Mr. JOHN WESLEY EDWARDS:
(Fron tenac): Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to add my congratulations to those which have already so fittingly been bestowed on the mover and the seconder of the Address. Seldom, if ever, in this House has that duly been so generally approved; seldom if ever has the approval been more merited. 1 note, however, that the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Redman) did not commend themselves entirely to the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Ped-low) who had a somewhat serious complaint to make. His complaint was that the hon. member for Calgary East knew more than he had put on the pages of Hansard. As to that, what a striking contrast was presented by the hon. member for South Renfrew, who not only placed on Hansard all he knew but very much that he only thought he knew. In this connection, I might observe that the comic effects of many of the observations of the hon. member for South Renfrew are heightened by the self-sufficiency and conceit of the artist.
I also wish to add my congratulations to those which have been bestowed upon the hon. leader of the Opposition in winning the great Liberal Free-for-All and the $7,000 attached thereto. It is remarkable what speed and endurance an old race horse will develop if he is headed towards home and a good feed of oats. I need not remind you, Sir, that Scotchmen are partial to oats, and the hon. leader of the Opposition is Scotch-plain Scotch sometimes, for he is very blunt and direct in his remarks, and at other times, when his
remarks are interspersed with humour, Scotch and soda, sometimes more Scotch than soda, and sometimes more soda than Scotch. The hon. leader of the Opposition, however, is a very worthy type of a very gallant race, and the best wish I have for him is that he may continue to fill the position of leader of the Opposition for the rest of his natural life and that his years may be very, very long. I think in expressing that wish I am also expressing what is in the best interests of Canada.
The hon. leader of the Opposition assisted by a small choir composed of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) held a sort of revival meeting on the other side of the House a few days ago. After a few words of prayer or rather a few quotations from Scripture, which fall very frequently from the lips of the leader of the Opposition, the choir sang that old hymn: Where is my wandering boy to-night? The leader of the Opposition then proceeded to notify hon. gentlemen on this side that there was a candle in the window and that the latch string was outside. He did not state what window the candle was in, but the omission was supplied by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough, who said that it was in the kitchen window. When extending an invitation to members on this side of the House to return, one would have thought that they would have illuminated the front of the house and put a service flag in the window, or at all events given some manifestations of joy to encourage the wanderers to return home. But no. They told Liberal-Unionists on this side of the House that the only way they could get back home was around by the woodshed and through the back door. They had some veal there leaning against the back fence. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) would know at once that it was only a grade, and a mighty poor one at that. However, a very pathetic appeal was made by the leader of the Opposition, and a very urgent one by the hon. member for Brome. A still more urgent appeal was made by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough, who told the Liberal-Unionists on this side of the House that if they did not hurry up they would not get any veal. I have as yet seen no indications on the part of Liberal-Unionists to accept the invitation and hurry to the other side.
As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) very properly and pointedly said: What is there to go back to? If you are looking for a similarity of ideals,
whether on trade matters or other matters,
I do not see that there is anything to cause hon. members on this side of the House to go back to the other side. Certainly so far as the war and affairs arising out of the war are concerned, I am quite confident that the Liberal-Unionists on this sid'e will find themselves in more congenial company than they would if they were to cross to the other side of the House.
It has been said by some hon. gentlemen opposite that the War-time Elections Act was simply for the winning of the election, and that the Military Service Act was for the s6me purpose. Of course, hon. gentlemen on that side are actuated by pure motives at all times, and hon. members on this side have not been so actuated. I want to take a peep at history, and not very ancient history either. In August, 1917, there was a meeting of Liberals in the city of Toronto to talk over the political situation and discuss, the possibilities of coalition and that sort of thing. They spoke very candidly one to the other, and their proceedings were reported, though they did not intend that the public should be informed of what they said. One gentleman, speaking of the Liberals as a win-the-war party said:
Win-the-war party? This is not a win-the-war party. Every gentleman here says the whole aim is to win the election. That is the policy of the party.
Another gentleman, formerly a member of this House for Glengarry, said, that as he had in his constituency both Scotch and French, he had taken the course in this House of voting one time with the Government and another time against it, for the purpose of appealing to both these sections in his county. Hon. George P. Graham, in explanation of his position said that he voted and acted as he did in the House with the knowledge and approval of his leader. He stood on the floor of this House and said that he voted for conscription in July, 1917, and advocated it, on principle, and that he would advocate it again on principle. Fancy the position of the Liberal party as represented by that expression of opinion on the part of Hon. Mr. Graham. He was voting and acting in this House with the knowledge and consent of his leader, yet voting and acting in this House in a manner directly opposed to that taken by his leader at that time. We can only come to the conclusion that in Ontario Mr. Graham was acting with the knowledge and consent of his leader in supporting conscription, while
a different policy was being supported in Quebec. .
Another gentleman present at that meeting now occupies a seat in this House, the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Kennedy). He said:
Like other gentlemen who have spoken I regret the diversity of opinion that exists, and I am confused on account of it. In fact for a month or more past I have been like Eliza in Uncle Tom's Cabin, floating along jumping from one cake of ice to another, and now I want to strike shore somewhere, and I want to land soon.
Well, the hon. gentleman, judging from his remarks the other night, is still floating, and on thin ice, too, and on many questions still quite a way from shore. He found fault with the polling of the soldier vote in England. But there are only two gentlemen in this House who received a larger proportion of soldier votes in England than they received in Canada, and of whom it can be said, because of that larger proportion in England, that they gained an election which they would not otherwise have gained. That is: it is only fair to assume that the Union Government of Canada would have obtained as large a proportion of soldiers' votes overseas as they obtained in Canada. If you give to them only the same proportion of soldiers' votes overseas as they received of the soldiers' votes on this side, and hand the rest of the soldiers' votes over to their opponents, there are only two seats that could have been affected adversely to the hon. members now sitting in this House. So, I think Eliza will have to jump on another cake of ice so far as this point is concerned.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy) also referred to the franchise legislation. He said that franchise legislation should be fair and just. I presume we all agree to that as a statement of principle. The only question is what a man considers fair and just. Is it fair to give the franchise to the slacker, the defaulter, the alien enemy in this country? Is it fair to place these men in the same position as men who have done their duty throughout the four and a half years of war? Is it fair to recognize in the alien enemies of this country citizens on an equal plane with those who have loyally stood by the country in its hour of need? According to the hon. member for North Essex, and several others who have spoken on that side that would be a proper course to pursue. I take issue with them on that; I say that that sort of legislation would be simply putting a premium upon treason and cowardice, it would be unfair legislation-unfair to those in this country who
faced their responsibilities as citizens and were prepared to take all the chances that went with doing their duties as citizens.
The hon. member for North Essex and several other hon. members opposite,-the hon. member (Mr. McCoig) who has just taken his seat, I believe, is one-find fault with the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) because he is not in Canada at this time. They say that the Prime Minister should be in Canada now attending to tariff matters, attending to railway matters. The hon. member for North Essex said that Canada is not concerned with the settling of Balkan boundaries nor the policing of Constantinople. That seems a strange stand for a man to take in view; of what this country fought for through four and a half years of the most terrible war the world has ever known.
Canada is not concerned in the settlement of the boundaries of the Balkan States. Is it not true that that part of Europe was a seething bed of revolution and a serious trouble for years, and that that trouble arose very largely from the unsettled conditions of the people because the. boundaries were not properly arranged and certain races found themselves under the jurisdiction of other people and rebelled against that sort of thing? If Canada has any interest in world peace, it seems to me to require no argument that she is very much concerned in seeing that there shall be a rearrangement of the boundaries of these countries which will make it impossible, as far as we can do so, for such a war to take place again. Is Canada not concerned in policing Constantinople? Is it possible that any hon. gentleman will argue that we Canadians have no concern in the fact that the Turks have murdered in cold blood over a million Armenians whose only fault was that they had accepted the Christian faith? The hon. gentleman may argue that it is more important to us in Canada to settle at once our tariff differences than to endeavour to arrange matters over there and place Turkey in such a position that she cannot in the years to come murder and mutilate, as she has done, not only during this war but for years before this war?
Mr. Speaker, 1 think we in Canada should be proud of the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is recognized by the statesmen of Britain and France as a man of superior ability, as a man possessing talents which can be of the greatest assistance in bringing about a rearrangement to make impossible the state of things which has filled every honest and decent person with horror during the last four and a half
years. The Prime Minister is a man whose soul is sick with horror at what has taken place during the last four and a half years, a man whose vision is broader than the bounds of Canada, or of the British Empire, a man who feels himself to have an interest in the whole human race and what affects the whole human race, and who is playing his part and bringing honour to this country in trying to effect a settlement which will last for all time to come and which will place these countries where they properly belong. I think the expressions which have fallen from the lips of some hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the absence of the Prime Minister at this time do very little credit to them. The tariff can wait for a few months if need be. The Prime Minister's place at the present time, I submit, is over in Paris, giving them there the benefit of his ability in the effort to effect a settlement of this great war and bring matters to a proper conclusion.
I shall not undertake to add to what has been said already in the way of paying tribute to the achievements of our soldiers overseas. I could not hope to say anything as eloquently and as well as it has been said by many hon. gentlemen who have referred to what our soldiers have done. We are face to face now with the problem of reconstruction and the soldier enters very largely into that problem. I think I am logical in saying that, so far as the soldier is concerned, the problem of reconstruction and repatriation is greater in the constituency which has a thousand soldiers returning to it than in a constituency which has only half a dozen soldiers returning to it. There are certain constituencies in Quebec, for instance, where it will not be any problem at all. If you can judge from the number of soldiers who went from these constituencies by the soldier vote polled, then I submit the problem of repatriation, as far as they are concerned, is no problem whatever. There are several constituencies in Quebec, according to the soldier vote polled in Canada and overseas, that have only three soldiers to repatriate. Things cannot be very much disturbed in a constituency where they only have to repatriate three soldiers supposing that they have all lived through the war and returned. In the constituency of Kamouraska, for instance, there were only 15 soldier votes polled on this side of the water and overseas. Things cannot be so terribly out of tune in that part of Canada in so far as the soldier or repatriation is concerned.
I propose to place on Hansard some figures showing what various parts of Canada have done in regard to sending soldiers in this war. That is something that has not been touched on as yet and I propose to place these figures on record now. The Military Service Act came in for considerable criticism in this House although it parsed with the approval of all the provinces of Canada except one. The Government tried honestly under that Military Service Act to keep faith with the men overseas and to keep faith with them by disturbing conditions in this country as little as possible. In order not to disturb conditions more than was absolutely necessary in this country, in order to leave to farming and industrial pursuits those men that could least easily be spared, provision was made in the Military Service Act for certain exemptions and exemption tribunals were appointed. As time went on it became very apparent that the very machinery of the Act which had been provided for the purpose of retaining here those men that could least be spared was being made use of to defeat the purpose of the Act which was to get the necessary number of men to go overseas.
In that connection I may say that out of 403,135 registrations in the Dominion of Canada all but 25,508 asked for exemptions and that was pretty general in all the military districts. But I wish to point out this, and it is exceedingly significant, that those military districts that asked for the lowest number of exemptions in proportion to registrations were those military districts that had already contributed the greatest number of men, and those districts which asked for the greatest number of exemptions were the ones that had already done little or nothing. For instance, in the district of Quebec 39,351 registered, and 39,072 asked for exemptions, and if you look at the figures in connection with the enlistments up to the time of the enforcement of the Military Service Act, the enlistments from that district were the lowest of any district in the Dominion of Canada.
Well, Sir, every person knows that as time went on the Germans made their attempt to break through on the Western Front. The French line was bent back towards Paris, that part of the line held by the British was bent back towards the channel ports, and things looked very dark indeed. The Government of this country, and the Government of Great Britain and the people of France saw that every man that foul possibly be spared must go to
the Front if we wore to save the situation, and steps were taken here to cancel all exemptions; it was absolutely necessary if we were going to keep faith with the men overseas that men should be sent to support them in their efforts to maintain the position on the Western Front. Great Britain had already been drained of almost every available man, and was short of food, yet she went out and took over thirty thousand off the farm, and there was not any kick or row in the Mother Country about it.
On March 31, 1918, the number of recruits obtained from the several provinces were as follows-I will give the number of recruits in March, 1918, and also on August 15, 1918, in order to show what was done here by the Militia Department in trying to obtain the necessary help for the boys overseas. Up to March 31st, 1918, Ontario had contributed 193,689 recruits, and up to August 15th, 1918, 235,925 recruits, an increase of 42,236. Quebec had contributed on March 31st, 1918, 55,206,
and on August 15th, 71,891, an increase of 16,685, that is for the whole province. Maritime Provinces on March 31st, 1918, 45,662, and on August 15th, 1918, 56,937, an increase of 11,275. Manitoba on March 31st, MS, 64,624, and on August 15th, 1918, 72,593, an increase of 7,969. Saskatchewan on March 31st, 1918, 28,540, and on August 15th, 1918, 36,980, an increase of 8,440. Alberta, on March 31st, 1918, 38,188, and on August 15th, .1918, 44,238, an increase of 6,050. British Columbia on March 31st, 1918, 46,895, and on August 15th, 1918, 51,947, an increase of 5,062. That is to say, on the 31st of March
1918, we had 482,806 recruits, and on the 15th of August, 1918, we had 570,521, or we had added in that time 97,717. II submit to you, Sir, that these figures are creditable to the Militia Department and to the efforts of the Government of this country.
I want to carry those figures a little bit further. I want to be perfectly fair to every part of the Dominion in regard to this matter, showing what each did towards helping to win this war. I want to place these figures on record because I think they have a very direct bearing upon the question of reconstruction in this country, and they should be taken into consideration by the Government when it is formulating its plan for the expenditure of money throughout the different parts of this Dominion. If we deduct from the population of each province all Europeans, Asiatics and foreign born, except those from Belgium, France, Italy and Rumania-and I except those because I think it is only right to assume that any residents of those countries in Canada would be willing to do their part with us, and to enlist as our men were enlisting to carry on the war-if we deduct those Germans and Austrians, and so on, from the populations of the various provinces I find that it gives us this result: That out of every one thousand recruits each province should have furnished in proportion to its population as follows: Ontario 368, Quebec 275, Maritime Provinces 138, Manitoba 67, Saskatchewan 59, Alberta 47, and British Columbia 46. That, Sir, is the proportion which each province should have contributed in proportion to its population. Now I wall place on Hansard what each province did contribute as against what they should have contributed
- No. of Enlistments. No. that should have enlisted in proportion to population. No. above or below quota according to population that should have been furnished by each province. 241,258 80,097 217,330 23,928 (Excess).162,407 82,310 \Below)59,206 73,434 53,765 37,666 81,498 22,292 Manitoba 39,568 27,166 33,866 26,599 (Excess).34,843 2,823 it45,146 27,756 17,390 it
I might say that these figures take us right up to the 15th of November, 1918, and that in the case of British Columbia that province was pretty nearly one hundred per cent in excess of its fair quota or proportion of population.
I want to impress on the members of the House the fact, which cannot, I think, be controverted, that had each province enlisted men in proportion to its population, Quebec would have contributed 82,310 more men than it did, the Maritime Provinces
history of the party does not show that. What was the position taken in regard to agricultural implements in 1907, for instance? The member for Kent was supporting the Liberal party at that time, cheering and hurrahing for the Liberal platform. In 1907 the question of the duty on agricultural implements came up in this House. The member for Kent was not a member of the House at that time. He came into Parliament the next year, but he came in as a strong supporter of a party which had refused in 1907 the appeal of the 'Conservatives in this House for the reduction of the duty on agricultural implements from 17i to 10 per cent. When the Fielding tariff was brought in, in 1907, the proposal was to bring the duty down to 17J per cent, and Dr. Schaffner, now Senator Schaffner, then the member for Souris in this House, moved that the duty on agricultural implements be reduced to 10 per cent. Every Conservative member in the House at that time voted for Dr. Schaffner's resolution, and every Liberal voted against it. Therefore, in so far as the tariff on agricultural implements is concerned, I think I am quite reasonable when I say that past history would encourage the hon. member for Red Deer ((Mr. Michael Clark), or any other free trader, if there is any other out-and-out free trader in this House, to hope for more from the Conservative party or Unionist party than he could expect to get from the old Liberal party.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer for a few minutes. I am sorry to have to refer to it, but I do not think that I should take my seat without making some reference to Civil Service reform. The hon. member for West. Toronto (Mr. Hocken) a few days ago brought up in this House the matter of the Civil Service and offered some criticism. I was in the House during the whole time that the hon. member made his speech, and not only did I follow him very carefully in the House, but to make certain of what he said I very carefully read his speech as reported on Hansard. I could not, however, find in the hon. member's speech a single sentence, line or word which would justify any person of accusing him of religious bigotry. He presented the matter in a moderate and fair manner. Not once in the whole course of his speech did he mention the word " religion." And yet, because his criticism of the Civil Service affected the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Foran, that gentleman is reported in the press the next day as saying that the remarks of the
hon. member for West Toronto against him were actuated by religious bigotry; that the hon. member for West Toronto assailed -him, Mr. Foran, because Mr. Foran was a Roman Catholic. I repeat that from begi i-ning to end of his speech, you cannot find one word to justify that accusation by the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission. Have we come, Sir, to a state in this country that an hon, member of this House cannot, from his seat, without being characterized in the press as a bigot, criticise a civil servant who happens to be a member of the Roman Catholic church? Is that the situation with which we are face to face in Canada to-day? It looks very much like it. Not only do I resent that accusation by Mr. Foran, the Secretary of the Commission, but I resent the editorial which appeared yesterday or this morning-I forget which-in the Ottawa Journal.
I am going to refer to a case which will throw some little light on this question. I understand from the press that one of the ministers is going to refer to the Civil Service, and I am very glad to speak before he does, because this is a matter which he can add to his list, and he can give us some explanation on this as well as on the matters on which the hon. member for West Toronto touched. There appeared in the Canada Gazette on December 28 this advertisement:-
A Publicity Agent to take charge of the publicity work of the Department of Immigration and Colonization at a salary of $4,000 per annum. Candidates should possess the following qualifications:-Ability to prepare and direct newspaper, magazine and farm journal advertising campaigns, both in Canada and elsewhere, in setting forth the settlement opportunities in Canada; knowledge and experience with (a) follow-up systems, (b) the production and circulation of motion pictures, and (c) the natural resources of Canada; ability to direct lecture campaigns; a personal acquaintance with writers, publicists and organizations now dealing with the opportunities and land settlement problems of Canada.
Application forms, properly filled in, must be filed in the office of the Civil Service Commission not later than the 24th day of January.
In answer to that advertisement, I desire to place on Hansard an application made by a gentleman who seems to me to possess the qualifications called for in the advertisement. He writes as follows:-
William Foran, Esq., Secretary,
Civil Service Commission,
January 24, 1918.
Sir,-I have the honour to attach herewith formal application for the position of Publicity Agent of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
I am at present in charge of the Publicity of the Vocational Branch of this department, which involves considerable research work, and feel that I have qualifications and experience which would fit me eminently for the vacant position.
In my late appointment (prior to the war) as manager of the Copy and Art Department of the Norris-Patterson Advertising Agency, I was brought in touch with many of the leading Canadian advertisers, the preparation of whose copy was ih my hands, and the continued success of these advertising campaigns is evidence of the quality of this copy. In many cases it has been my duty to advise on and instal follow-up systems, and especially in the preparation of catalogues and booklets, my experience has been very varied, embodying, as it does, a knowledge of the technicalities of the printing and engraving industries.
As regards the Farm Press, it has been my privilege to handle a number of advertising accounts of manufacturers, appealing particularly to the farmers of Canada, and this has involved a study of farm conditions which was essential before contact with this section of the community could be made.
For the International Varnishing Company, I prepared a lecture with over 200 slides describing the winning of the raw materials in different parts of the world that composed the varnish of commerce and of the processes and manufacture of this commodity-this lecture being part of an educational campaign, directed to the retail merchants of Canada. This is directly along the lines of Cinema Publicity.
I am considered a forceful public speaker, and have had not a little experience along this line, and could adequately plan and direct such campaigns as would be desirable.
In conclusion, I would direct your attention to the fact that I have a most intimate acquaintance with Publicity in all its forms, my work in my late position calling for the origination and design of advertising publicity of every kind. This work brought me in the closest touch with the newspapers and periodicals throughout Canada, and in a large degree with the Farm Press, and my position as Editor of "Economic Advertising" gave me extended acquaintance with leading Canadian, English and American writers and publicists.
I shall be happy to wait on you at your convenience,
I have the honour to he, Sir,.
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed) Donald Tuck.
I might add to that the following partial list of campaigns handled wholly or in part by Mr. Tuck:-
The Campaign (1913) for advertising the benefits of Advertising; the Convention Campaign (1914), of the Associated Advertising Clubs of the world, E. W. Gillett Co., Limited, Ames, Holden & McCready, Pedlar People, Limited, International Varnish Company, Cudahy Packing Company, B. Greening Wire Company, American Chiclet Company, H. R. Williams Machinery Company, Canadian Shredded Wheat Company, Gidley Boat Company, Monarch Knitting Company, Steele Briggs & Company, and many others.
Mr. Tuck was notified by the secretary of the commission on February 6 that the
position had been given to Mr. R. J. E. Stead of Calgary, as the best qualified candidate. He wrote asking for further particulars and for the names of the hoard of experts or examiners to whom the secretary of the commission had alluded. That information was given. The personnel of the board of examiners is as follows:
Sir John Willison, formerly editor of the Toronto Globe and Toronto News, now Canadian representative of the London Times; P. D. Ross, editor of the Ottawa Journal; Dr. George H. Locke, Librarian of the Toronto Public Library and Associate Director of Public Information. Dr. Locke, was, unfortunately, ill and was unable to attend the meeting and his place was taken by Dr. A. D. DeCelles, Librarian of Parliament. The .Department was represented by the Acting Deputy Minister, Mr W. W. Cory.
I have nothing to say with regard to the ability of the gentlemen who composed the board of examiners who no doubt are very able men but I would direct attention to the fact that they are writers and not men whom you would naturally regard as competent to select a publicity agent. Mr. Foran in one of his letters tells this gentleman that fifteen returned soldiers were among the applicants for the position. The gentleman whose application I have just read is also a returned soldier who had been in the service three and a half years and certainly possesses to my mind the qualifications which would entitle him at least to a personal interview by the Commission. Now, Sir. I make these points: Mr. Stead was appointed on December 19,1918 and drew the salary of the position from that date. Yet the vacancy was not advertised until December 28, 1918. Now get those dates right. I say that Mr. Stead was appointed on December 19, 1918 and the advertisement appeared in the Canada Gazette- on December 28, 1918. I say further that no opportunity was given to the candidates to appear in person before the Commissioners. I say also that despite the fact that fifteen returned soldiers had put in their applications, and that one in my judgment had every qualification for the position, the Civil Service Commission disregarded the stated policy of the Government and appointed a man who was not a returned soldier. I submit further that the Board of Examiners in this case did not possess the necessary qualifications to judge of a candidate's fitness for this position. The men composing the board were literary men with little or no publicity experience. I am told that Mr. Stead has not the very wide qualifications for a publicity man called for in the advertisement, that he is a story-writer and a poet. I
complain that no opportunity was given to candidates to submit to any written or oral test, and that competition was eliminated by the absence of such a test. Now, Sir, is not a member of this House justified in criticising such a state of affairs? Mr. Stead was selected by whom? By the Civil Service Commission? Not at all. They delegated their powers to the committee I have already named. Once more I call your attention to the fact that one of the members of that committee was Mr. P. D. Boss, editor of the Ottawa Journal, the gentleman, I suppose, who wrote the editorial criticising severely and unjustly the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). It is all right for Mr. P.'D. Ross through the columns of his paper to criticise a member of this House for daring to offer any criticism of the Civil Service Commission, because he was one of the subcommittee appointed to select one of his friends for a Government position. You can see the Ethiopian in the wood-pile there, Mr. Speaker, and you don't have to put your glasses on to see him.
I 'have not one word of adverse criticism or disrespect to offer with regard to the members of the Civil Service Commission. Two of these gentlemen I know, and have known for a number of years, and I have the highest respect for them. The other member of the Commission I do not know, but I have no reason to consider him anything else but well qualified for his position, and a gentleman. It is not the Civil Service Commission that is to. blame for the conditions that exist to-day. Who is to blame? The members of this House are to blame because we placed upon the shoulders of the Civil Service Commission an amount of work which no Civil Service Commission under the canopy of heaven could possibly do. For proof of my statement I have only to go to the commissioners themselves, who have furnished the proof over and over again by delegating to subcommittees the work which they are supposed to do. For one position I am told there were 1,300 or 1,400 applications and that a thousand or more of the applications were thrown into the waste-paper basket without ever being looked at. A subcommittee pawed over the other three hundred and made a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, who notified the appointee that he was the lucky man. There were 62 applications for the position of superintendent of penitentiaries, and another subcommittee was appointed to look over those applications and report to
the Commission. A subcommittee was appointed to look over the applications for publicity agent, to which I have already referred. Yet Mr. P. D. Ross, the editor of the Ottawa Journal, says that me members of this House are angry because patronage has been taken away from them, that all that the members of this House exist for is the distribution of patronage, and that now that has been taken away from them they have nothing to do. So far as I am concerned, and I believe the majority of hon. members are in the same position, I have not recommended more than half a dozen men during the whole time I have been in this House. I say that it is as ridiculous a thing as can be imagined to place in the hands of three men at Ottawa the making of all appointments to the Outside Service throughout this country.
What in the name of Heaven does the Civil Service Commission here in Ottawa know of the qualifications of a man for a fifty-dollar post office in the county of Fron-tenac? There is only one person in the county who must not even express an opinion as to those qualifications, and that is the man who represents the people of the county and is responsible to them. To talk about responsible government and then have a condition of this kind seems to me absolutely silly, absolutely ridiculous.
The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) called attention to the fact that there is a school here in Ottawa run by a gentleman who prepares candidates for the Civil Service. I am informed that he is an intimate friend of the Secretary of the Commission. He was formerly in the public employ under the Laurier Government, and, I believe, was dismissed from his position because he was carrying on this business of preparing candidates. Later he was reinstated, and now holds his position in the Civil Service and makes use of that position to canvass around the departments to get persons to attend his school where they are fitted for the Civil Service, and they never fail. I trust the gentleman will appreciate the ad. I am giving him here to-night. I submit that this is a state of affairs which justifies the hon. member for West Toronto in bringing the matter to the attention of the House. And once more I protest as a member of this House against the attitude of the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission in speaking as he did of the hon. member for West Toronto without any warrant for doing so. I want to express my disapproval of and resentment at the attitude of the Ottawa Journal in its editorial
columns, condemning every member of this House in regard to patronage, and particularly the hon. member for West Toronto, especially in view of the fact that the editor of the Journal was one of the men acting as a sub-committee in making these appointments of which we have just right to complain.
We have been told that old conditions have passed and that we enter now upon a new political era in the Dominion of Canada. I believe that to be true, and I believe that it is a good thing for Canada that it is true. Our politics, from Cbnfedera-tion down to the present time, have been largely a matter of man-worship. Canada had in its public life two of the most remarkable characters that ever graced the life of any country, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. These men by their personality added to their superior talents drew men to them; their word was law. I am free to confess that, as a lifelong Tory, I used to think that when Sir John Macdonald expressed an opinion on any subject, that settled it-it was no use to debate it further. And I venture to say that there are men in this House to-day whose regard for the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was so great that they paid equal deference to his judgment. This had the effect of suppressing individuality. One of the things that will come out of this war for Canada is that men who sit in this House, from now on, are going to express more their individual opinion than they ever did before. And it is a good thing for the Dominion of Canada that it should be so. I hope to goodness we shall never again have in this Dominion men who are possessed of the wonderful magnetism possessed by the two great leaders who occupied the political stage in this Dominion for so many years. Whether hon. gentlemen opposite believe me or not, I think they will find that men not only in this House but throughout this country are supporting Union Government not only because Union Government has justified its existence, and justified it amply, but because they recognize in this Union Government and this Union party a breaking away from those hard and fast political lines with which, in their soul, they did not agree.
Now, I wish to say a word in regard to the tariff. I doubt very much if this is an opportune time for a thorough revision of the tariff. I stated in this House last session that I did not believe there was in Canada at that time a man who could state what the fiscal policy of this Dominion should be after the war; that after the war
we should have to arrange our fiscal policy to meet changed conditions. It seems to me that in the course of the next two or three months, or perhaps in less time than that, there will be such radical changes in transportation rates and in the prices of commodities that we shall be in a better position to form an opinion on tariff questions than we are now, when prices, transportation rates, and other elements in the problem are in a state of flux. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to speak as if the one only thing upon which parties can be based in this House is the fiscal policy. I venture to suggest that there are problems facing this Dominion of far greater importance than the immediate arrangement of our fiscal policy. I have always been a strong protectionist. I have no apologies to make for that; whether I am right or whether I am wrong, I have been sincere and conscientious in my belief. But, speaking as an Ontario man and one who has been a strong protectionist, I am prepared to go a long wqy in revising my views on tariff matters if by so doing we can keep together the people of this country, who, it seems to me, have got to keep together if we are to solve the problems with which our country's future is bound up. If we can get together by a compromise on tariff matters, there are other matters, such as putting the foreigners of this country where they properly belong, which are more important, in my opinion, than the immediate fixing of the tariff and the settlement of the question whether the duty on a given article shall be fifteen per cent or seventeen and a half per cent.
Before taking my seat I want to say just a word in regard to defaulters and slackers, and the way they have been treated in this country. I have no sympathy to waste on the man who is behind prison bars to-day for being a deserter or defaulter under the Military Service Act. But, Mr. Speaker, I protest very strongly against an Ontario man who is charged with desertion, or being a defaulter under the Military Service Act, being condemned to imprisonment for one, two, three, four or five years, when a defaulter in Quebec gets off with a fine of $5, $25 or $50. In my judgment, the placing of these defaulters in the penitentiaries and jails of the country is a mistake. They should be punished, but it seems to me they should be placed in internment camps, and the form of punishment I would impose on them would be to take from them the franchise. If they have refused, as they have, to do their duty in the nation's crisis, they should not expect to exercise the
privilege of the franchise. I will tell you why I object to placing these men behind prison bars. They have been guilty of a breach of the Military Service Act. You take a man and place him in prison or in the penitentiary. Apart from the fact that he has not responded, as he should have responded, to the service of his country, he has shown no criminal instincts whatever. Is it a wise thing to take a man who has given no evidence of criminal instincts and put him in prison along with men steeped in crime? Is that wise from the national standpoint? What chance has that man to come out after two, or five years' incarceration alongside of the worst criminals the country may have produced and play the part of a man? For that reason, and not because I think they should be exempt from punishment, I believe it is a mistake to place these men behind prison bars in our penitentiaries and jails.
In conclusion, let me say that the men on this side of the House, whether Liberal or Conservative, in supporting Union Government, had to decide whether party or national interests should be paramount. There are plenty of big problems in this country to be solved. The motives that actuated the men on this side of the House in the last election should actuate them in the future, and their principal idea should he not the good of the party, whether Liberal, Unionist or whatever it may be, but the good of Canada. There should be sufficient independence and patriotism in every one of us to express his. honest convictions on the various matters that come before us and do his utmost to solve them in the best interests of the country. That should be the aim of each and all of us, and I am sure that it is the aim of most of the members, at least, of this House.
Subtopic: ADDRESS IN REPLY.