April 2, 1925

LIB

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):

I am not particular about the price. At all events, this would rest with the members of this House to decide. I wish to see the large majority of shares remain in this country and not pass over to the Americans or other foreigners, so that we may later deal with our own affairs through the medium of the government and the railway commission.

At the outset of my remark^, I enumerated the causes of our ruin. I now wish to broach the subject of our participation in the war, a senseless and excessive participation with the scanty means we had at our disposal, when we were already on the road to ruin with all our railways.

Should Canada have taken part in the war? I answer, yes; but according to our means. What did this consist in? To recruit 100,000 to 150,000 men and even 200,000 men to please the jingoes of this country, and stop at those figures, furthermore produce food of all kinds to help the allies. Unfortunately our government and all the politicians did not see it in that light. It was not so much with the aim of helping the allies as to pass for loyal subjects of His Majesty and so that the records of history might show that the Tory party had saved the empire. If only our politicians had gauged the true situation of this country, its means, and had understood that Canada is a young country, still undeveloped !

I do not think that there are many amongst the members of this House, at present, that do not acknowledge now that the Borden-Meighen government made a great mistake in having conscription passed in 1917, at a time when the United States had just entered

the war, after having accumulated all the gold in this world, and when they did not have one-fourth of the necessary ships to transport their troops. Why impose conscription in this country, when Australia carried on without it. The reason given in 1917, by one of Mr. Borden's ministers was that there existed no province of Quebec in Australia. I am well aware that the movement had Quebec as its aim; however, Mr.Speaker,the people of the province of Quebec will not forget for a long time to come these politicians of 1917. I must draw your attention to the fact that they already gave a decision on this measure in 1917, another in 1921, and they hope to give another in the near future. At present, in the province of Quebec, Mr. Monty, accompanied by Mr. Armand La-vergne, forsooth, and others somewhat in the same class, is organizing meetings on behalf of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. With a certain dash of reserve, Mr. Monty claims to be the worthy successor of Cartier, and Mr. Meighen the worthy successor of Sir John A. Macdonald. I do not think, Sir, that had Sir John A. Macdonald been Premier of this country during the Great war, he would have made all the blunders that his successors did here in Ottawa. I have somewhat studied the life of Sir John A. Macdonald. I must admit that he is the only Prime Minister of Canada, who remained a Canadias above all things. And I intend in the future if I still mix in politics to support the Prime Minister who will give proof of being a Canadian first and last

The member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) discussing the budget, on March 30, last, quoted France as an example of a protectionist country, and pointed out what it had accomplished since the armistice. He further stated that France had spent, in reconstruction, for miles and miles of railway and bridges that had been destroyed, for the highways that had to be rebuilt, as well as for canals and dams, up to January 1, 1924, twenty billion francs, so as to repair the physical damage to public properties, over and above those damages to churches, government, public and municipal buildings, and that France had carried out these repairs herself. Moreover, within the same period, France had disbursed an amount equal to about fifty six billion francs for the reconstruction of the devastated! territory. To carry out all this work, it received an immigration of 1,500,000 people and it made a lot of money. That may be, I do not deny what France did. However, all this is due to

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot

the extraordinary situation in which it found itself after the war: more than one-fourth of her territory was devastated, more than 500,000 homes destroyed; they had necessarily to rebuild.

However, Mr. Speaker, so as to have work and a visible prosperity, I state that it is not inviting for other countries to find themselves ini the same situation as France was after the armistice, in 1918.

In our own country those conditions do not exist, we have no war devastated territory, it is fortunate for us, but we have been ruined by the war and over-burdened with taxation.

Does the high protective tariff infallibly bring prosperity to the people in this country? I do not think so, Sir, and I believe I have an instance in my county which proves, above all doubt, that my .contentions are right, that is, that the high protective tariff does not always give to workmen a fair salary for the daily hard labour, in proportion to the salaries paid in the United States for the same kind of work. I am referring to the brickyards of Laprairie and Delson. When this building which we are now occupying was constructed-I refer to the Parliament building-the National Brick Co. of Laprairie, sold to Messrs Peter Lyall & Sons 15,000,000 bricks at $725 per 1,000. To-day the same brick sells at $17 per 1,000. I think that my statement cannot lead the House astray, in giving the sale price of that year; it was during the war and men were scarcer than to-day. I would like my good friend, Mr. Ballantyne, our ex-Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the Borden-Meighen government to be asked to do a little work, in his capacity of general manager of the National Brick Co. of Laprairie and Delson -as the company has its works in two different places, 4 miles from one another- Mr. Ballantyne is a protectionist, I think.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Andrew Ross McMaster

Liberal

Mr. McMASTER (Translation):

Yes, a* extremist.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):

I would

suggest to him to try the easiest work for the first day, and to take the place of one of the nine men on the strap. These nine men receive from the moulds the bricks which come out fully shaped on the strap and place them two at a time in a small hand car which holds 496 bricks; there is not only one car on the track for nine men, but never less than three or four; these cars when loaded are immediately transferred to the drying chamber and replaced by other empty cars, and this goes on for ten hours.

Two bricks, one in each hand do not seem heavy for the first hour, however, they seem to increase in weight with every hour, up to the end of the tenth hour; the average wage, to-day, for the men is $3.60 per day, while two years ago these men earned from $5.50 to $6. Another job for my friend Ballantyne: the settlers. The latter transfer the cars from the drying chamber to what is known as the kiln. These settlers have not as easy a job as the strap men. They must take four bricks at a time and place them in spaced rows, so that the baking is thoroughly done. This kiln holds 96,000 bricks and these men work during ten hours with 22 pounds in their hands; and in order to finish filling up this kiln, they must throw these bricks like a ball, to a height of about twelve feet. It is the hardest work in the world that a man can be, called upon to do, during the eight or eight and a half months the season lasts. Out of 100 men-let us suppose them all strong men-who would come to work at our brickyards, 10 per cent, but no more, might perhaps hold out through the season. These men earn, to-day, 35 cents per 1,000 bricks compared to 45 cents per 1,000 two years ago; the same thing applies to the car brick loaders. The latter push wheelbarrows filled with bricks from the kiln, on a platform 100 to 125 feet iri length; they draw out with their hands the bricks from the kiln to load their wheelbarrows and when they reach the car they place these bricks in rows. The skilled labour then, up to 1923, earned from $5 to $6 per day and the unskilled hands from $3 to $3.50. To-day, the latter earn from $2.50 to $2.75-a few favoured ones $3 per day. All this happens with a tariff of 22-J per cent, and moreover with a general manager like Mr. C. C. Ballantyne, the leading protectionist in Montreal.

I must therefore, Mr. Speaker, conclude that it is a miserable wage which our men employed at the brickyards eight or eight and a half months, per year, receive. Is this an inducement to retain our young men in Canada, giving them a salary of $2.50 to $3.60 and even $4-the highest price paid by these companies. There are men who work thirteen hours per day and seven days in a week and others eleven hours; for instance, the night stoker begins at 6 p.m. and finishes at 7 a.m; the day stoker begins at 7 a.m. and finishes at 6 p.m. And, Sir, everybody recognizes the fact that the work in a brickyard is the hardest, the most exhausting and hottest of any work which a man is called upon to perform in our country.

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot

I have very little complaints to make about *conditions at home; very few of our young men have left the county. In my own county of Laprairie, I do not think that there aire ten persons that have left for the United States or elsewhere. However, there are a few more in the county of Napierville because they are nearer the border; the old people have visited the United States, the younger generation take a trip over there and return, telling us they went over to the United States to learn English, apd I believe them. At all events, we are fairly well provided for in our counties, being in the proximity of Montreal, and we have very little complaint to make. What we do find fault with, is that the country spent too much money during the war, too much money for the Ballantyne merchant marine and for other things.

Now, Sir, I am always astonished to hear the criticisms of our good friends of the opposition. When the government accomplishes something, it is always wrong. If the Liberals spend $100,000, I think, if it were in their power they would have us all thrown in gaol, but when they themselves spent, for instance, $112,000,000 for nothing, that is of no consequence. It is very strange to meet such people.

Has any one a notion of the cost of the Ballantyne merchant marine? My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition does not seem to have this item fixed in his mind since it has become an accomplished fact. We spent for the construction of this fleet $78,000,000. I have here the report. It is true that we have since sold six and lost three. We sold six for the sum of $000,000, that is $100,000 each. It is the maintenance of this fleet that is costly. We have increased our debt by $30,000,000 due bo deficits, and this does not take into account the deficit of this year. The last report for 1924 has not been brought down, but it is said that it will amount to $9,000,000. Since Mr. Ballantyne had these ships built we have squandered $112,000,000 for this merchant marine and each year our losses become greater. I have already bold our friends, members of the cabinet, that if these ships were mine, I would not keep them five hours. I would find some Jew, in Montreal, and sell them to him.

While on the subject, I must quickly state, lest I forget, that I am not, like my honorable colleagues of British Columbia, in favour of acquiring la navy. I am now strongly opposed to a naval policy of any kind, whether it be on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts; or in Montreal or in my own place; I do not want a

navy, it is too costly. In my opinion, the time has not arrived to carry on war expenditure and make preparations for war. I even think that the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) spends too much for militia.

This reminds me of something very queer. A famous doctor by the name of Osier, from Toronto, has stated-I read this in a paper, I cannot vouch for it-that all men over 65 years should be shoved aside so as not to be in the way of others, and chloroformed. I would like something a little different, I do not wish to chloroform the men 65 years old, I am near that age myself-but I would strongly be in favour of chloroforming the politicians who would suggest waging war or building navies.

There is something which appears very strange to the people of this country. The nobs, the millionaires of this country, those who were in favour of war, for whom we had to win the war at all cost and protect the empire, the great loyalists of this country -who, themselves took care not to go to the trenches-loaned us many millions, since there is still $931,000,000 of bonds exempt of taxes I would, Sir, very much like to get at these people. I may be told that these people hold a written agreement from Sir Thomas White, the former Minister of Finance. To this, I would answer: But, we, the members of parliament at this time, had also signed a contract with Sir Robert Borden, in 1916. When the Prime Minister of that day came before parliament to ask for an extension of time to continue their mandate so as not to bring on an election during the war, we agreed to do so on one condition: that there should be no conscription in this country. Did Sir Robert Borden keep his word towards 87 members of this House, representing 87 counties of Canada? Did the Prime Minister carry out his given pledge? No. He forced conscription upon us as soon as he got a majority in the Senate, and we, the poor people of this country had to go to the war. I stated, at that time, in the House that if I had anything to do with the profiteers who had demanded conscription against the wish of everybody, against the humble people of this country, that if I became Prime Minister for half an hour, with the help of legal advisers, I would frame another bill-we were then discussing Bill No. 75-I would frame Bill No. 76 by which I would confiscate the nine-tenths of the wealth of these gentlemen to pay our soldiers $3 per day, and supply funds to the wives and children of our soldiers. That was not done. However, they loaned us money at 5i per cent on government bonds

The Budget-Mr. Lanctot

exempt from taxes. There is still $931,000,000 due to these gentlemen, on bonds which will mature in 1931, 1935 and in 1937. They still have about ten years of tax exemption, they who forced the government to pass conscription; but these people must prove their gratitude towards us. Why does the House, to-day, not ask, unanimously, the Minister of Finance, to borrow the necessary money to pay these people? I do not wish them to lose a cent on the capital they have lent us, but what I do want, is to pay them off. These gentlemen are responsible, to-day, for a loss of $18,400,000 in the income tax, that we could collect, and nearly $9,000,000 of interest that we should have less to pay.

So that, Mr. Speaker, I make the bold assertion that we are losing at least twenty-five to thirty million dollars per year, and this, all due to these magnates. Would these same gentlemen refuse to render a service to their country, which is practically ruined and has enormous deficits each year, if they were anyway grateful for what the poor people did for them, they who were exempt from conscription owing to the business they were transacting during the war? How did they earn the money they loaned the government? Through war transactions, by charging 300 and 400 per cent to the country for stocks on hand. To-day these people come and tell us: You passed a contract, therefore you must honour it. If that is the case, I want to know why the government of the day, when it obtained an extension of its mandate, in 1916, did not honour the pledge given to the House by its Prime Minister, which is certainly worth an agreement made by the Minister of Finance.

Is not the word of honour of a man who becomes Prime Minister of a country worth as much as an act passed before a notary? That is why I contend that these gentlemen should come to the Minister of Finance and say: We beg of you to make new loans between now and six months; as for us, we shall accept the amounts loaned to the state, we shall pay like the others the income tax on the above amounts just as we pay on advances made to private people. I do not know if this will take place, however, it is a request which I make to these gentlemen. I am not sure either if I would find a seconder in the House on this question; but nevertheless these are my views

There is one subject which I dislike to mention here; but I am forced to do so, since Mr. Monty stated, in Montreal, that if his party came to power, he would abolish the British preference. I am told that a prominent member from New Brunswick made the same statement in a by-election which took

place in that province. I understand it is Mr. Baxter, one of St. John's representatives I should very much like to see this question threshed out, in order that the people be not deceived. I for one am in favour of abolishing the British preference. If a member on the opposite benches wishes to introduce a resolution to that effect, I can assure him that I shall support it; however, I do not wish it to be meant as just a bluff for the people of this country. I make the suggestion.' I once told an Englishman, Who was not favourable to British preference: Only a Canadian like myself can make such a statement, you are too British to do so; even if this preference were detrimental to your business, you would put up with it. I am opposed to such a preference because England purchases goods from countries with a depreciated currency. I often visit Montreal; I meet wholesale merchants and hear the complaints made. Therefore, to remedy this state of affairs, why not abolish this preference. Ob! if England only sent us her own goods, there would probably be no cause for complaint; but when we are aware that she imports from Germany and other countries-where money has practically no value-at ridiculous prices, can we not blame England of being at the bottom of all our economic troubles? It is not that I think that the boots and shoes which come from Germany or elsewhere are sold cheap in Montreal,-my opinion is that they are expensive goods. However, it is our manufacturers that complain. Have they reason to do so? I cannot say. I believe that generally speaking there are too many middlemen in trade. The jobber adds 40 per cent-and thinks it is not too much-the retailer adds 60 per cent and he also thinks it is not too much; so that we generally pay exactly twice as much for the goods after they have left the factory.

I again state there are too many middlemen. The wholesale merchant should only sell to the retailer without having to deal with a jobber. On that point, I perfectly agree with my colleagues.

Now, Sir, my good friend from Fort William and Rainy River, (Mr. Manion), to whom I listened attentively, this afternoon, gave us certain facts which are not quite correct. He tells us that the United States levy a duty of 50 cents per bushel on potatoes while the Canadian duty is only 35 cents per bushel. He is wrong on that point. It is not 50 cents per bushel, but 50 cents and 35 cents per hundred pounds. The United States tariff on these articles is 50 cents. He preached a doctrine which seems rather odd. Protection first, protection second, protection all the

The Budyet-Mr. Doucet

time. In my opinion, we are suffering in Canada from an evil which is common to all other countries. When a man is ruined, he has no more purchasing power. That is the cause of all our ills. All the European countries are ruined-except England-Germany is perhaps not ruined, but her money is worthless; Russia is in the same predicament; in France the franc is worth but five cents and a fraction; the same thing may be said of Austria and Italy. Often those people cannot buy the simple necessities of life. We, farmers, notwithstanding the crop being good, we only purchase the bare necessities of life. The cause of all the ills which, to-day, exist in this country is the loss of the purchasing power of pre-war days. The manufacturers of farming implements sell very little, because our Quebec farmer is thrifty, he is born thrifty, he is careful and does not get into debt when he knows beforehand that he will not be able to meet his liabilities within a reasonable time. Unfortunately, the same thing does not prevail in other parts of the country. In the west, for instance, the farmers made a great deal of money during the war, but they were somewhat extravagant. In those parts of Canada, the purchasing power is less than in Quebec. Why? Because the farmer of our province, I repeat it, is thrifty, and would never think of spending three or four thousand dollars to take a trip to California; he puts aside his savings and knows how to look after them. I have known old people around my home who never changed a $10 bill; they used to iron it well, give it the appearance of a new bill just issued by the bank and then they would put it away. Unfortunately those days are no more. What makes money so scarce in our rural districts? It is because our farmers have bought too many automobiles. They were very extravagant, during the war they bought cars, pianos and many other things of this kind; that is one reason why we are almost bankrupt in the country. We are the third country in the world possessing the most automobiles. I shall not refer to the United States; there are states that cannot produce enough to pay for their cars. One boasts of the prosperity of the United States; if they continue to be as extravagant as they are, they will be ruined within four or five years and the wealth of that country will be all in the hands of Henry Ford and other large manufacturers of automobiles. As I mentioned Ford, we should invite him to come to Canada, ask him to give up his factories and take hold of our railways. He is certainly a man who would make a success of them.

I am, therefore, in favour of giving him our railways to manage.

I do not wish to detain the House much longer. However, I still have a subject to broach; I mean another scheme of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition. We have spent, up to date, over $120,000,000 to settle our returned soldiers on lands. Many have given up farming. Owing to death, illness, the women not being suited for the land, perhaps for other reasons, they have given up farming. I have been told that last year, the collection of the various amounts that these soldiers pay to the treasury, cost 35 per cent of the total amount. This means that on the $120,000,000 that we have loaned, we shall receive, if we have luck, about $60,000,000. That proves that our ex-Prime Minister has not always been very lucky in his transactions. Yet, when I listen to him, I wonder if he is truly the premier of some time ago. A stranger listening to him would surely not recognize him by what he states in this House. His equal is not found under the sun! No one has ever seen such a man I However, having seen him at work, I know this is not the case. At all events, my hon. friend, whom I find, to-day, more amicable than he has ever been, must not think that everybody looks upon him as I do. He may try to flirt with Quebec, the people will never forget what one of his colleagues stated in this House. That colleague, is my old friend,- who by the way is still my friend-the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). When conscription was being discussed in this House, in 1917, that hon. member stated that Australia had had no conscription because it was fortunate enough to have no province of Quebec within its boundaries. That is why, we hailing from Quebec, still feel the sting of the insult which was flung at us by one of the colleagues of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen). We have already rewarded him on two occasions and we are getting ready to inflict a third defeat when the time comes.

Mr. ALEXANDRE J. DOUCET (Kent, N.B.) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, in wishing to briefly discuss the budget brought down by the hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), I do not intend to touch upon the various phases of the speech of my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot). First, of all, he reviewed the old political history of days previous to 1911, and after; he specialized on political questions under the Union government; so far as I am concerned the administration under the Union government of 1917 up to 1921 is not a question of

The Budget-Mr. Doucet

actuality; and moreover, a number of liberals who formed part of the Union government of that day, and who have returned to the Liberal ranks after the general convention of 1919, and who were elected as avowed Liberals, in 1921, have been generously rewarded by hon. gentlemen opposite; consequently, I question very much the fairness of my hon. friends on the opposite side who are prone to discuss the various measures and legislation introduced, adopted and unanimously agreed upon, as well as all the war budgets voted during this critical period.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, when our hon. friend (Mr. Lanctot) discussed the brickyard of Laprairie, I was wondering if that factory produced many bricks that were exported out of the country? I was, therefore, led to believe that my hon. friend wished to give the government sound advice and ask them to levy a sufficiently high duty on products of United States brickyards so as to prevent their importation.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):

Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question? I would remind the hon. membeT for Kent, N.B. that the products of our brickyards are protected by a duty of 22J per cent and that foreign competition is impossible.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to learn that there is such a measure of protection, and I think that the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville should be, as the Conservatives on this side of the House, in favour of protection. However, I hasten to point out to you an importation of United States brickyard products to the amount of $1,907,521 in 1924-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. LANCTOT (Translation):

We are too far from large centres.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

-against

an exportation of $36,733 of Canadian products to the United States. If we are discussing, to-day, the enormous expenditures which are made by the Dominion government it is because, in my opinion, I contend that there is an awful waste of public money, and I wish to give a few instances so as to satisfy my colleagues in this House that such a waste exists. You must have noticed, Sir, that by certain questions put on the order paper, I was able to obtain some information, and through said information I note that the salaries of the Deputy Ministers and chiefs of departments, of which I have a list here to-night, amounts to $51,000 more for the year 1924 than it did for the year of 1921. It seems to me, Sir, that in the financial crisis

through which we are passing, if we were bent on making substantial economies in the administration of the country, we should not increase, or at least we should not have increased the salaries of the deputy ministers from $6,000 to $10,000 as has happened in a number of cases. Moreover, Sir, I wish to further point out that the salaries of the Civil Service which amounted to $10,492,955 in 1921-22, will amount to $10,850,503 for the year 1925-26; there is therefore an increase of $357,547.50, and if you add to this the increase in the pensions which was $660,000 in 1921-22 and which to-day amounts to $1,539,000 it means an increase of $879,000. We therefore have an increase for both pensions and salaries of the employees of the various departments, of $1,236,547.50.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Translation):

Will the hon. member allow me to ask him a question? Would he be in favour of abolishing the Civil Service Commission?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

I am not discussing the duties of the Civil Service Commission; I am discussing the increases in the salaries of the employees of the civil service and not the duties of the commission, nor the wisdom of abolishing it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Translation):

Does the hon. member refuse to answer my question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

WThat is your question?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Translation):

I

asked the hon. member if he would be in favour of abolishing the Civil Service Commission.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

Mr Speaker, my hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres knows full well that being a new member, I have not yet had the opportunity of studying the duties, the administration and the merits of the commission.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Translation):

Then I take it for granted that my hon. friend cannot answer my question because he has no knowledge of the duties of the Civil Service Commission?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Alexandre Joseph Doucet

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DOUCET (Translation):

I shall take the liberty of telling the hon. member from Chambly and Vercheres, that he will not succeed, this evening, in making me say more than I feel like saying. I was not discussing the duties of the Civil Service Commission.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Translation):

Then the hon. member refuses to answer my question?

The Budget-Mr. Doucet

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Translation):

Order.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Archambault

Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT (Translation):

I

am awaiting the answer of the hon. member for Kent.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUANCE OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ACTING MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

April 2, 1925