Edmond Baird RYCKMAN

RYCKMAN, The Hon. Edmond Baird, P.C., K.C., B.A., M.A., LL.B.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Toronto East (Ontario)
Birth Date
April 15, 1866
Deceased Date
January 11, 1934
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Baird_Ryckman
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=f33a161e-9b39-479e-aac0-a821d3eae7b1&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister, lawyer

Parliamentary Career

December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
CON
  Toronto East (Ontario)
October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
CON
  Toronto East (Ontario)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
CON
  Toronto East (Ontario)
  • Minister of Public Works (July 13, 1926 - September 24, 1926)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
CON
  Toronto East (Ontario)
  • Minister of National Revenue (August 7, 1930 - December 1, 1933)
August 25, 1930 - January 11, 1934
CON
  Toronto East (Ontario)
  • Minister of National Revenue (August 7, 1930 - December 1, 1933)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 241 of 242)


March 28, 1922

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I was paired with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Motion (Mr. Fielding) agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.

At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair and the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   SUPPLY-AMENDMENT
Full View Permalink

March 21, 1922

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I would say that the majority of them are; and please God, in view of the information that was given to this House by the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), they are going to be protected. And the farmers are going to be protected; and the duties that are now levied not only on the goods that the farmers need, but on the goods that they sell, will, I trust, be maintained.

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

March 21, 1922

Mr. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):

Mr. Speaker, I humbly bespeak your kind indulgence and that of hon. members on this my first attempt to address the House. I desire, in the first place, to associate myself with the many happy and hearty felicitations which have flowed to you, in a full tide, from all parts of the Chamber. I have had, as you may not be aware, Sir, opportunities of knowing the high standard of man-in point of ability, experience, dignity and renown-that we have in the present occupant of the Chair of this House. I think, however, Mr. Speaker, there is one fact, and a most important one, that has not yet been offered to the House, and which should have been mentioned in connection with your elevation to the high position that you occupy. If is a great satisfaction to us to know that we have occupying the Chair a man of dignity and of Parliamentary lore, one who will justly decide in all matters that come up for decision as between opposing parties in this House; but we have here the largest legislative chamber of the land, filled from time to time with distinguished men, and fair women who are visitors to it, and to me-I say it earnestly-it is a great source of gratification that we have presiding over our deliberations the handsomest and the most imposing figure in this whole House.

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

March 21, 1922

Mr. RYCKMAN:

How are you going to protect the farmer? My answer is that the farmer's condition-I will not put it any stronger-is no worse than that of any other class. I believe that the condition of the farmer will be made better by such a tariff as has been suggested to us by the Minister of Justice, the Laurier-Field-ing tariff. That is my view, I hold it sincerely, and I am prepared to give reasons for it. However, I do not wish to debate this particular question. We shall have abundant time before the session is over to go into all the details bearing upon it. If the hardships which my hon. friends complain of were peculiar to themselves, that might be a consideration that would call for immediate redress. But that is not the case. The general manager of one of our well known banks has said that if any manufacturer gave him a financial statement for the year 1921 showing that he had made a profit, that was the statement he would scrutinize, because he believed to begin with, that such a statement could not be true. There are therefore, Mr. Speaker, others who are in the same deplorable position in which the Progressives and their constituents find themselves. And is it not natural? Is there any other country in the world where the condition

The Address

of the farmers is any better than it is in

Canada?

I spent four months last year in England and Scotland and hon. members may be interested to learn that some of the farmers there were declaring they would not raise any more grain crops because of the then state of the market-which was worse, I believe, than it is now-they could not afford to do so. Do not let our farmers, whose condition I sincerely deplore, remain under the impression that the deflation in the prices of farm products is pinching them alone.

The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said: Find the farmers prosperous and you find the manufacturers, the merchants, and all other classes in the community prosperous. I am not disposed to dissent from that statement, but I am not sure, to put it no stronger, that the hon. member has got the various classes in their right economic order. The prairie farmers might find their fields "whitening unto the harvest," our friends in Prince Edward Island might find their potato hills bursting with a bountiful crop, but unless there was the market provided by the merchants, the manufacturers, and the professional men of the country to pay for that abundant harvest, I submit we would have hard times. I can assure the House beyond a question of doubt that when certain manufacturers, whose cost systems told them the truth, were aware that every single day their wheels turned they were making a loss, they kept their men on that they and their families might be supplied with bread, for those manufacturers were determined that the depressing line of the unemployed, so fearful to see, should not be lengthened if they could help it.

The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) remarked on what part of the customs tariff levied on imports

9 p.m. reached the treasury and was available to meet our national expenditure. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that one hon. member of the Progressive party, a clergyman, in addressing audiences throughout his riding specially emphasized the fact that one-half of all the money received in customs duties was absorbed in the expense of collection. That . statement, of course, was very effective.

I heard that another hon. member addressed his constituents to the same effect. Thus we know of at least three hon. members, each in different provinces, making this mischievous statement. I do not suggest for a moment that they knew it was

utterly untrue, but the damage was done. But I am satisfied that this pernicious statement with a loading of about nine hundred and fifty per cent above the facts, went broadcast throughout the country. When it was made in the House I knew it was incorrect, and I thought it would be challenged, but there it appears on the pages of Hansard, and if those pages come into the hands of any one who does not see the contradiction, because it was not made until a couple of days later, the damage will be still greater. Therefore, I submit for the consideration of my Progressive friends that wherever that statement has been made, wherever it has done its deadly work-and I do not wish to use too hard an expression-it is in the interests of good government that it should be forever killed.

I have enjoyed this debate exceedingly, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to claim any undue merit for my regular attendance, but I have been in my seat during the greater part of the debate. What has fallen from the lips of hon. members has always been illuminating, informative, or entertaining. I find satisfaction in disagreeing with some speakers. 1 find satisfaction in agreeing with others. But one hon. member gave me the greatest satisfaction, although he whs also the dispenser of keen disappointment and distress. I will explain what I mean. I did not return from abroad until October and had no intention of participating in the election campaign, but later on I was asked, under special circumstances, to accept the Conservative nomination for the constituency which I have the honour now to represent. When the platform that had been propounded by the Liberal party, accompanied by the pledge to put it into effect at the earliest opportunity, was read at my nomination meeting, a contra-statement was made that that platform would give place to the Laurier-Fielding tariff. I could not believe that at the time, because I relied upon the honourable men who had pledged their word to put this platform into effect as the platform of the Liberal party if returned to power. During the campaign I asked a well-known manufacturer for the privilege of addressing his employees during the noon hour. He replied, "I am not going to allow you to address them, and, furthermore I am not going to vote for you. You think you are going to have this tariff that is given us in the Liberal platform. Well, I have just returned from Montreal, and I may tell you we are not

The Address

going to have anything of the kind." If necessary I can give the name of that manufacturer, and as I had a witness with me I can substantiate the statement made. Although that manufacturer said: "We are going to have the Laurier-Fielding tariff," still in my ignorance and confidence I continued during my campaign to discuss the respective tariff platforms of the Can-servative, Liberal, and Progressive parties. I heard it constantly stated during the campaign: "Do not concern yourself about the Liberal tariff policy; you will not be troubled about it if the Liberals are the largest group returned and have the making of the tariff." I came to this House, therefore, in some doubt as to what was going to happen, particularly in view of the solemn declaration of the Liberal convention, accompanied by a pledge to put that declaration into effect. I observed my honoured le-ader wrap up the Liberal party in their platform and their pledge as in a shroud and hand it to the undertaker. Surely, I thought, this is mistaken tactics. You are defying the Liberal party to put their platform into effect. You are reading what has been said in the province of Quebec. You are giving the stand1 that has been taken by some members of the party with regard to the fiscal policy of the country, and you are defying them to carry out their pledges. I thought that was a mistake. I said in my own mind: Why not let them escape from their platform and their pledge if they want to do so, because if they did fail to carry out their promise it would be in the interests of the country? Why not let them? Why gird at them so that they will carry it into effect? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the putting into effect of that platform as the policy of this country would bring about the crisis to which my right bon. leader referred as well as the crisis to which the Minister of Justice referred. I do not think, however, that such a deplorable crisis would bring about just the results pictured by the Minister of Justice.

Following the speech of my leader, I listened to the hon. First Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He made use of his little simile, and he told us that we should not take campaign pledges seriously-which was new light for me. He also said that he had stated his intention of surrounding himself with leading members of the party and of accepting their advice as to what he should do with regard to carrying out the Liberal platform. He read the speech that

he made during the Liberal convention after that platform had been laid down, and he had been chosen as leader of the Liberal party. I ask hon. members to refer to page 49 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister quotes the speech he made on that occasion, and ask themselves whether any high school boy or girl could attach to what he said during the course of that speech- it is found on page 199 of the proceedings of the Liberal convention-any other meaning than that which his words obviously implied,

"press on from this moment

for

greater righteousness

till we have

reached the goal where the principles and policies laid down on this historic occasion will have become, through legislation, part of the law of our land". Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. First Minister was playing with the issue,-as was the case before the 6th of December. I thought we should find out how this matter stands when the legislation is brought down, and not before; that if we were not to know where we stood in relation to the tariff until the tariff proposals were presented, we would at least know then. But to my great joy-and I cannot too much emphasize my feelings in this respect-the Minister of Justice, in his very notable speech and in language which no one could misunderstand-in terms lucid and convincing-said: "My views

have never changed during the lest twenty-five years. For fifteen years I have followed, approved, endorsed the Laurier-Fielding tariff. I have advocated that tariff in the province of Quebec; I have advocated it in the city of Quebec. At a gathering held in that city the right hon. leader of the Opposition was present and applauded my declaration with regard to the tariff. I am in favour of the Laurier-Fielding tariff". .

My hat was in the air, Mr. Speaker, I came to this House in some doubt and apprehension with regard to the future fiscal policy of this country. But, knowing as I do what the Laurier-Fielding tariff is,

I am no longer in uncertainty with regard to the tariff question. My hat is in the air; if I had three hats they would all be in the air, one hanging on each of the clocks in the Chamber, to emphasize the triumphant nature of my feelings upon learning that from this time forth we are to have the. Laurier-Fielding tariff as the tariff policy of this country. Do not misunderstand me;

I am not forgetting that the Minister of Justice said "with such modifications as exigencies might demand". But I rejoice

The Address

in the intimation>-and I believe this country rejoices in it-that we are to have the Laurier-Fielding tariff.

What was the policy of our party in the last election? What did we say was the most important issue, the one with which we were most deeply concerned? We said that a proper tariff policy was essential to the well-being of the nation; that we should have such a customs tariff as we have had. Regardless of varying political conditions I say that the principle of the tariffs we have had from 1896 up to the present time is satisfactory to the party which I have the honour to support in this House.

Then who won the election in that event? What policy prevailed? Was it the policy of the Liberal party propounded in convention after the deliberations of the thousand or more who, I am told, were gathered there? No, Mr. Speaker, it was the policy demanded by the people of this country that we must have in this Canada of ours, for the benefit of farmers, merchants, manufacturers, the professional classes and of all who enjoy the privilege of living in this country, a protective tariff. That question reminds me of that other one, who won the war? In the United States -and I have had a very considerable amount of business with the United States government in the last three years-it is claimed openly by executive officers that the war was won by that nation which, as a matter of fact, after having propounded and put into effect a policy of neutrality, delayed for over two years until April, 1917, before coming into the war. Yet they say that they won the war. Well, let them claim that, and let any party which announced that it was in favour of the Laurier-Fielding tariff, and that it would put it into effect, claim that it won the election, but, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the election was won by those people throughout the country who believed, as the Conservative party did, that a protective tariff was necessary for Canada. Am I sure yet that we have the Laurier-Fielding tariff? Yes, I think I am. The Minister of Justice has said so, and he is beyond question an important member of the administration. I am also aware of what is the effect of British parliamentary .practice in a case of this kind, and that if any other members of the administration should insist now that we must have something other than the Laurier-Fielding tariff, then in accordance with parliamentary practice we must have the resignation

of the Minister of Justice. I have therefore unalloyed satisfaction in the effect of his declaration.

If some may say, " Oh, but your leader was unhorsed," I admit that, but if our leader was unhorsed, we will leave our friends of the other side to play with their broken toys and their broken pledges, because we on this side had a definite policy Which we believed would make for the prosperity of this country.

I was greatly disappointed with another part of the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. In my opinion he has been the first in this Parliament to set province against province. His speech is about five-and-a-half columns long in Hansard; I have read it very, very carefully, and nobody can tell me after reading that speech that it was prepared with any other-idea in view than the winging of the two arrows which are launched in its last paragraphs. My hon. friend, in solemn tones of injured innocence, appealed to this House. He said that there had been a crisis, that he had not said any more than the right hon. leader of the Opposition had said, that his aim was to serve the country, that the crisis had been averted by the return of the Liberal party to power, that we should recognize that, and that we had an opportunity to learn now that we were in opposition. Then comes the statement that the attitude taken by my right hon. leader was inspired by bitterness against the province of Quebec. Now I submit to the members of this House that there was not one line, one word, or one syllable, uttered by my right hon. leader that was charged in any degree with bitterness against the province of Quebec. Then, in his next paragraph, the Minister of Justice refers to the allegation that he was the master of this administration, and after supporting that allegation by making a statement as to the tariff policy of this country-that declaration did not come from the First Minister, from whom it might very properly have come, nor from the Minister of Finance, in whose department it was, but from the Minister of Justice-he says that my right hon. leader desired "to accentuate the unfortunate differences which have existed between certain provinces."

Mr. Speaker, this is an old, old game, and a wretched game it is. I do not believe that the Minister of Justice desired to set any such ball rolling, because, wljile he may have done what was done with intention, I do not believe he had any idea that what he said would be taken in the way

The Address

it has been, or that it would have the results that have flowed from it. What do we find? The word the Minister of Justice used was "bitterness." That is immediately translated into "hatred" by the newspapers, but I shall refer to that later on. Out of a clear sky, without any provocation whatever, we have the allegation that province is being set against province, and that it is the desire of the leader of an important party in this House to accentuate the differences that exist between the provinces. I say that it is an old, old game. The kick-off was with the Minister of Justice. Then the ball was passed to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). What did he say? He said, "Beneath the surface there is an indication of a desire on the part of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition to resuscitate the old sectional feeling," and the matter is enlarged upon there. I submit that my hon. friend had no justification for including that in his remarks. It was wholly amongst the disjecta membra of his address, and he might just as well, and I say it with all respect, have said, "Hon. members, onions do not agree with my digestion," but from a full heart, anxious to keep the ball rolling, he says, "Beneath the surface"-and all things that are beneath the surface are not above board and honourable-"beneath the surface there is an indication of a desire on the part of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition to resuscitate the old sectional feeling."

Why is this matter introduced into this debate? Why does it come from the Government side? Why is it impressed upon us, why does it become important and why has it been referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite ever since the incident in question? The member for one of the Montreal constituencies, in a perfectly frank speech- and I took pleasure in the sincerity of his remarks-referring to this matter asked: Why all this bitter hatred? I submit it is for a malign purpose-to solidify the people of the province of Quebec against my right hon. leader. It has a pernicious effect, it is wholly undesirable, there is no occasion for it and how is expression to be given to the much desired spirit of unity after such an unwarranted attack? How did this movement begin? One of the newspapers translated the incident: "Hatred of Quebec inspires Meig'hen's attack, Sir Lomer says." This appeared with different transpositions in different newspapers, but

conveying the same meaning. Sir

19J

Loimer Goum, a taost important figure, in the province of Quebec, is now the Minister of Justice. All honour and respect to him; he has attained his high position through the good will of his countrymen. But what do we find? An attack is made by him which is translated and given cur. rency in the province of Quebec the result of which can only be construed-if they take the Minister of Justice at his word and the public of Quebec do that-as an attack made upon my leader. Now, Mr. Speaker, to say there has been such an attack is most unjust. Let me put the matter this way: Suppose the situation were reversed, that an unsupported and unjustified attack had been made by Sir Lomer Gouin upon the leader of the Opposition, and that tha story came out in the newspapers of Ontario headed " Hatred of Ontario inspires Sir Lomer Gouin's attack, the right hon. Arthur Meighen says." What would have been the effect throughout Ontario? Would such a procedure as that tend to develop amity and good will? Would it tend to enlarge the esteem in which the Minister of Justice is at present held in the province of Ontario? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would not. I want to see-and this is my humble contribution to the debate- banished once and for all from this House, and banished from the newspapers that report the proceedings of this House, this serpent of discord and all its slimy trails.

I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker, with all the earnestness that I can command: The members of this hon. House

should decide that any imputation against a province, or any imputation against the members of a province as a whole, should be forever forbidden and never allowed to occur. Sir, I was born in the province of Quebec. My mother was born in that province, I have lived there myself and an important section of my family still lives in Quebec and enjoys the blessings which obtain there. I have important interests in that province, and there is no blessing that could come to Quebec that I would for . one moment withhold. If you will allow me a personal allusion I can never forget the feeling akin to worship which enters my soul when I am in the presence of the mighty St. Lawrence. Such is the spirit which seems to breathe over all its waters that I can well understand how the ancients worshipped their river gods. I regard the province of Quebec with all affection and would deny it no reasonable demand. I moved to the city of Toronto and have lived there for nearly thirty-five years. I know

The Address

the fair-mindedness of its people. I know there is no section which would seek to deny the province of Quebec anything it is entitled to. There might be a few persons of altered mentality who might desire to say something derogatory of the province of Quebec or of any other province but there is no section of the community in which I live, or of the province of Ontario as I know it, that would for one moment withhold from the province of Quebec anything that it is entitled to. On the other hand, I believe there is no important section of public opinion in the province of Quebec that would withhold from the province, of Ontario what it is entitled to.

But what do we find? We come to Ottawa and at first we find everything agreeable but before long within the precincts of this House we hear enunciated this idea of hatred. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of members of this House, if they wish to serve the cause of their common Canadian patriotism, to see that an end is put to that kind of thing. As far as my race is concerned I am five generations Canadian. As regards my religion I will admit that I ought to have more of it but I am of a different creed from that declared by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) this afternoon. If there are policies or principles or individuals to be attacked here let them be attacked and if they cannot defend themselves or give as good as they receive, let them suffer the consequences but surely attacks should not_ be made upon any part of tKe common patriotism of this country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared that love is better than hate. He sat for years in this House and knew the spirit that at times invaded it and in these words he has left his condemnation of that very spirit. I am willing to co-operate with other members of the House in doing my level best to see that the spirit complained of shall be forever exorcised.

There are rules of the House which are in the interest of decorum and the maintenance of the amenities of debate which require that no aspersion shall be cast by one member upon his fellow inembers. If a member offends in this particular, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we put him in a room by himself. This is merely an idea that I have in my own heart, and I say that no member should be permitted to speak disrespectfully of any province, or the people of any province as a whole. I submit if there was some amendment to the Rules of the House carrying into effect that idea, the legislation of this Fourteenth

parliament would advance the interests of this country beyond anything that we now imagine.

As far as I am concerned, let me say that I have no other interest than that of my country, Canada. My constituency is East Toronto. I know that it is a legal fiction that when a member is elected for a constituency he becomes, ipso facto, a representative of the whole country, and that he is not allowed to advance something which means the benefit of his own constituency or his own province, if it does not run on all fours with the betterment of the whole country. With that feeling, I want to say that I intend to attend the sessions of this House. I have no other occupation at the present time, and no business that calls me specially away from here prevents me giving my full attention to the sessions of this House. If any member of the House thinks that I, in my humble capacity, can do anything to advance the interests of any portion of this Dominion, or to improve the condition of the people of any part of Canada, I say right now as emphatically as I can, that I am at the service of that hon. gentleman. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this unity, this prosperity which we are sure Canada is entitled to, and which the future will give it, can only be obtained if we, once and for all, really strive to become a united band, with no other object than the advancement of our country.

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

March 21, 1922

Mr. RYCKMAN:

I did not intend to take any part in this debate, I had thought that the untutored children of the House should be seen and for the most part not heard; but it seems, from what has fallen from other speakers, that there is a necessity which impels me to make a few remarks and I promise hon. members that I shall not detain them long.

In the subjects which have been adumbrated in the Speech from the Throne there are a number of matters which are to come up for deliberation and decision later on. The only criticism that I have to make in that connection is that in the Speech there was very little that was explicit, and in the speeches that we have heard from members of the Government or their followers there has not been any attempt to give us any more information, if I except one speech which was made by a certain hon. and learned member. I do not know, Sir, that any votes are changed by what may take place in the debate on the Address; I do not know that any opinions

The Address

are altered. I do know, however, that the meeting of Parliament is a costly business, and I do know that when the clocks of this Chamber, and there are three of them, are ticking out the seconds of time they are also ticking in measures of dollars and cents. And if I may be permitted to offer an observation I would say that I think the factor of expense in connection with this House may be taken as three; when we consider that there are three clocks in the Chamber and all through ink bottles, mucilage pots and other requisites supplied to members, I observe the factor of three. I do not know that anyone can say that I am especially niggardly; I do not know that anyone will suggest that I want to practise an economy that I would not ask any one else to practise; but it does seem to me, as an observation that perhaps may not be lost sight of, that it would be well now when we have this new, clean, economical Government in power that there shall be an effort made to practise that economy which must be generally observed throughout the country. I intend, therefore, to trespass as little as I can upon the time and add as little as I can to the expense of this House.

I have been greatly interested in the illuminating and interesting addresses that we have heard from all quarters of the Chamber. One hon. member made a remark which seemed to strike me as appropriate- that seeing so many of us were here as strangers we should declare our environment, because a man, whether he will or not, is largely controlled by the environment in which he finds himself. Well, Mr. Speaker, I come from the little heard cf and much admired city of Toronto. Let me say that I am proud to be a representative of that city. I am proud that we have one united band from Toronto. In that respect we are on all fours with the province of Quebec; and as the representation of the province of Quebec in this Parliament, under the British North America Act, is limited to sixty-five members and as we from the growing city of Toronto are nine and soon to become, I hope, ninety-nine, it will not be long before the province of Quebec and the city of Toronto in their respective units will go hand in hand. I represent in particular the constituency of East Toronto. It is a constituency of about 50,000 voters and contains 200 manufacturing establishments more or less and of more or less importance. As I say we are a happy band of nine. I might say-since his name has been mentioned since I have risen

to my feet-that the Dean of our Brotherhood is the member for North Toronto, ex-Mayor Thomas Church, or as he is more familiarly known, Tommy Church. Some members of the House have been pleased to cast some aspersions upon him but just let me say this, and say it as quickly as I can: I have not been particularly associated with him but I know of him and I know what he has done for the city of Toronto. I know that he has been elected mayor seven times; I know that his majority on the last occasion was practically as great as he ever had before and would have been greater if it had not been for the fact that everybody knew he would be elected. I know that the reason he was held in such high esteem by his fellow citizens of Toronto was two-fold: first, that the man was absolutely honest, and second that he had nQ other idea than service. In the next place, let me tell hon. gentlemen that he retired, I suppose, because he got tired of the position, and for no other reason. He could have Ibeen elected seven times more, for the reasons I have stated1. That is one instance. Then there is another incident- and I know this for a fact; I put it to my hon. friends from the city of Montreal, who know something about the cost of elections, and I can say something myself upon that point. Before one of these elections a man approached the member for North Toronto and offered him $500 towards his election expenses, a perfectly proper transaction under the circumstances. I had nothing to do with it, and I am not seeking to justify anything in which this gentleman was concerned. He said to this man, "Never mind, old man, keep your money, I do not want it."' We have the further fact, Toronto did its duty in sending soldiers to the front. Never did a body of soldiers leave Toronto without the "Godspeed" of the member for North Toronto. There never was a train load of soldiers in health, maimed or wounded who returned to Toronto, no matter what hour of the day cr night, who were not greeted by the Mayor of Toronto. Now, when I find an hon. gentleman who says there is no infamy in offering himself as the candidate of a party which has professed before all the world, and pledged itself to carry out, a certain line of policy, the exact opposite of the policy to which the hon. gentleman is pledged, and to which he pledged himself anew last night, throwing stones at the hon. member for North Toronto, I say, Mr. Speaker, let him gather

The Address

his sticks and stones and continue to throw them.

I believe in a protective tariff. I am a man of good faith. I desire nothing but what is in the interests of this country, and I am satisfied that the people whom I represent desire nothing but what may be for the good of all. Strongly as I desire a customs tariff, I am just as strongly opposed to any privileged class. I believe that the tariff which this country has had benefits the farmer, the merchant and the manufacturer, and I can only say, Mr. Speaker, in reference to that immense sum of seventeen hundred million dbllars, or more than one-half the total indebtedness of this Canada, of excess purchases abroad in the last five years, if the manufacturers, the merchants and the farmers had saved of that sum what they could for the benefit of Canada, we would not have found so great a state of depression as we have now, nor such untoward circumstances among the farmers, and the manufacturers of this country. I do not intend to argue this case now.

The matter of exchange troubles me very, very much. To be sure, it is not now at about 20 per cent, as it once stood. I believe, however, it is on the upward swing again and that it is in the interests of all parties in this House, especially of my hon. friends the Progressives, that this should not be so. What in the world would happen to the value of the Canadian dollar, in which we naturally feel immense pride, if the purchases that are made now outside of this country were increased to a very substantial amount?

I have an easy way, although I will admit that it is not an absolute and conclusive way, of testing this question of tariff for myself. All the nations of the world that have any pretence whatever to commercial status have a protective tariff. Not one single commercial nation of importance on earth has anything else but a customs tariff. Many of those nations have a tariff that is higher than ours. Many of those nations since the war, in order to benefit themselves, and build up, as they in their wisdom think, their national prosperity, have increased their tariffs, and the only place that I know of where there is any body of opinion that is against the maintenance of a customs tariff is in a section of the United States and of Canada. I cannot believe, for one moment, that all the world is wrong, and that this body of opinion is right. It is

the safest course when you are in doubt

and I believe many of my hon. friends are in doubt-to do as others do. I admit it is not absolutely conclusive, but I cannot help thinking of something that occurred here a few years ago. There was a case before the Supreme Court of Canada. Sir Henry Strong, a man of marked peculiarities, but yet a most eminent jurist, was the presiding judge. Opposing counsel was arguing a branch of his case, when he was interrupted by the Chief Justice who said " Stop a moment, stop a moment, Mr. T" - who is living to-day - "Don't pursue that branch of your argument further. Your argument must be unsound, Mr. T. If I had a mind that wanted to think that way, I would not let it do so, because the Law Lords in England have unanimously decided the other way." Before my hon. friends the Progressives impose upon this House their will as to free trade or as to a low tariff, I want to ask this House, what nation upon this globe has a tariff such as they propose?

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