Mr. CHARLES ROBERT HARRISON (Nipissing):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up very much of the time of the House, for I do not feel that I can add anything that would be of material benefit to what has already been so ably said by hon. members on this side of the House in connection with the important matters

that have been placed before us in the speech from the Throne.

First, I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address upon the very able manner in which they performed that duty. I would also like to say a few words in connection with the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). In listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite, and especially the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) when he spoke of the wonderful leadership of the leader of the Opposition, who is going to blaze the way to greater things, as I am a labour man and one who was very closely associated with the Grand Trunk railway employees who went out on strike in 1910, my mind naturally went back to that time, and also to the famous resolution which was presented to the House last year by the leader of the Opposition, which is almost the same as the amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition at this session, and now before the House for discussion. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the leader of the Opposition was just as insincere last year when he moved that famous resolution as he is this year in moving the amendment, and as he was when he promised the Grand Trunk Railway employees their positions back in 1910. The leader of the Opposition was Minister of Labour when the Grand Trunk strike occurred and as Minister of Labour he attempted to arbitrate between the company and the men, and after the strike had lasted for several days, on the assurance of the then Minister of Labour that the men would receive their positions back, or in other words, be reinstated in good standing, the strike was called off. And what were the results? We all know too well. Many of the men were never taken back, and many that were taken back did not receive their seniority standing. Apparently the now leader of the Opposition either betrayed the men or he did not have the ability to negotiate a proper settlement. In any event, he did not live up to his promises that if the men called off the strike he would accept the responsibility of seeing that the men got their positions back, as was the basis of the negotiations and settlement. I am informed that one of his party has been heard to remark that when the Opposition defeats the Government and the now leader of the Opposition becomes the leader of the Government, the Grand Trunk men will receive their pensions. As a matter of fact, the

only Grand Trunk employees who are not now receiving their pensions are those who failed in obtaining reinstatement by reason of the breaking of the promise given by the present leader of the Opposition. Had he at that time kept faith the pension dispute would never have arisen.

It is to be observed that the present Administration has done everything to facilitate a prompt and proper adjustment of the claims of these ex-employees, by placing in the hands of their solicitor all the information available in the files of the Department of Labour, and it has agreed that they shall have the opportunity to present their case as a claim against the Grand Trunk before the Board of Arbitration now sitting, and I have every confidence that justice will be done and that the men will receive their pensions.

Mr. Speaker, how do the issues now standing before the country affect the working man? The present Government stands for just such a measure of protection in our tariff system as will enable Canadian industries-agriculture, mining, lumbering and manufacturing-to continue to carry on to the greatest possible degree. The tariff proposals of the Opposition to the Government are that the protective principle must be eliminated; that industries that cannot meet the competition of the surplus products from the industries of the United States and the cheap labour of foreign countries must be sacrificed without any regard to what happens to the thousands of men that these industries employ. That, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree, is a fair statement of the issufe as it is presented to us.

Well, Sir, how is that going to affect the wage-earner? The industries of the province of Ontario employ around around four hundred thousand men. They use large quantities of raw material produced by other Canadian workingmen. They furnish traffic to our railways and employment to our railwaymen. They provide markets for our farmers and business for our business men. Every industry added to those we now have widens the opportunity and improves the conditions of our people. Every industry forced to close by unfair competition has just the opposite effect. How would it affect the workmen if in Ontario, for instance, the Westing-house Company, the Ford Motor Company, the United Typewriter Company, the Simonds Saw Company, the Yates Machine Company, and scores of other American

companies with branch factories in Canada, closed their doors and furnished the Canadian market from their American plants? Yet, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is keeping these industries in Canada is a moderate protective tariff. Every time the output from a Canadian industry is reduced or curtailed by the competition of imported goods, workingmen suffer. Every dollar's worth of goods imported into this country that could be legitimately produced here means taking the bread and butter from some Canadian working man's child. And yet we have public men going about this country preaching the doctrines of class warfare, with one object, and one object alone-the hope that they may enlist the support of workingmen in a movement destined to destroy their chances of earning a decent livlihood.

There is another question that has not been touched upon by many o' the previous speakers, and it is one in which I am deeply interested. It is the investigation that is being conducted by the Department of Labour into a system of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. On account of being a labour man, I1 perhaps know a great deal more of the actual conditions of the workingman than the majority of the members of the House, and I also feel I am in a better position to know just about how much the labourer can save out of his earnings after he properly cares for his family. Unemployment may arise from other causes than the loss of position. A man may become unemployed through sickness, invalidity or old age. Very few labourers are able to make provision for these contingencies and the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who through no fault of their own are unable to work whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity, or old age is of very great importance. Such insurance would remove the, spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner, and would make him a more contented and better citizen. I have in mind at this time, labouring men who were strong and robust when the war broke out. They were too old to go to the front, but I know for a fact that they contributed every dollar they could spare to help along the good work. Sickness has overtaken them, and they are to-day down and out, through no fault of their own. These men might have saved money had they not been so generous, but they felt

that as true Canadians they had a duty; not being able to fight themselves, they helped in every way possible the men who were fighting for them. I hope that the department's investigation will be carried on, and that we may be successful in having legislation placed upon the statute books at this session of Parliament, providing insurance of this character.

Mr. Speaker, what has made this possible, and what has this Government done for labour? The Minister of Labour, who himself was a labour man, was appointed by this Government, and he has shown to the people of Canada that he is worthy of the honourable position he now holds. In 1919 the Government of Canada established a Royal Commission presided over by Chief Justice Mathers of Winnipeg, whose duty it was to inquire into and take evidence respecting industrial conditions in Canada. Following their report, the Department of Labour invited to a conference a substantial number of representative employers and of organized labour throughout Canada, with representatives from each of the Provincial Governments. This body after going fully into the report of the Mathers Commission, appointed a committee - composed of representatives of employers and of labour. This committee endorsed the recommendation of the Mathers Commission and suggested that a careful investigation of the whole subject should be undertaken. This was done, and I am informed that our Department of Labour has been making a careful investigation and has gathered a large amount of useful information from all countries in the world that have adopted, or contemplate adopting, legislation on unemployment insurance. I am further informed that the information so gathered is being submitted to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and to the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada, which organizations are the principal representatives of employers and employees in this country. I therefore think the .Government of Canada is to be complimented upon the sane, careful methods which it has adopted in co-operation with those most intimately concerned, and that this House, may without hesitation, give hearty approval and endorsement to that portion of the speech from the Throne which indicates the policy of the Government in connection with these two most important questions, which, if solved, will tend more to stabilize industry, promote peace, and make happy citizens than anything else that could be done.

(I Mr. Harrison.]

Mr. MARIE JOSEPH DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville) :

Mr. Speaker, according to my judgment, the political atmosphere in which we live at present does not make very long speeches desirable, and I do not feel disposed to take up very much time in the remarks I have to make this afternoon. I intend to confine myself to one or two salient observations. Following an old and very appropriate custom, and emulating the example of these who have spoken before me, may I be permitted to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address on the able speches they delivered, which were in accordance with the best traditions of this House. It is hardly necessary, I fancy, to say that although I appreciate the oratorical ability of those two gentlemen I am very far from sharing in their appreciation of, and admiration for this Government.

If the newspapers are to be believed, the result of the election in Peterborough has thrown disorder, discomfort, and even confusion into the ranks of the Government to such an extent that we can expect anything at any time. This session may last three weeks, perhaps a month, perhaps longer; no one knows. Uncertainty is the state of mind of everybody at the presen* time, and I want to ask you this question, Mr. Speaker: Under present circumstances do you believe that the members of this House should have been summoned to meet here? Is this a proper time to begin session, and can we expect anything substantial as a result of our deliberations? This government* apparently ignores the lessons of history. I am pretty sure that history will repeat itself, and it seems to me that it is unnecessary for one to have a very long political experience in order to foresee the general election which is inevitable in the near future. The government say " No" to this, but to my mind their negative assertions have no signifance whatever. Laws of nature, if I may say so, are above the will and the desire of any government. There is, in the situation with which we are confronted, something that is unprecedented, and that is the unanimity of the newspapers friendly to the Government in admitting the weakness of this Administration and advising it to give up without further ado. I think that the attitude of the newspapers friendly to the Government, after the election in Peterborough, was something unique, and the weakness of this Government must be very apparent since it is freely admitted even by its best friends. Under such circumstances, there-

fore, I cannot believe that this Government will not understand at last that its duty is undoubtedly indicated. Everyone is looking for a general election, even its best friends. Let us, therefore, have an election. Let the government give up that old bluff which they have paraded on so many occasions and which certain newspapers are meanly repeating, to the effect that even the Liberal Opposition does not favour a general election at the present time.

I do not believe that there is another example in the history of this country of a government so much discredited and disliked as the present administration. But there is a reason for that. We should keep in mind the fact that this is the first time that we have had in this country a government of usurpers. This expression, I know, has frequently been used lately, but I think it is very appropriate. The Administration, so far as I can see, will go down with humiliation and it will deserve-to use the expressive popular phrase-" what is coming to it."

Let us remember under what circiimr stances the Unionist Government was formed. A certain group of Liberal members decided to sever their connections with their leader on account of the war because they differed with him as to the nature of the contribution that Canada should make to the conduct of the war. They joined the Government of the day. But although they retired from their party, they solemnly declared that their retirement was but temporary, and they asserted emphatically that Liberals they were and Liberals they would remain, and that as soon as the war was over they would return to their party and stand by its principles and ideals. Some of them were men of conviction and sincerity; they fulfilled their promise and came back to their party. But, Mr. Speaker, what can we say of those who concluded a permanent alliance with their new friends on the strength of nothing better or more plausible than the motto: "What we have we hold?" Are the attractions of power then so strong? The election of 1917 was held under exceptional circumstances and under abnormal conditions. It was a war-time election conducted under a war-time electoral law. The platform of the Unionist party contained only one plank, "Win the War," and that war-cry was intended to appeal to every one irrespective of political affiliations. Some special and most extraordinary laws were passed in order to give the right to vote even to foreigners and

to deprive some citizens of this country of the same right. There was a special selection of electors, and the law was so framed as to permit the manipulation of ballots, and naturally that law was put into practice by means of cipher and other devices, with this result, that many of the hon. members sitting in this House are not the choice of the residents of the ridings they are supposed to represent. And I cannot give a better example, a more palpable and striking example, than the hon. gentleman who spoke before me. I have here the Canadian Parliamentary Guide and according to it these were the votes cast in the constituency of Nipissing at the last election: Harrison, 4,879

Lapierre, 6,218. About thirteen hundred votes for the hon. gentleman were found outside of the riding and he was declared elected by a majority of forty-four.

Shame.

Mr. DEMERS:

Proceeding, Mr. Speaker, to consider the circumstances under which the election of 1917 was conducted, let me say that a large number of votes, especially in Ontario, were obtained under false pretences, and it seems to me that under such circumstances it is impossible for a man of ordinary intelligence not to perceive the exceptional character of such an election, its temporary character, and the necessity for another general election at the earliest possible date after the war. The Government have failed to appreciate that fact, and that is the principal reason for the unrest which exists in this country and which manifests itself at every opportunity. Mr. Speaker, there can be no relief from the situation until constitutional government is restored-that is to say as long as the people of Canada are not satisfied that they have a government which has their confidence and which is supported by a majority of regularly chosen representatives. This satisfaction the people naturally cannot obtain except through a general election.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, during his political journey throughout the country, was naturally very generous and very charitable. He described his opponents of all classes as Bolsheviki, disturbers, dangerous and disloyal elements, and indulged in other similar moderate epithets, but, Mr. Speaker, I am very' sure that all those who are listening to the Prime Minister-

Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:

Perhaps the hon. member will be kind enough to favour

the House with a quotation establishing what he has stated.

Mr. DEMERS:

I have the quotation but I think the Prime Minister will admit that I have stated just about what he said.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Nothing of the kind.

Mr. LAPOINTE :

Quote from the record.

We will give the proof.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

It is just a repetition of misrepresentation already made about a thousand times.

Mr. DEMERS:

I think the Prime Minister should address his reproach to the newspapers. I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister was speaking about Bolsheviki, disturbers, and all such elements, the great majority of his hearers thought he was trying to give an adequate description of the group over which he presides. Because all those who were listening to the Prime Minister knew that throughout its whole life his administration has evidenced a continued contempt for order and for constitutional rule. His administration has been, and still is, the reign of arbitrary authority. Why should we recapitulate what is well known? When I speak about the Government I am referring to the administrations from 1914 to date, without any distinction between them, because even if it is true that the visible head of the previous government has disappeared we feel that the spirit is still there and more formidable than ever since it is more intimately associated than ever with the visible head of the present Administration. Let me say in passing that nothing was less surprising to me than the appointment of the right hon. gentleman to the position of Prime Minister of Canada. It was only what we might have expected. This nomination is absolutely in accordance with the evidence of the last seven years. Nevertheless I -must say that it is a nomination which is keenly resented by a large section of the people of the Dominion. Personally, when everybody is urging the necessity of unity and harmony in this country I think there could not be a worse move than the appointment to the office of Prime Minister of a man who will always be an element of division and dissension. Do not ask me why. The Prime Minister speaking about Quebec said somewhere that he had never uttered a word against that province. Would he swea'r to that?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Hear, hear.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

He would not dare to . do it.

Mr. DEMERS:

Let me tell the Prime Minister that in Quebec, as in other provinces, words have less importance than facts and doings; the first minister must deem us very credulous when he comes and asks the question "Who can say that 1 ever uttered a word against Quebec?" The Prime Minister says he never said a word against Quebec.

Hear, hear.

Mr. DEMERS:

Sir, the right hon. gentleman knows that Quebec does not like him. He said so when in the province last year. How does he know that, since, accord ing to his own conscience, there is no justification at all for the attitude of hostility towards him on the part of Quebec? Die anybody tell him that, or is it only an impression of his? Let me inform the Prime Minister that his psychological appreciation of the attitude of Quebec against him is correct, and he should be the last man to come and ask why? In my opinion such an attitude on his part is an aggravation of the offence. Let me tell him that in Quebec, while we can easily forgive and forget words, we forgive but never forget facts. At all events I am sure that I represent the sentiments of the people of that province when I say that we are waiting for an election and when the time comes the people of Quebec will do their share, in conjunction with the people of the other provinces of Canada, in overthrowing this Government.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that I should restrict myself to the question of the necessity of a general election, for that is the only question of interest to our people, and undoubtedly they all desire a general election.

Mr. McMASTER:

Except the Government.