Mr. HARRIS:

Yes I was bewailing the fact, and I will indulge in further bewailing if it will do my hon. friend any good. My reason

for that bewailing is that this inert, inefficient government have not seen fit to tackle in a proper way the question of a national fuel supply. Had this government risen to the necessities of the situation they would have given the necessary assistance, when it became apparent that there would be a scarcity of fuel, so that Alberta coal could have competed successfully with imported American anthracite. Then there would have been no shortage of coal in the central provinces of Canada this year. I am satisfied if that had been done, Alberta would have shipped the coal we needed to us and thus met all our requirements. We use only seven per cent of the total amount of American anthracite coal which is mined. We are dependent upon the American supply, 75 per cent of which is furnished by line companies and 25 per cent by independent companies. These independent brokers of the companies, sitting at Buffalo, are anxious that we shall continue buying supplies of anthracite coal, so that they can clear a profit of from ten to fifteen cents a ton commission on every ton they sell, and that 15 cents commission is being collected by brokers living in the city of Buffalo, not in the city of Edmonton. Let us shift, that over from Buffalo to Edmonton; let us shift it on to Canadian soil.

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal party were sincere in their desire for an adjournment, they had the means at their hands to force an adjournment; they could have put on closure if they were sincere and wanted to proceed with the business of the House, or they could have withdrawn the adjournment motion and gone ahead with public business. We on this side are willing to go ahead and do business. If they want to fill up all these vacant portfolios in the government, they should listen to the words which fell from the lips of the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill on September 6th, when he said: It is not a question of ability; we have lots of ability in the rank and file of the Liberal party. If that is the case, why do you not fill up our front row with men sitting around you, from your own ranks? Is there not enough ability among the 101 members who fill the treasury benches without having to go outside for ministers? When I was a boy we used to say of anything petty, it is small potatoes. With all respect to the hon. ministers of the crown I say that, in the eyes of the Canadian people, more and more each day they are being regarded as very, very small potatoes. As I sat here and saw the government properly peeled by the member from Calgary, properly baked by the members from Nova Scotia within

13S0

The Address-Mr. Hams

the last day or two, French-fried by the hon. member for Kent, N.B., hash-browned by the members from Montreal, scalloped by the members from British Columbia, boiled and parboiled by the members from Toronto, mashed by the member for Fort William, creamed a little bit by the members of the Progressive party and the Independent and Labour groups, and finally put through the mincer by the right hon. leader oif this party, as I saw ail this I could not help thinking that this group of small potatoes opposite who pretend to call themselves the government of Canada to-day are one indigestible mess whom the people of Canada consigned to the incinerator on October the 29th last. I ask them, therefore, in all sincerity to have the common decency to resign and let others take their place who are ready to carry on and to give Canada stable government.

The Prime Minister at Richmond Hill said:

Next to be considered is the question of ability of the government.

Mr. Speaker, look at our front row, I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works, where is the ability of this House?

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

Over here.

Mr. HARRIS:

Have another dream,

brother, and wake up. If, Mr. Speaker, the ability of this House is over there, why do they have to go outside their own ranks to find someone with ability enough to fill the vacant seats in the government? I say, Mr. Speaker, that any one of the 116 men on this side of the House, with the exception of myself, has ability enough to fill a seat on the treasury benches.

Where are they?

Mr. HARRIS:

Most of them are here tonight. You never saw finer looking specimens of men in your life. Analyse the achievements of these hon. gentlemen; that is all you need to do to find out where the ability is in this House. The Prime Minister drew from among his own ranks a Minister of Immi-9 p.m. gration and Colonization, Mr Gordon, before the last election. I wonder where he is now? Away back in a snowbank in Peterborough. He also drew from the ranks of his own party the Hon. Mr. Mar-ler. Where is he now? Is he here? He also drew from the ranks of his own party the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). Then he drew from the ranks of the big interests the Hon. Vincent Massey. Where is he today? Like "Massa," he is in the cold, cold ground. The people of Canada saw to it that

he did not get into the government ranks, and in my opinion he never will.

The Prime Minister at Richmond Hill, on September the 6th last said:

As far as the country is concerned. I believe we possess its confidence to-day to a greater degree than at any time during the last four years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada did not believe it. They do not believe it yet, and the longer hon. gentlemen opposite sit on the treasury benches the worse it will be for their party when the people are appealed to again. Can there be any doubt that the federal administration is steadily declining in public confidence? The government's majority of one in the last parliament has slid down to a minority of fifteen. The Prime Minister said at Richmond Hill that lie could not accomplish reforms without a majority. Now that his party has lost its majority of one and is now in a minority of fifteen, how are we ever going to get any legislative reforms of any kind so long as hon. gentlemen opposite stay in power, just [DOT] sit tight and draw their salaries? Yet the government through the mouth of the Prime Minister has said that Canada needs to-day firm, constructive government in order to carry forward great reforms. Mr. Speaker, you cannot carry forward great reforms with a minority group.

In conclusion, I say that this government, being unable to move forward as the requirements of a young, strong and virile country like Canada demand, a government which, ;n addition, does not command the confidence of the people-I say that in making any attempt to move at all, and in moving without the people of Canada, they, in the words of Emerson, are marching out into the night.

Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate let me add my congratulations to those already offered you on your re-election by this House as its presiding officer. I congratulate you, Sir, not only on again being elected Speaker, but on being thus relieved from taking any active personal part in the performance now being put on in this House by the government, which, in view of the lofty sentiments which we hear voiced by you, Sir, at times from your position of neutrality, could' not fail, I take it, to meet with your disapproval and which I am convinced your good judgment would have advised against. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government, in associating itself with the majority of the members of this House in again selecting you as Speaker, has performed the only commendable act to its credit during this session-indeed, one of the

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

few creditable performances throughout its whole career. I venture to say that in your long experience as a member of this House- as a private member, as a cabinet minister and as first commoner-you have never witnessed such a spectacle as the one which now confronts the House of Commons and the people of Canada, the spectacle of a government defeated at the polls clinging to office for the spoils and emoluments of office. That is the only reason for its existence at the present time. The government admits, through its leader, that it can do nothing but draw salaries and annex emolumients, but notwithstanding that admission it pursues its course of hanging on to office for what is in it, namely the emoluments of office.

A government in such dire straits is truly a pitiable spectacle to the electors of this country. Does anyone challenge that statement? Do the government deny that that is their purpose in holding office? They do not and cannot deny it, because it has been proclaimed by their leader. Mr. King admitted it in his election manifesto last fall, wherein he set out the government's position before the electors of this country. He made it quite clear that his government for the past four years had failed to function to the advantage of Canada. His exact words have been quoted in this House on more than one occasion, but it seems to me that what was said by the leader of the government at that time in putting the government's case before the people is too important to be lost sight of for one moment in considering the situation which confronts the people of Canada to-day. He did not make this statement only once; he repeated it a number of times. He referred to the impossibility of carrying on under the circumstances. At Kentville, Nova Scotia, on September 18, he predicted that the opposition could not expect to elect any members in that province, and from that time on, at different places throughout the country, he predicted victory for himself. He was so confident that he gave up all dependence on the group that had kept him in office during the preceding four years. He burned his bridges behind him; he had no further use for the support which he had received during that period. What is he quoted as saying on September 9, at Erindale, Ontario, as reported in the Mail and Empire of that date? I read:

If Premier King at the coming election is not returned with a stronger majority than he has had during the past four years he will not hesitate to ask again for a dissolution of parliament. This was his statement at the Parker Picnic here this afternoon. "You can never get the big problems solved unless you have a majority strong enough to allow you to 14011-88

act without fear or favour. If I were faced with the situation of the past four years I should ask for dissolution again."

I wonder if he is able to act now without fear or favour? Is his government able to function without favour from any other group? Again at Regina on the 29th of September he is reported in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald as saying:

His government had the difficulty of financing and also of carrying on a government without a majority in the House. It had been a government by compromise. It had been necessary to go gingerly and not as far as he would have liked in some directions.

The government would be remembered as a government of large majorities as the records of the votes in the House would show.

He was convinced that a government without a large majority in the House could not govern Canada with all its problems.

I should like to know where his large majority in the House is to-night.

If the government had possessed a large majority it would not have been necessary to appeal to the country and an election would not have been held until 1927. Realizing that the country was faced with problems which could be solved only by a government with a majority in the House of Commons, decision had been made to appeal to the people.

I do not think those problems have been settled, and he has not a government with a majority in the House. The government's position has not been improved; it has been made infinitely worse. The all-important pronouncement and definition of policy was made by the Prime Minister in his opening speech to the electors on September 6, when he said: 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 have all along had in the House of Commons at another session, but shall we be able to do more than that. That is the question I put to everyone of my colleagues in the government and to not a few of the 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 electors 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, which for want of adequate majority in parliament we are unable satisfactorily to cope with.

What is his position to-night? What is the government's position to-day in this House? Are they satisfied to remain in office and draw their salaries? What more can they do? I think I am justified in the statement I made in my opening remarks that this government's sole function here is to draw salaries. They have nothing else in sight. The Prime Minister in his election manifesto admitted he had been able to do nothing in the four years, and his situation to-day is infinitely worse;

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

his position weaker than it was then. The quotation continues:

All-sufficient as these reasons may be for not attempting another session of parliament before a general election, there are other reasons of even greater weight. I refer now to all important national problems that are pressing for solution and which cannot be solved in a parliament constituted in the manner of the parliament elected in 1921 or by any government which does not commanl a substantial majority in the House of Commons.

I wonder if he calls a majority of one a substantial majority?

Let me recall what I said a moment ago-as a government we can continue to hold office; 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 doubt if we could do more than that-almost we would be reduced to marking time. This is not a moment in our country's affairs at which to mark time. It is a time to march forward.

The government has done a lot of marching forward since September last.

He cited four reasons why he considered there should be an appeal to the polls. The necessity of dealing with problems of transportation, immigration, fiscal questions and Senate reform. These were questions, the Premier argued, which ought to be handled only by a House of Commons fresh from the people and with a mandate to carry out their will. I do not believe, he added, that any one of the four can be dealt with effectively by a government which is not supported by a substantial majority in the House of Commons.

In view of that pronouncement by the leader of the government, the Prime Minister of this country, what excuse has the government for continuing in office? The excuse was removed by the election. The Prime Minister admitted that the government's position was untenable and impossible, and he was right in that statement. The position was impossible then; it is impossible to-day. It is impossible to do anything but mark time and draw salaries, and apparently this government is quite content to do that. When the Prime Minister admitted that his position was impossible, what was the complexion of the House, a House with 235 members? There were 120 Liberals, 65 Progressives and 50 Conservatives. In other words, there were 185 supporters of the government and 50 opponents, and yet according to the Prime Minister's admission, the government's position was impossible. There is no use in quibbling over names and saying that 120 were Liberals and 65, Progressives. I say without fear of contradiction there were 185 supporters of the Prime Minister and his government. There is no need to call these members Progressives-" a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The government had a majority of 134 in the House not including the Speaker, and yet they could not carry on,

I Mr. George Black.] [DOT]

could not solve the problems awaiting solution. Those majorities of from 130 to 135 were composed of two parties whose platforms were identical. Those were the days when the Prime Minister thought a good deal of the Progressive party. I should like to quote from a speech delivered by him at Brandon on the 7th October, 1924, to an audience which consisted largely of his Progressive allies and in which was the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). The Prime Minister was on his way east from a by-election in the constituency of Yale, B.C., in the fall of 1924 and at that time he thought a good deal of his Progressive friends. He had a session of parliament coming on and it was up to him to be good to the Progressives. This is what he said:

"If," he said, "the forces of those who think Liberally and Progressively are united from the Atlantic to the Pacific, there is going to be a long term of Liberal-Progressive administration."

That is the keynote-a lofig term of office just as it is to-day.

"But if divided, we come to face the forces of high protection which are never divided when the need arises, then we may have an even longer period to regret the mistake, we have made. Division in our forces is likely to mean victory for the party of Arthur Meighen." "We are told," added the Premier, "that what has been done by this government in the way of tariff reduction has been done under pressure of western Progressives. That is not true. It was done because we are seeking to carry out honourable promises we made to the people of Canada and to put into practice the Liberal platform of 1919.

Which not so long before he had described as merely a chart. The ink was scarcely dry on the report of that speech at Brandon when we had the Prime Minister down at Massey Hall, Toronto, announcing that the time had come to pause in tariff cutting. He was addressing an industrial constituency in Toronto, and free trade, Liberal-Progressive ideas, were not so popular in Toronto as they were in Brandon. Those were the Prime Minister's sentiments in the fall of 1924, when he needed the support of the Progressives.

But with that session over and a general election on, how the sentiments of the government towards the Progressives changed! What did Mr. King say during the election campaign? At Kentville, N.S., on September 18, 1925, the Prime Minister stated:

Premier King . declared -he did not in the least doubt the government would get a majority in the next parliament. The Progressive party had practically disappeared. In Ontario it had left the field: in the west Mr. Crerar, former leader of the Progressive party, had said that so far as the Progressive movement in western Canada was concerned it only meant forming a group that is standing in the way of the interests of the west itself.

No need for the existence of a Progressive party. That is very different from what he

13S3

The Address-Mr. Black {Yukon)

said in Brandon just a year before. He goes along to Moose Jaw, where on the 30th of September he is reported as saying:

He spoke of Robert Forke, Progressive leader, as with Scotch determination, holding aloft the flickering torch, hanging on to the last gasp-

I wonder who is hanging on now to the last gasp-and the last gasp is pretty nearly here.

-but what advantage could there be to the west in the return of a small group of Progressives?

Most insignificant persons.

It would have to operate very differently from the way it had operated in the past, he sharply added, if it was to have any influence. "You will not be able to find a man by the name of Progressive in 1930" said the Prime Minister.

He is going to exterminate them altogether. That was on the 30th September and a couple of days later out in Calgary the Prime Minister made this statement:

"Whatever unsefulness the Progressives might have had," Mr. King stated "that usefulness was at an end." He admitted their motives might have been right, but their methods were wrong. They adopted too much the "holier than thou" attitude.

Kind words for his allies. That was October 2, and three days later he said at Edmonton:

The Prime Minister spoke of his majority of one in the last parliament. "Why," he said, "if I went out for dinner, m}' majority would be gone."

This shows his true estimate of his friends of the Progressive party, what sort of people he thinks they are, of what worth they are, what principles they hold.

When he formed his administration, however, he had felt he would get sufficient assistance from the other side of the House to enable him to carry on. "There is an indemnity of $4,000" he had thought "and they would think twice before voting us out."

That indemnity of $4,000 was going to keep those Progressives supporting Mr. King. That is what he said, not what I say. He continued:

The reason for the Progressive movement is gone, so far as federal politics were concerned.

I wonder if the government think the reason for the existence of the Progressives on earth to-night is gone. I rather think they are pretty thankful to have the Progressives here and helping them on a number of occasions as they have done since the beginning of this session. On the 6th of October the Prime Minister is quoted in the Edmonton Journal as saying:

The Prime Minister reviewed the action of the government in going to the country at this time stating that the need for a bigger majority in the House was the prime factor in reaching that decision. He. appealed t? the west to refuse allegiance to Progressive members whom he described as the "holier than thou" group which would get no sympathy or consideration for western problems from the rest of the House of Commons.

14011-88^

That, is the Prime Minister's estimation of his allies, the Progressives. It is wonderful what some people will stand. That was the 6th of October. The next night at Saskatoon he made almost equally contemptuous references to them. He was interrupted by a statement that the Progressives had kept the King government in power. This is where he reached the depth of ingratitude:

"No Sir, and they never did," Mr. King shouted back.

I wonder what he would shout back tonight. He did not say "they never will". That was the night of October 7. At Melville, Saskatchewan, the next night, October 8, Mr. King's contempt for the Progressives was even greater; he spoke of them as being in the nature of outlaws in parliament, that they included the Ginger group. They-would not stay put. He said:

They are simply helping to make the west ridiculous.

Who are they making ridiculous to-night, I wonder? These were Mr. King's sentiments in regard to the Progressive party during the election campaign just over, but he was not at that time contemplating a long period of Liberal-Progressive administration. He was through with the Progressive party, having thrown them overboard. But the government does not talk that way to-day of their allies; as a matter of fact the government is begging the Progressive party for its life. The government is down on its knees to the Progressives: what for? For the good of the. country? No, but so that members of the government may reap the benefits and spoils of office. The leader of the government admitted on going to the country that this was virtually all that he had been able to do in the past four years, and he made it plain that without a substantial majority this was all he could hope to do in the future. And now hon. gentlemen opposite are begging the Progressive party to allow them to live in order that they may continue, as he said, to enjoy the spoils of office.

This government cares no more for any group or party, except the Liberal party, than it cared for the Progressive party last fall when the election was on and when the Prime Minister told the country what he truly thought about them. This government will use any group or member for its own purposes and then cast off that group or member like an old shoe when its purpose has been served. That is not too strong a statement to make. Is it not a fair description of what the Prime Minister himself did last fall to the Progressives? Did he not kick them

1384 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

out? I have just read to you what he said about them; they were outlaws, a holier than thou group: "They are simply helping to

make the west ridiculous." Could anyone be more severe or more contemptuous than that? And then imagine a government whose leader gave voice to such sentiments being now beholden to those very same people about whom these words were used, beholden to them for its very existence and for its salary-for that is what it amounts to. They are willing to draw their money in that way.

When the Prime Minister at Richmond Hill used the words I have quoted he could then command a majority of between 130 and 135 in this House, and even then he pronounced his position hopeless. Well, if it was hopeless then what is it to-day? What was the result of the election When the government was seeking a mandate from the electors it had far greater support than it has now; it has many less Liberals and Progressives now, if we are to make a distinction between the two parties, than it had at that time. To-day there are in this House fewer Liberal-Progressives and fewer Progressive-Liberals while there are far fewer out and out Liberals including cabinet ministers. But to-day we have in this House a great many more Conservatives than there were in the last parliament; we have over 100 per cent more than we had at that time, when the leader of the Liberal party declared that party's position to be hopeless. I ask again, if it was impossible for him and his colleagues then to do more than draw their salaries and enjoy the sweets and emoluments of office, what can they do to-day under the circumstances in which they find themselves? Instead of 235 members there are now 245 in parliament. And what is the situation? There are 116 Conservatives, 101 Liberals, 24 Progressives, 2 Independents and 2 members calling themselves representatives of Labour; and the government instead of having a support of 185 members has only 129 all told. It lost 56 members as a result of the contest. From a majority of 135, which the Liberal leader before the election considered hopeless, it has dropped to a possible majority of 13 at most including the Speaker. That is, if anything, more than hopeless.

Was the Prime Minister dissembling when he made it appear that to remain in office only to draw salary and indemnity was something distasteful to him and to his colleagues? Well,

I may be pardoned for saying that actions speak louder than words. How can hon. gentlemen hope to accomplish more than they were able to do in the last parliament? Was the Prime Minister sincere or was he merely TMr. George Black.]

bluffing when he took that high moral ground? What must one infer from his course since the election? About the only line of support which the government failed to lose in the election was the so-called Independent support. The Independents in this House are no more independent than they were in the last, and if possible less so. But they have moved over to the government side so as to be with as well as of the government.

The King government was defeated at th polls on October 29 as everyone knows; Mr King knows it and so do his supporters. Yei he and the remnant of his cabinet continue tc cling to office for the sake of their salaries and emoluments. If I am not stating the case correctly I want to be contradicted; I want some member of the government or some supporter thereof to give to the House some reason why the government should hold on to office except for what is in it for them personally. And at that, it is not my own diagnosis of the case; it is that of the Prime Minister of the country. That is what he said about himself and his government; he declared before the election that they could do nothing else with the majority they had then. And that is why they had an election- otherwise there would have been no l ecessity for an election until 1927. The Prime Minister could have remained in office and continued to enjoy the emoluments of the position but in effect he said that he was ashamed to do so especially in face of the problems of magnitude that were before the Canadian people for settlement, He did not have the nerve to stay longer in office and take the money he was drawing. He threw the Progressives into the discard and went to the country for a clear majority of Liberals. And you know where he landed.

If anything further than the count of ballots were required to convince hon. gentlemen opposite of their defeat, then what has occurred in this chamber since the beginning of the session is surely enough to convince those who are most reluctant to admit it that the King government is defeated. Parliament has been in session now practically two months, and what has been done by the government? They have done nothing but draw salary. That is the whole head and front, first and last, of the government's existence. The House has been in session two months and they have simply drawn salary.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

And got majority votes.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

Would the Minister of Public Works call any one of them an adequate majority such as his leader de-

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

dared was necessary if his government was to function,-a majority without which he would be ashamed to remain in office? I should think the government would be positively ashamed to refer to that majority vote, considering where they got it.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

If I may interrupt my hon. friend-I do not feel the government should be ashamed. It was a vote of the people's representatives in this House.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I wonder what the hon. member means when he says, "considering where we got it?"

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

As the Minister of Agriculture is at last taking an interest in what I am saying, I will tell him where he got his majority. He got it from the "outlaws" in parliament.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

I object to that term.

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

Mr. Speaker, that is not my description of the Progressive party; it was given to them by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture asked me where they got their majority. I reply, they got it from the people whom the Prime Minister described as outlaws, as the "holier than thou" group

a group that "was simply helping to make the west ridiculous."

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

That is from some Tory rag. .

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):

That is typical parliamentary language from the Minister of Agriculture. I once heard him describe a bill that he had introduced in this House- as he waved it over his read-as a "rotten old bill." I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that in referring to any members of or any parties in this House I would not use the language employed by the Prime Minister on the hustings when referring to the Progressives. But they are the party that gave the government its majority. And he having so described its members, I think it is not unreasonable for me to say that the government ought to be ashamed to accept a majority at their hands.

The government is really asking too much of hon. members in expecting them to support this address and then go home in order that it may have a respite until March 15. I admit that a member's personal convenience should be the last thing to be considered where the public interest is concerned. But this request of the government is not to further the public interest, it is simply an attempt to secure a political advantage so that it may renew its rapidly waning strength.

Before the report reached Dawson City that parliament would meet on December 10 I had intended to wait until travel became more comfortable and the risks were a little less, but when I found that that was the date set for the opening of the session, I came out to the coast as fast as I could, at great personal inconvenience and some risk not attending the journeys of other members to Ottawa, only to find on reaching Vancouver that parliament would not meet until January 7. We have been in session for nearly two months, and with absolutely nothing done we are asked by the government to pass the Address and go home again. What for? That the government may pull off some by-elections that it should have had out of the way before the House met; no doubt about that at all. If the Speech from the Throne which the government brought down soon after the opening of parliament really originated at the throne we might be constrained to give some heed to it, but when we realize that it is only the speech of this government placed in the hands of His Excellency, it does not make a very deep impression on most of us, particularly those who have listened to four speeches from the throne written by the same hand in the past four years. What did those four speeches amount to? Political humbug. That is an expression which I think the Minister of Agriculture might approve of. They were mere effusions of words, followed by nothing in the way of legislation or policy that has been of any benefit to the country.

I ask members of the House and of the government to go back with me over those four speeches from the throne and see if they can recall any national good that has emanated from them. Let me direct the attention of the House to some of those nostrums of former days. The first cure-all for the country's ills was a wheat pool. Most of us remember how the government heralded that as a masterpiece of statesmanship. The leader of this party and his supporters warned the government and the Progressive allies that the legislation would be abortive. As a matter of fact it was quite unnecessary to warn the government, for its members knew just as well as did the opposition that the legislation would be futile. The government did not intend by that legislation to control the price or the marketing of wheat; it intended to control certain votes in this House, and to this extent the proposal served the government's purpose for the time being-to fool the Progressives and keep the administration in office. That legislation was laughed out of

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

court. But the government had survived the session of 1922, and the salaries and indemnities were safe. The next bid in the Speech from the Throne for the support of the Progressives was a promise to introduce legislation to control freight rates on the Great Lakes. That legislation was so abortive that another session over and another indemnity annexed, the government did not wait to have the legislation wiped out by the courts. It proved so disastrous to Canadian business that the government had to invite foreign shipping to ignore it, even to promise them indemnity from prosecution for violating its terms. Those are two fair samples of the statesmanship of this government.

Looking over those speeches from the throne, we find running through some of them the question of immigration. Usually they are going to embark on an aggressive policy to bring more people into this country. Immigration is one of the four great problems that the Prime Minister told his audience at Richmond Hill required an adequate majority to deal with. What was the government's proposal in regard to immigration in the Speech from the Throne of 1922? Let me quote the paragraph dealing with it:

Now that the blessing of peace is with us a renewal of efforts to bring in new settlers must be made. My government are fully alive to the importance of this question, and will use every reasonable endeavour to attract to our country people of the most desirable class, with particular regard to settlement on our undeveloped lands.

They promised action in 1922. We will see how far they progressed. In 1923, a year later they told the House:

The matter of securing an increasing flow of desirable settlers to develop the large areas still available for cultivation in Canada has had the serious consideration of my advisers. Additional advertising and general publicity campaigns have been launched in Great Britain and in the United States and. as opportunity offers, will be extended to other lands from which a suitable class of settlers may be attracted. In other particulars, the activities of the Department of Immigration and Colonization are being expanded.

That was in 1922 and 1923. But if you go to the Speech from the Throne of 1924 you will find the government has given up the question of immigration altogether. It did not give it a line that year, and if you look at the Speech from the Throne in 1925 you will find the same state of affairs; the government has nothing to report to parliament, nothing to report to the public, as to its progress in inducing desirable settlers to come to this country. And it is not to be wondered at when statistics inform us that from 1921 to 1925, the population of this country, if anything, notwithstanding the number of im-

migrants that had been brought in, was almost at a standstill. We have lost almost all of them one by one. And in the Speech from the Throne this session the government, having dropped the subject for two years, has the temerity to tell the House this:

With the improvement of conditions throughout the country-

I wonder what the improvement of conditions was. Is this an allusion to the government's majority now?

With the improvement of conditions throughout the country the government have formulated and put into operation a comprehensive immigration plan.

That would lead to the opinion that the government had been acting in the matter. If that comprehensive immigration plan was working during the years 1924 and' 1925, the government overlooked any mention of it in the Speech from the Throne:

My ministers desire it to be known that the Dominion welcomes settlers of the classes which can be absorbed into our population. Regulations have been simplified, transportation rates greatly reduced, anid the care of settlers to destination and during early settlement given every attention. Measures will be taken to further the retention on the land of our existing agricultural population-

I wonder how the government is going to do that-

-to encourage the return to rural parts of urban dwellers possessed of agricultural experience, and the repatriation of Canadians now living in other countries. Special arrangements will be proposed for settlement on crown lands.

That is a pretty picture-a very desirable state of affairs. But instead of the government going home for a rest until March 15, it would be much more interesting for the members of this House if it would declare what that immigration policy is, how far it has progressed, and how successful it has been. The government would have us believe that that policy has already been inaugurated, and is now bringing in settlers. One has only to refer to the various speeches from the throne inspired by this government to realize how futile it is to expect anything tangible from the present administration, no matter what may be contained in such speeches.

In 1923 the government heralded its proposal of Great Lakes freight rate control. We know what happened to that. The government promised in that speech:

A bill will be submitted to you to safeguard the interests of consumers and producers from undue enhancement of prices or unfair restriction of trade by combines, monopolies, trusts, or mergers.

What has become of that promise? I wonder how many "combines, monopolies, trusts, or mergers" have 'been brought to book by that legislation of the government? That

13S7

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

is an achievement that was starred in the Speech from the Throne in 1923. Now, what is the next item in that Speech:

It 'having been represented that an amalgamation of interests of shipping companies and vessel owners upon the Great Lakes has operated to control freight rates and insurance upon grain shipments in a manner which has deprived agriculturists of much of the benefit to which they were entitled, as well as led to discrimination against Canadian ports and harbours, a royal commission has been appointed to Investigate and report upon this alleged combine.

The government investigated all right, but the investigation cost this country a lot of money and was productive of no good; none whatever. In the same year the government forecast its French and Italian treaties, the results of which have been depicted to this House. It managed to make treaties with both of the countries referred to, with the result that there was a lessening of Canadian business.

In 1924 the government announced in. the Speech from the Throne a policy of rigid economy-rigid economy to the extent of being able to reduce taxation, rigid economy to the extent of postponing the construction of public works until a reduction in taxation had been effected. That was in 1924. There was no election on that year. In 1925 t'he government came back with an admission that rigid economy would not suffice. It had to cast economy to the wind' because an election was coming on, and the constituencies looking to the election had to be satisfied. A glance at the estimates for that year shows that the government had given up its policy of rigid economy.

And then there was in 1925 a wonderful gesture against the North Atlantic steamship conference. I will not delay the House by making any detailed reference to that subject, but the government's performance in connection with the North Atlantic steamship conference was a fair sample of all that has been emitted in various statements and speeches from the throne.

In 1925 the government made an enormous grant for the purpose of making more effective its precautions against smuggling, and what do we find has happened? The government has banished the 'best inspector from the biggest port in the country, and has taken the mounted police away from the Quebec border. That is a sample of the government's precautions against smuggling.

In 1925 the government went to the extent of putting in the Speech from the Throne a very significant gesture against the Senate of Canada. It was going to amend the

British North America Act; it was going to call a conference of representatives of the provinces and arrive at legislation to reform the Senate by way of amending t'he British North America Act. That again was only a gesture. Just before the election came on the government was driven to admitting that it was not going to do anything of the kind. It was simply going to wait its time, and when vacancies occurred in the Senate it would replace Conservative senators by Liberal senators. That represents the government's wonderful reform of the Senate. If the truth were known I, think the government's retreat from its position in regard to Senate reform was due to saner counsels which came from its supporters in the great province of Quebec. Those supporters were not going to stand for any interference with the constitution of this country and the powers of the Senate. The Prime Minister had to make himself very plain on that matter before election day.

The legislation foreshadowed in those speeches from the throne and in government pronouncements wdiich was designed to obtain support included, for instance, legislation for the extermination of combines, legislation for rural credits, Senate reform, and the alternative vote. Now what became of all those gestures? Just such results as they were intended to produce, and that was nothing in the way of reform or advancement. Those gestures were intended just to make a noise to distract public attention from the fact that members of this innocuous government were getting away with their salaries and giving the taxpayer nothing in return except the necessity of paying more taxes. That is the only reason these items were included in these speeches from the throne; they served their purpose to distract public attention, and to get votes in this House. Why should members of this House at this time seize upon this Speech from the Throne as an excuse for bolstering up an expiring government-no, not an expiring government, but an expired government. You, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, if my memory serves me right, advised a member who had not been over-complimentary in his reference to the government to speak gently. I suppose your advice was given on the old principle that we should speak no ill of the dead.

Probably the government gesture on the alternative vote was the best of the lot. In 1924, the government went so far as to announce as its considered policy the introduction of legislation putting into effect the alternative vote in single-member constituencies. That was to become the law of the

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

land; it was announced as the considered policy of the government. That decision was arrived at by a government composed of men of mature years, and led by a premier who must have formed his opinions after careful consideration. But what do we find? After going so far as to put it in the Speech from the Throne, which the government would have the country and the members of this House to-day take as a reason for giving the government support, what did the Prime Minister say in Saskatoon on the 7th of October last, when asked by a person in the audience, "What about the alternative vote?" Less than a year had elapsed since the Prime Minister included the alternative vote in his Speech from the Throne, and in reply to the question he said, "I am coming to see more clearly that the alternative vote will help to perpetuate the group system, and I believe the group system of government bad." I wonder what had come over him to change his opinion in regard to the alternative vote? He thought enough of it to put it in 'his Speech from the Throne less than a year before; he regarded it then as legislation necessary for this country, but now he admits that he considers it bad. If he considered it bad during that election campaign, I say it is only fair to believe that he considered it bad at the time he put it in the Speech from the Throne, and therefore it must have been put there for some ulterior motive.

There is no more reason to suppose that this Speech from the Throne will crystallize into legislation of benefit to Canada than the preceding Speeches of this government. Why should members of this House seize upon the visionary promises of this government as contained in the Speech from the Throne as an excuse for helping this government to prolong its existence?

One thing this session has developed is what some newspapers have described as a pinch hitter-a pinch hitter in the person of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin). If an air of self-assurance, positive statement, and finality of dictum indicated strength, then this government would be easily victorious, but no one knows better than the Minister of Customs that he is vainly trying to sustain and revive a lost cause. Probably that is saying too much; I will take it back. It is not a lost cause; this government never had a cause. This government is and never has been anything but an aggregation of office holders. It has no principles and no policy;

it exists merely for the purpose

10 p.m. of holding office. In the words of its leader, it is able only to mark time and draw its salaries. Those are

the words of the leader of the government, not mine. Some of those who heard the performance of the Minister of Customs will not soon forget how, when he thought the hour was at hand when he and his colleagues could no longer cling to office, he came to this chamber, probably after an interview with his invisible leader and with his real commander, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), and solemnly announced to this House that a vote of want of confidence was not a vote of want of confidence, and that a want of confidence motion was not a want of confidence motion, and that if the opposition amendment were defeated, the government would not consider the vote as a vote of confidence in the government. And so he furnished a nominal excuse, a poor excuse I admit, for some members of this House who had already expressed want of confidence in the government for voting confidence in it; for that is what it amounted to.

Just to show how circumstances alter cases, the Minister of Customs, representing the government pronounced that that motion was not a motion of want of confidence, and therefore, if the amendment had carried, he would have pronounced it to be not a vote of want of confidence. Contrast that with what took place at Saskatoon on October the 7th, when someone in Mr. King's audience wanted to know if the Progressives had ever been given an opportunity to vote for an appropriation for completion of the Hudson Bay railway. "Yes," said Mr. King, and he went on to say:

A Progressive motion for completion of the road had been submitted to the House as an amendment to Supply, which was a non-confidence motion. As a result the motion was voted down. To have voted for it would have meant voting for the defeat of the government.

Well, in what respect did that motion differ from the amendment of a few days ago, except that the latter was an amendment to the Address? In what respect did it differ from the motion which Mr. King property referred to as a motion of want of confidence? Was the pledge of the Minister of Customs kept? It was not kept for five minutes. *It was never intended to be kept. Why do I say that? What is Mr. King quoted as saying, immediately after the vote was announced, on being asked for a statement of 'his views? "No statement by me is necessary," he said, "Parliament has spoken." How, then, did he regard the vote? Did he not [DOT]regard it as a vote of confidence? What is the meaning of those words: "Parliament

has spoken?" In effect the Prime Minister says: Parliament has expressed its confidence in my government, and my colleagues

The Address-Mr. Black (Yukon)

and I are justified in clinging to office for our salaries, notwithstanding our defeat at the polls. By the grace of that majority of three the ministers are continuing to draw their salaries and the taxpayers are putting up the money. Parliament has spoken, and the ministers here to-night have said they are not ashamed of that majority. Parliament did not speak very loudly; it spoke in hardly more than a whisper. None of the ministers would go so far as to say that parliament spoke with no uncertain sound. I wonder if it spoke loudly enough to quiet the consciences of those members of the House who, although expressing no confidence in the government, voted confidence in it? For that is what it amounted to. Why vote confidence where members have no confidence?

If it was not for the purpose of securing a vote of confidence from parliament, why did the government call parliament to meet on January 7? For nothing else has been attempted by the government, and now, on the termination of this debate, we are asked to adjourn to the 15th of March. Why was parliament summoned? Surely not to ascertain whether the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) was desirous of continuing the King government in office! If that were all- and that is all that has been done-it was a great waste of time and money. The government can always be sure of the support of the hon. member for Brandon, although perhaps after the unkind and ungrateful remarks made by the premier about the Progressives during the election campaign, it was necessary for the hon. member for Brandon to come down and show the public that he could not be driven out of the ranks of the -Liberal party or away from their support, no matter what might be said about him or his colleagues.

The situation is incomprehensible. If the conduct of the government were courageous we could admire it. I do not think it is courage, it is just nerve. To use a slang expression, it is "crust", and if it were parliamentary I would say it was gall. I admire the government's gall for hanging on to office under the circumstances. Its supporters early in the session quoted what they said were precedents for the proposal to adjourn- instances were where new governments had been given time to organize. This is not a new government; it is an old, dilapidated government. If this is a new government, then the defeat of the old government must be admitted. If it was not defeated, what became of it? It is still here. Then it is not a new government and it has no right or fair claim to ask this House for time to

organize. It is simply carrying on. The government denies its defeat. The leader of the government has a resolution on the order paper to-day declaring the government undefeated and entitled to carry on. At the same time he says, "Pass the Address and let us adjourn till the fifteenth of March. Why? Because we are unable to carry on and want to organize"-truly an incomprehensible state of affairs. The government wants to go into dry dock for repairs, as a matter of fact, to patch itself up, to gain strength. What for? The better to fight its political battles, the better to oppose us on this side of the House; and yet it complains because we decline to be a party to that performance.

The government seems to have lost all sense of propriety, if it ever had any, and it never showed much evidence of it. In asking the House to support the Address and requesting hon. members to go home till the fifteenth of March, the government did not realize that it could no longer apply the steam-roller tactics of former sessions, when the Prime Minister and the member for Brandon, with a majority of 100 or more, could put through any absurd proposition they chose to introduce. In the language of the comic papers "them days are gone forever" when the government had a majority of 135; now they can succeed only in drawing down their salaries and indemnities, and this they apparently propose to continue to do to the exclusion of all else.

The government was beginning to promulgate through the hon. member for Brandon the idea that we might as well adjourn and go home till the fifteenth of March because we had nothing to do. That was the burden of the song of the hon. member for Brandon. But that idea was suddenly and very effectively dispelled by the startling speech of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), disclosing as it did the shocking state of affairs in government cirbles. Since that speech was made no one can say that there is no business to be done by parliament or no work for parliament to do between now and the fifteenth of March. If parliament does nothing else but stand by and strengthen the hand and * lengthen the reach of that committee investigating the Customs department the members of this House will have done their duty. This is no time to go home; it is a time to stay here and attend to the country's business.

Although I am fully convinced that the government has in some members of the Progressive party staunch and firm supporters, I must say I was surprised when a member of that group went so far as to move the previous question, the effect of which

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

It is not

quite twenty-five minutes after ten and my hon. friend has plenty of time to go, on.

Mr. MANION:

With the permission of the House I would point out that a number of gentlemen who desire to hear the hon. member would like to catch the trains to Montreal and Toronto at eleven o'clock and I suggest that the minister move the adjournment, The hon, member would speak only for half an hour longer in any case.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Monday, March 1, 1926