two questions:
Seven dollar rate on Alberta coal is stopped needing fifty care more to meet the immediate demand my stock of fuel has dwindled to ten tons although I had

Transportation oj Coal
stored some since July and made contract with the largest manufacturer of coke for eight cars per month they fell down (to six last month and not one car shipped this month have schools and street railway contracts and not three days supply on hand situation very acute.
Wm. Buchanan.
Mr. Buchanan handled over one hundred oarloads of Alberta coal last season and I am at a loss to know why the government do not act in regard to this matter. They have received, I am satisfied, many requests from western Ontario and, in fact, from all parts of Ontario to do something to relieve the coal situation. There is no use of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) telling members of parliament from Ontario to look to the fuel controller of that province, because he is powerless to act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mir. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: I am
going to ask a question. If necessary, I will move the adjournment of the House.


Mr. BOIVIN:: That has already been done.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Let the
minister tell the House what he has been doing. I want to ask what the minister has done and what he intends to do in regard to this matter.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton, Minister of the Interior):: The minister intends to act on the request of the fuel controller of Ontario. So far, the minister has not heard from that fuel controller. Might I ask the hon. member where Mr. Buchanan lives?
Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton); London, Ontario.


Charles A. Stewart: The fuel controller of Ontario is acting on behalf of that province for the distribution of coal, and so far as I am aware, we have from him no communication whatever.



RATE ON NOVA SCOTIA COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: May I ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, West Edmonton) whether he has seen Sir Henry Thornton to-day in regard to freight rates for the transportation of
15,000	tons of coal from Sydney Mines? I understood, as did some of our friends on this side, from the Minister of the Interior that he was anxious to facilitate this matter and that at the earliest opportunity he would see Sir Henry Thornton. I saw him in the city to-day and I should like to know whether the minister also has seen him and whether
he can give to the House some assurance that the rate will be put into force.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not know Sir Henry Thornton was in the city; that is news to me. May I say again however, in the hope that I shall be able to get it across to hon. members opposite, that neither the government nor any member of the government is negotiating freight rates with the Canadian National Railways; that is the prerogative of the railway company itself. As I have repeatedly declared, I am: willing to use my good offices in the matter:, but beyond that I can do nothing.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Cantley: Pardon me for asking-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas Cantley: I may ask another question with the permision of the Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the hon. member desires to put another question.


Thomas Cantley: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that I have your permision to ask another question of the minister. Is it the intention of the minister to implement the promise he made us on this side the other day to see Sir Henry Thornton in order to facilitate the movement of coal from Nova Scotia?


Charles A. Stewart: I certainly shall be willing to do that at any time, but that is not the implication that hon. gentlemen wish to convey. And that is the point I desire to make clear. I have repeatedly stated that I am ready to use my good offices, but I am not going to be put in the position in which hon. gentlemen are endeavouring to place me as being a negotiator in the matter of freight rates.



NEW ZEALAND PREFERENTIAL' TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. RAYMOND MORAND (East Essex):: Was the Government notified of customs regulations C No. 34, New Zealand, requiring fifty per cent Canadian labour and material and not fifty per cent British Empire labour and materials for entry under preferential duty? If so, does the government know that this regulation closes the New Zealand market to practically all automobile manufacturers in Canada? What remedial steps are being taken to correct this condition?
Australian Treaty


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Through the courtesy of my bon. friend in advising us yesterday that he was going to ask this question, I was enabled to check up the records, and I am now in a position to give him a reply whkffi, I hope, will be reassuring to the industries in his constituency as well as to similar industries in other parts of Canada. I have the following memorandum :
1.	The Department of Trade and Commerce received a copy of customs regulations C No. 4 New Zealand. There is nothing in the new regulations to bear out the statement that the regulations require fifty per cent Canadian labour and material and not fifty per cent British Empire labour and material, to enter under a preferential duty. The new regulations, to be in force as from the 1st April, 1926, are practically the same as the former regulations, excepting that "cne-fourth of the factory or works cost" is changed to read ''one-half of the factory or works cost." Among "the classes of goods which shall be deemed for the purposes of the Customs Amendment Act, 1921, to be the produce or manufacture of countries the produce or manufacture of which are entitled to be entered for duty under the British preferential tariff," section 5, (d) of the regulations enumerates the following:
"Goods partially produced or partially manufactured in such countries; provided that the final process of manufacture has been performed in one of such countries-
That is, British countries.
-and also that the expenditure in material produced in such countries and or labour performed within such countries (calculated subject to the qualification in the next succeeding regulation hereof) in each and every article is not less than one-half of the factory or works cost of such article in its finished state."
I wish to direct the attention of my hon. friend and the House to this:
2.	Instead of closing automobile factories in Canada, the new regulations will encourage the manufacture of the increased proportion in Canada or within the British Empire.
The new regulations have been published in the Canadian Commercial Intelligence Journal dated December 12, 1925.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Might I ask the Minister
of Finance whether he has seen the interpretation put on that regulation by Mr. Stevenson, official representative for New Zealand at New York, which is the interpretation that the automobile manufacturers have at the present time and upon which they have practically ceased manufacturing for export to New Zealand?


James Alexander Robb: I have not seen that interpretation, Ibut I wish to make it clear again that, as I understand the matter, under the New Zealand regulations, the final process must be in 'Canada; that is, one-half of the work could not be done in a British country and then shipped to the United States and finished there. The United States cannot take
[Mr. Morand.l
advantage of the conditions which are made cast iron that the final process must be within a British country.



CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE

[Stage Direction]
SHIPMENT OF CATTLE TO GREAT BRITAIN On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: I have in my hand a communication which I would like to read for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), in order to get his opinion and answer in reference to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. This letter pertains to the live stock industry, one of the basic industries of this country, and it reads:
In our conversation a short time ago you were anxious to know how the first shipment of cattle on the ss. "Ontario" turned out. As you are aware she left St. John on the night of January 24, and was in the wo ret storm on the Atlantic in a period of over thirty years. The steamer discharged fifty per cent of her cattle at Birkenhead on the night of February 7, after having stopped at Queenstown on account of a shortage of coal. From Birkenhead to Glasgow the master cabled she made a speed of eleven knots per hour and discharged her cattle in Glasgow in excellent condition. The most of the cattle were on the lower decks of the steamer.
I want to emphasize that so that the minister will understand the situation:
Mr. Irwin cabled the following:	"Cattle weighed as
usual shrinkage 5.90 to seven per cent the lowest on record for winter journey."
It speaks phenomenally for the live stock industry that, after coming through such a terrible storm at sea, our Canadian cattle stood up so well on that journey. The Live Stock Producers' Limited have taken these ships of the Jensen line and refitted them. Why cannot the government merchant marine ships be fitted in a similar way to those of the Jensen line so that they may be used in helping the live stock industry of this country?
THE AUSTRALIAN TREATY On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I desire to call the attention of the
government to a Canadian Press cable from London which appeared in the Mail and Empire of the 16th instant with reference to the debate in this House on the Australian treaty. According to this communication, Representative Rodgers of the Australian parliament, referring to the discussion in the Canadian House of Commons on the treaty between Canada and Australia-
-suggested that the government should inform Canada that Australia cannot allow a treaty solemnly made

The Address-Mr. Cahan
after great deliberation to become a political plaything of the three ' parties in Canada. When the treaty was negotiated many other countries were prepared to give Australia trade advantages but Australia preferred this treaty as an empire family matter, he said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter Heenan: The despatch goes on:
Premier Stanley Bruce said that as head of the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I take it for granted that the hon. member will conclude by putting a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Exactly.


Peter Heenan: I will read just one sentence and base a question upon it.
Premier Stanley Bruce said that os head of the government he could not express his views on any action which the Canadian parliament might take regarding the treaty, which Australia welcomed for the reason that it might do something to promote reciprocal trade within the British Empire.
In view of the vote which was taken in this House last night, will the leader of the government intimate to the Australian authorities that we do not in Canada treat our treaties as scraps of paper?


James Alexander Robb: Answering the question of my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Alexander Robb: I do not mind saying that the hon. member informed me before coming into the House that he would ask the question. I read in yesterday morning's press a despatch from Australia giving a purported interview by Representative Rodgers and I was a bit disturbed in consequence. Representative Rodgers was, on the occasion of the negotiation of the treaty, Minister of Trade and Customs in the government of Mr. Hughes and although he was defeated in the election of that year he was re-elected in the recent election.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: How old is he?


James Alexander Robb: He is between forty and forty-five and is a very estimable gentleman like my right hon. friend. I hope our friends in New Zealand and Australia will not take too seriously the debate we have had in the House recently.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 16, 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."
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: When I rose in my place last evening and temporarily gave way to the member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Bristol) I did not know whether he was rising to a point of order or merely to register a pair, but in the practice with which I had been familiar I took it for granted that in giving way to another member by courtesy one did not lose one's precedence. Nevertheless, I abide by the ruling of the Chair and I intend, with the permission of the House, to proceed to discuss the previous question. The authorities on parliamentary practice note in all the volumes that the chief object of moving the previous question is to prevent an amendment to the main question and thus to force a direct vote on the main question to the exclusion of all possible amendments. I remember that so recently as 1913, when the previous question was moved in this House, hon. gentlemen opposite, whom I am glad to see still here, spoke of it as a most shameful proceeding on the part of the government of that day to gag public debate and prevent the free expression of opinion in the parliament of this country.
I have not yet had the privilege of speaking on this Address, but I had given notice to my friends on this side and, through the press, to hon. gentlemen opposite, that at the earliest opportunity I intended moving a simple vote of want of confidence in this government by way of amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. That was well known to hon. members on both sides of the House and perhaps I am not mistaken in deducing that while hon. gentlemen opposite, in view of their attitude in 1913, felt that they could not pursue a course which they had at that time described as so shameful, they had nevertheless secured the co-operation of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) on this occasion.


Mr. BIRD:: I rise to a question of privilege. I totally repudiate the suggestion of the hon. member.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I still persist in my statement, although I accept the hon. member's denial so far as it goes.


An hon. MEMBER :: Withdraw.


An hon. MEMBER :: Take it back.


Thomas William Bird: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. My repudiation goes all the way. I entirely repudiate the suggestion that there was any co-operation between the government and myself.
The Address-Mr. Cahan

Some 'hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I am bound to accept the statement of the horn. member for Nelson, so far as it goes; but I hope before this debate has proceeded too far some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will declare also that they have not directly or indirectly procured the moving of a motion that they themselves were afraid and ashamed to move.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mir. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member for Nelson repudiated the statement made by the hon. gentleman who is speaking-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: -that any negotiations had taken place between the Liberal party and himself with respect to the motion he made last night. The hon. member who is now speaking persists-
Some bon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: He persists in asserting-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mir. Speaker, I am debating a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker,-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member for Nelson has denied1 that there was any arrangement between himself and the government with reference to the motion he made last .night, and I understand that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has accepted his denial.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, before the-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: It is true the denial was accepted, Mr. Speaker, but I hope it is not understood that the hon. member for Nelson was able to speak for the government as well as for bis own side.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mir. LAPOINTE:: 
Hewitt Bostock: This is apparently a love feast, so we may accept the statements of both sides and proceed to business.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, in order to
clarify the atmosphere, I might also suggest that before this debate is closed the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), the leader of the Progressive party, might declare to this House whether or not the hon. member for Nelson in moving the previous question was doing so with the authority of the leader of the Progressive party and with the approval of his fellow-members of that party in caucus assembled.


Mr. FORKE:: I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for St. Lawrencet-St. George would like to know all about the policy of the Progressive party.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not only does the member for St. Lawrence-St. George have a vital interest in the matter, because there is a vital public interest in it, but the people of this country have a right to know the attitude of the hon. leader of the Progressive party when an attempt is made by one of his followers in this House to do what hon. leaders of the Liberal party have time and time again declared to be an attempt to gag the expression of public opinion. While I am bound to accept the statements which have been made, I shall await with some anxiety indeed a full declaration of the attitude of the leader of the Progressive party with regard to the matter I have placed before him.
In the history of the parliamentary practice of England I find that the use. of the "previous question" goes back some three centuries, when it was introduced by those in authority for the purpose of suppressing subjects of delicate interest relating to high personages or that might call -for observations of a dangerous tendency. I do not know whether the hon. member for Nelson is so extremely anxious to bring this debate to a close for the purpose of preparing conditions under which the Customs investigation may be closed also. I do not know whether he is afraid of being forced to vote on the direct issue of want of confidence in this government. I infer there axe members on the Progressive side of the House who would find it very difficult, in view of present conditions, to register a vote of confidence in this government if the direct issue were placed before the House. Early in the session there was an issue of want of confidence, but the hon. Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin), with that dialectic Skill for which he is so well known, succeeded in impressing the

The Address-Mr. Cahan
members of the Progressive iparty with the idea that a vote in support of the government on the amendment then before the House would not be regarded by the government as a vote of confidence. It is only by reason of that explanation, Mr. Speaker, that I can reconcile the statements made in this House with the vote that the Progressive members registered when that issue came before them on a division. One member of the Progressive party, the hon,. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), rising in her place, declared:
I tvelieve all can agree that the King government played atrociously poor politics when it continued to hold office after the verdict of the people had been given. The effect of this verdict, as I am sure all Liberals will in their hearts but not with their lips admit, is the increasing resentment of the people of Canada against them.
Then again, the hon. member said:
During the last parliament the King government gave us only crumbs of reform, and those grudgingly. The King government couild have put through any reform which we favoured, but instead of that they chose of their own free wil'1 to mark time and to appeal to the country on the plea that they had not a sufficient majority, and now weakened in numbers and dn prestige the same government comes back and promises everything.
Continuing, the hon. member said-


Mr. CANNON:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I was going to allow my Iron, friend to continue his quotation, but hon. gentlemen opposite seemingly intend to use all the freedom of speech possible. I have no objection to it, provided that they follow the rules. My hon. friend has no right to quote from a speech made by an hon. member in another debate during the same session.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: The speech made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey was made on the motion as to whether or not this government had the right to meet parliament. It was not made on the Address.


Arthur Meighen: It is the same debate. The speech was made on the resolution that the Address have precedence.


Lucien Cannon: No, no. It is not the same debate.


Arthur Meighen: I submit for your decision, Mr. Speaker, that such a resolution involves a debate on the Address-


Ernest Lapointe: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: It throws us back to the debate on the Address and all matters arising out of it.


Hewitt Bostock: There is no question about the rule and the usage. The point raised by the hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is well taken; but Bourinot says- I have not the authority under my hand at the present moment, but I read it the other day-that without quoting the ipsissima verba of a speech delivered in another debate, without quoting the actual words themselves, an hon. member can build up an argument on the tenor of that speech.


Ernest Lapointe: There you are, the ipsissima verba.


Lucien Cannon: I contend that the actual words were quoted by the hon. member; therefore it is against the rule.


Arthur Meighen: One has not the time to get to the actual authority in a second, but I speak with some confidence when I say that Your Honour will find that matters that may have been referred to in a previous debate which are directly relevant to the debate in question may be quoted. I might refer to Bourinot.


Hewitt Bostock: I have read the authority.


Arthur Meighen: If the matters are directly relevant to the debate in question they may be quoted, but they cannot be quoted unless they are.


Hewitt Bostock: According to my reading of Bourinot, the tenor of a speech delivered in another debate may be used as a basis for argument, but not the ipsissima verba. If the hon. member, therefore, will undertake not to quote the actual words he may build up an argument upon them.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the point.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with parliamentary usage the president of the tribunal will say that in the interest of accuracy he has procured a copy of the very words used. In order that I might not misrepresent the hon. member for Southeast Grey I procured a copy of the exact transcription of the words which she did use. But now, depending upon my own memory of that debate and having the exact statement before me which she did use, I wish to state that the hon. member declared-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -words to the effect-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Lucien Cannon: The rules of this House apply to every member of it, including the
The Address-Mr. Cahan

hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, although he is one of the youngest.


Arthur Meighen: He is quite within the Speaker's ruling.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. Solicitor General seems to be very anxious to prevent discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friends will allow me-


Arthur Meighen: Order.


Lucien Cannon: -I wish to state-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I rise to a point of order.


Lucien Cannon: We have had the decision of Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Lucien Cannon: We have had the decision of Mr. Speaker, and I want the hon. member to follow that decision. We have had a ruling from Mr. Speaker and every hon. member must observe it. Every hon. gentleman is obliged to follow the ruling of the chair.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is doing so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may say that I knew the rules of the House when the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Cannon) was a mere child. No member of this House has a greater respect for the rules and the ruling of the Speaker than I have.


Lucien Cannon: Well, show it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that I am to await your ruling?


Lucien Cannon: It has been given.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman may not quote the exact words used by the hon. member for Southeast Grey as reported in Hansard, but I have already ruled that in conformity with the best authorities he may use his memory and thus refer to that speech.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Hansard will disclose that when I was interrupted without excuse by the hon. Solicitor General I was observing that from my memory I could say that the hon. member for Southeast Grey-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I now have the necessary authority in my hand. At page 357 of Bourinot, 12th edition, I find the following:

Neither can a member, in speaking, refer to anything said or done in a previous debate during the same session-a rule necessary to economize the time of the House, and a restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded. . . . But a reference to, though not a quotation from, a previous debate, by way of illustration, is in order.


Ernest Lapointe: "A reference."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say again, if I am allowed to finish the sentence, that from my memory of the remarks of the hon. member for Southeast Grey she said that she had absolutely no confidence in the King government, that she was not pleased with their past performances and had no confidence whatever in their present promises. Words to a similar effect were used by other Progressive members in my hearing in this House, and therefore I can understand that there may be somewhat of an indirect motive on the part of the hon. member for Nelson in excluding, as he has attempted to exclude, any division upon a direct vote of want of confidence in the government. I wish to say to that hon. member, who represents the constituency of Nelson, including the port on the Hudson bay of which we have heard very frequently lately, and1 who has a great interest, I believe, in the completion of a railway through his constituency, that I for one, speaking for myself only, am prepared in this House to consider every measure brought before us on its merits, and to decide on every issue as I conscientiously believe I should decide in the general interests of the people of this whole country. But when the hon. gentleman seeks to preclude us from reaching a vote of want of confidence in this House; when he seeks to gag us in the discussion of what we regard as material and vital to the interests of this country, I can tell him that so far 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.


Thomas William Bird: May I ask the hon. member
to tell me what the committee of strategy was doing at that time?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not been taken into the confidence of the committee of strategy of the Progressive group, and I expect to have a clear exposition from the hon. leader of that group as to the strategic arrangements that have been made by him with his follower the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird).


Miss MacPHAIL:: If the Conservative
party wanted an expression of want of confidence in the government, may I ask why they did not use one of the many oppor-

The Address-Mr. Cahan
tunities they have had to move a straight want of confidence motion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say to the hon.
member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) is that I do not profess to be able to express fully the opinion of the Conservative party in this House; I leave that for the right hon. leader of the party (Mr. Meighen) to do at the proper time. But I do say this:	Every
member in this House has the right to express his views on this Address and to move, if he deems it to be expedient in the public interest, any proper amendment which he sees fit to move, and I as an individual member of this House had intended to make a direct motion of want of confidence in the government by way of amendment to the Address. I feel very much grieved indeed that I have been prevented from bringing that motion before the House.


Mr. BROWN:: Did the hon. member notify the Progressive party that he intended to move such an amendment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I had assumed that there was a certain degree of intelligence in the leadership of the Progressive group in this House and that they took the trouble to read the news of the day; and the news of the day would have informed them that for some ten days at least I have been waiting for the first opportunity possible to move an amendment.
Before I proceed to discuss the Address at length, I wish to call attention to one matter which is distinctly of public interest. It is asserted by the press of this country that the Conservative party in this House are wasting the time of the House, are delaying the business of parliament, are incurring unduly large expense by continuing the debate on this Address; in fact, by way of excuse, some -of them have pretended to find some justification for us in alleging that under the rules of the House the Address must take precedence and that it is impossible to conduct any other business in the House while the Address is under debate. I wish to state clearly that there are no such rules. The position in which we are placed 4 p.m. is due to the specific resolutions moved by the hon. leader of the House (Mr. Lapointe) and adopted by this House, some of them under our protest and on division.
Fir^t, the acting leader of the government moved a resolution on a certain day that the debate on the Address have precedence over .all other public and private business in this .House, and then, having obtained the passage
of that resolution, he proceeded on a subsequent day to move that upon the debate on the Address being concluded this House do adjourn and stand adjourned until March the 15th. That is a fair statement of those two resolutions. Now those two resolutions in effect prevented this House from carrying on any public or private business that it might have carried on except for the moving and passage of those two resolutions, and I place upon the government of this country the distinct responsibility of having passed, on its own initiative, resolutions through this House which in any event, except in the event of the defeat of the government, precluded1 this House from transacting any public or private business until March the 15th. The fact, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House haVe proceeded to discuss the matters raised by the Address and the several amendments to the Address has not cost this country, and will not cost this country, one dollar extra by way of stipend or payment to the hon. members of this House who are here under their own expenses, paying their own expenses like public men, and willing and anxious to conduct the public business of the country as presented to parliament to a sure and speedy conclusion.
Furthermore, the right hon. leader of the government-the hon. leader, I think it is, but I have such a great affection for him that I wish to give him a1! the titles I can-when invited by the right hon. leader of the opposition to specify one single measure of public importance that the government were now prepared to bring before this House, could not indicate a single measure which was prepared and ready for submission. Therefore I wish distinctly to deny in this House and to deny to the country as a whole the charge that we are wasting the time of the House. I say that we are not wasting one dollar of public funds while we sit here to force this government to enter upon the real business of parliament and to bring it to a speedy end.


Mr. MORIN (St. Hyaointhe):: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether the House has not already pronounced on the adjournment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so, but at the instigation of the leader of the government, who wished thereby to prevent this House from doing business.
I wish to return from these incidental matters arising out of the initiation of closure in this House to discuss for just a moment the address given by the hon. member for Nelson OMr. Bird). The hon. gentleman raised one of his heroes to the rank of a
108S
The Address-Mr. Cahan

household deity, the Robin Hood of whose exploits we heard in our boyhood, and he especially commended' Robin Hood for one thing that I never heard him commended for before, and1 that was his anxiety to maintain 'liberty of speech in England, the liberty of the free expression of the individual; yet in the name of that titulary deity he proceeded to gag the members of this House and to forbid them from giving utterance to their opinions. I have such a high appreciation, from what I have heard in this House, of the independence, the fairness, I may say the impartiality, of a considerable number of the members of the Progressive group, that I still decline to believe they are unanimous in support of his motion. If they are unanimous in support of his motion I would suggest again to the hon. leader of that party that he take his proper place on the other side of the chamber, where he may give counsel and assistance to the government of the day and where we may look him in the face and regard him not as a treacherous friend Who would stab in the back those on this side of the House, but as a political foe whom we may meet face to face in this parliament.
I do not expect by any argument I may use in this House to convert the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans). I would assume that he came to this House afflicted, intellectually of course, by a certain form of Bright's disease which has affected his intellectual insight, and that he is quite incapable of looking at issues which arise in this House purely from a Canadian standpoint. I wish to say further, Mr. Speaker, that in all matters relating to the economic development of this country I am a Canadian, and in regard to all domestic matters concerning this country I am a nationalist, anxious, more than anxious, to build up on a firm foundation a great, strong, stable Canadian nationality.	.


Mr. EVANS:: I repudiate entirely the ungentlemanly insinuation which the 'hon. gentleman makes. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am a Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Evans: I wish to state that I am a Canadian as purely as the hon. member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Evans: I have made my contribution to the country as much as he has.


Hewitt Bostock: Is there a point of order?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman is
speaking with the leave of the member who has the floor.


John Evans: I am on a question of
privilege, to repudiate the ungentlemanly inference-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has the floor.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am always willing to
retract and to put my statement another way. Instead of saying that mentally and intellectually my hon. friend is afflicted with Brights disease, I will recall the statement and say that it is the Cdbden-Bright disease, which I think entirely obscures his mental vision and prevents him from studying the real interests of the country as a whole. I remember, Mr. Speaker, many years ago swinging on a gate in front of my father's home and seeing the carriages with their flags go by, carrying the voters to the first election held in Canada after the union of 1867. Since that time I may say that Canada has held my supreme affection, and whatever oourse I may have taken, whatever mistakes I may have made, there was always in my heart a desire to see a Canadian nationality established politically independent of the United States of America, and maintaining its due relationship to England and to the sister colonies. In order to build up Canada on those lines, my old province of Nova Scotia, which has ever been associated by respect and esteem- I might almost say affection-with the other Maritime provinces and the province of Quebec, has united with the provinces in the east to carry forward policies which were not necessarily of great advantage to themselves, but were of public interest and necessary for the development of Canada as a whole. If we had been wanting in that spirit of patriotism; if we had been wanting in the spirit of selfsacrifice; and if we had not in the eastern province developed our commercial and industrial institutions to a considerable degree, Canada's international credit would never have been sufficient to enable her to raise the funds necessary to carry through the first line of railway into the northwest and to open up that country for our settlers. Had it not been for that spirit, Saskatchewan to-day would be growing prairie grass and over-run by buffalo, as it was in my boyhood days. But I do not wish to recount these things. We built those roads in the early days out of a spirit of Canadian patriotism; we made sacrifices for the good of the whole country in the building up and development of the northwest. With that spirit-and I am well acquainted with the people from the Maritime provinces-I do not believe there is in

The Address-Mr. Cahan
this House a member from any of those districts who will cavil at any measure which is brought forward and which is necessary for the proper development of the northwest and the general prosperity and wellbeing of the people of those western districts.
One hon. member, I think he was a member of the Liberal party, delivered an address at some length in which he spoke of agriculture as being one of the primary industries of this country and referred to the absolute necessity of encouraging the farming industry, especially the interests of the wheat growers of the west. In that I entirely agree with him. But the people otf Canada cannot live by wheat alone; they require other industries than that of raising wheat. I remember in my province, when the middle west was opened1 up and produced wheat at a lower figure than that at which we could raise it, our farmers were driven out of that branch of farming known as the production of wheat. I remember being told in my early days that the old Grand Pre valley, which is now used for ordinary farming, was one of the best wheat producing districts in the world1 as to quality, having due regard to the size and extent of the area planted. But those days are gone, and it is necessary that members of this Hotae should have a broad perspective in dealing with questions relating to ithe future of this country. I know something about wheat growing, and I will venture to say 'that I have a farm with a wheat field which will compare favourably with any two wheat fields owned by any two members of the Progressive or Liberal party from Alberta or Saskatchewan. I know something about the wheat trade, and I say to them that in a branch of farming which is largely speculative under present conditions they have reached the heydiay of their prosperity if they continue to grow wheat alone When you find Russia on its feet again and producing wheat; when you have more competition-and it is bound to come-from Australia and Argentina, you farmers of the west will discover that unless you can grow wheat and put it on the market at your own railway stations at something like seventy or seventy-five cents a bushel, you will be forced into other forms of production in order to maintain the prosperity of those provinces. But in the meantime I concede that that industry, which was encouraged especially during the war and which gave not only to us but to the armies of the allies their sustenance through that great conflict, will never make any reasonable appeal to the whole body of this House without receiving a unanimous response.
We are all as anxious to benefit Saskatchewan as we are to further the interests of any other province. But when the hon. member for Rosetown rises in his place and speaks of the poverty of the farmers of that province, I wish to tell 'him that according to statistics compiled by the government of this country, no other province in Canada has as great wealth per capita as Saskatchewan. The western provinces come first in per capita wealth, Saskatchewan holding the first place with a per capita wealth of $3,757, Alberta second with a per 'capita wealth of $3,317, and Manitoba third with a per capita wealth of $2,705, as compared with Ontario, $2,507, and Quebec, $2,347, while Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have one-half the per capita wealth of Saskatchewan. I say to theim that in every matter we of the east have dealt or endeavoured to deal with them fairly. When they were carved out as provinces from the territories of the west, parliament was unanimous in giving them large subsidies from the federal treasury in order that they might be placed' in a really excellent position to carry out their work in building up new provinces from those territories. But Nova Scotia, if we take it as it is to-day with a population of 523,837, receives from the federal government by the way of subsidy $661,853, while Saskatchewan, with a somewhat higher population-828,600-received more than three times as much, namely, $1,757,005 per annum. That is, Saskatchewan, with 58 per cent more population than Nova Scotia, receives 165 per cent more subsidy from the federal treasury of this country. We of the east look upon this country as a whole. We cannot live by bread alone. The development of natural resources such as coal, the fisheries and the lumber from our forests is on an equal basis with the development of agriculture.


Robert Forke: Just for information, I
would like to ask the hon. member if he knows 'how those per capita figures are made up in regard to the wealth of the people of the different provinces. Do they take into consideration liabilities by way of mortgages or other indebtedness of individuals in the several provinces?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am reading from one of
the reports issued by the Bureau of Statistics, published under the authority of Hon. T. A. Low, MJ?., 1924, at Ottawa, entitled, A Report on the National Wealth of Canada and its Provinces. I am accepting that as a fair criterion in a general way of the position as regards the wealth of the different provinces. The government of this country,
The Address-Mr. Cahan

through its Bureau of Statistics, has entered upon an inquiry as to the productive activities upon which the prosperity of Canada depends, and it proceeds on the basis that such productive activities may be ascertained from year to year by consideration of the net value of commodities produced in this country for consumption at home and for export abroad. Making this computation on a broad basis, the Bureau of Statistics estimates approximately the national income of the Canadian people and thereby ascertains the values available for the maintenance of our own citizens, for the support of all public services, for taxation of every sort, and for the annual accretions of savings for the increase in future of these industrial activities. They take the year 1923, the very latest for which they have complete statistics, showing that in that year agriculture yielded
81.107.000.	000 of produce. Economists both in this country and in the United States have criticized that figure as an over-estimate due to the fact that a considerable portion of the products of agriculture was used on the farm for seeding purposes and for the maintenance of farm animals and the like. They declare that that 81,107,000,000, in relation to the further figures which I am about to quote, should be somewhat reduced.
Of forestry, fisheries, trapping, mining and the development of electrical power, hydroelectric largely, the net income of the Canadian people was $854,0001,000. But talking into account manufactures, construction and repairs, which are part of the manufacturing industry, and the net increase in value accruing to raw and partly manufactured products by converting them into commodities of a more finished character, thus necessitating the employment of machinery, labour and capital, the net spread between the original cost of the commodities entering into factories. and the value of those commodities on leaving the factories was $1,581,000,000. Thus the value created by the industry of this country, comprising manufacturing;, construction and repairs, exceeds by more than half as much again the value produced by the entire agricultural industry of this whole country.
I am quite walling to admit that of that agricultural production practically one-third in 1923 was wheat alone, and therefore I have always contended that Wheat production must receive peculiarly favourable consideration from the people of this country. But the manufacturing industry of Canada created
61.581.000.	000 of wealth in one year in the production of things which are as necessary to the well-being of Canada as is the production of wheat itself.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: In those figures in relation to industrial products, are there not included dairy products such as butter, cheese and so forth?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that the
products of the cheese and butter factories are included in them, but not the output of domestic production. That, I believe, is the distinction; but if I am incorrect I can look into the figures at some future time and possibly explain them.


Milton Neil Campbell: The hon. member will
admit that the figures he has given are hardly fair to the agricultural industry inasmuch as a vast amount of the products which are classified as manufactures represent agricultural produce.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so; and there is not
a single mechanical product, no matter how refined the process of its manufacture may be, which cannot be said to be due ultimately to the production of raw material in this country or elsewhere. For example a certain quantity of the wool of this country or of cotton imported from -abroad is subjected to various processes of manufacture, all of which involve the use of machinery of some kind, and these processes contribute to the creation of wealth, which forms a part of the tangible income of the country. Now, in creating a billion and a half of manufactured wealth in 1923 we gave employment in Canada to a large body of our people in cities, towns and villages; and if that manufacturing industry is imperilled, as it was imperilled by the pronouncements of this government a year ago, I am prepared to -prove that there will be driven from this country into foreign countries 45 per cent of our existing population, who will go elsewhere to -produce the same things that they are producing in Canada to-day. And this will necessitate the importation from abroad of such -articles of prime necessity as are indispensable to ordinary decent living in this country.
Mr. MacLEAN (Prince); Does the hon. member distinguish between wealth created and wealth produced?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know; I should
have to go back to the days I studied political economy-


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: In the production of wealth it is necessary to use other materials, whereas the farmer can create wealth simply by taking it out of the land.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I remember the old ditty:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for

The Address-Mr. Cahan
want of a shoe, the horse was lost; for want of a horse, the rider was lost; for want of a rider, the battle was lost. They were all necessary to the achievement of the great end; and the point I wish to make is that every department of human endeavour is necessary in this country to build up a strong, united and prosperous people. Therefore the man who works in a factory and helps in that way to create wealth is doing as essential a work and is discharging as patriotic a duty as are the 250,000 farmers of the west and of Canada who are producing wheat, which sails overseas and is sold at such prices as the impoverished people of middle Europe can afford to pay for the temporary sustenance which 'they require in order to carry on the industries of those countries. And those industries very largely supply to the people of Canada the ordinary necessities of life which, if given an opportunity, Canadians could produce at home.


Mr. BALDWIN:: If the hon. member will
allow me a question-how many speeches such as he is delivering now does he think it wrould take to bring about a united Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know from what
part of the country the hon. gentleman comes-


Willis Keith Baldwin: From Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, if the hon. gentleman
is from the province of Quebec he must have noticed the policy adopted and pursued by the hon. gentleman who leads the provincial government. The policy which I advocate is the policy which the Premier of Quebec and his associates have been advocating for some years. They have laid down the sound economic doctrine that no country grows wealthy, no peoples become prosperous, simply by producing raw materials for export, simply by becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water for foreign peoples. My hon. friend will have noticed that the hon. Mr. Caron- I think he is the Minister of Agriculture in the provincial government of Quebec-has been making address after address throughout his province in which he has declared that it is absolutely necessary for its well-being that there should be protection of farm products. My hon. friend will find that he not only repeated that declaration in the provincial legislature, but that under his auspices-at least I assume so-certain agricultural circles or associations have been formed which are advocating exactly the same policy. I refer particularly to Mr. Caron's letter to the secretar5' of the Societe Agricole of St. Cesaire of March 5, 1925, in which, if I recollect
correctly, he laid down the policy of protection for the farm products of that province. The government of Quebec, almost alone of our provincial governments, has prohibited, so far as it could under the constitution, the export of pulpwood to the United States, insisting that all the pulpwood taken off the crown lands of that province should be manufactured within its borders in order to give increased employment and increased prosperity to its people. That government has also during the present session of the legislature introduced a bill prohibiting the export of hydro-electric power to any foreign country. It has proposed and, according to the statements of the premier, is now considering measures for restraining to a certain extent tbo export of asbestos in order to encourage its manufacture in the province. In short, within its constitutional powers the government of Quebec is carrying out in every way possible a policy of protection for home industries and of encouraging other industries to come into the province. I do not intend to discuss with any member from the province the question of protection in Quebec.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me another question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will answer any questions
if the hon. gentleman will save them up until I am through. Let me take the other address to which I referred-I will not read it, following the decision of His Honour-which was given in this House by the member for Joli-ette (Mr. Denis) a few days ago-in which he very frankly declared that not only had he himself procured his election by adherence to a policy of protection for home industries, but that a considerable number of members on his side of the House had also expressed the same views and had approved of the same platform during the recent contest. I know something about that province, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that in its principal towns there is a strong feeling in favour of a protective tariff to the extent necessary to safeguard domestic industries. In some of the rural districts where the people realize that their best market, in fact in some cases their only market, is in the neighbouring towns and villages, there has been a growing feeling in favour of safeguarding and protecting the farm products of Quebec; and any person who imagines he can appeal to the provinces on the sole issue of free trade is mightily mistaken if he thinks he can obtain there any general support for such a policy.
To pursue my general argument, we have in the last five years-and I am referring to it
The Address-Mr. Cahan

again-lost at least half a million Canadian-born citizens to the United States. Very few of them were farmers; the great majority had been engaged in some local industry, and in view of our factories closing down and so diminishing employment-something that happened in too many of our towns and cities -it became necessary for a considerable body of our most expert mechanics to procure employment in the industrial centres of the United States. Those people have been driven abroad by what I regard as the entirely mistaken policy of the government of the day. I remember very well the unpleasant thrill which went through industrial circles in eastern Canada in March, 1923, when the legislature of Saskatchewan-under the leadership of the Hon. Mr. Dunning, who, I understand, has become the chief counsellor of the Prime Minister and is slated to become a member of this government-on March 1, 1923, unanimously passed this resolution:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this assembly, it is the duty of the government of Canada to introduce legislation which shaill 'have for its effect the following:
(1)	An immediate and substantial all-round reduction of the customs tariff.
(2)	The reduction of the customs duty on goods imported from Great Britain to one-half of the rates charged under the general tariff, and that further gradual uniform reductions be made to the remaining tariff on British imports that will insure complete free trade between Great Britain and Canada.
The economic and tariff policies proclaimed by Mr. Dunning in Saskatchewan and unanimously endorsed by the legislature of Saskatchewan, were taken up in the following year and led to certain enunciations of policy from the Prime Minister of this country from his seat in the House on May 15, 1924. In his address on the budget in the House of Commons Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King announced his policy as follows:
No more tariffs based on the principle of protection -as set forth in the resolution of the Tory party, moved in this debate too late to be accepted-but a tariff based on the -principle of revenue. That was "our policy" in the. past-the Laurier-Fielding policy. The words can have no other meaning. That is our policy to-day-the policy of the Liberal party-proceeding step by step towards the goal of greater freedom in matters of trade, never imposing a duty for protection's sake, but ail ways acting on the principle or the basis of a tariff for revenue and revenue only. I repeat this statement in the hearing of -hon. members and before this country, this is the position of the Liberal party. We believe in proceeding step by step. We believe when it comes to a question of imposing a duty in having duties framed on a tariff for revenue basis and not on a basis of protection.


Milton Neil Campbell: Could my hon. friend
tell me what is the difference between the tariff policy of the government as it consists to-day and the tariff policy of the Conservative party?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the tariff policy of the Conservative party?


Milton Neil Campbell: With perhaps one exception.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will tell you before I am through, but I do not wish to hasten. You know this is going to be a long debate-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -and I wish to contribute my share in the way and in the order I see fit.


Lucien Cannon: You have only given us
half.


An hon. MEMBER:: The rest is coming.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But when that statement was made to this country, with the further decreases which were made by the British preferential tariff, it led to great anxiety on the part of every man who was engaged in industrial enterprises in Canada. It stopped entirely the investment of new capital in almost every industry in this country. It prevented the establishment of new industries which were about to be established in the Dominion. There was ample money available in the country, and yet that money instead of seeking employment in industrial enterprises became a supply to compete for certain stocks which were regarded as likely to stand the strain of a revenue tariff pure and simple. We had a great increase in the value of bank stocks, and there was greater competition for their purchase. There was great competition in this country for the purchase of American standard stocks, and more than that: millions of dollars of Canadian capital were transferred month by month to the United States seeking employment in the industrial affairs of that country, where a safe and sound economic policy was in operation and where there was less doubt as to the stability of those enterprises under the conditions which prevailed there. Factory after factory to my knowledge, if it is necessary to go into it, which were employing men and women in the province of Quebec-ordinary industrial enterprises quite proper and suitable to our climate and our conditions, -giving employment to thousands of people, were transformed not into manufacturing establishments but into depots to which millions of dollars' worth of manufactured goods were brought from France, England, Italy, Belgium and Germany, and thence distributed to the people of this country. Thousands of people lost their industrial employment in consequence. The Right Hon.

The Address-Mr. Cahan
Mackenzie King, in announcing that policy, was directly responsible for sending a very considerable number of our young men across the border to seek employment. In the city of Montreal there is destitution to-day the like of which we did not know when we had a stable tariff and stable conditions in our industrial life. There people are out of employment by the hundreds; women and children are under-nurtured; those who were born and brought up in fairly comfortable circumstances and became expert workmen are too poor to-day to sustain the life of their children but too proud to beg, and a generation of children are growing up undernurtured-all simply because the Right Hon. Mackenzie King attempted to put into operation, so far as he could, a tariff policy that opened up our industries to the unfair competition of foreign countries. And not only that; he declared his intention to put such a tariff into force completely, thus threatening to drive our people out of employment and to force out of this country at least 45 per cent of its present population.
Mr. Speaker, I have made a careful analysis of the imports into this country, amounting to about $850,000,000 or $900,000,000 a year, and I am prepared at an opportune time to show that at least $500,000,000 of those annual imports might, under a proper tariff policy, under a proper economic policy, be produced by the people of Canada, giving direct employment to at least 350,000 or
500,000	more employees that at present have work in this Dominion, and sustaining an additional 1,000,000 to 1,250,000 people.	I
listened the other day with the greatest possible interest to the splendid address of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) on the question of immigration, and I quite approve of every pronouncement which he made, as I understand it. But it is not sufficient to bring in 250,000 men to go on the farms of the west or even to settle on the farms of the east if we have under proper conditions a proper tariff policy-I do not say a high tariff or a low tariff.
I agree entirely with the pronouncement made the other day by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) that what we need in this country is a safeguarding tariff that will give fair play and fair operation to the industries of this country, and protect them from the competition of certain countries with a debased currency, from the cheaper labour of Europe and from the mass production of the United States. We need a tariff that will enable us to build up here, as they have done in the United States, a great and growing industrial community which 14011-70
will give employment to our own sons and daughters for generations to come and so increase our employment that we may invite into this country not only farmers to come and till the land, but expert artisans of other countries who will teach us to carry on an improved industrial life in certain particulars, and enable us to establish factories for the production of many other articles either of necessity or of luxury which we now import from foreign countries.
That a growing export trade is sure indi-' cation of increasing wealth, well-being and prosperity on the part of the people is often stated in this House and throughout the country. A more damnable heresy never was preached. Take the country os you find it. For instance, I called your attention the other night to a country like Mexico, and I deal with it because I know from personal experience its conditions. Mexico is gifted by providence with natural resources unequalled by those of any other country I know of. Glance at what they might do, with a population larger than ours-some fourteen or fifteen millions of people.
Mexico has more sugar cane land than Cuba; more citrous fruit land than the United States and Italy combined; more tobacco land than the West Indies; more cocoanut land than the Philippine Islands; more banana land than central America; more corn land than any other country in the world except the United States. It produces more coffee than any country in the world outside of Brazil; cotton is grown in many parts of it. Mexico is the greatest producer of silver in the world; it ranks next to the United States in the production of copper; it produces large quantities of lead; it has the largest sulphate deposits in the world, as well as valuable tin beds and coal fields in the north; as an oil producer it is second to the United States. Yet with all these resources, year after year the peon and the Indian of Mexico toil for 50 cents of our money a day to develop these natural resources and send the products out of the country where they are employed as raw materials and oil for motive power in carrying on the industries of other countries. The natural resources of Mexico form the basis of industries which are carried on in the United States, in Great Britain, in Belgium and in France. A country with the most marvellous natural resources in the world giving itself up to the damnable policy of exporting its natural resources to other countries, leaving its people at home the most impoverished on the face of the north or south American continent! That is the condition which the tariff policy of the Right

The Address-Mr. Cahan

Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, if carried out logically, as he pledged his .honour, for whatever that is worth before the people of this whole country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am talking about a gentleman who is not a member of this House.


Mr. CAHILL:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned the Prime Minister of this country and says he does not know what his honour is worth. I think there is no member of this House with a proper sense of dignity who will speak like that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, the other day
the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivinl referred to the high honour and sense of propriety of the hon. Prime Minister of this country, and repeated those expressions again and again. I am simply referring in exactly the same way to his high honour, sense of propriety, and all the rest, and I am saying that if the Prime Minister carries out the pledges which he has made to this country in times past, it will tend to reduce the people of Canada to the same impoverished condition as the inhabitants of Mexico.


Hewitt Bostock: I will read to the House what May says, page 99:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the House or the Chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the House, he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by has privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation.
But, a little further on in May, and also in Bourinot, there is something which should be taken into consideration. The hon. member has used an unfortunate expression with reference to the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King. Technically Mr. Mackenzie King is not a member of the House at least until a return of the writ in respect to the recent by-election is made; nevertheless he is the Prime Minister of Canada, and any words affecting his honour should be withdrawn. Let me read to the hon. gentleman the following from May:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personalities of high official station of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I will not ask the hon. gentleman to consider Mr. Mackenzie King as a member of the House of Commons until the writ has been returned and he has been duly presented to the House, but surely-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I may interrupt you,
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly withdraw anything that- I said that may be regarded as offensive, for I was brought up in a school to respect the decisions of the Speaker, and I desire to do so to the utmost.


Hewitt Bostock: I thank the hon. gentleman. He has seen the point. I know that he would not be willing, except perhaps in the heat of debate, to say anything which might appear disrespectful. As I was saying a moment ago, although the Prime Minister is not technically a member of the House yet, he will soon be here, as we all know; and he is the chief adviser of His Excellency.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Without saying anything disrespectful to the Prime Minister at all, I think I can show by facts and out of the right hon. gentleman's own mouth that in certain respects, if he kept faith with the people of this country in regard to the pledges which he made to them on the eve of the last general election, he certainly would reduce this country in future years to a state of extreme impoverishment.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have been trying to follow the argument of my 'hon. friend. Do I understand him to say that the condition of the people of Mexico is largely due to the tariff policy of that country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is due to the fact that they have not any. Therefore I say that if we, the members of the Conservative party, representing as we do the people of this country, desire that that degree of prosperity which the country has attained shall be maintained; if we wish to give employment at home to our own people and to enable others to come here and find remunerative employment, the tariff policy announced by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King must be re-riidiated, not only by the government of this country but by parliament and the people.
If I were in a position to make a suggestion, the adoption of which would benefit the great body of the people of this country, it would be this: that we secure the services of experts to work for a year or more upon the determining of what industries could be established in this country-not in our cities for mass production; not in our larger towns for large production, but in our villages and country towns, to give employment there. I remember very well in my own province of Nova Scotia

and I knew it well from almost end to end-our village life and our town life waS sustained by small industries employing five, ten, fifteen or twenty people. Look at the conditions in any industrialized country.

The Address-Mr. Cahan
The name of Jules Maline will ever be revered throughout the Republic of France, because he gave to the farmers of that country a protective tariff which established on a firm foundation the financial stability of the republic and enabled it to stand, as it did, all the horrors of invasion and war. Jules Maline died quite recently, but his name will ever be held in reverence in France. The industrial stability of that country is largely due to the operation of small factories manufacturing artistic designs, commodities of value, commodities of luxury, which give employment to five, ten, fifteen or twenty people. I am sure if we made careful examination we could find not a hundred but a thousand small industries necessary to our well-being which could produce in this country articles w'hich we are now importing from abroad, articles which are necessary to the life of our country and to the standard of living which we have adopted, the manufacture of which in Canada would give employment in our villages and in our smaller towns to the population which now, unless it goes on the neighbouring farms, must go to the United States. Moreover, with our hydro-electric power in this country, if we were guaranteed a stable tariff we could introduce certain chemical processes into Canada which would increase, not only by thousands but by millions, the annual income of the country, and give employment to a class of young men whom we are now educating at our colleges-such as Laval, which is making splendid progress in scientific teaching. I know some of the professors at Laval. Some of them have been brought from foreign countries; others are native-born, and they are equal to any of those who do similar work in the United States. In McGill University we are training and spending thousands of dollars upon the education of our young people, yet by the tariff policies of the country we are precluding the establishment and operation of industries which might give them employment under stable conditions. We are sending thousands of highly and technically educated young men out of the country year by year to seek employment. A policy such as that is most detrimental to our future progress, and unless we provide a remedy we never can reach a high state of national development.


Willis Keith Baldwin: My hon. friend mentioned the hydro-electric development. Is he aware that there has not been a hydro-electric development in Canada where the power has not been sold before the development was completed?
14011-70J


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What has that to do with it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know that, because I
probably have been as much interested in hydro-electric development as my hon. friend.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I hope you have.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And I lost a fortune because I could not sell the product of one hydro-electric company. Under the tariff as it existed I could not introduce those collateral industries which were necessary-


Willis Keith Baldwin: That was out in the
Rocky mountains.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -to utilize the (hydroelectric power with the greatest effect and thus to create wealth in the country.
I desire to say a word to my Progressive friends; I observe that some of them have disappeared under my eloquence. One of them statqd last night that prices should be fixed so as to give to the farmers a fairly remunerative return for their industry, including not merely a reasonable interest upon their capital, but remunerative employment for themselves and a living for their families. With that statement I entirely agree. If we are to build up and co-ordinate our industrial structure, that must be one of the elements of it. The farmer is entitled to exactly the same consideration that we give or will give to the manufacturing industries of the country. He is entitled to no more and should receive no less.
Referring to another feature of the present conditions in the country which preclude development-taxation and the public debt- I may point out that we incurred a public debt of $1,600,000,000 in round figures, during the war and the three years and a half of demobilization following the war. That is an enormous debt, and it weighs as a heavy burden upon the people. But during the last eight years, a period equal to that covered by the period of the war and the years of demobilization, the public obligations of this country have been increased by over $800,000,000 in connection with the Canadian National Railways. That is, in the last eight years, heaped up upon the burden of debt created by the war, we have created new obligations equal to one-half the same amount which we are now shouldering for the purpose of carrying on those railways under the conditions under which they are carried on. That is a problem which is giving great anxiety to every man who has at heart the best interests of this country, a problem which the govern-
The Address-Mr. Cahan

ment must solve, a problem which, as I will attempt to show in a few moments, it undertook to solve before making its appeal to the country in the last general election.
Our taxation weighs upon our people today as a grievous burden. Twenty-live per cent of the entire productive income of this country goes year by year to pay the federal, provincial and municipal taxes which are imposed upon our people. On the average, every Canadian workman, out of a year of twelve months, if he works twelve months stead%, gives approximately three months of his toil to earn sufficient to pay the taxes which are placed upon him. That burden is too great, and it must be reduced if we are to maintain the industrial activities of this country and to keep our people in Canada. I find that the United States of America reduced their annual federal expenditures from
85,538,000,060 in 1920-21 to 83,619,000,000 in 1925-26, a reduction of 81,919,000,000, or one-third of their entire annual expenditure in that period. During the same period they reduced their federal debt by 84,000,000,000 and their annual interest charges by 8179,000,000. One-sixth of their public debt was wiped out. There has been a reduction in the cost of public services and an increase in domestic employment. Remunerative employment has been given to five million more people, thereby increasing the consumption of agricultural products in the United States during that period by eighteen per cent if we reckon in quantity and not in price. The cost of the executive services handled from Washington was reduced by 81,364,000,000 a year and the federal payroll was 115,000 employees less on December 31, 1925, than it was *on the same date five years previously. During the past year the staffs at Washington were reduced by five thousand; employees, and in the federal civil; administration alone, which is the same as our civil list or our civil service at Ottawa, the sum of 860,000,000 was saved in twelve months. Such reductions as these in the United States mean large reductions in taxation, decreases in the annual fiscal burden of the whole body of the people, an increased purchasing power for every person domiciled in that country, a higher standard of living owing to the increased purchasing power, and an increased industrial saving throughout that nation giving them larger capital for investment in other enterprises. This is what President Coolidge said about a year ago in reviewing these facts:
Past experience has shown that a reduction of taxes has been followed by increased prosperity. As the volume of business increases, the federal revenue increases. If we are moderate in our expenditures the 
natural increase in profits ought, within a few years, to furnish us still with a surplus revenue, which will permit further tax reduction.
This country is demanding to-day, not only that there shall be a decrease in the annual cost o,f government, federal, provincial and municipal, but that those expenditures shall be cut down right to the bone, until it hurts, because under present conditions applicable not only to federal, but to provincial and municipal affairs, we are lowering the standard of living in this country by one-fourth owing to taxation. We are taking . one-fourth of the wages of every man woman and child in this country for the purposes of taxation, and the people of Canada demand that sincere, honest and effective effort be made to reduce those expenditures to the lowest possible limit.
Such was the condition of affairs when the leader of the government made his appeal to the country in September last. We had then and had had for years an increasing lack of remunerative employment in this country. We had had increasing taxation under which the people were groaning and we had a railway condition which demanded earnest, careful attention. We had a preferential treatment of Great Britain and certain foreign countries, not only under the preferential tariff jbut under treaties, enabling producers in foreign countries to send into Canada their manufactured commodities and thus drive our people out of employment and as far as possible out of the country. The Right Hon. Mackenzie King decided upon an appeal to the people to place these issues and his proposed solution of them before the electorate of the whole country for their final decision. He first interviewed His Excellency the Governor General, stating to him the grounds on which he intended to make that appeal, and fortunately we have an official report made by himself of the grounds which he presented to His Excellency the Governor General and on which he demanded1 the right of dissolution of parliament and of appealing. On September 6, 1925, when speaking at Richmond Hill at the opening of the campaign, and announcing for the first time the date of the approaching general election, the right hon. gentleman said, according to the Canadian Press report, which on inquiry I find was handed by his own secretary to the press, previously written out:
The Prime Minister said that the government could have heUd on to office for many months yet and still have been within the limits of the constitution, in fact until February, 1927. But he stated that the ministry of which he is the head, had come to the conclusion that for an administration to give the best service to Canada at this important time, it should

The Address-Mr. Cahan
have a fresh mandate from the ejectors on several questions, the disposal of which will vitally affect the future of 'this country. His government, he asserted, had never been impelled by purely political motives in any of its acts since it was formed, and now, although it could have continued in office without an election, and perhaps continued to receive the substantial majorities it had enjoyed in the past, it had decided in the interests of Canada that the people should pronounce on the issues on which his party would appeal. There were four issues he said which over-shadowed all others: first, the fiscal policy; second, the railway problem; third, the immigration problem; and fourth, the reform of the Senate.
After discussing the right of the government of which he was Prime Minister to request from His Excellency the Governor General a dissolution of parliament, the right hon. gentleman said:
Next to be considered is the question of the ability of the government to carry on. So far as the House of Commons is concerned, I see no reason to believe that such support as we have all along been able to command in parliament will not continue to be accorded the administration another session. So far as the country is concerned, I believe we possess its confidence to-day to a degree greater than at any time since we came into office. Can there be any doubt that the federal administration has steadily grown in public confidence?
The Prime Minister then considered, from his own and his party's point of view, the following views which had been presented to him with respect to the advisability of holding an election at that time,-the existing commercial and industrial depression, which he recognized, and the prospect which he said existed of an early revival of trade and industry. He then continued:
If we arc to look at public questions solely from the point of view of party political advantage, this argument and some of the others I have mentioned might appear to have much more force. For a government that has in its favour all the factors I have enumerated, not to speak of numerous other considerations, deliberately -to forego more than a year of the time for which it has the right to continue in office, is a step which, in the eyes of the public, to say nothing of the eyes of its own following, requires not a little by way of justification. Indeed, under existing circumstances, the responsibility of advising a dissolution of parliament would appear to be quite as great as that of continuing to carry on, despite all the difficulties of government which we necessarily experience.
Are immediate party considerations, may I ask, the only ones that are to govern, or chiefly to govern, in the management of a nation's affairs? I can say of the present administration, since its assumption of office, that purely party considerations have never been permitted to override the national interests, nor wiiil they now be a determining factor in reaching a decision on a matter of first national importance. Party is most important, but at must be remembered that party is the instrument, not the end, of government. Each is essential to the other; without a party, and a strong party at that, very little in the way of good government can be effected. The end of government is the well-being of the country, the happiness, the prosperity and the contentment of its
people. Party is the means to that end, the means of uniting in a common aim and effort men and women who feel and think alike on the problems of government, the instrumetit for bringing about the policies which it is desired to make prevail. The best party strategy has in view always what in the long run is for the best of the country.
I commend these sentiments to the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) and those associated with him just now in carrying on this government in the dilapidated condition in which we find it. Further, the Prime Minister said:
That brings me to the situation with which at the moment the government is faced. As a government we can carry on until 1927 if we so desire. As I have already said, I have not the least doubt we shall be able to command such support as we all along have had in the House of Commons at another session, but shall we be able to do more than that? That is the question 1 have put to every one of my colleagues in the government and to not a few of 116 members. It is a question I now put to you who have honoured me with your representation in the House of Commons. It is a question I put to the electorate of this country. Is it sufficient that, as a government, we should continue in office, drawing our indemnities and salaries as members and ministers, and enjoying -the other fruits of office, when great national questions press for solution, with which, -for want of an adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope?
And then, after stating the difficult position of his party in the House when they had a majority, if I remember rightly, of 130 members combined, the right hon. gentleman proceeded :
I have come to the conclusion that it -is not in the national interests further to postpone the day when questions that are pressing urgently for a solution can be dealt with in a reasonable and satisfactory manner.
Then, having digressed to make a personal attack on the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), in which the country was not then nor is now particularly interested, the Prime Minister continued:
We could, I believe, so arrange our sessional programme as to continue to command in the House of Commons a support equal to that we have had during the last four years. But I doulbt if we could do more than that. I doubt if, on -the eve of a general election, we could introduce in parliament any great measure of reform without its whole aim and purpose being misconstrued and the legislation itself being thwarted. At most we would be reduced to marking time. This is not a moment in our country's affairs at which to hark time; dt is a time to march forward.
Then approaching the very heart of the problem, in which the whole country was then and is now most deeply interested, more intensely interested, I think, than in the subject matter of the present Address, and upon which the future prosperity, I might almost say, the ultimate destiny of Canada depends, the Prime Minister said:
That brings me to a consideration of three outstanding national problems o-f the greatest importance
The Address-Mr. Cahan

-the transportation problem, itihe problem of immigration, and the fiscal problem. To these I should add a fourth, the constitution and powers of the Senate. I can see no solution - of the problems of taxation, no means of reducing materially our public debt, our income tax, our sales tax, and other taxes, apart from a satisfactory solution of the four problems here mentioned, all of which are inter-related and in more ways than one inseparably intertwined. May I say .further, I believe each of the problems mentioned is a pressing one. I do not believe that any one of the four can be dealt with effectually at a last session of .parliament. They can only be satisfactorily dealt with by a House of Commons (fresh from the people and with a mandate (from the people to carry out their will.
You will notice, Sir, there was no mention of rural credits, of the Hudson Bay railway or of old age pensions. He was discussing the four problems which the whole country then recognized to be vital, and upon which he was proceeding to invite the decision of the electorate and their mandate for the next four years. He proceeded:
I would say, further, I do not believe that any of the four can be dealt with effectively by a government which is not supported by a substantial majority in the House of Commons. Group government and minority government may be inevitable in transitional phases of our political history, but neither is the kind of government wherewith to achieve great reforms. In both Great Britain and the United States the electorate has shown within the very recent past that it wishes no more of either form, that what each believes the existing situation requires is a national party representative of all parts of the country, sufficiently strong in the representation it sends to parliament to insure the carrying out by the government of its plans and policies.
That is the pronouncement made by a party which went to the country, and which now stands with a greatly reduced representation in this House, assisted by the Progressive party, whose numbers have been reduced from 65 to 24-the Liberal party which now day by day in the eyes of the whole country shows that it is utterly incapable of properly carrying out the business of the Dominion-of functioning as a government. Then the Prime Minister proceeded to contend that his government was not solely responsible for the National railway system, in which contention we all agree, I think. He declared that despite the management of the National Railways, which, as he alleged, had been placed beyond political control, we must nevertheless admit that the balance sheets of the National Railways are of as much concern to the people of Canada as the balance sheets of the national ledger in all other particulars. He said:
The railway problem .to my mind is the most important of all problems pressing for immediate solution. Can taxation be substantially reduced until we have overcome the deficits on our National Railways? Can the National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway reduce rates so long as there are

deficits in the case of the one and a reduction in earnings in the case of the other?
Then he added:
There are many measures that might be adopted under the authority of parliament which would be to the advantage alike of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and of benefit also to the general public. It is not for me at this time to say in any final way what those measures should be.
Finality in this, as in all matters of legislative enactment, belong to parliament.
Referring to the appointment by the government of Sir Henry Thornton as executive head of the Canadian National Railway system, he continued:
It must be apparent, however, that something more is needed if government ownership os to have a fair trial in the fullest meaning of the words. So long as the system is handicapped by deficits, due in the main to encumbrances of the .past for which the present management and directorate are in no way responsible, it cannot be said that government ownership is having a fair trial. It is equally true that so long as deficits on the National Railways continue, freight rates cannot be appreciably reduced, nor can our national taxation.
Then he referred to the competition for freight and passenger traffic which now exists between the two great railway systems, and added:
The situation is aggravated by the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway is the largest single taxpayer into the federal treasury. Is that a position that is easily defensible, or defensible for long?
Proceeding with his discussion of the possibility of developing a policy of "regulated and controlled competition," the Prime Minister said:
What I want to make clear and repeat at the moment	is	that we	have	no	problem	more urgentlyin need	of	solution	than	the	railway	problem, thatwithout	its	solution	there	is	little or	no chance ofreducing	our national	debt	and the income and other
taxes, to say nothing of railway rates; that in the interests alike of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the public its solution must not be delayed, and that the solution can be worked out and given effect to only by a government that has a strong support in parliament and a mandate from the people to act. I am prepared to say that if given such a majority the present government will take up its task immediately and at an early date present to parliament the necessary legislation.
The hon. gentleman insists that he received his mandate from the people, but I notice in the Speech from the Throne there is an entire absence of any suggestion that the necessary legislation to effect these reforms will be introduced by the government during the present session. Then we have a lengthy disquisition on the late lamented Petersen contract, a brief reference to an arrangement with the railways regarding immigration, a gibe or two at the leader of the opposition, and then he declared, in pursuance of the announce-

The Address-Mr. Calian
ment which he made during the budget debate of 1924, and which I quoted, that:
The policy of the Liberal party is a tariff primarily for revenue.
And he announced the appointment of a tariff advisory board for the purpose of assisting the government in applying its policy of a tariff primarily for revenue only, from which every vestige of protection would be eliminated. He then said:
I believe that the people should be given an oportuniity to pronounce upon a policy as far-reaching as that which is involved in this method of dealing with the tariff and other problems of taxation. That is another reason why I feel the time of a general election should not be postponed.
Dealing with Senate reform and the calling of a provincial conference to discuss the question, the Prime Minister continued:
As is known, the government has declared its intention of calling a conference of the provinces to deal with the question of Senate reform. Mr. Metighen is asking why the conference has not yet been called. I shall give him the answer. It is that the conference should be preceded by a general election at which the reform of the Senate is a principal issue, in order that its deliberations may be influenced by the known wall of the people. That is another reason why I think an early election is advisable.
I think if you will look through the press of every constituency east of the Ottawa river you will not find a Liberal candidate in any one of those constituencies who presented Senate reform as one of the grounds on which he sought the suffrages of the electorate. The Prime Minister proceeded:
I have undertaken, if the government is in office-
It is in office-so they say.
-to see that the conference of the provinces will be held before another session of parliament. It will be for the people at the general election to make their will and their wishes known.
Then congratulating himself and the country upon the fact that this great work of Senate reform had been assisted by Providence removing certain members of the Senate from this terrestrial sphere-and he estimated that the Tory majority of 26 in that chamber would soon be reduced to 13-he continued:
I know I can say of those who have just been appointed that one and all have expressed their willingness to champion the cause of Senate reform, and I shall undertake to say that no further appointments will be made by the present government to the Senate except upon the distinct understanding that the appointee will give wholehearted advocacy and support to any measures of Senate reform the government, as a part of government policy, may ask both Houses of parliament to adopt.
Thereby striking a blow at the independence of the Senate and entirely emasculating it of all the independent powers which it must
have if it is to act in the general interests of the whole country. And then he added:
May I-


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. gentleman said
at the outset of his speech that in view of the present situation he would use every possible means to obstruct the business of the House.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg your pardon.


Lucien Cannon: That is what he stated.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg your pardon.


Lucien Cannon: I beg to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rule 19.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What does it say?


Lucien Cannon: The Speaker knows the
rules. Rule 19 provides that:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof; nor speak beside the question on debate. No member may reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Then paragraph (h) provides that no member may:
Use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House.
If we are not now witnessing obstruction pure and simple I should like to know what obstruction is.


Arthur Meighen: Go ahead.


Hewitt Bostock: Has the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George anything to say?


Ernest Lapointe: He doesn't say anything, he simply continues.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then he added: -


Lucien Cannon: One moment. I have
raised a point of order. My hon. friend does not seem to know the rules of the House, but I hope he will soon learn. I rose to a point of order and stated the point and Your Honour was kind enough to ask the hon. member if he had anything to say. But the hon. gentleman does not even condescend to do so, he is continuing his remarks. I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: I understood the hon.
gentleman a moment ago to deny that he had any intention of obstructing the business of the House, but he did say something sotto
The Address-Mr. Cahan

voce. If the hon. gentleman did use the words imputed to him I did not hear them.


Arthur Meighen: Just a moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I have the floor and I
am speaking on the point of order. If objection is taken to any words uttered by an hon. member the objection must be taken at the time they are uttered. The words referred [DOT] to by the Solicitor General were uttered two hours ago, or very nearly that time, and they were not the words of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in any event.


Lucien Cannon: They were the words he
used.


Arthur Meighen: They were the words
attributed to him by the Solicitor General. But even if my hon. friend had uttered them it is too late now, after the expiration of an hour and a half to object.


Hewitt Bostock: I may say that I listened very carefully to the address of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I did not understand him to say that he would rise all his efforts to obstruct the business of the House, but to prevent the adoption of the Address.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Evidently, Mr. Speaker, what I wTas saying with regard to certain prospective legislation was dependent upon a very big "if," namely, as to whether the leader of the Progressive group had consorted with others for a certain purpose, which he may undertake either to confirm or deny at his convenience.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Go ahead with your speech. Take your time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And finally he declared:
What I have said will have been sufficient to disclose that the government have decided upon a general election to be held this year.
Now, here is the important part, a very important part, of this discourse which had entirely escaped my attention until I began to read it carefully:
Immediately upon the return of the Governor General to the capital yesterday, I waited upon His Excellency at Government House and presented to him the many considerations for an appeal to the electorate before another session of parliament which I have presented to you this afternoon. I asked for an immediate dissolution of parliament, and was told by His Excellency that the request would be granted.
Therefore iu the address, from which I have read these copious extracts this afternoon, you have what purports to be essentially a verbatim report made by the right

hon. Prime Minister himself, which he presented to His Excellency the Governor General, as the reasons for his request for an immediate dissolution of parliament and an appeal to the country. Then he proceeded:
We now make our appeal for support, not to parliament, but to the people, and ask for that expression of public confidence which we believe our record of four years merits-


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Call it six o'clock.


Lucien Cannon: I think my hon. friends
opposite are adopting a most extraordinary attitude. The more orderly the debate the better it will be for everybody concerned. The hon. member has been wasting the time of the House by reading us a speech, or a statement-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Lucien Cannon: -which has absolutely
nothing to do with the business actually before the House.


An hon. MEMBER :: There is no business.


Lucien Cannon: I wish once more to draw
attention to rule 19. Under Paragraph (1) of that rule it is not in order for hon. members to:
Discuss messages or reports which are not regularly before the House.
Let the hon. gentleman deliver his speech in accordance with the rules and we will have no objection. But do not let him waste public money in the way he is doing this afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any hon. member
wish to speak on the point of order?


Arthur Meighen: There is no point of
order.


Hewitt Bostock: The point of order is
not well taken.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Go ahead.


Hewitt Bostock: The question before the
House is as to the adoption or rejection of the Address. After certain amendments had been moved the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) proposed "That the question be now put," which would prevent the submission of further amendments. Consequently the debate is now proceeding on the main question. No one will deny that any hon. member has the right, on the main question, to discuss the policy of the government, as

Customs Inquiry Committee
well as any statement which may have been made during the campaign or outside it by the leader of the government. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is reading statements made by the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King of the reasons why he asked His Excellency the Governor General to dissolve parliament. I do not see that there is any point of order involved. In my opinion the hon. gentleman is perfectly in order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of course, Mr. Speaker,
these remarks are largely by way of an introduction to a discussion of the Address, showing the circumstances under which the Speech was .prepared and written. The right hon. gentleman added:
We now make our appeal for support, not to parliament, but to the people, and ask for that expression of public confidence which we believe our record of four years merits, and for such support in a newly elected House of Commons as will enable us to give effect in legislation to the policies I have outlined this afternoon, and which we believe to be in the interests of national economy, national growth and national unity.
Then again at Erindale, on September the 8th, three days later, the right hon. gentleman again prepared a speech which was delivered by his secretary to the Canadian Press in which he appealed to the country at large for a substantial majority to enable him to carry out the platform and present to parliament the policies which he had enumerated three days before in the speech to which I have just referred:

He declared:
-we were again faced with the situation that confronted us in the last four years, I should ask for another dissolution of parliament to get this matter straightened out, until we got a majority sufficient to meet the country's needs.
Then he proceeded:
Parliament was dissolved because the government felt it coulld not bring in reforms, could do no more than draw salaries without a clear majority. If we should ever be faced again with conditions such as obtained in the last four years, I would not hesitate to again call upon the Governor General to dissolve .parliament, and would continue until some party secures a majority to enable it to carry on the affairs of the country.
The right hon. gentleman, I might say by way of parenthesis, seemed to have overlooked in that speech the elementary rules of responsible parliamentary government which, in the event of failure in his appeal to the electorate, would absolutely deprive him of the constitutional right to act longer as an adviser of His Excellency.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the hon. member be good enough to read also part of his Toronto speech?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As it is now six o'clock, I will reserve that for to-morrow, when I am perfectly willing to read the whole of it if the hon. gentleman will repeat his question.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 18, 1926