Some hon. gentlemen across the way say, "hear, hear." I am glad to get that recognition from them. Let me say in reply to the hon. member for Fort William that we on this side believe in Providence, and that we think Providence works sometimes in a most marvellous and mysterious manner, not always as we wish or hope or pray, but in a manner that is for our ultimate good. I think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps a kind Providence had something to do with defeating the government that went to the country in 1921; that Providence did then operate in a way that worked for the good of Canada. I think also that a kind Providence had something to do with seeing that the Conservatives did not come back to this House after the election in October last in sufficient strength to control the destinies of this country for a few years to come. Furthermore, Providence has had something to do with the votes which have been recorded in this House during the last four months; and it is not unlikely that Providence has kept the hon. member for Fort William from crossing to the treasury benches, because I do not think there is any hon. gentleman opposite who wants to reach those benches more quickly than my hon. friend. It is quite evident that although Providence sometimes works in a mysterious way those operations are for the good of the country.
I do not think I should have injected myself into this debate had it not been for the fact that certain hon. members opposite, especially those from the province of Ontario and in particular the representatives of ridings adjoining the county I have the honour to represent, have stated that they cannot support the budget, and that those who sent them here are not in favour of it. These hon. gentlemen have affirmed the belief that the budget is not for the good of Ontario, or, for that matter, for the good of the Dominion of Canada as a whole. Speaking for the constituency of South Perth I am satisfied that the majority of the people of that riding are not only in favour of the budget, but they think it will be advantageous to the province of Ontario and the whole Dominion also. Coming as I do from the province of Ontario, I am not only going to vote for the budget but I shall exert myself to the utmost in its defence.
The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who represents a county adjoining <the riding for which I have the honour to sit, in the speech he made a week or two ago gave utterance to some very extreme statements. I shall take the liberty of reading one of those statements, which will be found at page 2642 of Hansard of April 20. Coming as I do from the province of Ontario, I desire to put myself on record in answer to this statement made by the hon. member for North Oxford. He said:
Thia budget as a whole is what might be termed a Saskatchewan budget. That statement deserves a little explanation. The general policies in Saskatchewan seem to be policies of annihilation and assassination rather than protection, and if those members from Saskatchewan who seem to favour those policies get any more power in the House than they have shown they have, there is going to be very serious trouble for this country. The reason why I attribute this to Saskatchewan is as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said this afternoon, because no reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to this reduction in the tariff on automobiles.
I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I speak subject to correction. I did not know that it was usual to incorporate in the Speech from the Throne the specific matters that were to be presented in the budget in regard to reductions or increases of the tariff on this article or that; I would imagine that to be a most peculiar procedure for any government to follow. The statement of the hon. member continues:
I attribute this reduction more to Saskatchewan Liberals even than to our Progressive friends and I base this statement on part of a letter written by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) to his home paper about February 5, when he said-
I will skip two or three lines which have no bearing on the point I am making, and read from further on:
I have noticed for the last two or three days that whenever there is any applause on the other side on account of the budget, the Liberal members applaud income tax reductions and the Saskatchewan members applaud reductions in the tariff on automobiles. That shows what the feeling of the House is on the matter.
As a member from Ontario I desire to say that I hold no brief for hon. members from Saskatchewan. I have noticed that they are well able to take care of themselves in this House when the occasion arises. Nor do I hold any brief for my good friends the Progressives, because they have shown that they are quite able to take care of themselves at all times; and this remark applies equally to my good friends from the province of Quebec. During the four months I have been attending the sittings of parliament I have never seen a single, solitary move by the members from Saskatchewan, the members of the Pro-
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
gressive group, or the almost solid bloc from the province of Quebec, which in any shape or form was not in the best interests of Can- _ ada as a whole. My answer to the hon. member for North Oxford is that I am not controlled by anybody from the province of Saskatchewan, but I have come to the conclusion, as a humble member from Ontario, that this is one of the best budgets that has ever 'been 'brought down in the Dominion of Canada, in that it is calculated to contribute to the prosperity of the whole country.
Hon. members on the other side of the House have spoken of the desirability of unity; they have emphasized the fact that we must have a united Canada. This statement was made particularly by the Conservative members from Ontario, including that solid bloc of Conservative members who come from the city of Toronto. I say that there is not a single member in this House who does not want a united Canada. We all want it. But, Mr. Speaker, we will get a united Canada sooner if there is a little more compromise and reason on the part of the members of the Conservative party from Ontario. The sooner they realize that Toronto is not the whole of Ontario; that Ontario is not the whole of the Dominion of Canada and that they cannot choke down the throats of the members from all the other provinces their policy of higher and higher protection, the sooner we will have a united Canada.
Coming to the budget, I will not deal at any length on the reductions in the income tax. It is obvious to anybody who has read over the schedule that there is a substantial reduction, which will benefit especially those who receive moderate incomes. I am not very much concerned about what the cut is, if any, on the income of anyone who is in receipt of $50,000, $75,000, $100,000, or $150,000 per year or upwards. But I am concerned about the man with the moderate income, and the Minister of Finance has provided for that class of people and granted for their benefit a substantial reduction. The two-cent postage appeals to everybody and I will not say anything in regard to it. The taking off of the stamp tax appeals to all and is a welcome change.
I come now to what is the most contentious matter in the budget, namely, the reduction in the duty on automobiles. Hon. members who have spoken from the opposite side of the House during this debate have taken this attitude: they do not directly criticize the reduction in the tariff on automobiles, but they hide themselves behind the argument that this is a matter that should have been referred to the Tariff Advisory Board. I am
in favour of a tariff board, and I am only speaking for myself when I say I would like to see a little wider power granted to that board. In regard to referring this question of the reduction of duties to the tariff board, I think this government did the right thing when, off its own bat, it reduced the duty on automobiles. Hon. members on the other side have taunted this House with having no initiative, with hiding- themselves behind commissions, with doing nothing but drift, with not having sufficient strength of character or will power to take any matter into their own hands and come to a decision upon it. When this government on its own initiative virtually decided to make this cut in the duty on automobiles they showed strength of character; they showed that they were prepared to stand or fall on that question. They showed that they had the courage of their convictions in reducing the tariff on automobiles without referring it to the tariff advisory board.
The reduction in the tariff on automobiles is not a new matter. It has been debated in this House, I understand, session after session; it has been discussed by the people, who have demanded that some reduction be made in the duty on automobiles and motor trucks imported into this country. Hon. members opposite have argued that the government had not sufficient knowledge of the automobile industry to be in a position to decide whether or not this cut should be made. While I am on the tariff I may remind the House that we have had in this country before commissions which have investigated the whole subject. In 1920, for instance, the government of that day appointed a commission to study tariff matters and that body, composed of three members of the cabinet, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Tolmie), and the hon. Senator Robertson, then Minister of Labour, travelled up and down the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This morning I was curious enough to look up the history of that commission, but I could find no trace of any order in council appointing it. I did discover, however, that the jaunt of these three hon. gentlemen who toured Canada on that occasion for the purpose of securing information on the tariff, and presumably of giving to parliament and the people the benefit of that information, cost the country the sum of $17,153.39. I am not going to go into the details of that expenditure; I would refer any hon. gentleman interested in the matter to the Auditor General's Report of 1920-21, page F 128. Perhaps it may be observed in pass-
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
mg that the government appealed to the country in December, 1921, about a year after this commission, or whatever you choose to call it, had travelled up and down the Dominion.
Now, surely these gentlemen gained some information then in regard to the automobile industry along with other industries m Canada. I know, of course, that this was five or six years ago and possibly the condition of the industry now is somewhat different from what it was at that time. But I think I may safely assume that the automobile industry was prospering back in 1920 and I venture to suggest that its prosperity has increased probably fourfold in the meantime. I have been unable to find any report submitted to parliament by that commission. Although I have looked the matter up I have not discovered that there was ever published any of the information they gathered as a result of that trip, but the House will be interested to know what was contained in the Speech from the Throne as submitted on February 14, 1921, in relation to the tariff question. That speech reads in part as follows:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province. The hearings necessary for this purpose have now been completed, and the conclusions founded thereon will be submitted to you in due course. It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries, including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained; but that the Customs duties imposed to that end should be no higher than is essential to ensure good standards of living among our working population and to retain and make possible the normal expansion of the industries in which they find employment.
That apparently is the only information that was ever made public in connection with the investigation of that commission into the tariff. That was a commission of the Conservative government's own making. Three ministers of the crown went exhaustively into the subject in all its phases, and as I well remember, they visited the part of my province in which I live, interviewing everybody who might care to give evidence on any point appertaining to the tariff. They heard the views of farmers, manufacturers, bankers, artisans, labourers, mechanics; in fact, anyone at all who cared to volunteer information on the subject of the tariff was heard. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that these three gentlemen gathered, in the vast mass
of information submitted to them, some knowledge of the automobile industry. In view of. that probability, it is surprising to note what the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., who as I have said was a member of that tariff commission, or board of inquiry, or whatever you may care to call it, said in a speech he delivered in Kingston on April 30 last, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of May 1, 1926:
Doctor Tolmie referred to the cut in the tariff on automobiles made by the government. "Now, I do not propose to say whether the tariff on automobiles is too high or too low," Doctor Tolmie continued. "No one could pass an intelligent opinion on this without a very thorough investigation and hearing both sides, so that I do not know under what grounds the government was able to come to a conclusion, but the general impression in the House of Commons is that they were forced to it as a result of their being under the influence of groups and their effort to run the country with a minority. It will appear to every fairminded citizen that the proper course to have .pursued was to submit this to the tariff board and then abide by the finding of that body."
The hon. member should take this House into his confidence and give us the benefit of the information he gained on that trip in 1920, even if it is five or six years old.
Other hon. gentlemen opposite also have expressed their views on the reduction in the duties on automobiles and motor trucks. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has taken up very many hours of the time of this House during the past four months discussing various industries in Canada. He is a speaker whom we all delight to hear, and he has a wonderful fund of information on practically every industry in Canada. I have heard him discuss the milling industry, the farming industry and, if I mistake not, the textile industry, in regard to which he has given us a good deal of information. But strange to say, when it comes to automobiles, concerning which almost any man in the street can tell you something, the hon. member prefers to have a tariff board report upon the industry. He wants more information than he has at present. He confesses that he is not very well posted on the automobile industry, although he presumes to be thoroughly conversant with almost every other industry discussed in this House.
The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) delivered in this House the other day a speech in which he sidestepped very gingerly the reduction in automobile duties. If I may say so, he made a very good speech in so far as the imposition of a duty on American magazines and periodicals was concerned, but he was not so well versed
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
in the automobile business. Let me read to the House what he said in regard to the reduction of automobile duties:
We stand to-day, Mr. Speaker, in the position where a great industry in this country, an industry with ramifications through all our commerce, is threatened with serious impairment, and it is threatened without investigation, without taking expert advice, and absolutely contrary to the pledges of the government as contained in the Speech from the Throne.
I have here a newspaper published in the city of Toronto in which there is reproduced an editorial from the Orange Sentinel, a publication edited by the hon. member for Toronto West Centre. This article was published between last session and this. I want to read it for the benefit of the House. For fear some hon. member may ask me what paper I am quoting from, let me say that I find it in the good Tory Evening Telegram published in good Tory Toronto. This is the editorial: [DOT]
Whatever else may be done with the customs tariff at the next session of parliament-
Mark you, that is this session.
-there should be a substantial reduction in the duty on motor cars. It is clear from the price quoted in the United States and Canada that the Canadian manufacturers are charging "all the traffic will stand." The duty of 35 per cent is more than protection, it is in part a government subsidy to the makers of automobiles. As long as the motor car was purely a luxury that only the rich could enjoy, there was not much reason for complaint; but the motor car has become a necessity in business and professional life, and those who are thus compelled to buy one should not be forced to pay excessive profits to the manufacturer. A certain type of car that sells in the United States at $1,875, costs $3,100 in Canada. That is altogether too wide a spread, and is not warranted by any factor in the trade. The American makers have large production, it is true, but they pay higher wages, and there is no reason why their raw materials are any cheaper. The makers of motor cars in Canada are soaking the public unduly, and it is the duty of the government to lower the tariff, and it that way inject a little competition of American firms, which will bring down the prices.
In this good Tory paper from Toronto, the Telegram, there is another article which refers to what the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) said with respect to the duty on automobiles, I think last session. This is how he expressed himself on that occasion, according to the Toronto Telegram:
As I have previously stated, I am not a high protectionist, and I think there are some industries in this country which possibly are too highly protected. One of these, I think, is the automobile industry. This industry is making rapid strides in Canada, and in the last year this country, a country of 9,000,000 people, exported half as many automobiles as did the United States with a population of 110,000,000 people.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) last session voted in favour of a resolution
urging a reduction of the duty on automobiles. I do not know what he intends to do on this budget. The hon. member for Kingston Oity (Mr. Ross) also voted in favour of that resolution. When these hon. gentlemen declare that they do not know anything about this industry and desire full information, it seems rather remarkable that months and months ago they should have put themselves on record in favour of a reduction of the duty on automobiles.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the notice of the House some figures regarding the automobile industry of this country. As I stated a few moments ago, this is not a new industry. As a matter of fact the automobile is no longer a luxury, it has become an absolute necessity to ninety per cent of our people. The farmer must have an automobile and perhaps a motor truck. In business after business these vehicles are just as necessary as hydro power and steam power. I am a protectionist to a certain extent, and always have been, but when an article has become an absolute necessity and is enjoying a protection of 35 per cent, I think it is time the duty was cut for the benefit of our people, particularly when, as is admitted, the industry has passed the creeping and walking stages and is now at the running stage. I have before me statistics of the Canadian automobile industry for 1925, from which I quote the following:
New records were made in the automobile industry in Canada in 1925. In that year the production of motor cars numbered 161,970, as compared with 132,580 in 1924 and 147,202 in 1923, the best previous year in the industry; the value of output at the factories rose to $110,835,380 and exceeded that of any other year; capital employed amounted to $74,678,451,-
I would ask hon. members to note the next sentence:
-an increase of 23 per cent over 1924; -
That is, an increase of capital of 23 per cent over the previous year, 1924. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that a large portion of that increase was not further money invested in the industry, but represented what is known as stock "melons" to the shareholders-that the companies were pyramiding their profits and divided them to the extent of giving their shareholders further stock. I have no absolute proof that that is the case, but I think it is highly probable. Certainly it happened in the case of the Ford Company of Canada.
-employees numbered 10,301 as against 9,277 in 1924; payments in salaries and wages totalled $17,249,270 as compared with a corresponding figure of $14,219,137 in the previous year; export shipments-
The Budget-Mr. Sanderson
This is a very vital matter, Mr. Speaker.
-export shipments valued at $39,417,614 were the highest on record; imports at $35,240,298 were greater than in any previous year, and registrations of motor vehicles totalled 728,005 as against 652,121 in 1924, when the previous high record was established.
Following that statement is a summary of production in the automobile industry in Canada from 1904 to 1925, and it shows the growth of the industry during that period. I have no doubt these figures will be of interest to hon. members and I will therefore read them:
Summary of Production in the Automobile Industry in Canada 1904-1925
That shows an increase of production yearly; there were some 25,000 more automobiles and trucks manufactured in Canada in 1925 than were manufactured during the twelve years from 1904 to 1916. It would therefore appear, Mr. Speaker, that this is an industry which i3 past the stage of pap feeding by a very high tariff; it must be at the stage where it can take care of itself to a certain extent, without being protected against competition by a high duty.. The increase in exports of automobiles and motor trucks shows that these manufacturers do not altogether depend on Canada for a market, but that they have a very wide and substantial market elsewhere. I read the figures showing the exports, which amount to from 40 per cent to 42 per cent of the entire output of these Canadian factories. These automobiles and trucks are exported under very favourable terms, and I do not doubt the price paid shows a profit to the manufacturers.
To bring the purchase of an automobile right down to the individual, has there been a man who purchased an automobile during the last three or four years who, after the deal was made, did not conclude that he was paying almost more than the value of the automobile, and that he was paying an undue profit to the manufacturer of that car? If my information is correct, as I think it is, the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada do not give credit; theirs is an entirely cash business. I under-
stand that if you order a car through your local dealer-it does not make any difference what kind of car it may be-he either goes to the factory for that car or has it shipped by rail, and he has to pay spot cash before he receives it. If he goes to the factory for five cars he has to pay for them before leaving the factory; if they are shipped by rail they are shipped with a draft attached to the bill of lading. Therefore the manufacturer runs no risk of bad debts; the poor unfortunate local agent ha3 to carry that burden. He may not get cash from his customer; he may have to take notes running for a term of months; he runs that chance and takes the risk of loss on secondhand cars as well. So the automobile manufacturer is in a different position from the manufacturer of any other article; his is a cash business, and that is a big advantage. Anyone in business knows if a manufacturer has no bad debts on his books and does not have to give credit he is in a position to sell his article very much more cheaply than if he carried a big line of credit and had to wait for the money to come in.
I have perhaps tired the House with my remarks; I have taken longer than I intended, but I want to say a further word about my position on this question of a reduction in the tariff on automobiles. If I honestly believed that the cut in the tariff would wreak havoc, and throw thousands of men out of employment, forcing the automobile manufacturers to close their doors, I would hesitate in giving my support to it. But I see no reason why men should lose their jobs; I see no reason why the automobile manufacturers cannot carry on and still do a profitable business. It should not be necessary for them to cut the pay of their employees; they may threaten to do so; they have bluffed a good deal already in closing their doors, but I sincerely hope that such an event will not occur in reality. If that should be the case, it may be that politics will have entered into the question, which will be a very regrettable and sad thing for the country. I think, however, the government were perfectly justified in making the reduction, and I believe most of the people, irrespective of their political faith, will approve of it also.
I thank the House for their indulgence and for the patience with which they have followed my somewhat rambling remarks.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The Budget-Mr. Baker
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. R. L. BAKER . (Toronto Northeast)
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I, with your kind permission, address the- House on the subject of this debate, it being the first occasion I have of speaking in this Assembly, I ask for your leniency and that of the House. But before broaching the subject matter, Sir, I wish to pay you my respects and offer you my congratulations on the high post you occupy as First Commoner of Canada. I also wish to congratulate the hon. members of this House on their selection of a man so dignified, courteous, capable and possessing such a sense of fairness, as Speaker of this House for a second term. I hope that you will live long as occupant of that position; but, that before long, the hon. gentlemen on this side will be sitting on the other side of the House, on your right, and those hon. gentlemen now on the other side will be here, on your left. I further wish, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, to offer you and the hon. members of this House our congratulations.
It is a pleasure for me to endeavour for a few moments to speak the French language, out of regard for you, Sir, and those other French Canadian members in this House, and further, because as the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) expressed it, there are two official languages in this country. I endorse what the hon. member, said: That French is the most beautiful language born on human lips. I should like to speak more at length in French, however I do not wish to do so to-day, because I am sorry to admit it, I have forgotten much of my French, not having had enough practice within the last thirty years and I naturally fear not to be well understood. However, I trust that, when I have been living here for a year, I shall be more successful and that some day I shall have the pleasure of delivering in the House, a speech in French. The French Canadian members in this House understand the two official languages of this country, but all the English speaking members do not, perhaps, understand the two languages; that is why, Sir, with your kind permission I shall now continue in English. But before I do so, I wish to express a wish: I think it is necessary to have in this city a French speaking club to study and converse in French. I propose that the name "Le Club Lemieux" be given to it, and I would like to have the honour of being a member of this club so as to endeavour to speak the French
language perfectly, and this, for me, would require a long practice. I also endorse the views of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), when he says that it is an excellent thing to speak two or three languages.
In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, as I [DOT]previously pointed out, that this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing this or any other parliament, I know you will extend to me the same generous, kind consideration that you have always shown to those who are making their first speech in this House. I trust that hon. members will bear patiently with me while I express my views on the question before the House, to do which, I understand, is my privilege, as well as my duty, as I see it, to my constituents.
I wish to refer to two occasions upon which remarks made by me were referred to in this House. The first occasion was when the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), acting as leader of the House-which duties he performed so well-said that one of the members from Toronto, addressing his constituents, "made the following remarks" to which he took exception. In order that the onus shall not be placed on any of the other Toronto members-I presume they have enough troubles of their own to bear-I think it will be well for me to state that I did make the remarks in question to my constituents before coming to the House. I said at that time that I considered it was inconsistent for the Progressives to vote, because, as I explained to my constituents, they dissented from both the other parties in the House; that the people of the districts which they represent also dissented from the two old parties, and therefore to be consistent they ought not to vote in the original division in the House which sought to determine who had the right to govern the country. I have nothing to withdraw regarding that statement, and although it seemed to annoy some people I thought it expressed my conviction as to what should be the correct course on the part of the Progressives. I still think that if they had followed that course they would have taken the right stand, and by abstaining from voting at that time the business of the House would be further advanced than it is to-day, and they themselves would not have made any less progress than they have to date. I do not feel called upon to withdraw the statement I made at that time, although it seemed to annoy a few hon. members of this House. I am still of the opinion that had the course which I outlined been followed, it would have been the best policy to adopt, having regard to the welfare
The Budget-Mr. Baker
of the country and the best interests, in the long run, of all parties here, including even the Progressive group.
The other occasion when exception was taken in the House to remarks made by me, was when a newspaper report was read here regarding a meeting of my constituents in Toronto Northeast which I addressed. I was speaking at the time of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Dunning), and the ground for the comments which the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) made depends upon which newspaper report he read. And yet there is nothing to find particular fault with in the one report any more than there is in the other. Nor could any particular objection be offered to anything I said on that occasion. I was expressing my views to my constituents with respect to matters in Ottawa. I did not do that with any feeling of ill will or of malice towards anybody, and the use of the word "cub" had no ill intent behind it as respects anyone. I am pleased to recall that on the occasion when the hon. member for Yorkton brought the matter up in the House, Mr. Speaker was good enough to say that there was not much harm in the word "cub." We know that the word "cub'' is used continually by students in a university or college; and it is quite common on their part to make use of the word "freshmen" also with respect to newcomers. I have heard the word used in a much more friendly sense even than this. Of course there are idioms in everyone's language, and idioms are frequently employed in the course of conversation. I have often made use of the expression in speaking to my own grandson: "Come here my little cub, I want to talk to you." In such a case as that the expression would be meant as a term of endearment. Very frequently I have used the word in that sense, so that when I uttered it at the meeting in question there was no thought of malice towards anybody, and no harm was intended.
In bringing me to task the hon. member for Yorkton referred to me as a "denizen" from Toronto. The hon. gentleman, perhaps unintentionally, made an error there; I know he would not have erred intentionally. Now referring to Webster's dictionary, which I found in the library, I found the definition of "denizen" to be: "one admitted to residence with all or part of the rights of citizenship." So my hon. friend was absolutely wrong when he called me a "denizen," because I was born in this country, as were the two generations that preceded me, There was therefore a slight error on the hon. gentleman's part. I do not apply the name
"denizen" to my hon. friend either; but it so happens that the word, as defined in Webster, does apply to a great many of the hon. gentlemen whom my hon. friend was quite unnecessarily defending.
The hon. gentleman used a quotation from Dryden with respect to me, no doubt composed about the year 1650. But there is another quotation from Dryden which reads this way: "As soon as denizenized they
domineer." Well, I thought, after sizing the situation up, that in the days of Dryden they were talking along the same lines that I was endeavouring to follow, without any idea on my part that objection would be raised. Apparently for a long time it has been the tendency of the newcomer to want to domineer. Such a thing as that would not be very well received in the provinces of Quebec or Ontario.
I hope I have offered a full explanation of the incident in question. It was the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton that forced me to refer to the matter in detail so that there might be no misunderstanding.
Now I should like to refer briefly to my constituency, which I believe is the custom on the occasion of making a m'aiden speech. I have noticed that many hon. members have repeatedly proclaimed that they are here to represent the interests of their constituency first. May I say that my constituents did not send me here in that spirit? They fully understand that this is a federal parliament whose duty it is to administer the affairs of the whole Dominion. Their desire is that I should come here and assist, as much as possible, in the carrying out of policies applicable to the whole of Canada, not merely those which will benefit my constituency or any other particular riding. They understand that the only way in which an all-Canada policy can be brought about is on the basis of live and let live, of give and take.
In the last election the policies of the Liberal-Conservative and Liberal parties respectively were presented to my constituents, and the answer was twenty-one thousand votes-and if my opponent had not been such a fine man it would have been 25,000-for the policy of safeguarding the industries of Canada by means of adequate protection, in other words, the policy proclaimed by the Liberal-Conservative party. That is the wish of my constituency. They desire to see protection applied to industry, whether agricultural or manufacturing. The policy declared by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in this House on June 2 last is the policy that I am here
The Budget-Mr. Baker
to uphold, and the policy that my constituents think is for the best welfare of Canada as a whole. The feeling of my constituency in general is that we should work together; let the centre use the coal and iron of the east and the coal and wheat of the west, and let the east and the west in turn use the products of Ontario and Quebec. Such a policy we believe is feasible; that is the only way we can bring about a united Canada and bring prosperity to the whole of the country.
The last speaker this afternoon (Mr. Sanderson) mentioned the great desire along the lines of unity in Canada. I do not think, if I may respectfully say so, that he started very well when he made an attack on Toronto and Toronto members, and to that I consider it my duty to take exception. I do not know that any hon. members from the city of Toronto made any attack on the hon. member or his constituency, nor do I think they have the desire to do so. Toronto in no way considers that its members have any more privileges than any other members in this House. They know they have not, and have never assumed to have, which is quite contrary to the statement made by my hon. friend. The members from Toronto as a rule adhere very closely to the basis of protection and the safeguarding of industry. That is largely the policy of the people of Toronto. But my hon. friend must not think that they are doing it with any ill intention to any other part of the country. They conscientiously believe that that is the one policy that will build up every constituency in Canada, and that is why they uphold that policy. If I may respectfully suggest it, the hon. member, in talking that way, while he made a great appeal for concord, is really talking discord. I am sure it will be agreed that the less discord we have in this House the better.
Subtopic: CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL