Frederick George SANDERSON

SANDERSON, Frederick George

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Perth (Ontario)
Birth Date
October 12, 1870
Deceased Date
December 8, 1954
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Sanderson
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=3f352a5f-24ea-483a-8a69-c81fe4b99ab9&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
agent, farmer, manufacturer

Parliamentary Career

October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
LIB
  Perth South (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Perth South (Ontario)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Perth South (Ontario)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Perth (Ontario)
  • Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons (February 13, 1936 - January 25, 1940)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Perth (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 522 of 522)


March 24, 1926

Mr. SANDERSON:

I simply said that the wording of the resolution was a little more political than was necessary. I cannot conceive of the hon. member who asked me that question considering any matter in this House without political bias. As a new member I am prepared to discuss any matters in this House fairly at all times, and I hope in an unbiased way. As I said before, some way must be found to stop this steal of water. We have had) various opinions expressed as to the amount of water Chicago is taking, and a difference of

opinion also as to the amount the level of the lakes has been lowered. Until this after^ noon I had not heard that the Chicago diversion was lowering the lake level only to the extent of six inches. I have heard the figure given as being all the way from one to three feet. I do not know which figure is correct, but altogether apart from that question, and the amount of water being taken, it is conceded by the United States government that Chicago is practically stealing that water. If that be so, why can there not be some solution found which will stop this steal? Why cannot the government of the day in some way at least restore the water? I am not going into the question of compensation; I am only a layman and my mind does not run in that direction, but I want to view this matter in a common sense way, and I must say that I am very glad the minister expressed himself as he did thus afternoon. I would have preferred if he had gone further and been more explicit as ito what the government intended to do to solve this question, and I hope that as the session goes on the minister will take this House into his confidence further. This is an international question now; it vitally affects the Dominion of Canada, and I hope that some solution will be found whereby the water taken from the Great Lakes may be restored. If it is possible to make the city of Chicago pay, damages should be collected. They have done wrong; their courts have practically said that they are in the wrong. I will! not take up the time of the House longer, other than to say that as a new member from Ontario, I am vitally interested in the settlement of this question by this government as speedily as possible.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Full View Permalink

January 20, 1926

Mr. SANDERSON:

I thank the hon.

member for the compliment and his courtesy to a new member. I want to tell my hon. friend who asked the question and made the retort that if the propaganda of the Conservative party in Ontario had been fair and square, the result would have been different despite the tariff question. I did not intend to refer to this, but my hon. friend has drawn it out of me. When you find canvassers going from house to house in Ontario telling the women voters when the men are working in the factories: "If you vote for the Liberal candidate and he is returned, your husband will be out of a job in a week," I say that is unfair propaganda.

Coming back to the point that I was at before I was interrupted by my hon. friend opposite, let me say that if we are to have a united Canada from coast to coast there must be some compromise, some give and take on this tariff question. I am not a low, low tariff man, or a high, high tariff man. There are very extreme views on this tariff question. You could not satisfy some of the manufacturers of Ontario if you raised the tariff as high as the tower that surmounts this building. There are possibly some extreme views in the west and in some of the other provinces on the tariff, and if we are to unite all the provinces of this Dominion, there must be a compromise, a middle course between these divergent views. An advisory tariff board would at least bring this matter down to a sane, common sense basis. I contend that the average candidate for parliament and the average member of parliament does not know very much about the ramifications of the tariff other than those which pertain to the particular business in which he may be engaged. I doubt very much-and this is not in any way a reflection on any department-whether some departmental officials at times know very much

The Address-Mr. Sanderson

about the ramifications of the tariff. Therefore an advisory board of capable men would undoubtedly make for an intelligent study of the whole question.

One thing I regret since coming to this House is my inability to understand and to speak the French language, but I have listened to some hon. members from the province of Quebec speaking in English who have assured us, as I have no doubt with perfect honesty and sincerity, that all they desire in this Dominion is such legislation as will work to the advantage, not of their own province, but of the Dominion at large. Such legislation they are prepared to support. I was delighted also with the speech last night of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), who leads the Progressive party. He too told us that he was prepared to support any legislation which he considered! advantageous to the whole of the Dominion. In my judgment we are more apt to get, under existing conditions in this House, such legislation as will satisfy all groups than we should be able to obtain if either of the old parties had come back to parliament with a majority of 40 or 50 or 60. If the legislation which this government will bring down is supported by a sufficient majority from the different groups in this House I have no doubt it will be legislation into which very careful thought has been put, legislation that will be aimed at practical results for the benefit of the entire country. And although we have in parliament just now a situation that amounts almost to a political deadlock, I think that I can discern a trace of a silver lining behind the cloud. Having studied the situation rather closely I am inclined to think that with the co-operation of the other groups in this House the government will be able during the present session, and for three or four more sessions, to pass legislation that will prove of considerable benefit to the whole Dominion. Certainly I do not think that the electors of Canada, at any rate the majority of them, now that the position of the government has been vindicated for the time being, dtesire anything else but that every member of this House should exert his best efforts to expedite the business of the country. I do not think that the majority of the people in the country, whatever political party they may belong to,' want to have a general election in the near future.

I would refer for a moment or two to the remarks of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), to whom I listened with a great deal of pleasure and as attentively as I could. The hon. member spoke about eat-

ing American canned peaches and strawberries at the Chateau Laurier. I must confess that I do not know very much about the delicacies served in that establishment; I do not live at the Chateau Laurier for I cannot afford to do so. I rather think however that if the hon. gentleman saw American canned peaches on the bill of fare and ordered them, he was eating Canadian canned peaches just the same. It may be that this is a phase of the propaganda which was carried on throughout Ontario in the last election, although I do not charge the leader of the opposition with this. Certainly I charge some of his lieutenants with having travelled up and down the province of Ontario with what was practically the cry that Canada is not a fit country to live in. Those gentlemen virtually said to the people of the province, " Why don't you go to the United States, the land of promise?" Probably this is one of the reasons for our canned peaches being put on the menu at the Chateau Laurier as American peaches. And this to my mind was one of the saddest things about the whole campaign. I am a Canadian first, last and always, and my mind goes back to the election of 1911 when the Conservatives declared that Canada should have no truck or trade with the Yankees; they did not want to have anything whatever to do with those people. And in 1925 they as much as told our young men and women in Ontario that if they wanted to do well they had better go to the United States because Canada was practically bankrupt and was going to the dogs.

The hon. member also referred to the Prime Minister's position. Four or five days ago every speaker on the opposite side referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was temporarily without a seat in this House; they said that he should have obtained a seat before calling parliament together. Well that is a debatable question which I do not intend to discuss just now. But after the Prime Minister does make arrangements for running in a certain constituency hon. gentlemen opposite turn round and say, why did he not run somewhere else? The Prime Minister does not seem to be able to satisfy my hon. friends no matter what he does, but I doubt very much whether he consulted the Conservatives as to where he should stand for election. However, those of us on this side of the House expect to see the Prime Minister return in the next three or four weeks to lead this House.

I do not suppose that there is an hon. member here who is not anxious to see Canada one

The Address-Mr. Doucet

great united country. We all are. We have the most wonderful country on the face of the globe; Providence has been kind to us, kinder indeed, I believe, than to any other country. We have a great deal to be thankful for and it is our duty as members of parliament to get down to business without unnecessary delay. Times are better-despite the fact that the government has been returned to power. There is an improvement which will continue and in which I am sure we shall all participate.

I say therefore in conclusion to hon. members in every part of the House, let us get down to the business in hand and try as far as we possibly can through co-operation to take advantage of our opportunities and to pass such measures as will satisfy the people and help the Dominion to come into her own.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 20, 1926

Mr. SANDERSON:

Not all the country.

Let me answer my hon. friend's question as far as my constituency was concerned. Out of six townships I got a majority of five the rural vote. The cities and towns of Ontario largely went for what they called a high tariff, but not so the rural vote. The tariff and the tariff only was the issue in Ontario.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 20, 1926

Mr. SANDERSON:

Well, as to that time will tell.

Coming now to a consideration of the Speech from the Throne, may I preface my remarks by saying that I have sat here for the last seven or eight days and the proceedings have been an education to me. I have heard hon. gentlemen from all sections of Canada express their views on various subjects, and it has been a source of much enlighten-

5 p.m. ment to me. I have come to the conclusion, Sir, that despite the abundant argument and controversy that takes place at election time the representatives of ihe different groups in this chamber are not .-o very far apart after all. In trying to digest the Speech from the Throne and to assimilate the various subjects dealt with

there I have noted that a great many of these questions were embodied as planks in the Liberal platform some years ago, a fact which the right hon. leader of the opposition has pointed out. On the other hand the Minister of Justice, the leader of the House, has also pointed out very clearly that the same planks figured in the platform of the Conservative party in former years; and a number of them as I understand, appear as planks in the Progressive platform. So that on many questions I do not think we are very far apart, unless it be in regard to the tariff. As to the tariff I shall in a few moments, if the House will bear with me, express my views just as I expressed them consistently at meetings in my constituency and throughout my canvass during the recent election.

Reference has been made to the necessity for extending relief to the Maritime provinces. I am sure that every hon. member, no matter from what province he comes, will consider it his duty, consistent with regard for the interests of Canada as a whole, to do his best to help in the solution of the problems of that part of the country. Speaking personally I shall try to be sympathetic to the needs of every province in the Dominon having due regard to what is right and proper for the country as a whole and with every desire to avoid mere sectional legislation. Towards the question of the return of its natural resources to the province of Alberta, I shall be sympathetic, just as I should be with respect to the grievance of any other province. Reduction of taxation is an issue which must appeal to every hon. member, regardless of the party to which he belongs. The same may be said of a strong immigration policy.

Dealing now with the question of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, I should like to offer a few remarks about the present railway situation in this country. I am free to confess that I think very grave mistakes have been made by both the Liberal and the Conservative party in dealing with our transportation problems during the last twenty-five or thirty years. That will be admitted I am sure by all fair-minded people; though I am convinced that hon. gentlemen opposite have been greater sinners in this respect than hon. members on this side. But the records of the two old-time parties is not very creditable to either of them in this regard. We have subsidized railways; we have loaned railway corporations vast sums of money and given them immense land grants; we bolstered them up and carried them along until eventually the country was forced to take them over as bankrupt roads. I shall not dwell on this

JANUARY 20, 1926 j

The Address-Mr. Sanderson

subject further except to say that I consider the question of transportation, the question of our railways, to be of vital importance to the people of Canada to-day. Therefore I approach with an open mind the matter of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. If it can be proved that it is to the advantage of the western country that this road be completed, that it can be [DOT]financed within reasonable means without a vast outlay of money and that it is for the general benfit of the whole Dominion of Canada, I would be inclined to support it. I want to obtain all the information I can on this question; I want to study it as thoroughly as I can, so that I shall be able to give an intelligent vote upon it, when it comes before the House. *

Several other paragraphs appear in the Speech from the Throne, but other hon. members know more about them than I do. They have been fairly threshed out in the debate so far, and I am not going to dwell on them further except to discuss the question of the tariff. In Ontario, especially in the western part from which I come, the main issue of the last election was the tariff. In my observations of politics, politicians, candidates, members of parliament and governments, I have come to the conclusion that the tariff has been more or less of a political football between the two old parties for a good many years. I have always thought and I still believe the basic industry of the Dominion of Canada is agriculture, and the products of the mines, the forests, and the fisheries. Build up your agricultural industry; introduce legislation to benefit the farmers, and the manufacturers will not have to wait very long for increased business. If you increase your exports of natural products to other countries, as we are increasing them and as, I hope, they will continue to increase, automatically the manufacturers, and indeed the whole country, will benefit.

The matter of an advisory tariff board was an issue in my constituency during the recent election, and I took the stand on all occasions that I was in favour of such a board. As far as possible the tariff should be taken out of politics and administered by a board of experts, men trained along that line. Some hon. member mentioned during this debate that he thought an advisory tariff board should scientifically adjust the tariff. I do not like that word "scientifically." The tariff, if it is to be adjusted, should be adjusted in a fair, equitable, honest way, not for one particular class or section, but for the benefit of the masses of the people of Canada. The

trouble in Ontario was that the cities and towns were stampeded by the tariff issue.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 20, 1926

Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):

Mr. Speaker, I crave that indulgence on the part of my fellow members which I know is always extended to a new and inexperienced member. Let me say at the outset that I am a Liberal representative from the province of Ontario. There are not very many of us here, but though few in numbers we are united.

The Address-Mr. Sanderson

May I, Sir, be permitted to extend to you my congratulations on your re-election to the high and honourable position of Speaker in a second parliament? It is always a great privilege and a great distinction to be elected as Speaker of the House; it is a much greater honour to be so recognized a second time. I also wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Elliott) and the seconder (Mr. Lacombe) of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne upon the able manner in which they discharged the duty assigned to them.

I have, Sir, another very pleasing duty to perform, and I consider that if I did not do so at the very earliest opportunity I should not be doing my duty to the riding of South Perth which I have the honour to represent. 1 want to pay a sincere tribute to the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). I am in the unique position of having known the right hon. gentleman perhaps longer than any other member of this chamber. We were both born in South Perth, we were both educated and brought up as boys in the town of St. Marys where I reside; and despite the fact that I cannot follow the right hon. gentleman politically I have the highest regard for his honour, his integrity, and his industry. I sincerely believe that in all the positions he has held in this Dominion, from that of Prime Minister down, he has in carrying out the responsiblities of office acted conscientiously and in accordance with the light as he saw it. I am going to add-this is not an unkind remark, and I should not wish it to be so construed-that the worst I can hope for him is that he will continue to be the right hon. leader of the opposition for three or four years longer if at all possible.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink