Mr. D. D. McKENZIE:

This morning I received from London this cablegram which I wish to read to the House:

London, March 3,

Surprised cable statement acting-Prime Minister. Every one here knows trade regulations discriminate against us as compared with the United States. I assert this positively.

(Signed) Macdonald.

This cable was sent to me by a former member of this House, Mr. E. M. Macdonald, who is well known to us all, and . I think it proper to bring it to the notice of the Acting Prime Minister.

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) I may say that we had been dealing with this matter upon newspaper reports. Last week, as I recently stated to the House, I despatched a cable to Sir George Perley, High Commis-

sioner for Canada, with the view of ascertaining the facts. I have not received a reply. When one comes to hand I shall make a further announcement to the House in respect to the subject. I observe from the cable which has been read to the House by my hon. friend, that surprise is expressed at the cabled statement of the Acting Prime Minister. My statement on Thursday of last week was. to this effect:

I have no official information in confirmation of the report, and I must take the liberty of doubting that Great Britain would discriminate against Canada in favour of the United States or of any other country.

In private communications that I have received from time to time from the Prime Minister, I have been made aware that representations were made by him and his colleagues, and by Messrs. Harris and Jones, to the departmental heads and to the chairmen of important committees, in respect to the matter of the removal of war restrictions upon trade Still existing. The restrictions referred to were general in their character. It has not been intimated to me in any of the correspondence which I have received that there has been any discrimination against Canada. I have had a good deal to do with the finance and trade of Great Britain connected with this country since the outbreak of the war. I have known of the great difficulties under which she has laboured and the situations with which she has been confronted from time to time, and I desire to say that 1 believe that to the utmost of her power she has endeavoured to assist Canada in her trade, and that in all matters connected with our commerce during the war her intentions towards us have been of the most friendly and generous character.

On the Orders of the Day:

Mr. MURPHY:

Might I ask the hon. the Acting Prime Minister a question? Correspondence has reached me, as I have no doubt it has reached other members of this House, from farmers in western Ontario and elsewhere, pointing out that seeding time is only about six weeks away and that they are confronted with a serious shortage of labour. Only to-day I received letters from points in western Ontario in which, among other things, I am given an instance of one man with 200 acres and his only son overseas, and of another man with 250 acres, one son at home and another son overseas. This condition prevails in different parts of the province as well as in other parts of Canada. I am requested to

ask the Government if some provision cannot be made to bring these farmers' sons home in time enough to take part iij putting in the next season's crop.

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Murphy), I may say what has already been said in this House in this debate, that every possible effort is being made by the Government to bring home, as speedily as possible, the Canadian Expeditionary force. I think that within the next few months very rapid progress will have been made-indeed, much more rapid than we and, I think, the people of this country, anticipated at the time of the signing of the armistice.

Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Laval-Two-Mountains) (Translation) (Resuming):

Mr

Speaker, before resuming my speech which was so fortunately interrupted, on Friday last, by the visit of the illustrious mutilated hero of the war of 1870, General Pau and the distinguished friends who accompanied him I deem it my duty to convey to you, Mr. Speaker and to my hon. colleagues to your right and to your left, the expression of my regret at having perhaps been unable to rise to the emergency and to show myself equal to the task imposed by the circumstances; but let me tell the House that what I said was prompted by the heart and the sincere and frank expression of my feelings. My words conveyed the sentiments of a loyal British citizen and betrayed the love of a descendant of old France for his ancient mother country. I am fully rewarded for it and I am glad to avail myself of the opportunity which is afforded me of conveying to and placing before the House the expression of the emotions stirred in General Pau's heart, on the occasion of his visit to this House, the other day.

Allow me now, Mr. Speaker, to read a letter which I have just received from this illustrious man whom the country is acclaiming to-day.

French Mission. French Republic.

Montreal, March 2, 1919.

J. A. C. Ethier, M.P.,

Ottawa.

Dear Sir,

Allow one to tell you how happy I felt, the other day, in hearing you, when, together with the Mission, I was granted the honour of the

sitting in the Federal Parliament. By good luck a French-speaking member was then addressing the House-

La Presse, of Montreal, in its issue o.f Saturday last, pointed out this very same circumstance.

-need I tell you how happy I felt in hearing our mother tongue echoing within the precincts of the House? Need I add how deeply moved I was by what you said with regard to me and respecting France? These are memories which will never be wiped out of our minds but will ever remain green in my heart and in the heart of my colleagues.

Believe me, Sir,

G. Pau.

There is nothing to add to such a letter and to the proof of esteem conveyed to me personally, Mr. Speaker; but my hon. colleagues are quite aware that those congratulations are a tribute paid not to myself but to all my colleagues.

When I had the honour of moving the adjournment of the debate, which is going on to-day with your leave, Mr. Speaker-and let me say, from the very outset, that I do highly appreciate the favour you conferred upon me in relaxing the Rules of the House and allowing me to resume the debate under such circumstances-I was dealing with prohibition. It is up to the Government to legislate on that question which is now being debated by the provincial assemblies, that of Quebec and the no less important one of Ontario. I hope that the Government, in approaching that question, will bear in mind the threat hurled across the line by Labour, which is spreading throughout Canada: "No beer, no coal." This is, a

pregnant argument, and I hope the Government will bear it in mind, in proper time and place.

Labour and reconstruction seem to preoccupy the mind of the Government; and yet those important questions do not receive the degree of consideration they are entitled to.

The honorable member from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) in the course of a few remarks more or less expedient which he made on Friday last, has taxed his ingenuity in order to represent my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) in the shape of a Bolshevik. In his opinion, the Russian (Soviets and Bolsheviks find in my hon. friend from Brome a zealous and doughty champion of their doctrine! He protested against the propagation and distribution of Bolshevik literature, without mentioning the names of those papers and while he was denouncing them, I wondered whether he had in mind the Orange Sentinel. I wondered if he meant the

Jack Canuck or the Calgary Eyeopener, which are protected by the Government and which are circulating under his paternal eye.

But employment must be found for the unemployed, we are told by the Government; public health has to be protected; reconstruction and the re-establishment of soldiers have to be provided for; and postwar problems must be solved. But what are you doing for the farmers? The tariff question is passed over in silence in the speech from the Throne. In his opinion, the tariff is a negligible quantity and you have but to do the bidding of the manufacturers and the capitalists and follow the lead of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt).

The other day, my hon. friend expressed a wish or rather suggested a compromise, in saying that he would be in favour of paying a bigger income tax. That is quite easy for him, as he derives his profits fiom the farmer, and so he will take in the pocket of the farmers the money he will pay to the Government.

In their recent Orders in Council, passed during recess, the Government have put the tractors on the free list. That is all very well but if the tractors are useful to the wealthy farmers of the West who can dispose of enough money to buy those implements, it is quite, quite another thing with the other provinces.

What does the farmer want now, if you really wish to protect him? Put not only farming implements on the free list but also raw material.

An bon. MEMBER: Take off the duty off ploughs.

Mr. ETHIER:

Is my hon. friend from Brantford in favour of placing on the free list the agricultural implements which he is manufacturing and selling at such a profit? The hon. gentleman spoke smoothly, on Friday; he held out the olive branch with one hand, but with the other hand, he lays the burden of taxation on the farmer. My hon. friend lacks sincerity; he always advocated in this House high duties on ploughs.

My hon. friend from Brantford tried to bring into ridicule the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Kennedy) when speaking of "separated brethren" and with a gesture which he deemed eloquent, he pointed out the hon. member for Red Deer i(Mr. Clark) who was approving him with a smile.

An hon. MiEMBER: That does not mean much.

Mr. ETHIER:

No, it is no great matter, because behind that smile lurks a menlai reservation. Those "separated brethren" referred to by my hon. friend for Essex, who have been invited by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) to go back to the fold, saying that the door of the Liberal party was wide open, and who smiled approvingly at the remarks of the hon. member for Brantford, may not always smile, when the tariff question comes up. He did not tell us what transpired at the caucus of the hon. gentlemen, last Thursday; he did not tell us whether the smile was as sweet and as bright as the one he was wearing, when referring to the hon. member for Brome. I do not think so. And when the tariff question is brought forward, I shall ask the hon. member for Brantford what he thinks of the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and of the resolutions passed in the West by the Grain-Growers and approved by the Minister of Agriculture. The smile of the hon. gentleman may not be as sweet and pleasing as the smile of the hon. member for Red Deer, Friday last.

Such are the important matters which the Governor General's speech does not mention and which the Government does not care to deal with.

However, they have had taken great pains in spreading out the importance of the presence of the Prime Minister in Europe. When you read the Government's organs you would believe that Sir Robert-Borden's services there are primordially useful. The President of the Republic to the south of us is nobody, neither is Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Great Britain! Sir Robert Borden must remain in France. We see the President of the United States coming back to Washington to deal with the labour conditions and other questions of the hour. The British Prime Minister is crossing the Straits and goes to England to watch and endeavour to solve the labour problem which actually threatens the Imperial Throne. But Mr. Borden is of such consequence that he had to be assigned a position in which Canada is going to play a great part: they are sending him to the Marmorean Sea, to Prince's Island to confer with the Bolsheviks in order that he may become acquainted with their doctrine which the hon. member for Brantford thinks he has detected in the views expressed by the hon. member for Brome. But supposing, Mr. Speaker, that this mission, which I hold is of minor importance, were

justified, and that the Prime Minister of Canada would have-had to play a preponderant part in that meeting with the Russian Bolsheviks in Prince's Island, it is all over now that the Bolsheviks have refused to meet him. Why then should we not have the privilege, the pleasure and the great honour of seeing Sir Robert Borden in this House to-day? We would be pleased under the circumstance to behold his important and commanding personality as presiding over the proceedings of this House. Alas! no; he is overseas, and, according to press reports and rumors, seeking an embassy, perhaps in the United States.

The gentlemen who, in 1911, impeached the United States, and denounced a commercial treaty and reciprocity with that country and refused to make any financial or other transaction with them, now solicit the honour of being ambassador of Great Britain in the Republic which they so despised ! This is a singular contrast.

The Government complain that they cannot, under the present circumstances, as stated by the hon. Minister of Public Works, answer all the questions and satisfy all the demands which are put forth with a view to solving the post-war problems.

The hon. Minister of Public Works says that we may expect each year from now on a deficit of $100,000,000. This year we are going to spend $20,000,000 for better bousing; $25,000,000 for highways; $75,000,000 for new railway branch lines in the western provinces, and then after having increased the debt to $2,000,000,000, -we shall still have a deficit of $100,000,000.

The Government seem ' to have a queer liking for the Bolsheviks. They allowed the Prime Minister to go and confer w'ith the Bolshevik leaders in Prince's Island, then they sent troops to Siberia to fight the very people whom the Prime Minister was asked to pacify.

With regard to this expedition to Siberia -which the press has spoken so much about-may I ask what right had the Government to spend millions to send, without any authorization, that regiment there? Why were those soldiers asked to go to Northern Russia where, unfortunately for them, they are exposed to severe cold as well as retaliation on the part of the Bolsheviks ?

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have dealt with the different problems which concern public opinion. I may have gone beyond that which is mentioned in the Governor General's speech, but I could hardly leave aside such questions as that of the tariff,

the censure and the enforcement of the Military Service Act as regards the defaulters. I thought it was my duty not to ignore them and to call the attention of the country and of the Government to that which the latter have probably deliberately left aside.

I trust that in the few remarks which I made I kept within the limits of parliamentary discretion, and that they will be accepted in the right spirit by the members of the cabinet and my hon. friends on the other side of this House. I believe that the unexpected visit of General Pau ought to be sufficient to let you forget the other part of my speech. At all events I submit it, with the hope that the Government will seriously consider the various questions which we are discussing and will consider my remarks in the spirit in which they were made.

Mr. GEORGE BRECKEN NICHOLSON (Algorna East):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I be permitted to add my word of commendation with respect to the manner in which the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Redman), and the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion), presented the resolution which we are now considering. I particularly congratulate the latter hon. gentleman on his declaration with regard to national unity. It seems to me that if there is anything to which men of all classes, whether in public life or out of it, in this country, should direct themselves, it is to an effort to break down the unnatural prejudice that exists amongst many of our people on racial, religious and social lines. I wish to say, Sir, that if this country of ours is ever to reach the position to which we think she is entitled, it will be when men who deem themselves to be patriotic Canadians get together, work out a common ideal, and go forward to the attainment of that ideal. As long as we are divided as we now are, we can never achieve real national greatness.

The speech from the Throne submits a programme which, if we give to it the attention and consideration it deserves, will provide this House with work for a very considerable period. It is not my purpose to go at any length into any of the specific problems before us. I would, however, ask the liberty of referring to one or two very briefly.

The first question has to do with the returned soldier. Personally I do not like to hear it referred to as the problem of the returned soldier: it grates on my ears to hear the returned soldier referred to in any sense as a problem. For my own part I

look upon the returned soldier as the greatest asset this country has, or has had. There is a problem confronting us in connection with our relationship to the returned soldier. The problem is simply this: it is our duty-it is your duty and it is mine-to see to it that every soldier who went overseas to fight the battles of this country in Europe, is given an opportunity to get back into civil life just as quickly as he can, and into a position at least as good, if not a little better, than he had before he went overseas. With regard to the returned soldier who comes back to us broken in body and mind, it is our duty to leave nothing undone that can be done to render his position in life just as good as it can possibly be made. We can never restore him to his former condition; we can never make the world for him the same as it was before; but we can, as far as we are able, alleviate his condition and make life at least tolerable. Then there are the dependents of those who have fallen, and in that regard I merely say this: If ever a woman or child in this country is permitted to suffer because of some Canadian citizen who has given his life in this war, then some one will be criminally responsible, and will be held to account for that responsibility. ,

Another point touched on in the speech from the Throne, to which I would refer briefly, is the housing question. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that I am now treading on somewhat delicate ground, because I do not believe that the present policy is universally acceptable. However, I am not going to discuss the matter in detail, because when it comes before the House later on we shall have an opportunity of reviewing it from all angles; but before we make up our minds too firmly that the housing proposition is not a good one, let us just ask ourselves, and if we can do so answer the question, -whether there is a town or city anywhere in Canada, of any considerable size, where a workingman, an ordinary workingman and his family, can secure a suitable house, such as a Canadian workingman and his family should be permitted to live in- one containing five rooms and a bath-at a rental that a workingman can pay? If there is such an one, I do not know where it is, and I would like to have the opportunity of visiting it.

It has been said, Mr. Speaker, many times during this debate that there never was a time in the history of this country-in fact there never was a time in the history of the world-when we were face to face with so many problems, upon the solution of

which will to a large measure depend the kind of civilization that the next generation, at least, is going to have; and it behooves us all to approach these problems with calmness, and at least a measure of reasonable consideration.

There is the question of the labour problem-or the relationship of capital and labour, of labour to capital-of employer to employee, if you will. And let me say, notwithstanding the admiration that it would appear some members of the House hold for the system of the Bolsheviki, I am one of those who believe that the relationship between employer and employee will be a factor, so long as this dispensation lasts, in some form or other. It is our business therefore to try to work out a relationship between employer and employee that will be reasonable and that will give to every man without discrimination the right to earn at least a decent and respectable living. That is the basis of the whole problem-to enter upon a detailed discussion of the subject would occupy too long a time at this particular moment.

Another question that we must face in this country, and face in the very immediate future, is the final solution of the railway problem. We have gone some distance towards finding the solution, but we have very many difficulties to overcome yet, and the sooner we get busy and arrive at the best way of overcoming these difficulties the better it will be.

Another problem to be dealt with is the tariff, and again I almost feel as though I were treading on holy ground when I mention this particular subject. People will tell you the question is so difficult, that there are such diverse views of the tariff. That is perfectly true, but the fact that the question is a difficult one, and that people have diverse views of it, is one reason why we should tackle it,. I am somewhat in harmony with the view of the hon. member for Brome that w-e should tackle the tariff problem now; that we should not undertake to reconstruct the superstructure that has been torn down until we shall have re-established the foundation. We shall not have industrial stability until we have determined what the fiscal policy of the country is going to be. I have my own views with regard to the tariff. If I and the other members of this House in turn took the whole afternoon in discussing the tariff we should all go away in just as much a state of chaos as we are in at the present moment. We shall never reach a solution of this matter by discussing the tariff across the floor of

the House; it "will have to be taken hold of in a more scientific, businesslike manner. I do not believe that we could exist industrially under a policy of absolute free trade. Other hon. gentlemen in this House may say just as emphatically that we can; I am not going to quarrel with them; they have the same right to their opinions that I have to mine. But I do believe that there is room for a fair and reasonable compromise between the extreme views that are held with regard to the tariff. I have not even a glimmer of an idea of what may be in the mind of the Government or in the mind of the Acting Prime Minister with regard to this question. It may be that we shall find in the Budget a complete solution of the tariff problem-at least, I hope that will be the case. But I pass along a suggestion; it may be taken for what it is worth. It is that the Government appoint a commission-I hope that no hon. gentleman opposite will collapse in his chair because I use the word "commission"-to take hold of the question of the tariff; that the United Council of Agriculture, the Grain Growers of Western *Canada, the 'Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the United Boards of Trade, transportation organizations and organized labour, be requested to appoint their own representatives to make up that commission; and that these representatives sit around a table and see if they cannot work out a compromise on the tariff that will stabilize Canadian industry.

I would like the privilege of referring briefly to some of the criticisms that we have heard from the other side of the House. First, I wish to refer to a remark made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr McKenzie)-I sincerely trust that he will pardon my presumption in doing 4 p.m. so-with regard to the Department of Labour. If I understood him aright, he intimated that the Department of Labour was, to use a common phrase, simply lying down on the job and doing nothing to bring capital and labour or the employer and the employee together. I hold no mandate for the Minister of Labour (Hon. G. D. Robertson) although I have the greatest admiration for him and had the greatest admiration for his predecessor (Hon. T. W. Crothers). I would however suggest to the leader of the Opposition that he spend an hour some day in the office of the Minister of Labour. If he has not time to do that, I will undertake to introduce him to two or three representatives of organized labour in order that he 10

may find out what was done by the former Minister of Labour and what has been done by the present Minister of Labour with a view to harmonising the differences between the employer and the employee. I wonder if the leader of the Opposition ever heard of Board of Adjustment No. 1, upon which is represented all the railway organizations in Canada and all the employees of railways in Canada, an organization under which such a thing as a strike on the great transportation systems has become a practical impossibility. It seems to me that we have gone a long way towards harmonising the differences between the employer and the employee, and if the lines that have already been laid down can be followed in the future, I have grqat hope that it will not be long before such a thing as a strike or a disruption between the workingman and his employer will be an unheard of thing in Canada. I know that that is the end towards which the Minister of Labour is working, and in that regard he is receiving a great deal of assistance from employers and employees.

One other matter that was briefly touched on by the leader of the Opposition was the franchise. I am not going to go into that, nor am I going to discuss the War-Time Elections Act. I simply say this: if hon. members have it in their minds that by wiping the War-Time Elections Act off the slate they are going to enfranchise enemy aliens in Canada, they have another guess coming to them, because the people will not stand for it.

I listened to the member for Brqme (Mr. McMaster) in his reference to the Bolshe-viki. I listened also to the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Ethier) in his references to Bolshevism, but I regret that I could not follow him very closely, therefore I will not deal with what he said. But I was amazed and shocked to feel that any member occupying a seat in this House should so prostitute his privileges as to stand up and offer a defence of Bolshevism. When the member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) was referring to this matter on Friday afternoon an hon. member on the other side of the House called out: " What is there in the doctrine of Bolshevism to which you object?" Let me ask hon. members what they think of the nationalization of woman, one of the doctrines of the Bolshevik, under which an innocent girl is torn from her home and turned over to some brute of a man-what for? For no other purpose but the express intention of propagating the species, and that the children

born of such an unholy union shall be not the God-given heritage of their parents, but the property of the state, the same as any other animal. Yet we are asked to associate the words " truth " and " justice " with the Bolshevik. It gives one a bad taste in the mouth even to utter the word " Bolshevik."

The member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier)-I regret that he is not in his seat-undertook to fasten on the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Hon. J. A. Calder) a charge of partisanship in connection with the appointment of medical officers to look after returned soldiers in Canada. If the member for St. Hyacinthe had contented himself with dealing in generalities he might have been able to make out a very good case, but unfortunately he became specific. I assume that I am correct in saying that if there is anything the matter with the appointments made under the regulation that was read by the member for St. Hyacinthe, it is that the proper persons were not appointed, or that improper persons were appointed. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Gauthier) read a list of medical men in the different towns and cities throughout Canada (who had been appointed by the Repatriation Committee. Amongst the number he mentioned Dr. James, of the town of Mattawa; Dr. Bell, of North Bay, and Dr. Cook, of Sudbury, and as he mentioned each name he referred to him as a Tory political heeler. I do not know whether the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville knows the town of Mattawa and Dr. James, or the town of North Bay and Dr. Bell, or the town of Sudbury and Dr. Cook; but I am prepared to pay the hon. member's expenses to each of these towns and to introduce him to each of these doctors for the privilege of seeing what will happen when he says to their faces that they are Tory or any other kind of heelers.

Mr. PROULX:

I remember very well that the hon. member said that Dr. James was a Unionist.

Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:

Hansard says "Tory. ' Dr. James is not and never has been a Tory. If he has any political affiliations, he is an out-and-out, strong Liberal. Dr. Bell, of North Bay, has never been identified with a political party of any description. Dr. Cook, of Sudbury, if he has any political affiliations whatever, is a Liberal. Let me say further that if the Government had fine-tooth-combed this country from Halifax to Vancouver, they

could not have selected three men more outstanding in their professions than Doctors James, Bell and Cook. Yet these are the men who are held up to ridicule in this House as political heelers because they have been asked to do a work for the returned soldier. Since July, 1914, they have been spending fifty per cent of their time in the interest of the soldier, and they are willing to continue doing so.

You will remember, Sir, that I referred a few moments ago to the appointment of a commission. One of the parrot cries that we have heard from the beginning of this session-and we hear it also outside of the House-is this cry with regard to the appointment of commissions. The Government have been appointing too many commissions. The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) went as far as to say that it was time for the Government to get rid of all these commissions, to take off their coats and get busy and do the work themselves. These are not the hon. member's exact words, but I think they are a fair implication of what he said. This leads me to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen opposite either do not understand the meaning of the word "commission," or do not understand the functions of government. To illustrate what I mean, let me put the matter in this way. If I employ a man to drive a team of horses for me in a log camp and tell him that I am going to hold him responsible for doing that work, he has my commission to go ahead and do it. If the board of directors of a business organization tell the general manager to look after their business, he has their commission to go ahead and do the work. If one of the railway companies sends out a superintendent to take charge of one of their divisions, he has their commission to do the work. I think that is a fair statement. What then is the function of government? Is if not that the members of the Cabinet, the ministers of the Crown, shall spend their time in directing the affairs of this country ;n the interest of the ppople; that they shall take charge of their departments; and that they shall employ whatever assistance is necessary to carry out the policy of the Government as expressed by Parliament in the interest of all the people? Are not these the functions of government? If I understand hon. gentle-' men opposite aright, their idea of the functions of government is that the ministers of the Crown, to use the terms of the hon. member for North Essex, shall get rid of all these assistants, take off their coats and do the work themselves, and whatever they

cannot do themselves leave undone whether the people suffer or not. I purpose putting hon. members opposite to a test in connection with this. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who was one of those who declaimed vigorously against these commissions, the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. member for Laval, Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) are each of them, I am convinced, literally consumed by an ardent desire to place their services at the disposal of a needy, although perhaps, unappreciative State. There is an opportunity awaiting them. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell) told the House a few days ago that he had in contemplation an extensive programme of public works involving some work to be done under force account. Supposing these hon. members who are so anxious to see the country get rid of commissions and who are also so anxious to serve the State would take the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) as padrone of the group and go up to the city of Hamilton and pull down some of those buildings which the Minister of Public Works wants to remove. They would be accomplishing two things at the same time by doing so; they would be proving the utility of their own theory with regard to the functions of Government and they would be serving the State to just about the limit of their capacity.

I would like to refer briefly to a statement made by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains. I regret exceedingly that I was not able to follow the hon. member through the whole of his speech, because I do not understand the beautiful language of France. On Friday afternoon, we had the very great privilege of having with us for a few moments that grand old man, General Pau-a privilege that I believe every member in this House appreciated to the fullest possible extent. When General Pau entered this Chamber the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains was speaking English and with fitting courtesy he ceased speaking in English and continued his address in French. I believe that I am well within the mark when I say that every member of this House felt that it was a very happy coincidence that when General Pau entered the Chamber there should have been on his feet an hon. member capable of speaking the French language. But what did the hon. member say when he proceeded with his speech? Did he utter any gracious compliment to that great country which General Pau re-10i [DOT]

presented? No, he entered a specious plea on behalf of the liquor interests of this country. He intimated that if we abrogated the Treaty under which French wines come into Canada we might disrupt the Entente Cordiale existing between the two peoples. There sat the battle-scarred veteran who has been the personal witness of the greatest vicarious sacrifices that humanity has ever been able to give to the world, listening to a declaration that it would require a traffic in intoxicating liquor to keep intact a bond of unity that has been cemented by the outpouring of the life-blood of sixty thousand Canadians and ten times sixty thousand Frenchmen side by side. Must that old veteran not have shuddered to his very soul at the utterance of such a sentiment? I am not going to pursue the hon. member's argument further than to say this, that if the interests for whom he was pleading have no better argument to put before the Canadian people than that, then their case is, indeed, a sorry one.

I wish to refer very briefly to something said by the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy) in his address the other-evening. He apparently deemed it fitting to hold up to the ridicule of this House and of the country His Gracious Majesty King George the Fifth because of a complimentary banquet given to President Wilson at Windsor Castle; and judging by the applause with which his remarks were greeted by the hon. gentlemen sitting around him,

I was forced to the conclusion that the sentiments he expressed were very largely concurred in by His Majesty's loyal Opposition.

I have no means of knowing whence the hon. member derived his inspiration, but his remarks followed so closely along the line of a similar attack on President Wilson published in one of the pro-German organs in the city of New York that I at least was forced to the conclusion that minds with like ideals have an almost uncanny aptitude for finding expression in similar words. To refresh the minds of. hon. gentlemen, I shall quote what the hon. member for North Essex said with regard to this banquet:

It was a magnificent banquet. There were thousands of soft shaded lights. The walls were hung with expensive tapestries. Fifteen million dollars' worth of gold plate were spread upon the banquet board. The lackeys were in the costume of the beef-eaters of old, bowing low and moving backwards before the passing guests. Our Premier was there, and he was described in the papers as wearing the Windsor costume, knee breeches and all- democracy pure and undefiled.

I know nothing of the details of the banquet, but I venture to say this: bearing in

mind the splendid example of self-sacrifice and service His Majesty King George the Fifth and every member of his family have given to us during the last four years, the banquet was in perfect harmony with the occasion. What was that occasion? The hon. member for North Essex would have us believe that it was a mere vulgar example of medieval self-indulgence and flunkeyism; at least that was my impression. Mr. Speaker, since the days when the Pilgrim Fathers first set foot on the continent of North America there never was an event or an occasion fraught with greater possibilities for good for the whole human race than the occasion which the hon. member for North Essex held up to the contempt of this House and country. It was the occasion when for the first time in history the head of the great British democracy was permitted to entertain in his own home the head of the great democracy of the United States of America. What does that signify? Let hon. gentlemen cast their eyes back to the summer of 1914 and ask themselves what it was that saved civilization when the war lords of Central Europe opened the flood gates of Armageddon, We have heard a good many explanations of how the world was saved, but I say without the slightest fear of successful contradiction that the underlying reason, the only reason, in fact by which it was possible for civilization to save itself was the "Bonne Entente" between the Republic of France and the British Empire brought about by the matchless diplomacy of the late King Edward VII. Had it not been for that Bonne Entente the hon. member for North Essex would not have had the privilege of speaking in a free parliament in this or any other country. The Huns would have taken care of that. And if King George never does anything else but lay the foundation upon which can be built up a similar understanding that will draw together the English-speaking peoples of the great democracy of the British Empire, that commonwealth of free nations, and the great democracy of the United States of America, he will have given cause to mankind the world over to sing with a new meaning that grand old anthem "God Save the King."

Reference has been made to the absence of the Prime Minister from this House, and the matter was brought to a direct head the other evening by the hon. member for North Essex who demanded that the Prime Minister return to his duties and do the things which the Canadian people are paying him to do. That demand met with such apparent approval by hon. gentlemen

opposite sitting around the Speaker that I was again forced to conclude his opinions were concurred in by hon. gentlemen opposite. That leads me to ask this question: Can it be possible that even at this late date hon. members have utterly failed to comprehend the true meaning of the times in which we live? During the past four years, sixty thousand of the flower of Canada's manhood have poured out their life's blood on the battlefields of Europe; one hundred and fifty thousand more are coming back broken in body, some of them in mind, bearing scars that will be to their glory as long as they live; two hundred thousand others have with them gone into and come out of the very jaws of hell itself. What for? Simply in order that the world might be made a fit place for decent people to live in. There is now sitting in Paris, the centre around which that holocaust raged, a conference of the heads of the allied nations. The first minister of each allied country is there together with such of his colleagues as he deemed necessary. They are meeting in Paris for what? In order that a constitution may be framed for mankind that will make it impossible for a similar world catastrophe to occur again. Yet we have hon. members in this House saying that the Prime Minister of Canada should leave all that, leave the things for which our boys bled and died, and come back to attend to some matter of parish politics. I will not pursue the subject further except to say this, that if the Prime Minister of Canada was anywhere else than where he now is or doing anything else than the business he is now attending to he would" be unworthy of being the Prime Minister of Canada.

Before concluding, I desire to say a word or two with regard to what our boys did in France. We have heard described in accurate detail the position the world was in when this House rose in May last. At that time the hearts of our people were almost standing still in strained anxiety, watching the bulletins day after day, and hour by hour, to see what next was going to happen. Was that human line, extending from the North sea to the boundary of Switzerland going to be able to hold? It did hold. It bent in places, individual links were stretched, but it held. It held until that moment when the great General Foch, in collaboration with our own great General Haig, General Pershing, and the other members of the Allied high command, determined that the time had come to strike. And they struck. They struck with such effect that in four short months they rolled

up the German forces, brought the Hun to his knees and compelled him to cry for peace.

What part did our own boys take in these events? For the first time in the whole war the four Canadian divisions were brought together in one army, with the addition of one British division, and were held in readiness for a fixed purpose. Near the end of September the time came for them to strike. They struck, and the first blow broke the Hindenburg line and they crossed the Dracourt switch. I will not undertake to follow in detail their course from that to the end of the war. Suffice it to say, they covered more than one hundred miles; they released hundreds of cities, towns and villages; they met thirty-four German divisions, almost seven times their own number, and defeated them, putting four of them practically out of existence. They took more live prisoners than the total number of their own casualties; they captured 1,200 heavy guns, and over 3,000 machine guns. And they finally planted the flag of the Allies in the city of Mons on the very day the armistice was signed.

What spirit did our boys display through that terrible time? Was there any complaint? Never a word. May I be permitted to quote to this House one sentence from a letter written by one of these boys to his mother, written on the eve of the taking by the Canadians of Valenciennes: "Mother, as we pass through these liberated towns and villages, and look into the faces of the women and children who have endured four years of Hun barbarism, we feel that after all what we are doing, little as it is worth, is worth while."

I have listened, Mr. Speaker, to men on public platforms in Canada dilating on the wonderful country we have, the glorious heritage handed down to us by our fathers. And these orators have usually brought their message to a climax with something like this: Will the sons of Canada be worthy of their forebears? That question can never be asked again. But there is a question that you and I must ask ourselves: Are we, the fathers and mothers, the men and women of Canada, going to be worthy of the sacrifices that these boys have made for us?

Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outre-mont): Mr. Speaker, in the name of the county that I have the honour to represent in this House and which bears the name of "Laurier-Outremont" I wish to express our most sincere regrets and affliction and

sorrow for the great loss sustained by this country through the death of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I am sure that in no part of the Dominion has his death created more sorrow and affliction than in this constituency bearing his name. He was admired and loved to the extreme limit. His name and memory will live forever. For my part it was a great privilege to have known this illustrious man for more than twenty years.

I had the advantage of appreciating his kindness, his refined and princely manner. In politics he meant about everything to me. He was the wise adviser, the great friend, the Chief. He had all my confidence and respect. His sweet memory will be cherished in my heart and soul as long as I live. On this occasion may I offer to Lady Laurier our sentiments and expression of our sincere regret and sympathy for her immense and irreparable loss.

It is with satisfaction that I note that in the speech from the Throne, mention was made of the glorious deeds accomplished by our gallant officers and soldiers at the front; they have rendered great services to this country and to the world during the four years of the war. The glory that they have cast on Canada is so great that I had anticipated that the speech from the Throne would contain a vote of thanks in the name of this Parliament addressed to the officers and to the soldiers, and some recognition offered to these officers and to the soldiers that have most distinguished themselves; a grant of money or a sword of honour could have been offered to the general in command, Sir Arthur Currie. Such a step has been taken previously in England and in the Congress of the United States. A nation honours herself in honouring her heroes and her great men; it has been done by England to Wellington, to Lord Nelson, to French and to Marshal Haig. I am sure that the people of this country will resent such an omission. I consider it is a mistake. While I am on this subject, I may say that I am surprised that this Government, through the military deoartment, has not seen the advantage of presenting medals of honor to our soldiers and officers who so well deserved them; it is true that some of our men have received distinctions from England and from France, but surely this country should be in a position to recognize the services of our soldiers in this manner and necessary orders should be given at once and should have been given before. Also wlme speaking on these matters, I may

say that the people of my province and the soldiers of this country speaking the French language were highly disappointed by the refusal of this Government to organize a French Canadian brigade. You will remember that at the last session I had rhe opportunity to put this question before this House, and after hearing the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and the Minister of Militia and Finance '(Major General Mewburn) we had nourished the hope that such a brigade would be formed and organized in due course. We had in Europe all the elements to organize such a brigade, we had the officers and the men, we nad more than enough men to keep at the full rank this brigade; it would have been a great stimulant and a great reward for these men and officers to obtain this recognition on the part of this Government. I have myself cabled to the Prime Minister of Canada while in England to again call his attention to this matter. For reasons unacceptable to me, this just demand was refused. It will be written in the history of this country that this Government, supposed to have been elected to take the best means to carry on this war, preferred to play politics and did not take the best means for the advancement of victory; it will be written that this Government was unfair towards the province of Quebec, has committed a great injustice to the men speaking the French language and who have fought bravely and gloriously with the other soldiers of Canada in this war. In their name, once again I desire to protest energetically against such a wrong done to my province.

As you are aware, this country is passing through a period of uncertainty and crisis. Industry is stagnating, a great number of labourers are unemployed, leaders of industry are looking around hoping for practical direction from this Government, the large class of agriculture-the basis with industry of our wealth and prosperity- are also looking anxiously toward the future. They fear a lack of markets for their products. Our soldiers are coming back by thousands from Europe. The present situation is unsettled and it is a dangerous one.

The future prosperity of the country depends on the legislation to be passeu mostly at this session. The Canadian people were expecting, and they had a right to expect, that this Government, through the speech from the Throne, would bring forward, in plain language, solutions for these problems; that a direction would be given to

promote the commercial and economical position of this country with the object of bringing about prosperity, reducing the high cost of living, and producing peace and contentment. The farmers are hoping for a market for their products. They know well that in the future the artificial markets due to the war will be closed for them. It is to be regretted that the policy, if any, mentioned in the speech from the Throne does not give us much hope. During the last two or three years the Government have been notified again and again to prepare for the time coming after the war, for reconstruction and readjustment. I am sorry to say that not much has been done. In fact I would be justified in saying that nothing very practical has been done for this country. While new markets have been prepared and opened by our neighbours to the south, new policies and new methods of business have been adopted in England and in France, while a new understanding has been arrived at in England between capital and labour which has given satisfaction to the latter, here in this country a great unrest exists; we are to-day unprepared for this big problem of reconstruction and readjustment, we have no new markets offered to us or proposed to us by this Government and no practical policy suggested.

The position of this country is quite difficult and we have an immense task before us. We have to be careful in what we do. Our net public debt, five years ago, was about 335 million dollars, it is now about two billion dollars. When the army is demobilized and our different obligations are met, it will be above two billion dollars, this not taking into account our responsibility for our railroad liabilities, which reach more than 500 million dollars. It is a large debt for a population of eight millions; more than $230 per head, and represents an increase of about six-fold as compared with the figure at which it stood before the war. To meet the interest and the sinking fund, we will have to exercise great economy in many departments and find large sources of-revenue. We are thinking much too easily in hundreds of millions to-day and the public credit is endangered. Before the war the interest on our debt was about 12 millions, while to-day it will be about 100 millions. Then the military pension list may reach 25 million dollars or more, the deficit of the Government railways will represent another large amount, and over and above this amount is the cost of the general administration of the country,

which may represent 140 millions, and perhaps more. This brings the total expenditure on current revenue account to the enormous amount of about 300 million dollars, which represents about $37 per capita, or, for a family of five persons, it means that this family is taxed for $185. This will be met only if business activities and general prosperity continue. The last fiscal year has given us a public revenue of 261 million dollars. This amount will necessarily drop with the actual mode of taxation; prohibition of the liquor traffic will cut into both excise and custom receipts; prices of goods will recede and come to a reasonable price. To date, our revenue is based on, income tax, business tax, business profit tax, increased postage rates and additional custom and excise taxation. We have to reduce the custom tariff for the cost of living is too high. This Parliament has to remodel our system of taxation and revenue. At the same time, we have to carry out certain public works and spend large sums of money to put this country on a basis to compete with the outside world in foreign markets. I refer to transportation and promotion of home and foreign trade. We must also spend large sums of money upon soldiers' lands, settlement and re-establishment. The Government has to see also that there is if possible no unemployment of labour and of capital. The prosperity of this country is based upon its exports. Our exports are to come from agricultural products and manufactured articles; we have to look after these two items so as to keep prosperity at home. Capital, labour, resources, transportation and markets; these constitute the factors of trade and commerce. Business will have to go on as before. During the last two years of the war the value of our exports has increased to an enormous sum of money, due to the fact that the people of Europe needed at any cost our farm products' and our war material. Canada was in the position of a firm that had a monopoly of certain goods and was selling those goods to a firm that had to buy and pay or otherwise go out of business. The price received for agricultural products and the market that we had were artificial owing to the demand due to the war conditions; but this market and these conditions will disappear with the end of the war. More than that, I would dare to say that it is likely that England will buy from us less farm products than before the war, because, as you are aware, they have increased enormously their capacity for producing farm products since the beginning of the war. They have improved their methods of agriculture and according to the figures shown to me, the agricultural production of last year in the British Isle was four times more than before the war. In England, the farms produced last year enough for forty weeks, while in the prewar period they were not producing more than enough for ten weeks. There is no doubt that the English people, practical as they are, will continue these improvements which were new to them. You are aware also that, great economy has been taught to the English people during the last war. They will therefore be disposed to buy less and live with less expense and luxury. The result of this will be that the English market, which was one of our largest agricultural markets, will be greatly restricted for us.

We have to bear in mind that under the present conditions Canada cannot manufacture for large export on a permanent basis, and this system has to be changed, for industry as well as agriculture are and must be the two main sources of our wealth. We should have always in our mind the fact that the basis of our wealth in this country will be the development and the selling of our agricultural products and large manufacturers' products. We have to produce more on our farms, we have to develop our agricultural lands; we have to put more farmers on our lands, and we have to find new markets for the agricultural production of the country. Where shall we find these new markets? We have one close to us, separated from our country by only an imaginary line. This market is the United States. It is our natural market. In consequence, I could summarize the new policy that this Government should follow, for one important part, and this is the revision of our tariff with the United States. We have to open new markets for our agricultural products; we have to encourage agriculture; produce more and more, and have more and more good farmers. Then the Government must from to-day, and to-day is the time, make a step further in establishing a new economical and commercial system. I submit that the basis of our economical system is entirely wrong and not adapted to our conditions, taking into consideration our geographical position, our population, and our raw material.

For a long time in this country it has been the custom to protect certain industries by imposing a high tariff. This meant that certain goods necessary to life, an-

alogous to those manufactured here-had to pay a high duty. The people of this country paid from their pockets for this protection and I say to-day, in this era of democracy and of justice for all, it is tune that certain of these taxes imposed on the necessaries of life should disappear and a revision should take place.

To-day these manufacturers are not in the position they were some years ago. They are rich. I submit the principle that the industries that should be specially encouraged in this country, and what can add to the wealth of this country, are the industries that can work on raw material from our own country. Industries manufacturing on imported raw material cannot compete, as a general principle, with the industries of other countries that manufacture on their own raw materials. When factories manufacture and work upon imported raw material, the only practical market for the product is the home market and not the foreign market, because they cannot compete with other countries. Therefore the people of the home market pay high prices, according to the protective tariff given to such industries. If an industry cannot compete with foreign industries, it is bad for manufacturers, it is not sound for a country to have it; it is better that it should disappear.

Of course this policy of encouraging industries that work on our raw material is laid down as a principle and must be worked out gradually. A practical commission should be appointed to study these matters. What I am suggesting to the Government is a policy of reconstruction, not of destruction. The actual position of our different industries should be studied, taking into consideration the position also of the mass of the people, and gradually the effort of the Government should tend to the improvement of this policy. Many industries can support competition to-day. Maybe all the industries in this country, with proper management and reasonable profits, could support competition without, protection. Competition will give life to these industries, they will be contented with less profit but they will produce more and probably they will get a better result. There will be more employment in this country because we will produce more; the cost of living will be less, articles manufactured here, and for which we pay high prices due to the high tariff, will cost less and therefore, the cost of living in all lines will be reasonable and within the reach of the ordinary people.

We all know, and it is not a secret, that the price of manufacturing goods in this

country is fixed by the manufacturers according to the protection or tariff imposed. It costs a huge sum of money to the people of Canada every year. Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid by the consumers to allow the Government to receive 50 or 75 millions of customs duty. The Government should impose larger taxes on large incomes, and large fortunes, but only at the same time as they decreased the tariff.

It is to be deeply regretted that the Victory Loan Bonds are exempted from duties. It may prevent the Government to a certain extent from following this policy. This does not necessarily mean that we are, or will be, in a bad position. On the contrary, Heaven has given to this country immense resources of raw material, and what this Government has to do to-day, if it desires to bring prosperity and wealth and the proper business basis, is to begin anew. It is time to see and encourage industries that can employ our raw material so that we can sell to other countries these manufactured goods. People of this country have paid enough to protect those industries that will not bring wealth to this country. We have not the. population, and we are not in a position to continue such extravagant and foolish methods. With this policy of encouraging agriculture, of developing our own raw material, of encouraging our factories working on our raw' material for exportation, we wi'll establish this country on a sound business basis; living will become cheaper, we will have plenty of work for our labourers and at good and permanent wages.

Establishing free trade in farm products with the States will open a large market, will encourage our farmers and will help to develop our unproductive lands. In connection with these principles and this policy, the Government could:

1. Bonus the agriculture.

2. Conserve and increase forest production. This policy is carried on in the province of Quebec, in France and in different countries of Europe with great success and much promise;

3. National supervision of water-power;

4. National supervision and development of the raw material in this country;

5. Bonus and assist factories that use our raw material;

6. Subsidize and build cargo boats and open markets for our agricultural and manufacturing products;

7. Develop an export trade in frozen meats and have refrigerator boats;

8. Open new markets in the United States and South America, etc.

Again, in connection with agriculture, we were surprised some time ago to read that this Government or commission appointed for this Government found out at the end that they had not sufficient land on which to establish the soldiers coming from the front. I must say that it is regrettable that governments in this country have seen fit to give to different private firms large tracts of agricultural lands. It has been said to me that great quantities of good land, unfilled or badly cultivated, toelong to private firms, railroad companies and so on. Some land is in the hands of investors looking for profits. I would submit that these lands should be taken by the Government by some legal means according to justice and equity. Those that retain these lands should not retard the progress of this country in the hope of making profits. Strict stipulations should be imposed, and if these lands are not put into bona fide activity, they should be confiscated.

I hope the Government will do its utmost to attract the soldiers and give them the advantage of establishing themselves on farms. It will be for their future happiness and prosperity. This Government must be careful not to buy lands that are not good for agriculture. Most of the lands in the West are in the hands of speculators and the expectation that the Government is to buy these lands from them is looked upon by them as a piece of great luck. The Government should be careful, buy direct and take the responsibility.

A very important question to be dealt with is the labour problem. A new epoch begins in the civilized world regarding the position of the labouring class, and after the splendid effort and sacrifices made by this class during the last war it is just and right, as it has always been just and right in the past, that these men should be dealt with and treated with more justice and equity: action along these lines should have been taken before. It will always be a stain on the civilized world that a better policy has not been followed in the past. I am in hopes that during this session some practical laws and regulations will be passed securing better relations between labour and capital. The capitalists and the employees are looking for a common ground of understanding, and while the employees claim a just compensation for their sacrifice and an amelioration of their condition, the employers understand that it is impossible that the present state of affairs can continue. It is hoped therefore that laws will soon be passed by Parliament permitting the employees, under certain

conditions, and in accordance with the principles of justice and equity, to be represented on boards of directors so that they may have a voice to explain to these chiefs of industries their needs, not only from a monetary standpoint but with a view to moral and intellectual betterment. More effective results every one admits will be attained by conciliation and a better understanding between capital and labour. If this is done I am sure that capital will yield better results and labour will be better pleased. The Government must, however, face the problem at once and in a serious manner without delay. I had the opportunity some time ago to hear a very good address on this subject delivered by Hon. Mackenzie King at the Reform Club at Montreal. If the Government will refer to this address it will find all the necessary food for thought, and the elements and policy calculated to give satisfaction, according to my mind, to the Canadian labour world. Some such policy must be adopted; it is only a question of justice, and of good management on the part of the Government. The^Government must also in this connection subsidize and open technical schools in this country, so that we may have in Canada skilled labourers to work in our factories. I know that at present, in many of our industries we have to hire skilled labourers from other countries. This should no't be the case because it is detrimental to our trade. I would also warn the Government to be careful as to immigrants admitted to this country. Immigration is a very good thing if the newcomers are of a good class. They are very careful with respect to these matters in the United States where strict examination of each arrival is made. What we need here is farm immigrants and I hope this Government will see to it that men of a type likely to cause trouble and disruption are excluded.

We will need capital in this country and to obtain investment of capital, the Government should take at once proper steps to ameliorate our financial and trade relations with the United States. To attain this aim:

1. A Canadian commission should be appointed at Washington;

2. An advertising propaganda should be instituted to advertise this country as a source of raw materials; in short, to make us thoroughly know-n in the States, so that the investors from that country will know what prospects exist here in trade and finance. The Government was able to finance its war policy through the patriotic

good will of the banks of Canada and the people of Canada.

The Government last fall borrowed a huge sum of money, over 500 million dollars, in the Victory Loan. The undoubted security, the interest offered and the promise connected with it that no future tax would be imposed on it all contributed to making the response a great one; the subscription was over 600 million dollars. In this connection, I am sorry to say that this Government has offered such interest, per cent, and especially that they have promised solemnly and obliged themselves not to impose duties on these bonds in the future. This Government at the beginning of the war has helped many people, many of their friends, to enrich themselves, and today they are millionaires. We have many millionaires in this country now and in the first years of the war, if I remember accurately, in the second year, no duties or taxes were imposed on their profits. This country having to pay heavy taxes, cried aloud that the rich, those that had big revenues, large incomes, those that had made money out of the war, should pay, but the Government was there, and after having enriched those men, this Government wanted to help these friends again so that they could keep their fortune intact, and the Government found a way out for its good friends the millionaires in offering them bonds at a high interest, guaranteed by ,.nis country with the promise that tney would remain intact, without for the future any tax to pay on their money. I say that this is a great drawback in tnis country for the future. In the States, no such promise wras made, and still the Victory Loan was only at 4i per cent. I say that it is a great injustice done to the majority of the population of this country. To pay our debts, our interests and to have the money for our needs, our public enterprises, the Government should in the future tax heavily those that have large revenues, because a day may come in this country with the Government that will succeed this one soon when the custom duties will drop considerably or disappear, when we will have free trade, which has given wealth to England, and when that day will come the Government may have to depend mainly on duty imposed on income, as is the case in England.

If this Government is really sincere in its reconstruction, it will act, I submit, according to the principles submitted, and I hope, nay, I am sure, there is a great prosperity and happiness in store for us in this

country. If this Government continues to tramp on the same ground as it did since the armistice, I have great fear for this country.

There is another important question that I wish to deal with, and that is the war indemnity which this country should receive. Some days ago I read in the newspaper an alleged declaration by Sir Robert Borden that this country would not especially insist upon an indemnity being paid to Canada. If the Prime Minister said that, he did not voice the opinion and the desire of the people of this country, because I am sure that Canada wishes to receive an indemnity equal to the amount of money which she has disbursed in the carrying on of the war. Take into consideration, Mr. Speaker, the taxes that the people are paying to-day which were imposed by the Government after the outbreak of war. We are paying on income and on profits; we are paying extra postage on letters; we have to affix stamps to notes and cheques; we pay a tax on drugs; the tariff has been raised on certain commodities to the extent of 7i per cent. Our debt has increased from $335,000,000, which it amounted to before the war, to about $2,000,000,000. This generation and future generations will be called upon to meet the heavy interest charges on this huge debt. The other day a member of the Government told us that we would have to find about $300,000,000 in order to carry on the business of the country during the current year, and that we owed about $2,000,000,000. We do owe about $2,000,000,000, and that does not take into consideration our liability in respect of our railways. The debt of Canada is about $240 per capita; but it costs about $140 per capita to carry on the affairs of the country. A man with a family of five pays about $200 a year in the way of taxes imposed by the Federal Government and about the same amount in the way of municipal and provincial taxes. That means that every family of five persons in Canada has to pay $400 a year in taxes. It is most important, therefore, that the Government insist on our receiving a proper indemnity from Germany. I was surprised that in the speech from the Throne no reference was made to any steps proposed to be taken by the Prime Minister through the proper channels to obtain such an indemnity from Germany. If we cannot get the indemnity direct, we could get it through the indemnity that the British Government may receive. Some of the belligerent nations will receive compensation or indemnity through

the annexation of territory or through the securing of advantages in trade or commerce. We shall not receive anything of this nature. We do not need territory; what we have here is enough for us. The only way to obtain compensation for our material loss is to receive an ample indemnity from Germany; therefore I hope that the Government will take this matter in hand, recognizing it as one of the most important questions we have to

5 p.m. deal with. I am sure that the people of Canada will resent any inaction on the part of the Government in this matter.

The speakers who have preceded me have made an appeal for union in this country.

I am sure that they are sincere in their appeal, and I hope that such union will exist in fact. My last wish is that the leaders of this Government will look higher and seek a purer aim than hitherto; that they will endeavour to render justice to all the people of this country, to all individuals, all classes, all nationalities, remembering that we all belong to the same country; and that they will put into practice the sound policy followed and worthy example set by our great statesmen since Confederation. The real prosperity and development of this country can only be attained by Government action and Government methods based on mutual understanding and confidence. This is justice and true democracy. I hope that "rights to whom rights are due" will prevail; that racial appeals and prejudices will cease; that sinister influence for purely party ends which prevents national unity and obstructs the progress of this country, will cease. In this connection allow me to read to you the following short quotation taken from a paper, regarding the position existing in Belgium:

Far different is tire spirit of the Belgian rulers. In his speech from the Throne, King Albert of Belgium, on his triumphant return to his capital after an enforced exile of four years, set an example which Canadians might well emulate. Coming from the Yser, after passing through liberated towns and hamlets which have been swept toy the war, King Albert's first thought was for the unity of Belgium. That part of his speech which deals with the differences in race and language in Belgium might well toe applied to Canada, so close is the resemblance in the relations between Fleming and Walloon with those that obtain here between French and English-speaking Canada. His words should he printed in letters of gold and hung up in every school-room in the Dominion. It is as follows :

The necessity of a fruitful union demands sincere co-operation and collaboration between all the children of the same mother country without distinction of race or language. In the

domain of language the strictest equality and the most absolute justice will inspire the drafting of a Bill which the Government will presently lay before the national representatives. Thus will he brought about a concord destined to perpetuate the unity and indivisibility of the country, affirmed during the war by the sacrifice of so much precious blood.

The Government, in every department, must be permeated by the reciprocal respect for the interests of Fleming and Walloon and bestow upon each the certainty of being understood in his own tongue, and, moreover, assure him full intellectual development, particularly in the higher branches of education. The interests of the whole country demand that each of our two peoples shall be able, each in its own tongue, fully to develop its individuality and originality in both industrial and artistic expression and production.

I hope that these noble sentiments, so well expressed by the ruler of Belgium when he entered his capital, will prevail in this country. I am sure that if the Government follows those principles and acts upon some of the suggestions that I have put before the House this afternoon, there will be in store for this country contentment, prosperity and happiness.

Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to add my congratulations to those that have been tendered to the two gallant young soldiers who have moved and seconded the Address. They have given us evidence upon the floor of this House that they are quite as able to serve their country here as they were brave and resourceful in serving their country at the front. It adds distinction to tills session that two men who had gone overseas and taken all the chances that were involved in the service there should be those to open the debates during this session.

I also wish to offer my congratulations to the Government which has in my judgment, shown a great deal of courage and a good deal of wisdom in dealing with the difficult conditions that have confronted it during the past four years and particularly during last year. A certain amount of. criticism has been levelled at the members of the Administration because it is charged that they have not been quite quick enough in providing for the demobilization and repatriation of our men. It may he that everything we desire has not been accomplished, but we have had an exhibition of good judgment, resourcefulness and courage on the part of the Government in facing and solving these problems. I believe I am within the fact when I say that, so far as demobilization is concerned, no country is in advance of the Dominion of Canada. While it is too much to expect that the

Government can please everybody, all reasonable men will, I am sure, agree with me that they have shown a real desire to meet all the problems confronting them in the same earnest way that they have succeeded in carrying this country through the war.

There is a great deal in the programme for this session, but there are some things that I am porry are not there. Before, however, referring to that, I would like to make a very brief reference to the war as it has been presented to our attention by the remarks of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). In a very kindly spirit, the hon. member endeavoured to furnish some consolation to those who had suffered bereavement by the loss of some member or members of their family in the war, and he gave as his judgment that those who died would be looked upon with favour by the Almighty and that their future immortality was assured. I find myself unable to interpret the characteristics of divinity, as I understand them in any other light, for if ever men died in a high and a holy cause it was the gallant gentlemen whose bodies to-day lie in France. It is most repugnant to my mind to think that their sacrifices should go unrewarded; for as I see me great issue that was before the world, it was this: the Germans, during forty years, had succeeded in driving Christ out of their country, and if they had won this war they would have attained their ambition which was to drive Christ out of the world and all that Christian philosophy means for the welfare, happiness and prosperity of the people of the world. Surely the men who fought for such a cause as that, and especially those who were called upon to die for it, will have a reward that will compensate them for their sacrifices.

I offer this thought to those who have suffered the loss of some one very dear to them.

The item, Sir, in the Speech from the Throne that impresses me most is that which promises us a Department of Public Health. The phraseology might be improved; and for my part I would like to see it described as "The Department of Public Welfare," which term would include not only health, but many other things that ought to come within the purview of. this Government. There was a time not long ago,-and I think the idea persists still with some men in representative positions-that Government ought to deal solely with roads, bridges, and tariffs. That has been the idea largely in the past; but during the last

decade, particularly upon this North American continent, an entirely new principle, and one which is going to be recognized more fully in the future, has been adopted by many governmental bodies. That principle is that Government is concerned not only with making roads to travel upon and providing other means of transportation, but in looking after the personal welfare of those who are left in such a position that they are unable to take care of themselves. You may call that paternal government-it makes little difference to me what it is called-but those who have done their part and have done it like men and like women are entitled to such aid as may be necessary to enable them to carry out to the full their duties as citizens, and especially those duties appertaining to their children and their home.

One of the things that I would like to see this Department of Public Welfare take up is the question of mothers' pensions. I think we are to be condemned that we have come to this period in the history of the world and still impose upon a woman 'who has lost her husband the necessity of going out to daily labour in order to earn money to provide bread for her children. She is suffering through no fault of her own. She has been a good wife, and she is a good mother or she would not go out at seven o'clock in the morning and toil until six o'clock at night that her children may have bread. All the circumstances surrounding her life proclaim her to be a woman to be admired. Yet by our social system or our governmental system, we place her in a position so difficult that I wonder it has been allowed to continue so long. I can cite instances of women of my own acquaintance, in my own city, who have four or five children, all of them too young to dc- anything for their own maintenance, and the mother left by the hand of death to take charge of them, to care for their physical comfort, and to try, in some way, to bring them up as good citizens. We have imposed on her a task that is practically impossible of accomplishment. If we should be concerned for any class of our people we should first of all look af^er the young, and if a mother has to go out and toil all day, leaving her children to their own devices, how is it possible that they can get the care needful to train them to be good citizens? How, under such circumstances, can she take care of their morals and look after them in all the thousand and one ways in which a mother does look after her own children? We have departments dealing

MARCH 3, Lii'J

with neglected children in our provinces to take the children away

from a mother who neglects them,

to find foster-homes for them, and to educate them; but except in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba no effort has been made to assist the widowed mother who herself does take care of her children. Surely she is deserving of more consideration than the mother who does not. Aye, Sir, such a good mother is deserving of every encouragement from the State, for she is carrying on the duties of both mother and father to those who in the years to come, and not very many years, will be the citizens and the voters of Canada. I hope, therefore, that a Department of Public Welfare will be put into operation speedily, and this particular phase of public duty undertaken.

There is another sphere of welfare work in which I think we should follow the example of our own mother country, whence we derive so much of our inspiration; I think we should establish an Old Age Pension scheme. Take the case of a man who has served his day and generation until he is sixty-five years old. At that age, because of the severity of his employment, he is perhaps an older man than others are at seventy-five; he is beyond the age at which he can find work and take care of himself. Is it fair that we should say to his children: You who are making only about enough money to maintain yourselves must assume this additional burden; all the service that your father has given to his country, in industry and in citizenship generally, shall receive no recognition from the State? I submit that a man who has. worked as long as his physical fitness will enable him, and has used every dollar he could get through his labour to maintain himself and educate his family, when the time comes that he cannot take care of himself it is the business of the Government to look after him. That duty has been recognized in Great Britain and in other countries, and I hope the day is not far distant when it will be recognized in Canada.

I offer another suggestion, and that is that in addition to an Old Age Pension Fund, we should provide insurance against unemployment. There is no sadder sight in the cities and towns of this or any other country than to see a man who is able and willing to work, walking around the streets unable to find employment, until he and his are suffering the pangs of hunger; not through any fault of his, but simply because, owing to existing conditions, he is unable to use the only capital he has-his labour. This duty, too, has been recognized elsewhere, and I think a Department of Public Welfare, such as I hope to see established in this Dominion, should take the initiative in these things, and give a lead to the whole Dominion. Ilf some of these matters ought to be looked after by the provinces, let that be arranged with the provinces, but at all events the present state of affairs should not be allowed longer to continue. I have known men to walk the streets seeking employment, until their last dollar was spent and then have to depend on the charity of their neighbours and friends. Surely there must be some remedy for this state of affairs, and it must be found if we wish the labouring men and artisans of this country to turn deaf ears to the appeals to unrest and Bolshevism which are being made to them by the foreign population of this country. We have to recognize the fair and legitimate demands of the workers of Canada, and I want to say that in no country in the world will you find men more sane, more sensible, and more intelligent than the men working on the lathes and machines of our factories in Canada. I am one of those who believe in trade unionism. It was my good fortune to belong to a trades union at one time, and I want to see the trades unions strong, for my experience has been that wherever a trade union is strong the particular industry with which it is identified is more likely to be operated with certainty and regularity than if the union is. not strong. I happen to be engaged in a business which is regulated, so far as the employees are concerned, by the strongest international union on the continent of America, the International Typographical Union, which I think is the most closely organized and most intelligently managed of any trades union. As a result, that particular industry has carried on for nearly twenty years without strikes or lock-outs. I say that the views of these men who have intelligence .enough to organize their free parliaments as they do must be considered, and I am glad to know that the capitalists of this country realize their responsibility in this regard and are showing greater interest in the welfare of their employees.

I wish to say a word on the Government's housing programme. One hon. member has said that in no city in Canada can a man get a house to-day at a reasonable price; and I think he was very near the

mark-at all events that condition applies to the city of Toronto. Up to a year or so ago, almost every artisan in Toronto was able to live in a self-contained home, with a front lawn, and back garden. But now these artisans have to rent out rooms, lessening the privacy of their homes, in order to meet the demands of the landlord. That is a state of affairs which it is the duty of the Government, of some government, aye, of all governments to rectify, and to rectify as quickly as possible. It was my good fortune at one time to be mayor of Toronto, and during my term of office many American visitors came to the city. The thing I had most pride in, and which I always took a visitor to see, were those streets, of which there are hundreds in Toronto, where our working people live; every man in his own self-contained home, where he was able to bring up a family under splendid conditions, aril give them a good start in life so far as ideals are concerned. I was proud of the fact that more than half of the men who toil in the factories of Toronto are their own landlords, and because of that fact, are better citizens than they otherwise would be. Any man, no matter whether he is a clerk in a bank, or a book-keeper, or a blacksmith, who owns a little piece of land with a house on it-it matters little what the size of the mortgage is; once he can be called the proprietor of that property and is entered upon the assessment roll as the owner-has a very much better and higher outlook on life. Owning a home helps to develop the finest type of citizen. It conduces. Sir, to alert and honest municipal administration, and from that alertness in the municipal sphere must surely come greater alertness and interest in the citizens in provincial and Dominion spheres. I submit that nothing can be done for the working man that will tend to make him reliable and steadygoing, a steadying influence in the country, like giving him his own home. So I was glad to see that this Government, although the question of housing may be a little out of its realm, was prepared to take the action that, has been indicated in the speech from the Throne. I think the Government has adopted a policy that is eminently sound from every standpoint. The responsibility for the spending of the money which the Government intends to lend rests entirely, in the last analysis, with the municipality, where it ought to rest, and where the expenditure can be most closely checked. The action that the Government has taken puts

every municipality in a position to deal with the housing question. But for that assistance many municipalities would have found it extremely difficult to deal with that question at the present time. You will appreciate that when I tell you that in our city the people last year paid $4,000,000 in taxes on war account, and they are paying $0,500,000 this year on the same account. All of that, or nearly all, uras spent upon objects that should have been financed by this Federal Parliament. With a load of debt like that last year and this year totalling something like $12,000,000,' it can easily be understood that the finances of our city are somewhat strained. And what I say of our city pertains, I think, in practically every other city in the Dominion. Their credit needs assistance, and where shall we look for such assistance if not to the province or to this Government? The province itself has undertaken very large expenditures, and the natural place to look for the necessary assistance is right here. It has been a pleasure to me to see that the Government has risen to its responsibilities in this regard. I hope that Parliament, when this matter is worked out finally, will insist as far as possible upon the principle of personal ownership. I have no great sympathy with the building of rows of houses to be rented. That is better than nothing, of course. But I think that

those who are in charge of this

programme or plan should make every effort to render it possible for each individual to buy the house he lives in. That may require some extraordinary measures, but when you consider the advantages involved in the increased efficiency of the men as workers and their improved status as citizens, I think that extraordinary measures are fully justified. Take the man working in any of our factories who goes home to a crowded house-two or three tenants living under one roof as we find in many cases. It is impossible for that man to have the privacy and restfulness that he would have in his own home. He goes back to work next morning not quite so efficient a man as he would be had he been able to go home to his own little house where he could, perhaps, work in the evening in his garden, and where he could sit in the cool of the evening on his own doorstep without having tenants accompanying him. These are considerations in connection with the Government's policy on housing to which I would ask the ministers to give consideration.

We are promised legislation to deal with pensions and assistance to returned sol-

diers. What I think we need more than anything else is that the men whom we have appointed as commissioners to deal with pensions, or demobilization, or repatriation should be men with human qualities strongly developed. I find myself dissatisfied with hard and fast rules as to how much a man shall get. One man may find a measure of disability not nearly so serious a handicap to him as would another. I know that there are difficulties in dealing in a different way with two men whose conditions are superficially similar. I think that the men who have come back to us maimed and partly disabled should be treated more as the sons of the country and not as citizens merely. Suppose that a son, a very dear son, had come back broken, wounded, partly disabled-what would you do in your own home? That is the question that we should ask ourselves in this House, and in asking it we should see to it that the man who is given authority in this matter of pensions should have more than a merely official interest in the welfare of the men with whom he has to do. I would like, if possible, to have engraved before every man who is dealing with the soldiers the statement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. If we can keep in mind what our boys have done for us, if we can keep in mind the things they have endured, I think we shall not carp or haggle at generous treatment, and more than generous treatment. I would like to put upon record what Lloyd George has said concerning what our boys have done. He was speaking of the boys of Britain, but surely what he said of them applies to our own boys who were in the thick of it, just as much as to any troops that fought in this great war. He said:

To this hour I cannot think of the heroism of our soldiers without wonder-without wonder and reverence. There has never been in the history of mankind such a courage as theirs. Never! Think what it was. The least of us is capable of a flash of valour. In a sudden emergency the meanest of us might be brave. Once or twice in his life a coward might do noble things. But think what these men did. It was not for an hour, nor for a day, nor for a week, nor for a month, nor for a year that they did fine things.

Year after year their life was a fine thing. It was not valour they displayed; it was not even heroism; it was something so new and terrible, so undreamed of, that man has created no word for it. I try to find some word to define it, to suggest it; I can't. The nearest word I can get is Endurance. They were in hell every day of their lives; and they endured. They were in peril of death, and worse than death, day after day, night after night; and they endured. They were exposed to all the nerve-shattering rage of artillery, artillery which rived the soil like an earthquake, which

hurled the bodies of the dead into the air, and flung the bodies of the living into a deeper sepulchre; and they endured. They went out into the darkness to storm the trenches of the enemy, to destroy machine-gun nests, to break a line of fire the very thunders of which deafened the men; and they endured. But something more. That is what haunts me. They endured for all these years a manner of life utterly unnatural-utterly unnatural, and

horrible beyond the expression of words.

Our people are the cleanest in Europe; to keep their bodies clean is one of their joys,, a part almost of their religion; and think how they lived! They lived in mud, and worse than mud; they lived in unutterable filth, breathing an air that choked the lungs with disgust, their young bodies attacked by vermin, their feet sinking into squalor, their hands touching at every turn things which one dare not speak about. And our people are the most domesticated in Europe; our climate has forced us into making indoor life the very heart of existence; and these young men were exiled from their homes, were forced to live almost entirely without the grace and charm and consolation of women, were obliged to herd together in great companies in a foreign country, and not only a foreign country, but a torn and blasted country from which the sulphurous flames of Satanism had scorched the leaf of the meanest weed.

There they lived, always in the presence of death, always in the midst of horror, always on a rack of torture, a rack which stretched and tortured not the muscles of the body, but every nerve, and the whole mind, and the entire soul, and they endured. Yes, they endured, endured inexpressible agony with patience, even with humour, and at the end flinging themselves upon the enemy, they drove him headlong, they drove him out of his trenches, sent him flying, beat him, beat him to his knees. There has been nothing like this in the history of the world.

Mr. Speaker, that picture should be in the mind of every person who has to do with the men of our Canadian regiments. If it is kept in the minds of those commissioners in whose hands lie largely the destinies of our broken men I will be satisfied that they will get good treatment. But if we forget what these boys have done for us, if we forget all they suffered and endured for us, we will be unworthy of the sons who fought and died for us. I want to express my agreement with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Sheard) in one of his opinions. He said that at least $1,000 a year pension was little enough for a disabled man and that to offer him anything less than $1,000 would be a disgrace. You cannot get a mechanic to work to-day for less than $25 a week, and yet we are offering to men who have gone to the war, who have lost their ability to earn their own living a pittance of $600 or $700 a year.

I am inclined to go farther than my friend from South Toronto and to say that

$1,000 is not sufficient. A man who has lost his physical strength and is unable to earn his livelihood should at least enjoy an income equal to that of a mechanic, and $1,000 is not equal to a mechanic's wages in this country at the present time. There is no likelihood that the mechanic's wages will ever be decreased. Twelve hundred dollars is as little as any man can live upon, and if he is a totally disabled man and has a family of four or five children, a less amount will subject him to the pangs of poverty in addition to the suffering entailed by the loss of his powers. Surely, if there is any gratitude in this country, if we realize what these men did for us, what they endured in doing it, if we realize what they saved us from, we can afford to be generous and not pare down the amount which is to be paid to them as compensation for their losses.

Another matter of importance is the War-times Election Act. I want to join with my colleague from South Toronto there again and to say that, in my judgment, it would be a calamity for this country to restore the franchise to men who have shown themselves to be alien enemies during the war. If Canada is to realize its possibilities, it must be governed by men who appreciate British institutions and ideals. If you fill your voters' lists with men who come from Central Europe, and who will still tell you that blood is thicker than water, you will find that very shortly political combinations will be made that will place the government of the country in the hands of those who would have handed Canada over to the German tyrant. We have been very patient in the province of Ontario. We have been neighbours to thousands of foreigners, some from neutral countries and many of them from enemy countries, who laughed in our faces when our boys had to go and when the way was opened for them to take their places in positions in civil life.'

If ever there was danger in Bolshevism in Ontario that was the time. I am glad that time has passed. There is no danger of a Bolshevist uprising in Ontario, but if ever we had a condition which would have justified some kind of a protest or uprising it was the condition that existed under the Military Service Act in our own city when men, young, strong; of military age and capable of bearing arms, came before our military tribunals and, with a smirk on their faces, said: We are not naturalized. And because they were not naturalized they were left at home to reap the profiteering rewards that were incident to this great

war. Now that the war is over, now that our men are coming back, are we going to stand for that in the industrial centres of Canada? Are we going to allow these men who laughed in our faces when we could not help ourselves, when our first duty was to carry on and win the war, to usurp the places that ought to be filled by the men who went overseas, men who left their positions in factories and workshops and wages of $5, $6 and $10 a day to go out for $1.10 a day and live under the conditions I have just described. Are we going to allow the men who were left at home to remain in their places? If it is Bolshevism to put these men out and to put our own men in, then I am a Bolshevist, because I submit that no decent manufacturer in Canada will keep in his place men of that type while there are soldiers seeking employment.

There is an awful lot of unrest in this country. It could not be otherwise. Could you expect anything different? We organized our whole system of industry upon the basis of war and we have to suddenly turn around and organize for peace.

There are factors entering into this situation that we never had to deal with before, and I hope we shall never have to deal with again, but under the circumstances, which are apparent to every intelligent man, unrest is absolutely unavoidable. It is for us who appreciate the situation, and it is equally for the British-born artisans and workingmen of Canada to see to it, and they will see to it, that these foreigners who advocate dangerous doctrines get no support from the intelligent English-speaking, and I hope French-speaking, people of the Dominion. We have a right, Mr. Speaker, to make an appeal to labour, and to say to the man that works: The governments and the municipalities of this country are going to do for you the very best that can be done. What we want from you is that your efforts, individually and collectively, shall be applied to increased production. If labour responds to that appeal there will be no danger of lower wages, no danger of permanent unrest, and this country will go on to a period of prosperity.

I have a few more remarks to make, and they pertain to a matter that was discussed in this House last session. At that time I said that the Civil Service Act was badly conceived, and in its operation would work out in filling the Service with the friends of officials. I hardly expected, Sir, that in ten short months my prediction would be so fully realized. I have not the gift of prophecy, but I think that any man examining the Bill when it was before us last

year could realize that the result of its enactment that the Civil Service would be handed over to be filled by a group of officials with their friends. That is what has happened, and that is what is happening right along. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Sheard), in his 'sfwfcch the other day, approved of the appointments to the Toronto post, office. I want to associate myself with him so far as the choice of postmaster is concerned; the appointment was made promptly with the best man available. But when it came to the position of deputy postmaster, what happened? The postmaster, who had worked with the present deputy for twenty-five years, sent the recommendation to Ottawa for his appointment. That appointment was held up in this city for months. It was held up until I instituted inquiries to ascertain the reason for the delay, when I was told that it was due to the Civil Service Commission endeavouring to ascertain whether the official recommended was the senior man. It was none of their business, Mr. Speaker, whether he was a senior man or not-he was the one best qualified for the position. As it happened he was the senior official, hut the Commission refused to accept the recommendation of the postmaster, who knew all the men that were available for the position, and spent some time before consenting to make the appointment. Why? Because the next man in seniority was a friend of a friend of the Secretary of the Civil Service Com. mission.

The same thing happened in regard to filling'a position in the Custom House at Toronto. A hardware appraiser was needed there, and the collector of the port forwarded three names from which to make a selection. But, Sir, these three names were taken by an official in this city, and cast into the wastepaper basket, and the Civil Service Commission appointed a man in the city of Victoria, B.C., to come to Toronto to take the position of hardware appraiser. The commission passed over three qualified men recommended by the collector of the port, who knew each man's capability. He was aware that the three men nominated by him were fit for the position, and that the Toronto public would be satisfied with the appointment of any one of the three. But a friend of the official was appointed over the heads of the three qualified men recommended by the collector who had known the men and their qualifications for years. Does that instance prove what I said last year, that the Service

would be filled by the friends of the officials, or does it not? The official to whom I allude is a very prominent man in the Civil Service in the city, but what did he care for the recommendation of the collector of the port? He had a friend, and even though his friend may be a good man-

Sir SAM HUGHES (Victoria):

Were the members of Parliament, the men who are officially responsible for the riding, consulted in regard to that appointment?

Mr. HOOKEN:

Not to my knowledge, but I have no grouch about the matter. I was not consulted, and I do not want to be consulted.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

You should be

though.