June 13, 1919

EFFICIENCY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.


On motion of Mr. Michael Steele (South Perth) the third report of the special committee appointed to consider the possibility of reducing or rearranging the staffs of the Inside Civil Service was concurred in.


SATURDAY AND MORNING SITTINGS.

UNION

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Unionist

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I have spoken to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in regard to the motion which was presented yesterday, and he has suggested that instead of "Saturday the 14th of June " it should read "Saturday the 21st day of June," and that instead of "on and after Monday, the 16th day of June " it should read "on and after Tuesday, the 17th day of June." I think that the suggestion he has made to me is reasonable, and I intend to propose the motion with those amendments.

My hon. friend also spoke to me about an announcement in regard to legislation, and I may say to him that I hope to be able to make that announcement before Saturday of next week.

[Mr. Cannon.}

I beg leave to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance: ,

That on and after Tuesday, the 17th day of June instant until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each day except Sundays, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m. ; and the order of precedence on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays.

Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks before this motion is carried,, but as I have some doubt as to whether it is debatable I will reserve my remarks until I am told whether I may speak.

Topic:   SATURDAY AND MORNING SITTINGS.
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman is quite in order.

Topic:   SATURDAY AND MORNING SITTINGS.
Permalink
L LIB

Jean-Joseph Denis

Laurier Liberal

Mr. DENIS:

I have very little to say on this motion, but I think it is my duty to express my views in regard to it. I have no doubt that every member of this House is now eager to see the session brought to a conclusion. I do not blame any hon. member for that, but any member who says that he is anxious to be enabled to-follow the sittings of the House and to know what is going on should also receive some consideration from his fellow-members. No hon. gentleman can reasonably contend that it is physically possible for a man to attend the sittings of the House in the morning, in the afternoon, and at night until twelve o'clock, and sometimes until one or two o'clock in the morning. This motion practically means, therefore, that on and after the day mentioned, hon. members will of necessity be precluded from being present at the majority of the sittings of the House. I do not think that is fair. If it is desired that the work of the session be brought to an early conclusion, the most important business of the House can be disposed of now, and the session adjourned until next fall, or a new session held next fall. But how can we follow the measures which will be brought before the House by the Government between now and the end of the session if the House sits three times a day? Moreover, there is no fixed time at which the House should adjourn at night. It has been promised that the new Franchise Bill will be introduced this session. I ask you, is it reasonable to expect that a Bill of that importance can receive adequate consideration during the last days of the session, when members are Obliged to attend the sittings of the House morning, afternoon and night? I do not think that is right. On the Order

Paper there are several important measures for second reading which may he brought on any day; it is not right that these measures should be disposed of id such a hurried way as we disposed of important matters at the end of the session last year. During the dying days of the last session the House sat until one and two o'clock in the morning, and it has come to my knowledge that the House voted, within a few hours, something like $100,000,000. Well, Sir, if that- is why we call Parliament a deliberate assembly I do not knoVv what the words mean. If the House is going to sit, according to this motion, as it sat towards the end of the session last year, it is no longer Parliament; it is a House of Pretence. Hon. members have to look after their private correspondence; they have to attend the meetings of the committees- which will carry on their work as usual, notwithstanding the morning sittings of the House. Hon. members have to assist also in the work of the House at all these sittings. Every new piece of legislation that is brought before the House has to be studied. If we are here for anything at all, we have to know what is going on. I make an appeal more particularly-though I have not been asked to do so-on behalf of my chief, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. D. D. McKenzie). We have admired the work of a man who is no longer young and who has assisted in the work of the House every hour since the session began. Is it possible for the leader of the Opposition to sit here morning, afternoon and night, as is now suggested? I do not think it is possible for any man to do it. As for the Government, ministers of the Crown deal individually with their Estimates and w'ith legislation which comes particularly under their direction, and have not always to be in the Chamber; but the Opposition has to be here all the time in order that it may carry out its duty of checking the legislation brought down by the Government and the Estimates which the Government asks the House to adopt. I do not know how many members share my views on this subject, because I have not discussed the matter with other hon. gentlemen; but in my opinion this motion is making it impossible for Parlia-ment^at least for the Opposition-to do their duty.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN': There is a great deal of force in what the hon. member (Mr. Denis) says as to giving an appropriate amount of time to all the measures which come before Parliament at any session.

After twenty-three years' experience in this House, however, I am inclined to the belief that that ideal is, unfortunately, quite incapable of realization. There is always a tendency to use time rather wastefully at the commencement of the session, and then to be very much pressed for time at the end.

I hope my hon. friend does not suppose that when members of the Government are not in the Chamber, they are disporting themselves in some idle gaiety outside. As a matter of fact, if the hon. member finds that the work devolving upon him in connection with the business of Parliameni is serious, and, at times, almost oppressive, I hope he will remember that the work is still more oppressive for the members of the Government, who are not only charged with the responsibilities of private members, but have to sit in Council many hours during the day, being often, when absent from the House, engaged in Council in one of the rooms upstairs.

I rather resent the suggestion of my hon. friend that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) is no longer young, because he is some years younger than I am, and I find myself still quite a young man. I know pretty well what the burdens cast upon the leader of the Opposition are, because I had an experience of about ten years in that work. Those burdens are serious, hut the leader of the Opposition may be assured that we shall always, in the arrangement of the work, be prepared to assist him or to lighten his burden in any way we can.

Topic:   SATURDAY AND MORNING SITTINGS.
Permalink
UNI L

William Stevens Fielding

Unionist (Liberal)

Hon. W. S. FIELDING:

I think the

greatest objection to the motion is the effect it will have upon the committee work of the House. I would not complain at any time of the absence of ministers from their seats, because I know that they have other engagements. But under the present arrangement a minister is not merely expected to be in two places, but in three places at the same time. A minister is supposed to be here in the House; he is also supposed to be in Council, and he is also supposed, in somes cases, to attend the meetings of committees. I can cite more than one case where the business of a committee has been repeatedly delayed simply because the committee felt that, as a matter of courtesy, it should wait for the presence of a minister If, in addition to the difficulties which prevail now, you are going to meet in the mornings, you might as well dispense with your committees altogether and ask them to

cease sitting, because it is impossible for members to attend committees and also be here morning, afternoon, and night.

Topic:   SATURDAY AND MORNING SITTINGS.
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.


On the Orders of the Day: Mr. C. .G. POWER (South Quebec): May I ask whether the Government have received a communication from the Great War Veterans' Association demanding an investigation into the allegations made by Lieutenant-Colonel McKelvey Bell, in connection with the Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment Department, and if .so, whether it is the intention of the Government to grant this investigation?


UNION

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Unionist

Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):

A resolution was received of the purport to which my hon. friend has alluded, but I have not yet had an opportunity of considering it attentively. I shall I think be prepared to make an announcement on th9 subject early next week.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Permalink

PRIVILEGE-MR. STACEY.


On the Orders of the Day:


UNION

Frank Bainard Stacey

Unionist

Mr. F. B. STACEY (Fraser Valley):

1 rise to a question of privilege. During my remarks yesterday afternoon I referred to a statement made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) the previous evening. I was under the impression that his remarks Were based upon the visit of the President of the American Federation of Labour to this House during the last session, but I have since learned that they did not rest upon that basis. I was not aware at the time that his remarks were based upon an entirely different fact. While the hon. member made this explanation yesterday afternoon, the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Trahan) was correct in his statement that I did not hear it. I did not hear the last sentence of my-hon. friend from Maisonneuve at all. I wish to make the more ample apology because of not knowing what took place in my absence from the House on business in my province during the last ten weeks.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. STACEY.
Permalink
UNION

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Unionist

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think it is the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) who should have risen to the question of privilege.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE-MR. STACEY.
Permalink

THE BUDGET.


The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means and the amendment of Mr. McMaster thereto (resumed from Thursday, June 12.) Mr. HOWARD PRIMROSE WHIDDEN (Brandon): Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss some features of the Budget I find it easy to follow the example of several hon. members in introducing some preliminary remarks. I shall endeavour, however, not to make any far excursions into foreign fields. . I noticed with interest, though not with surprise, in the remarks yesterday of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) references' to members of the Cabinet which, while intended to discount them in the thought of the public, must of. necessity have given the hon. gentlemen more amusement than nation-wide discount. I was interested particularly in his historical tracing of British usage in so far as the unanimity of views of Cabinet ministers is concerned, and I wondered why an hon. member of this House who gave such comfort to Germany in January of 1917 could be so interested in English precedent at the present time. If correctly reported, the hon. member on or about January 21, 1917, used these words: All that keeps back these men (members of the former government) that are ready to deliver us hand and foot to England Is the fear in the country of conscription. Again, Are we to ruin our country from the point of view- -of the men of wealth and everything else for England? I say no, without hesitation. There seems to be something so incongruous in the endeavour to implicate members of the present Cabinet who hold views different from those of other hon. members, especially when the endeavour is made by one who spoke in this wise within the last two or three years. I was also struck with the words in his address, which seemed to be so unrelated and foreign to this time when we are still the grateful beneficiaries of the sacrifices of men and women who have fought and suffered for us, in which he endeavoured to implicate the Prime Minister, whose record, I am inclined to think, if we could get at the whole of it overseas, would in itself be sufficient to take care of our honoured 'leader. In his attempt to discounti the work of the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet at the Peace Conference, I notice among others these three striking questions: What have we gained? What will we get? How much will we receive9 Strangely followed by the sentence: Have we not made enough sacrifices? I do not quite apprehend the bearing of that " we." " We " were supported by eight men in uniform on the 17th of December. Have " we" sacrificed? Let us be slow to discount, the work done by those who represent us so worthily in following up the sacrifices already made in- actuality, in order that Canada might play her full part in the great struggle for the larger freedom -the freedom of all liberty-loving peoples. Have not the men who fought so gallantly for such a high and holy cause a right to speak at such times as these? Think of running away from the sheer uplifting idealism of these men and of their actions- the men who saved the day at the second battle of Ypres, the men who fought all through the Somme, who captured Vimy Ridge, Hill 70, and Passchendaele, who were right in the thick of it during the last great one hundred days, who took Amiens, Arras, Cambrai, Valenciennes and Mons. I believe that it will be a bad day for Canada when the work of these, our best representatives, is forgotten by the people, or by the representatives of the people in this House who refer to " our " past sacrifices and ask glibly: " What have we gained? How much shall we receive?" Before passing to the direct discussion of some features of the Budget, I desire very briefly to refer to two or three matters that demand attention in connection with the present unrest. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Canadian people could see all sides of this problem, at least, all sides that are visible. It is very easy to take one, and only one, view of the situation. A part of this unrest is naturally incident to the times in which we live, while a part of it is an expression of the natural and wholesome desire for such fuller recognition of rights as will lead to a fair readjustment, securing an increasing measure of common right and freedom for all. But still another aspect of the unrest is the manifestation of diseased imaginations fed on the productions of the heated brains of class-conscious extremist agitators who, in order to right some wrongs, would introduce a vastly greater number ol evils in following out their selected methods. Mr. Speaker, we, as Anglo-Saxon people and as Canadians, must ever bear in mind that where great moral questions are involved immoral methods cannot be resorted to if lasting and satisfactory results are to be reached. Some rather loose words have been spoken in connection with Bolshevism. I have heard good friends outside of this House refer to the demand of weary hospital nurses for three weeks vacation in the summer, instead of two weeks, as an evidence of the arrival of Bolshevism in the community. I have heard even more dangerous utterances on the character oi Bolshevism. Those who see in Bolshevism the natural expression of the real soul of the common people, need to ponder this matter and'investigate somewhat further. They should read a little more widely the results of the investigations of those who, as great outstanding socialistic leaders, have visited countries where Bolshevism is now rampant-men like the fair-minded John Spargo-and see in their findings whether it is liberty-loving people who now wave the red flag and march tyrannically forward. I think it is not. Sir, there is true labour, and we should honour it and stand for its rights. We should be ready to prepare the way for such readjustments as will make it possible for true labour to secure its rights. But there is also rank, naked, unadorned Redism, and sometimes, unfortunately for true labour, this menace becomes associated with people who are honestly endeavouring to solve their problems and secure the interest of all broadminded fellow citizens in order to obtain their due. The struggle that is on is not merely, one between capital and labour. It is essentially a struggle between great conflicting ideas. Unfortunately, good ideas and ideas that are not so worthy have got mixed up on both sides. But if, as people endowed with ideas of British fair play and the instincts of our race dominant within us, we are willing to solve this problem fairly, recognizing that all are concerned and eliminating class consciousness as far as possible, I believe that we shall arrive at conclusions and achieve results that will mean for us a better and greater Canada. Right here I desire to give my support most heartily to the essential features in the resolutions recently submitted to the Government by the Great War Veterans' executive with regard to an early conference of all parties concerned. The interests affected are not only those of labour and capital. Why can we not get a small group of men representative of agriculture, labour, capital, and the returned men-unless they wish to regard themselves as being reabsorbed into the various groups-and especially competent representatives of Mr. Taxpayer, the plain common people, with a view to arriving at some common satisfac-



tory understanding? We must have a " get together " of some kind, and that as early as possible, in order that differences may be clearly and frankly discussed around the table. Heated arguments will undoubtedly ensue, but as a result of such a conference there will be a truer understanding and a greater possibility for those who represent their several constituencies in this House to make such changes or to have such new legislation enacted as may be necessary in the interests not of classes bu,t of all true Canadians. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is to-day a willingness on the part of most of the classes mentioned to negotiate. I hold no brief for any manufacturer, but I am delighted to learn from time to time, as I meet different manufacturers, that some members of this class of the community are prepared to meet the rest of us half way. I am not sure that all manufacturers are yet willing to do so, nor, indeed, am I sure that all the rest of us are prepared to meet them half way. With your permission, Sir, I desire to read part of a letter I received a few days ago from a successful young manufacturer in this country. I do not know whether all of his proposals are practicable or not, and it is not my purpose to declare my adherence to every sentence that he has penned. He writes: I cannot see why the solution of some of our difficulties is not along other lines than either side is adopting at present. There are three big factors involved-Satisfied Capital, Satisfied Labour, and Satisfied Public. Perhaps the order should be reversed. There is no question that the spirit of greed is in full swing on the part of a large class in industry and business, and the general public is paying the bill. Every one is looking to the Government to reduce prices, which will go higher than ever if the Peace gets signed without future friction looming up. With still higher prices for the necessities of life, there will be more discontent. One of the big problems seems to be to keep the cost of living down at least to where it is, so that wages will both seem and be larger. The other problem of satisfying labour, it seems must rest on a self-interest solution. The third problem of satisfying capital involves capital making concessions to save the industrial life of the country, at this time of Canada's greatest opportunity. If a law were passed affecting all Dominion Chartered Companies, allowing G% to be paid per annum to the Stockholders on all actual Capital invested (cut out the water) and all Net Dividends over and above 6% to be divided into two parts, 50% to go to the capital invested. 50% to the employees in proportion to salaries and' wages paid, it would form a new basis for a fair deal. All salaries and wages to be reasonable for the particular industry involved (the Government experts to act as the arbitrators, as they now settle Income Taxes). Management has so much to do with the success of any business, that inducement must be given for good men to take hold, and labour should give 5% at least of the above 50* and Capital give 5% of its above 60, making 10% of profits bonus for the manager to make extra effort to make good. Of the 46% left to each, 'labour and capital, I would say go further, and have 26% each of this go into a Fund for increasing the equipment and capital invested in the business. This would allow small businesses to grow, and give labour an actual capital interest in the business. With present tendencies, no small business will be able to start, or compete, if started, with the large trusts, and the public will be at the mercy of a few Trusts in the future, possibly mismanaged and overflowing with labour errors. Most of the big industries of the country started from small' beginnings, and small beginnings want to be encouraged, and all individual initiative. This plan of 6% on capital, and a distribution of the balance of profits, would [DOT] apply to all businesses, stores, etc., and not to manufacturing plants alone. The capital invested ought to appoint the manager. Later the labour capital from the profits might exceed the original capital, so that labour in years to come might appoint the manager actually, but they would by that time see the problems, and do as the capital does, get the best man they can. The fundamental part of this plan is that if a strike occurs it hits the workingman's profits, as well as capital; and a direct loser is not going to strike but help. Also, the present idea of no work and more pay would gradually come to see that reasonably long hours mean more profits, and labour itself will not want too short hours. Any country that can get settled down to every one working together, will get such a start at this time that they will win the world race. Australia, apparently, has about killed its industries by the shop foreman controlling and tying down the manager, so that efficiency and low cost of production are almost impossible. Rather than labour trying to get all they can out * of the capital-, whether the industry can compete or not, have a plan where all are working to the same end. If the Dominion Chartered Companies (all the large ones) had their sphere of action defined by law, capital would know what to plan on, and individual ambition and initiative on the part of capital and management would not be killed but encouraged, with a reasonable return that could be depended upon. No individual storekeeper or manufacturer could pocket ail the profits, the employees would get their just share, and all would in time work together. If the Dominion Chartered Companies were made to set the standard, some provinces would follow the plan, and the balance would be forced to follow. But the public must be considered. A monopoly like Standard oil. specialties, food articles, etc., could between the ambitious workingman and ambitious capital, boost prices to unreasonable amount, so that those in that industry, or dealing in a certain commodity, would get big returns at the expense of the public, and we would get the effect we are getting now of high prices for so many articles or commodities, to the profit of the pockets of a .few. The public must be protected, whether the profits go to a few individuals, or among all of the employees. Prices must be reasonable in every line. To protect the public there must be a Unit to the percent net dividends to be paid in any business. Say, alter 6% on capital invested, actually invested, then a further 20% to go to capital and labour, (make it high enough to keep both capital and labour enthusiastically interested) ; after th&t any profit to go to a Safety Fund to protect the particular industry involved-that is profit for that year. The Safety Fund to protect the industry or business in case of a bad year. The price of the commodity or commodities in question must be brought down as near as can be gauged each year, to the maximum excess profit of 30% mentioned. The Government oversight in this way protects the general public, and would keep all commodities within reason. Both salaries and wages being required to be reasonable also, would even protect the public in war time, against excessive prices in any one industry. As industries grow in size, the price of commodity manufactured would naturally come down, and if any large industry is not economically handled, the smaller fellow gets his growth and prosperity according to the laws of competition. Mr. Speaker, ill making our readjustments, we must be prepared, whatever schemes may be adopted, to change our viewpoint with regard to important incidents while holding to the fundamental principles that have characterized the people of our country during past years. Coming more immediately-and I shall try not to weary the House-to the Budget, as a westerner-and we are all silent men from the West-I am grateful for much that is in the Budget, though naturally wishing that some further concessions could have been made. While coming from that part of the country which believes that it has not always had fair recognition, I want to say on the floor of this House that the West and the East must learn to understand each other without superficial friendly camouflage but by developing a mutual understanding of the whole situation which will naturally produce mutual confidence, goodwill and a united country. I do not see how it would be possible for the Budget of this year to have all of the reductions in the tariff that we of the West, and many of the East, have desired and looked forward to. In fact, though an entire novice, I saw a year and a half ago, the possibility of some of my, constituents being misled in this direction and I took occasion in every campaign meeting in agricultural centres to point out that as far as I was concerned, if returned as their represent-' ative in this Parliament, I would not expect to take the time of the country to enter into the old debatable territory until months after the war had been won and reconstruction was well on its way towards peimanent establishment. I am not tied up with any signed pledges. 1 believe not in a delegated government but a- representative government, and what was said in November or December, 1917, can be repeated in a present day form without having to take back anything in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it necessary to vote against the amendment and to urge that it should not be supported for two or three reasons. It is too vague and indefinite. It is in part destructive and to a very small degree constructive. It gives much in promise and profession. It gives little that is practicable and that is sure to lead to actual possession. I believe the amendment should be voted against because it bears evidence of being coloured by the delicate hand of the leisurely theorist rather than by the hand of one who knows not only his theory but his practice. It has perhaps fortunately, Mr. Speaker, been recoloured, or retouched, somewhat hurriedly by the sterner hands of nervous though evidently more widely experienced men who desired to step in and make such modifications as to at least give it a semblance of appealing to a larger number than it might possibly appeal to if merely the product of the lone hand of the library, meditative idealist. Strange, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the combination of colouring, and recolouring, yields no enduring work of art but a rapidly passing chromo. There is no valid reason for supporting an amendment such as this. It is offered by men who have not' yet given any evidence of a united grasp of the Canadian situation as it has been for five years, as it is to-day, and as it will be for several days to come. It is offered by men who have not displayed much evidence of capacity, at any rate, of such a character as to give the country any immediate relief, or a strong, steady, constructive administration in the interests of the entire Dominion. In fact I have understood that some hon. gentlemen opposite at least have intimated, in very practical, homely phrases, "that we fellows on this side should go to it and put the Budget through, because they do not want to see an election precipitated at the present time any more than we do." I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Budget should be supported because it makes a good beginning in the direction of meeting the needs and claims of the majority of the Canadian people. It makes a splendid beginning in the direction of making possible cheaper food, cheaper clothes, cheaper fuel, and cheaper tools with which to, produce the wealth that Canada must have in the



coming days if she is to pay her war debt and "carry on" as a growing country. I would like to remind hon. gentlemen opposite that some of the best features in the Budget the Finance Minister has brought down are features to which they gave devoted allegiance in a pact which was introduced only a few years ago. If they were attached to these things in the piping times of peace, why should they not be thankful that at least an equal measure of relief is being given to those who claimed it in times of war and in immediately postwar days? While, as I have said before, the Budget does not give all that some of us could hope for, there are splendid indications of a good start, well begun. The assurance from hon. gentlemen who have honourably maintained this country's integrity and position during the trying times of war, that at a very early date an equitable revision of the tariff based upon a careful study of facts growing out of nation-wide conditions will be made, gives us reason to expect the larger thing that is in prospect and for which many of us have hoped for a long time. This makes us confident that the good work is to continue. And is it not within the range of possibility that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar), a close personal friend of many of us, who, no doubt honestly and conscientiously, found it necessary to withdraw his support from this Government at the present time, had thought of the larger influence he might have exerted on the process of tariff revision by remaining a member of the Government, and as he undoubtedly would have been, a member of the smaller group of Tariff Commissioners, and so have had a very positive and direct say in the whole business, that he might have taken a different step from the one that he did take? I propose to support the Budget, and I believe that it should be supported, because in effect it serves notice that the more prosperous citizens of Canada, to-4 p.m. day and to-morrow, are to pay a fairer share of the war debt and of the expenditure involved in the upkeep and development of our country. Prosperous men are not to be penalized, but they are now to be put in what is in reality a privileged class. Let us see that they are never penalized, but that they are always given that large privilege which should come to those of strength, influence, and power, to serve the country by bearing no inconsiderable share of the country's taxation. I believe that the Budget should re- ceive the hearty support of all hon. gentlemen who look into the conditions of to-day, because it is the Budget of a Government that at present can best handle Canada's affairs. Criticisms of the Government have been offered in the House and outside of it, which, after all, is only natural to-day. We have heard criticism to the effect that this Government has made many mistakes, but I have noticed that those who spend most of their time in making such statements are usually people who seem to be incapable of anything else. The nation-builders of the past on this continent, and in the countries across the Atlantic, have invariably been men who at some time or other in their public careers have made mistakes. Nevertheless, it is a great thing to see a Government that, despite the mistakes it may make here and there along the way, a difficult way, is really making permanent progress possible for a great and ambitious country. Mr. Speaker, let us, in this time of Canada's history, realize that a true evidence of development, of growth, and of forward movement, is far better than the support of anything in the nature of a sweeping revolution. I believe that the best achievements in the history of all nations have been made by evolution, and not by revolutionary processes. We have evidence in the best thought and action of the Government as expressed in the Budget which does credit to the hon. the Minister of Finance, to his colleagues, and to the country, of the fact that Canada's Parliament recognizes the need of making new adjustments, is prepared to make them in so far as seems possible at the present moment, and gives honourable assurance that further adjustment will be forthcoming in the immediate future as further efforts are made to develop our country, with all her great possibilities. We have evidence' of a desire to carry on in the spirit of the men who fought for us in bloody battles overseas, that we who wage bloodless battles that will lead to days of greater prosperity and larger achievement, may, inspired by their action and their unfailing spirit, give our best not to partisanship, not to destructive, bickering, criticism, but to uplifting and constructive endeavour to make possible the best for Canada, for the freedom of all our people, and through us free people, the larger and completer freedom of the world. Mr. Speaker, I shall have great pleasure in voting against the amendment and in supporting the Budget. Mr. PIERRE FRANCOIS CAiSGRATN (Chari evoix-Montmorency): Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat demonstrates to me that one of the great aims of hon. gentlemen opposite is to indulge in waving the flag. The hon. gentleman has made reference to the few remarks delivered by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) last night, and who spoke of the sacrifices we in Quebec had made in connection with our contribution to this war. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Whidden) seems to consider this word a little extravagant. Sir, I must differ from the hon. gentleman, and I might tell him that if there is mourning and sorrow in the other provinces on account of the war, there is also mourning and sorrow in the province of Quebec, and there would be more if the military authorities at the beginning of the war had taken proper steps to bring ithe province of Quebec to the front as the other provinces were brought. If there had been as much work done in the province of Quebec at that time as was done in the other provinces we would have had three or four 22nd Battalions-the battalion that went to the front and covered with glory the old province of Quebec. There is not a place that the hon. gentleman mentioned at the beginning of his remarks- Vimy Ridge, Courcelette, (Gambrai and other battle fields-where you will not find sons of the province of Quebec, French (Canadians, lying side by side with Englishmen of the other provinces. I am very glad that the Government has at last decided to present the Budget. It was long expected, and at certain times we might have thought that it would not be forthcoming. The session really has just started. We have been here for upwards of three months, and what has been done? Not very much. The Government seems to have been marking time only. While our whole industrial system is being shaken to its very base, and the great problems of reconstruction and repatriation are facing us, when it is absolutely necessary to increase our production, our trade and commerce, and our population in order that our enormous debt be normally paid, when there is general unrest in the labour situation all over the Dominion and strikes are paralyzing the life of the country and are a real menace to its existence, what do we see? We see the Government allowing its followers to spend day after day going over such matters as the Fitzpatrick affair-a mere trifle of $5,000; the Guelph affair-which, after lengthy examination of the whole situation by the Government itself, it was found that the charges were worthless and baseless; the question of titles-of which we heard so much last year. We discussed it over again, although the Prime Minister seemed to have settled the question last year, and we made a muddle of it again this session. What ought the Government to do, and what is the public asking for and urging if not action? And what is the Government, giving us to-day? Merely discussion; that is all we have got up to the present time. Then the number of defaulters under the Military Service Act was discussed to please a cer- ' tain clique of the followers of the Government, the Orange people, who were absolutely eager to have a free-for-all field day. But what result has been given to the country by such line of action being pursued? I find that nothing has been done. Why such a waste of time and money when the storm is raging at our doors? I ask you, Sir, if the Duma had such a Government to take care of the affairs of Russia, is it any wonder that there is to-day a Soviet Government in power there?-and it may come here soon. The conduct of the Government, Sir, is a challenge to the people. It is breeding Bolshevism and will lead to the disruption of this country. If after the armistice was signed we had had such sturdy and resolute action from the Government as we had at the beginning of the war, some of the strikes that are at present disturbing the country might have been prevented. The Government was most eager in adopting stringent and urgent measures and resorted to the closure to pass the Military Service Act two years ago and the Canadian National Railway Bill this year. But to-day they are powertess, actionless and asleep when the whole economic life of the country is paralyzed and revolution itself is creeping in. Sir, as a member of this Parliament, I want to put myself on record against the conduct of the Government in these matters. I happen to know friends of the Government in Montreal and other parts of the country, and they are all dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government. They are ashamed of its record to-day. They voted for the Government in 1917, but they were caught, and they are now waiting for a chance to vote against the Government because measures that they expected have not been enacted. . The Govermmeiit has adopted a policy of dilly-dally on all big issues, and it cannot expect to retain the confidence of the people. What has the Government done to the tariff? Simply nothing-merely play-



ing politics with us and trying to fool the farmers. But, Sir, can we expect anything else from a Government, which, since 1911, has only acted by appointing commission after commission, and has always been ashamed and afraid to come before the representatives of the people in Parliament for real legislation. What do we see to-day? We see the Government sitting there, and when any important question is put to them they are unable to furnish an answer. I remember some time ago when on the Canadian National Railways Bill, a question came up as to what was the salary of the general manager of the railways of this country- a very simple question, but not one member of the Government could answer it. Telephone messages had to be sent to some person outside of this city before any answer could be given to the question. It seems to me there is not much of responsible Government if the ministers of the Crown do not know what it costs for the services of the manager of such an important institution. Last year, when any important question was put to the Government by the Opposition, we were told: "We are at war; do not say a word." This year, when inquiries are made of them, the Government say that they do not know-and they expect to get away with that method of answering questions. I am surprised that the Government, which was so eager to enact the conscription law and do away with privileges and liberties [DOT] afforded by the constitution, ready to govern the country by Orders in Council, is to-day afraid to grapple with all the great problems which confront the country. The Government hesitate and are shy when they are confronted with the question of relieving the suffering of the labouring classes and restoring peace and maintaining order in the country. Has the Government dealt satisfactorily with the grievances of the returned soldier? The soldier was promised a good deal when he went to the front, and much should come his way when he returns. Has the soldier received all that he deserves, and all that the Government agreed to give him when he returned ? As soon as the soldiers commenced to arrive in this country from overseas, there was dissatisfaction; troubles arose in Halifax, Winnipeg, Toronto, and other parts of the country last summer. The soldiers claimed that they were not receiving proper care and attention. The former Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. McCurdy) resigned from his position on the ground that he could not support the Government because he did not think the Government was standing hand in hand with the returned soldier. The soldier is a good fellow, and deserves to be well treated and cared for when he comes home. He is somewhat like a child coming home after an adventurous expedition, and he should be received kindly and helpfully by the people of a grateful nation for whom he made tremendous sacrifices. But, however, if he is entitled to care and protection, he is still a citizen, and must obey the law. The Government is the custodian of law and order, and in connection with the disorders or troubles in Halifax, Winnipeg and Toronto last summer, the Government should have seen that the law was obeyed and respected and that the culprits were punished. Had the Government taken proper action at that time, we might not have to-day the disturbances and strikes and revolutionary movements that are taking place all over the Western Provinces. It is said that these strikes and economic disturbances are due to the high cost of living and to-the attitude of the Government in that connection. For four years the Government has permitted the existence of, and even fostered, a most nefarious organization in the band of middlemen which has been such a curse to the country and has endeavoured to fill up all the cold storage plants with products that should be distributed to the people. These men have an army of agents going all over the country and buying from the farmers at fabulous prices, thus preventing the farmer from taking advantage of a normal rise in prices, and giving -.according to the farmers' own admission-more for his produce than it was really worth. The farmers have been getting more than a reasonable price for the things which they sell. If the farmers of Quebec have made any money, it has been through thrift and economy and through following the suggestion of the Department of Agriculture with regard to increased production. At the beginning of the war -the press, which was not tied up body and soul to the cold storage people, urged the Government to take over the cold storage plants, but the Government refused to do so. Is there any good reason why butter should be selling at a higher price to-day than it was selling a year ago? It may be said that owing to the state of affairs in Europe there is an abnormal demand for butter; but should we allow the law of supply and demand to create abnormal conditions in Canada? If there is shortage of food in Europe, where revolutions and strikes are going on, is that any reason why we should ship out of the country more than our surplus products? Would it not be better for the Government to take control of the cold storage plants in order that the people of this country, who have themselves produced these commodities, shall not be made to suffer? The Government should have passed a law providing for the imprisonment of any dishonest promoter or speculator and making it an offence punishable by imprisonment for a middleman to exploit or speculate in food products. We read in the newspapers that in Bohemia they hang such persons. But in this country people who do this get titles; they are friends of the Government and have been receiving favours ever since the Government was formed. Something should be done, and done immediately. The Government's attitude is astounding, incomprehensible. The people have the right to know why the Government has assisted these storage houses to increase rather than to lower the cost of living. Sir, a commission was appointed to go all over the country and investigate the different causes of industrial unrest. We do not -so much object to the appointment of the commission as to the fact that the action ds taken so late. But the Government should have had this question decided by the members of Parliament. Is there a member of this Parliament, a member of the Government, who is not familiar with the conditions existing among the people to-day and who could not give a sound opinion on this subject and help to pas's such laws and regulations as would benefit the people of all classes? Why has the Government not tried to remedy this state of affairs by fixing the prices of commodities most necessary in the ordinary life of the people? Why has the Government not gone after the profiteer? The answer is very simple; because the Government is the friend of trusts, not of the people. Last night the President of the Council (Hon.-N. W. Rowell) referred to the prices paid in England as compared with those paid in Canada for certain Canadian products, and said that, the prices in England were as high as they were here. I think my hon. friend was mistaken, because many Canadian products are dearer here than they are in England. I quote the following article published in a morning newspaper: Bacon, Prices. In a recent issue of the Montreal Herald there is an interesting letter dealing with the high price of bacon and contrasting the selling prices in Canada with the prices which rule in England1. The letter is as follows: Sir,.-I am sending you herewith the official Government record of the prices of Canadian bacon and ham, price in English money is Is. 7d. per pound, or 38c. per pound. This *bacon is selling here at 65c. per pound, and poor quality at that. It plainly shows that this is one of the worst of the profiteering fraternity. Here is bacon shipped from Canada, freight paid, landed in England, and the British Pood Controller fixes the price at 36c. per pound. Is it not high time this was altered and the public protected? S. Fry. 381 Victoria Ave., Westmount, 'May, 30. The following are comparative prices, as forwarded to the Canadian Trade Commission, Ottawa, as among those fixed by the British Food Controller in April, for the sale by agents of the British Ministry of Pood of " green " ham or bacon in original packages ex-store: Wiltshires, Canadian 180s. per cwt.Class A., American 176s. "Cumberlands, Canadian 177s. "Class A., American 175s. "Hams, L. C. Canadian l'7Ss. "Class A., American 176s. " This spread between the price in Canada and Great Britain is startling. It is a phase of the high cost of living which the commission now sitting in Ottawa should investigate immediately. The public want to know why Canadian bacon costs more in Canada, the country of production, than it costs in the Old Country. It may be that if the President of the Privy Council had read this article he would not have said last night that the cost of living was much higher in England than in Canada. The number of commissions that the present Government and its predecessor have appointed since they came into office is astounding. In answer to a question put by me to the ministry at the beginning of this session a return was tabled in the House giving the number of commissions, their purpose, the names of their members, the work they did, and the cost to the country. With reference to the Georgian Bay Canal Commission, I found this significant sentence: The chief accountant reports that his office has no way of ascertaining what sum should be allotted to this commission, and that also applies to lighting, furnishing iand equipment. Why is the total cost of that commission not available? Here is a commission appointed to represent the Government, and yet the chief accountant reports that he has no way of ascertaining the cost of the



commission. Is that the way the public money is going to be spent? Are we going to tolerate still longer the squandering of public money on worthless objects? All these commissions were supposed to make reports. A lot of them have done so, a lot have not done anything but simply die of their own incapacity and incompetence; but the members of the commission have never failed to draw fat salaries and all their expenses. What return have we got from the money spent on these commissions? I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, to say whether the country has benefited at all. Another direction in which a great amount of money was spent by this Government in recent years was in the enforcement of conscription. That cost the country over $6,000,000 and disrupted the nation. How much did the National Registration last year cost the country? I find by the report that it cost $788,189.44, and I should like to know what results we got from it. It caused a lot of trouble, but I have yet to be shown what good resulted from it. Another item which has cost a large amount of money is the publication of the Bulletin, of my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council. Since its inception it has cost $100,980, and you cannot find anything in it except glorification of the President of the Privy Council. I.do not think it has done an ounce of good to the country at large. In answer to a question put by an hon. member on this side of the House at the beginning of the session, a statement was submitted by the Secretary of State showing that the printing of the Government for the year 1918 had cost $2,569,599.73. This is a very large amount, and I should like to know what results the Government got from this vast expenditure. All the expenditure I have mentioned, and many others, were made to help down-and-out friends of the Government, and to keep in line the followers that the Government was afraid of losing. I come now to a question which has been much discussed in the House this session and last, the so-called abolition of patronage. We were told that a Civil Service Commission had been appointed and that patronage would be abolished; we have all heard that. But patronage has not been abolished. Let me give two examples of patronage in my own county. Last year a member of the board in charge of the National Registration asked me to suggest the name of some person in my county for the position of registrar. I gave him the name of one of our most prominent citizens, a highly respected merchant, already registrar for his town, mayor of the place. Some time afterwards this same member of the board came and told me " I cannot appoint the man you have suggested because, unfortunately, he is a friend of yours, and not a friend of the Government, and I have to appoint friends of the Government-men who were in line with the Government at the last election." Does that look like the abolition of patronage? Let me give another illustration. A demonstration farm was to be established in this same county, and there was a vacancy to be filled. Some names were submitted and .after making inquiries I found that a report had been made by somebody in the department that one of the gentlemen recommended should not be given a chance to obtain the position, because at a certain time he was a friend of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency. I took the trouble of going to the department and correcting their understanding of the matter. I told them that this man was a supporter of mine in the last election but previously he had always been a good Tory, and that he should be given a chance for the job, if possible, because he was well fitted for jt, I give these examples to show you how patronage has been "abolished" by some departments of the Government. We were told by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech last week to "produce and save." Well, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this session I have seen no legislation put forward by the Government that was in accord with that principle. Is the Canadian National Railway system going to .save money, or the Welland ship canal, the Hudson Bay railway, the Departmental Purchasing Commission or the shipbuilding scheme and other ventures which the Government has proposed? The Government should scrupulously refrain from entering into any field of transportation and communication or undertaking any industry or business whatever that is pre-eminently within the province of private enterprise. All these businesses can naturally be. best conducted by private corporations and capitalists and should not exploit the Government. In connection with this point I should like to quote an article in to-day's Gazette. It is all very well for us to say that we shall have a shipbuilding programme that will place us on an equal footing with other countries in naval matters, and that Canada will in consequence attain a greater material advancement. I have no fault to find with any well-advised scheme whereby the country may be advantaged, but I contend that we should not exceed our available means. Let us consider how this question is viewed in the United States and what action the Government of that country intends to take in the circumstances now existing there. At page 8 of to-day's Gazette there appears the following: Shipbuilding Policy Reversed. Government Advised to Stop Building and Operating. Washington, June 12.-Recommendations that the Government quit building and operating commercial ships at the earliest practicable time were presented to the Senate Commerce Commission to-day by the (Shipping Board. Sales of all commercial ships was recommended. Vessels which could not be disposed of immediately would be leased1. Now, if the United States authorities deem it necessary to take such effective means to stop their shipbuilding policy at present, why are we, with a small population compared to that of the United States, and with smaller means, embarking on a pretentious shipping policy? I am afraid that some day we shall find ourselves bankrupt. The President of the United States, on his return recently from Europe, expressed the desirability that all public utilities that were takbn over and placed under govern. ment control at the beginning of the war should now be returned to the private corporations that managed them previous to the war. Coming especially to the Budget, I must say that it strikes me as being a piece of political strategy that betrays undeniably great ingenuity. As an economic policy it imposes such burdens upon successful business enterprises that so long as the provisions of the Budget in this respect remain operative it is to be feared that there will be little in the way of great undertakings in Canada, for the present at any rate. As a revenue producer, everything will depend upon the efficiency with which the income tax can be collected. As an example of the manner in which this measure is carried out, I may say, while I do not wish to 'be personal, that like many other citizens I have received the notice calling for a statement of (my income. But the extraordinary thing is that only last week was I notified that I had to pay my income tax on the 2nd of July on the assessment for the year 1917. If the Government keeps its accounts in that manner, and if all income taxes are collected with similar expedition in the future, I doubt very much whether we shall raise enough money to meet our obligations. As a measure of justice between the different classes of the community the Budget appears to throw some share of the burden of the war upon successful business concerns, hut not yet enough on wealthy promoters, profiteers, and millionaires, who have been able to accumulate vast wealth out of the exigencies of the war. I think that in this Government we have an- excellent example, of collective bargaining and the fifty-fifty proposition. What can we expect in the way of satisfactory legislation for the relief of the poorer classes when we look at the treasury benches? There we find that most of the members of the Government are connected with big enterprises and are semimillionaires or at least wealthy gentlemen. We have the Prime Minister, a wealthy man with no responsibilities in the way of children. There is the Hon. Mr. Kemp, another millionaire who also has not been blessed with children. We find also the Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, a gentleman connected with many big enterprises including a paint and varnish business. Then, again, there is the Hon. Mr. Oarvell-


June 13, 1919