House of Commons Debates February 6, 1928

Description
Créateurs
Macphail, Agnes Campbell, Author
Simpson, George
, Editor
Médias
Text
Type d'élément
Documents
Description
Agnes Macphail (Southeast Grey) on a variety of subjects that make up her political platform, including poverty, prison reform, women's legal rights, Canada's involvement with the League of Nations, employment, and immigration
Notes
[p. 225 reference to Ponsonby's book correlates with the Dear Friends letter written February 24, 1927]
Inscriptions
Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey) : I consider it something of a hardship to follow the very brilliant young member from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). We come again to the consideration of the speech from the throne, a speech which I feel sure was evolved in cabinet council, a speech that was written, I feel equally sure, by the first minister, and a speech that has been read to the assembled commoners and senators by His Excellency the Governor General. In view of the whole matter it is not surprising that when we return to the House of Commons on the day following the formal opening we find the supporters of the administration rising in their places and saying that it is a very good speech. One would hardly under the circumstances expect them to say anything else. However, after reading the speech very carefully I think myself it is an exceedingly clever speech—how adroitly it says nothing at all! I should not want to fail to congratulate the mover of the address (Mr. Usley) on the very excellent speech he made; I most heartily congratulate him. And as for the seconder, my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr.Beau-bien); he is so delightful that one can forgive him much, and when one remembers that he was elected as an independent in 1921 and in 1928 we find him seconding the motion which embodies the scant legislative program of one of the major parties in the house, I feel he needs much forgiveness.
Mr. BEAUBIEN: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the hon. member not vote on previous occasions for addresses in reply to speeches from the throne without having had anything to do with the preparation of them?
Miss MACPHAIL: Yes, but I did not second them. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Mackenzie), who spoke this afternoon, said: "The poor we have with us always." I think he was smugly complacent. He reminded me of an anti-Baptist minister who took as his text, " Beware of divers." The member for Assiniboia lifted the text completely outside the content in order to condone a very iniquitous system. I wonder if he would like to hear some other quotations. I think he would enjoy this: "What mean ye that ye grind the faces of the poor?" " The instruments of the churl are evil." " He deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right." "He who mocketh the poor reproacheth his maker." " Inasmuch as ye have not done it unto the least of these, ye have not done it unto me." "Depart ye unto outer darkness." I think that might be a word of warning to the Liberal party, that unless they realize that the elimination of poverty of the masses is the work of government, the outer darkness of opposition awaits them.
In the many speeches made on the address in reply to the speech from the throne much has been said about prosperity. I do not consider that adding 'to the wealth of the wealthy should be called, from a national point of view, prosperity. I think it is as true as when the words were spoken by John Bright to the British government that " the nation of every country dwells in the cottage, and unless the excellence of your statesmanship is impressed there on the feelings and conditions of the people, rely upon it you have yet to learn the art of government." I am glad to admit that conditions in rural Canada and in the homes of the industrial workers are slightly better than they were five years ago, but prosperity as it is understood in this house is unknown to our people. I had the privilege, and I consider it a very great privilege, of visiting last summer very many rural homes in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I certainly did not find in those homes the prosperity that I read about in the speech from the throne. I found people struggling to meet debt, and worrying over taxes and meeting the payment of their mortgages. I thought the conditions were particularly bad in the province of Manitoba. I believe it was said by some member this afternoon that they no longer grew grain in Manitoba. Well, I think that was true this year. I was thinking that the people who are in that province, when they read the speech from the throne and read the speeches that were made about it, will be amazed to learn that this long looked for prosperity has arrived. I am sure that from the feel of their pocket-book they will not know it has arrived. I visited the area between Sperling and Carman, a very wealthy part of Manitoba. I talked to people who went out there many years ago, relatives of my own, and I was told by them and by their neighbours that not more than three people in that community would be able to pay their taxes this year. I would not call that prosperity. I think one would be safe in saying that not ten per cent of the homes in rural Canada have running water, a bathroom, electric light, and the labour saving devices which the development of power makes possible. I think it is true, and I believe everyone in this house who is familiar with rural conditions will agree, there is too
[Page break]
little comfort and beauty in our rural homes. I think too that the people in those rural homes are rebelling against that condition. I want now to quote very briefly from Means and Methods of Agricultural Education, by Professor Leake, as follows:
Sometimes the drudgery of the farm is endured by the mother uncomplainingly, or even contentedly; but the daughter recoils from it with a growing discontent.
A little later he says:
The great problem, how to keep the boy on the farm, is troubling many, but it would become much less a problem if we could devise ways and means of keeping the girl on the farm. The girls are even more dissatisfied with farm life than the boys, and are leaving in greater numbers. The lessened proportion of women in the country homes of Canada was one of the startling surprises of the last census.
I do not consider that we can boast of our prosperity until that prosperity has reached the homes of the mass of the people. I think it is quite likely that the prosperity that has undoubtedly arrived in certain classes and sections of Canada will continue and will increase, until possibly it reaches boom dimensions, and will be followed by a crash or a long depression comparable to the one out of which we are just emerging. What is the government doing toward determining the cause?
I read with very great interest most, if not all, of the very delightful book which was published and sent to us by the Department of Trade and Commerce, entitled "Diamond Jubilee of the Confederation of Canada: Sixty Years of Canadian Progress." On page 60 of this work I find that the estimated gross agricultural wealth of Canada is $7,508,257,000, and the annual production on that investment is $1,600,000,000. On page 89 of the same volume I find that the total investment in the manufacturing industry is $3,808,282,981 and the annual production on that investment $2,948,545,315. These figures, in brief, mean that agriculture requires a $7 investment for $1 of production, and industry a $3 investment for little better than $2 of production. Under the circumstances we cannot wonder that we have ever with us the problem of rural depopulation. Other figures were given this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), which I need not repeat, showing that while farm lands fell $1 an acre between the years 1925 and 1926, industrial stocks and bonds doubled in value. With these facts clearly before us we can understand why it is that an intelligent and virile people are no longer willing to stay and slave under conditions which are not being remedied and with respect to which no real attempt at remedy is being made. The farmers of Canada are gradually learning that that industry which fails to assume responsibility for marketing its own productions arrives last in this race for the consumer's dollar. They are gradually—I think with increasing rapidity—remedying this by cooperative marketing. However, even though the farmers would market all their products co-operatively there still would rest upon their backs the great burden placed there partly through a bad distribution system of other commodities, and partly as a result of legislation passed by an organized minority for their own benefit.
One of the things to which I refer is the present Bank act. I notice in the Weekly News of February 3rd, printed in Winnipeg, that the Bank of Nova Scotia made a dividend this year of 16½ per cent, which seems a snug little dividend. The Canadian Bank of Commerce made a dividend of 12 per cent, with a bonus of one dollar.It was the same with other banks; evidently they are all making very great profits. Now there is a general feeling in farming districts that our banking system is not all it should be, and that some reform along the line-of setting up a bank of issue and rediscount should at once be instituted. The Canadian Council of Agriculture in April, 1927, passed a resolution to that effect, which I need not trouble the house to read.
Another thing with which the farmers are very familiar is the burden which is placed on them by the customs tariff. I feel it is true that the farmers all over Canada, regardless of the province in which they live, but particularly in certain provinces, are looking to the government this year to bring down a general and very considerable reduction of the customs duties on those things that go to make up the cost of living, on the necessities of life and on the implements of production. I see no excuse which will enable the government to escape this time. I am sure that if there is any, they will find it, but it does not appear to me that there is any way of escape for them. They used to say they did not know just what to reduce, because of the danger of hurting some very necessary industry; but with the sittings held by the tariff board, the very excellent work that is being done by that body and the great quantities of data now before the government on this question, I cannot for the life of me see how they are going to say that they cannot now scientifically reduce the tariff. Of course they have a majority and that to me is not a hopeful thing.
[Page break]
I want to speak of another matter. I am pleased to know that Canada has a non-permanent seat on the council of the League of Nations. I think we are all very glad of that. I think we feel that Canada can do a very great work for humanity by being on that council. I believe the term is three years, although I am not quite sure as to the period. I hope that Canada, as an autonomous nation, will take a strong stand on the principle of arbitration, and will express her willingness to sign arbitration treaties with as many countries as are willing to sign them with us. There is no reason in the world why we should not do it. I believe it would be appreciated by other dominions and indeed by a large section of the people in the motherland.
I noticed, and I daresay all the other members of the house noticed, a very interesting editorial published in the Citizen this morning with reference to the International Joint Commission. It pointed out that for sixteen years Canada and the United States have had a board of arbitration working, and working with very great success, composed of three members from each country and that when it sits in this country a Canadian presides and when it sits in the other country an American presides. It is an interesting fact that all the questions that have been referred to this commission have been settled by the unanimous consent of the board in a way that has been pleasing to both countries. This is something of which both Canada and the United States ought to be very proud, and something that, without boasting, we could make known to the world. One feels that a rather tense atmosphere has recently arisen between the United States and Great Britain, and this is something that we all very deeply regret. I quite understand that I am a very simple soul, but I can see no reason why a commission similar to this cannot be set up between Great Britain and the United States. Canada through her representative on the League of Nations should take a very strong stand against the international trade in arms and armaments. Somebody ought certainly to take a stand and there is no reason why we should not do so. I find in private life that people who stand around waiting for somebody else to give them a lead are mot of very great consequence. We should have initiative both as individuals and as a country, and through our representative on the League of Nations we should take a strong stand on questions on which we feel strongly. That this would be acceptable to at least some people and, I believe, to a large number of people in the motherland is quite clear from this quotation from Arthur Ponsonby's book "Now Is The Time" at page 82. He says:
Any disposition on the part of our dominions to refuse to join in these wars of European origin will be all to the good. The dead weight of a reasonable pacifism from that quarter might have a moderating effect on the home government.
He goes on to say things even more startling than that, but I will not take the time to read them to the house. I should like to draw the attention of our government to the fact that now in the quiet and sanity of peace time there are some things which we could do to show the world that we have definitely turned our backs upon old methods of settling international disputes. One is that the government should have full control of the manufacture of munitions. I see no reason why the manufacture of munitions which are designed to bring about the death of human beings should be in the hands of private individuals who can and who have used this power for private gain. Let us now make a law stating that, if the worst came to the worst at any time in the future and we must face war, all property will be administered by the state; that is, there would be a complete conscription of wealth. I feel this would have a moderating influence upon certain elements in Canada.
In this connection, while this may seem presumption on my part, I urge the government completely to divorce aviation, which is rapidly developing along civil lines, from the military department, and not only from the military department but from military personalities. It would seem reasonable that in the near future we should form a department of transportation which would include aviation along with railways and canals, and national highways, if we should ever have such a thing.
I should like respectfully to ask the government when they intend to change the administration of the penitentiaries so that prisoners will be given as much work as they can comfortably do in a day and will be paid a decent wage for that work. We have heard a great deal about this; the house carried the resolution some time ago—let us have the legislation. We should go further than this, because it is only one little step, as we so often say in this house, in the right direction. A real study should be made of crime; we are all coming to the place where we admit that crime is caused by ignorance, poverty, lack of culture, lack of happiness. There are many things about the prisoners that need study besides the one that I have mentioned. In our whole system of taking care of prisoners we should look to the good that
[Page break]
we can do to the prisoner while he is detained by the state, making him feel that the state is fair to him. That is why I want him to be paid a decent wage for his work, from which wage, of course, his keep must be deducted. We must never forget, too, that the family of the prisoner possibly suffers more than the prisoner himself, and when the prisoner comes out, there should be, shall we say, a fatherly hand of the government to guide that man into civil life, to re-establish him. So many of them when they first get out try for a few days or weeks to go in what we call a straight way, and not being able to do that they very soon revert to crime. Much could be done by the state to make these things better for the men and women.
My stand on immigration is exactly what it has always been since I came to this house, and that is that if we would turn our minds to remedying conditions in the primary industries in Canada and do less talking and less spending of money bringing in state-aided immigrants to this country, we would be getting further on the road we all want to travel. We should look to the quality rather than to the quantity of immigration that comes to Canada. Any immigration policy worthy of the name should hold sacred, first, the ultimate good of Canada and, second, the good of the immigrant. Sometimes I think the good of the immigrant is not very much considered, although I may be wrong in that. Particular care should be taken to guard immigrants who do not speak the English language against fraud on the part of our loyal citizens when those immigrants first arrive in this country. I have heard some amazing stories about what sometimes happens to non-English speaking immigrants when they first arrive in Canada and especially when they have some money. If we are going to have a stimulated immigration policy we might as well face the fact now as at any other time that we must inaugurate a policy of industrial or unemployment insurance. We simply cannot bring thousands of prospective settlers to this country letting them think we are going to take care of them and then not doing it when sickness or lack of employment or lack of warm clothing in our Canadian winter comes upon them. We must make up our minds one way or the other.
A week ago I was in the city of Windsor. I passed the factory of the General Motors, which was to be opened in a day or two but was not open at that time, and I saw actually hundreds of men standing in line waiting to see if they could get a job. I was with the librarian as we had come down to look through the library, and the reading rooms were not only comfortably filled but actually packed with men whom this tenderhearted woman said she could not turn out into the cold. There they were day after day as it was one warm place in the city of Windsor.
I hope during this session something will be done towards enabling married women to establish a legal domicile. This question has been debated in this house and as it was introduced by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) who, I believe, is a stepson of the government, I see no reason why they should not father his bill. The Canadian Council of Agriculture deals with the matter in this way:
Whereas the Canadian Council of Agriculture has for the past number of years passed resolutions asking that the inequality in our law as between men and women in the matter of domicile be removed.
Therefore be it resolved that we reaffirm our position on this question, and urge upon the Dominion government the enactment into law of Bill 111 introduced by W. J. Ward, M.P., Dauphin, enabling a woman for purposes of judicial separation or divorce to establish a legal domicile of her own.
I hope the government will look with very kind eyes upon this matter.
In closing, let me say that I am a member of an independent group. I am not interested in party politics; I am not interested in parties, although I must say in all fairness that I am very much interested in the people who compose, the parties. I am at all times ready, and indeed anxious, to support legislation which to my mind is beneficial to the constituency I have the honour to represent —I believe that is the correct form—and to the country as a whole. I want to help with legislation, but I can only help with it if the legislation is pleasing to the people who sent me here, and knowing what I do from six years in public life I fear that the legislative program of this session will not weary us too much. I do not believe that when you have a stable government—one with a very comfortable majority, you get good government. I may be wrong; I sometimes am, but I think not in this case, and so, having in power a stable government, one with a very comfortable majority, a majority that unfortunately has been added to by men who should have known better, I do not see how we can expect a legislative program that will be pleasing to our constituencies. But at least we are here to get for the common people of Canada the best that we can, and I am here sitting ready to be pleasantly surprised by the government.
Éditeur
King's Printer
Lieu de publication
Ottawa, On.
Date de l'original
1928
Date d'événement
February 6, 1928
Dimensions
Largeur: 25 cm
Hauteur: 16.6 cm
Sujet(s)
Economic policy
Emigration & immigration
Employment
Farmers
Political platforms
Prisons
Women
Identifiant local
987.14.96
Collection
South Grey Museum
Langage de l'élément
English
Couverture géographique
  • Ottawa
    Ontario, Canada
    Latitude: 45.4249616444433 Longitude: -75.7000064849854
Déclaration de droit d'auteur
Public domain: Copyright has expired according to Canadian law. No restrictions on use.
Date du droit d'auteur
1928
Détenteur du droit d'auteur
King's Printer
Détenteur du droit d'auteur - Coordonnées
Ottawa, On.
Conditions d'utilisation
Reproduction of digital objects is restricted to fair use for personal study or research, any other use must be done with permission of copyright holder.
Contacter
South Grey Museum
Powered by / Alimenté par VITA Toolkit
Privacy Policy