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