answer the hon. gentleman's question. The situation is this. The party who got this quotation showed me the letter and that was the price given in it. He told me that he had endeavoured to buy cement in the United States and he had been referred to the Canadian Company; the Canada Cement Company apparently has an arrangement under which he could not buy cement in the United States. It thus appears that a monopoly has been established. As I said before I am aware that the great difference between the price in the United States and the price in Canada is not wholly accounted for by the duty and here is the point I wish to make: The protective
system was not devised to evolve a situation such as this. Notwithstanding the fact that there is so much water in the capitalization of the new organization its stock was sold, according to quotations I have here, at from 55 to 75 last year. The Canada Cement Company seems to be an *
exceedingly prosperous concern. Here is an instance similar to that mentioned by the Prime Minister a short time ago when he referred to the Binder Twine Industry and the lessening of the number of factories engaged in it. I understand there were more factories in existence some years ago than there are now, but some of these factories were shut down and the work of making cement has' been centralized. In a word, the Canada Cement Company seems to be in a particularly prosperous condition and to have profited' to the full extent of the duty that is imposed. It cannot be said, as has been intimated by the hon. member for Haldimand to-night that the putting on of the duty not only does not increase the price but tends somewhat to bring about a reduction through competition. In this case full advantage was taken of the duty, of the exchange, and of an arrangement with United States concerns. The result is that the increase in the price of cement during the last few years has brought about a situation very detrimental to the upbuilding of Canada. It has had an adverse effect upon the construction of public works, of houses which are so much needed all over the country, and of farm buildings generally. No doubt, as in the case of the textile industry, the directors are not conducting this concern for the glory of God or even for the glory of Canada, but purely for their own interests. Possibly some will not blame them, but when they can do so well there is no reason why they should be assisted by the people ocf Canada to the extent of ten cents a (hundred pounds, and there would appear to be no reason why, in the interests of the public or even of 'the cement company, this duty should not be removed. I verily believe that a great many of these manufacturers who are taking full advantage of the tariff could get along very well without it by putting in up-to-date machinery and conducting their business in a more systematic way than at present. I had hoped that the Tariff Commission which roved around the country last winter would have been able to bring forth some information and suggestions regarding this particular phase of the matter, but I have been disappointed.
I have before me some figures about the coal and iron industry, but at his late, or rather early, hour I shall refrain from quoting them, although I might say that that industry is practically on all-fours with the cement industry. There were some other matters which I intended to deal with, but I said I would be brief, therefore, Mr
Mr. Speaker, it would he almost a criminal offence if I took up very much time of the House at this late, or rather very early, hour and I do not intend to do so, but I do not care to record a silent vote on this occasion.
The Budget is quite consistent with the attitude taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and his supporters. They stand for protection, they make no hones about it, and, although I do not agree with them,
I give them credit for their frankness. The Prime Minister in his speeches throughout the West and also in this House has emphasized the fact that the party which he leads stands for protection to the manufacturer. I do not think, though, that he is quite fair to this little group when he referred to us as being "angularly opposite." We prefer to call ourselves the Progressive party. And I think we have shown ourselves to be independent of both the old political parties. We have at times voted for measures regardless of whether they emanated from your right, Sir, or from your left, for we do not consider how our voting will affect either party; we treat each measure on its merits. Whether right or wrong, I feel satisfied that we are perfectly sincere, and some of the statements made by the Prime Minister, in not particularly choice language, do not altogether fit in with our attitude either in this House or outside. I do not know whether the Prime Minister regarded us as a "dilapidated annex" when we swelled his majority from seventeen to thirty-eight, but I feel certain he did not think we were a "servile adjunct." However, even the Prime Minister can make a slip sometimes, and I will let it go at that.
Our platform, Mr. Speaker, has been placed on Hansard, and we stand behind it. The Prime Minister twitted us with not having sufficient courage to place our platform before the House, but, Sir, he knows very well that according to the ruling of the Chair there can be only one amendment to the Budget, and the official Opposition has the sole right to move that amendment. They did not take advantage of that privilege from 1911 to 1919, but since this little group came into existence the official Opposition have been in the habit of exercising their right, possibly from fear that some more obnoxious-
his Budget speech the Prime Minister read from a pamphlet without giving the name of the author,-a pamphlet written, I think, in 1911, in support of protection. He was on what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) might term a piscatorial expedition, and he caught a fish, but I think the fish escaped and took the hook and line along with him. The right hon. gentleman was referring to Mr. Norman Lambert who has for some time past been the secretary of the Council of Agriculture. Well, as a young man he might form certain views and afterwards change them, as a great many young men do, possibly through getting more light on the subject or through altered conditions. It would be a great pity if all our young men stuck rigidly to the views of their immature youth, and if they did we would have rather a poor country. We have numerous examples of very eminent men changing their political opinions. I understand that the ex-Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) was at one time a Liberal, and no better evidence of such change of views can be pointed to than the presence of certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House at the present time. A great deal of the support of the present Government is derived from a number of hon. members who in 1917 were elected as Liberal Unionists. They certainly cannot claim to be following at the present time the Liberal doctrines as we understood them. One outstanding example is the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) who at one time was president of the Grain Growers' Association, a body which he evidently now has very little use for. Another is the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder). I think I knew that hon. gentleman's former politics about as well as anybody in this House. He was the apostle of Liberalism in the West, but he has seen fit lately to change his political views, and now condemns where he used to praise. I am not criticising the attitude of these hon. members; they have a perfect right to change their views-and so had Mr. Norman Lambert.
There is another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and it relates to ex-members of our Canadian navy who served on the high seas during the war. It appears that when any of these people apply for a position in the Civil Service they are treated as civilians. It is well known that when a returned soldier applies for a position in the Civil Service he gets the preference even though he gets a lower rating than the civilians on the list. That is quite proper, but I do not think there should be any discrimination in the matter of the men who manned our small Canadian navy. I put some questions on the Order Paper with regard to this matter, and on account of my leaving out a word or two the answer which I got does not mean anything. My question was:
(1) Have ex-members of the Canadian navy-
I should have said: "who have served on the high seas''.
-the same status as ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who served overseas?
2. Do they receive the same preference with regard to appointments to the Civil Service?
To which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) replied:
1. Tes. A member of the Canadian Navy who has served in European or Asiatic waters during the war period has the same status as a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who had served overseas.
Well,' that is no answer at all, because the Canadian navy did not serve in European or Asiatic waters. But Sir, they did good work on our own coasts. The Rainbow, with the two submarines and the parent ship, the Shearwater, patrolled the Pacific Coast from Esquimalt down to Panama and up as far as Prince Rupert. I think that the men who manned that little obsolete vessel, the Rainbow, displayed a good deal of heroism when they went out on the high seas where they might meet at any time one of the three modern German cruisers which were then hovering about those coasts-the Leipsic, the Nuremberg and the Scharnhorst. The Niobe also did good service on the Atlantic coast in guarding our shores. Surely the men who manned these ships were on active service, although not in action. We know that the British fleet kept watch at the entrance of the Kiel Canal; they were on active service but not in action during a great part of the war, yet had it not been for their services the war might not have ended as soon as it did. In a
[Mr. MacNutt. [
much smaller way, of course, the Canadian navy was guarding our shores. The naval service is usually considered senior to the army, but all that is asked for in this connection is that those who served in the Canadian navy be put on a par with the overseas soldiers in the matter of candidature for positions in the Civil Service, rather than be treated as civilians- for certainly they were not civilians. I want to bring this matter to the attention of the Government; I think it should be remedied. The present provision of the Civil Service Act in this regard is as follows- section 39:
Provided, however, that in all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service persons who have been on active service overseas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty or of any of the Allies of His Majesty during the present war.... shall, irrespective of the marks they have obtained, be placed in thf order of merit on the list of successful can didates above all other candidates.
The provision which I suggest could bt made by the insertion of five words by way of amendment to this section, so that it would read:
Provided however, that in all examinations for entrance into the Civil Service persons who have been on active service overseas or on the high seas on the military or naval forces of His Majesty, etc.
The insertion of the words "or on the high seas" would cover the ground. I bring this matter up in order to show that there is discrimination against an arm of the service the members of which deserve all the credit we can give them.
To return to our policy, I may say that we believe, in raising the revenue of the country, in taxing the wealth rather than the poverty of the country, placing the burden on those who are best able to pay, I am going to vote for the amendment, not so much for its own sake as a protest against the Budget, because it still points the way to protection and higher protection.
Mr. Speaker, my rising is more on a question of privilege than for the purpose of taking part in the debate as such. In the course of an address delivered in this debate by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), he made the assertion that an offer of a position in the present Government had been made by
myself or my agent to the present, as he described him, Catholic Minister of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick. The subject was not one that it is customary to make inquiries about or to ask a Prime Minister questions on across the floor of Parliament. But as the statement had been categorically made by the hon. member for Marquette, I felt at that time that I should give it an equally categori-call denial. I did so. Ordinarily the denial, I think, would have been accepted in this House, particularly taking into consideration the subject matter that was covered by the discussion. I find, however, that, in my absence from this House, the question was again raised by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) this evening. In the course of the debate, he read some statement or newspaper interview said to have been given by the hon. Mr. Veniot, who, I believe, is at the present time Minister of Public Works in that province. On arriving in the House after the hon. member for Russell had quoted the alleged interview, I asked if he would be good enough to repeat it in my hearing. I was, however, denied this courtesy by the hon. member for Russell, who took the ground that I should always be in my seat in Parliament. As a former minister of the Crown, I am not able to understand how he conceives that to be possible, physically or in any other way.