1932-04-04

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, April 4, 1932.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I desire to lay on the table of the house the annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ending December 31, 1931, and the annual report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Canadian West Indies Service for the same period, in English and French.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Questions

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What is the totail present debt of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert James Manion: [DOT]
1.	Long term debt:
Funded debt unimatured	
Dominion of Canada account:
Loans from Dominion of Canada.. .. Interest on above accrued, but unpaid.. Appropriations for Canadian Government Railways	
2.	As a very large proportion of the securities constituting the funded debt is in bearer form it is impossible to state how much is held outside of Canada.
3 and 4. See answer to question 2.
*Note.-This amount represents the cost of the Intercolonial, Transcontinental, Prince Edward Island lines, constituting the original Canadian Government Railways now administered by the Canadian National Railway Company. It is not debt owing by the Canadian National Railways, but is included by the railway in Dominion of Canada account to offset a corresponding amount included in the investment item on the asset side of the balance sheet.


CACOUNA, QUE., INDIAN AGENT
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On whose recommendation did the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs temporarily appoint Mr. Alexis Michaud as Indian agent, at Cacouna, Quebec ?	,
2.	Did the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs receive other applications for said position?
3.	If so: (a) what are the names of the other applicants; (b) why was Mr. Alexis Michaud chosen in preference to other applicants?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Mr. Michaud was appointed as temporary Indian agent at Cacouna on instructions of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Theodore Marquis; (lb) Mr. Michaud was named to act only until such time as the Civil Service Commission selected a permanent agent.


SHELBURNE COUNTY INDIANS
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	How many Indians are located in Shelburne county?
2.	How much of the above is owing outside Canada?
3.	How much inside Canada?
4.	How much in New York?
	$1,276,457,206 77

2.	In what towns, villages or settlements, in such county, are Indians located, and how many are there in each place?
3.	How manv miles are each of these places: (a) from Shelburne; (b) from Lockeport?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Forty.
2.	Shelburne, 22; Barrington Passage, 9; Clyde River, 5; Sable River West, 4.
3.	Shelburne to Barrington Passage, 36 miles; Shelburne to Clyde River, 25 miles; Shelburne to Sable River West, 22 miles; Lockeport to Barrington Passage, 55 miles; Lockeport to Clyde River, 44 miles; Lockeport to Sable River West, 11 miles; Shelburne to Lockeport, 19 miles.


IMPORTATION OP BUTTER
Mr. RHEAUME:: 
Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1 and 2. Imports by countries of butter entered for consumption in Canada from January 1, 1931, to February 29, 1932:
Pounds
Great Britain	 181,594
Australia	 2,321,058
Newfoundland	 390
New Zealand	 344,320
Fiji Islands	 9,408
Syria	 160
United States	 26,626
Total	 2,883,466
Questions

3.	Number of pounds of butter and rate of duty per pound collected on monthly imports entered for consumption in Canada, from January 1, 1931, to February 29, 1932.
At 1 cent	At 5c.	Ait 8c.	At 12c.	At 14c.Period	per lb.	perlb.	per lb.	- perlfo.	per lb.Lbs.	Lbs.	less 10% Lbs.	Lbs.	Lbs.January, 1931	.... 432,768	-	12,976	692	2,011February	-	132,338	1,176	4,769March	.... 862,904	-	259,002	56,000	3,175April	.... 489,944	-	7,100	518May	.... 148,400	65,434	976June	308	- .	1,487July	50	2,176August	1 387September	-	927October	1,029 1,733 1,357 785November	__	December	112	January, 1932.. ..	-	17.004	February	39,358	-	-	5,002


POTATO EMBARGO
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Has the Canadian government entered into negotiations with the British government to have the embargo on Canadian potatoes entering England, lifted?
2.. If so. are said negotiations still taking place or have they been discontinued?
3. If they have been discontinued, were they i success or a failure?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Negotiations have been discontinued for the time being.
3.	Efforts to have the embargo against Canadian potatoes removed have not so far been successful.


CHICNECTO CANAL COMMISSION
Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Has the report of the commission appointed to investigate the possibilities of the Chignecto canal been received?
2.	If so, will the said report be tabled this session?
3.	If the report has been received, is it favourable to the feasibility of the project?


Mr. MANION:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) (for Mr. Ralston) :: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, reports and other correspondence, communications, or papers relating to the 
change recently made in the position of Indian Doctor for the eastern part of Shelburne county.


SHELBURNE-YARMOUTH-PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN
Charles A. Stewart: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams, correspondence, memoranda or other documents relating to the selection of each of the foremen employed in respect to each of the federal works in Shelburne-Yarmouth, or taken by the government, to be paid for out of money authorized under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931.


ABERCROMBIE AND NEW GLASGOW, N.S., WHARVES
Charles A. Stewart: For a return showing the pay sheets, vouchers and particulars of the moneys expended in oonnection with the repairs at Abercrombie wharf and New Glasgow wharf, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931.


ST. ODILON DE DORCHESTER, QUE., POSTMASTER- DISMISSAL
Mr. MARCIL (for Mr. Power):: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department and all persons, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Hilaire Roy, as postmaster of St. Odilon de Dorchester, including copy of the proof and evidence heard at the inquiry.


SHELBURNE, N.S., PUBLIC BUILDING CARETAKER
Charles A. Stewart: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, reports or other correspondence or

Imperial Economic Conference
communications, and all applications, ratings, examinations and reports on same, and generally all documents or papers in the custody or under the control of the Department of Public Works, or Civil Service Commission, or any^ other department or organization connected with the government, respecting the leave of absence and the retirement of the former caretaker of the public building at Shelburne, Nova Scotia, the appointment of a temporary caretaker to fill the vacancy in said position, and the appointment of a permanent caretaker to that position.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that
portion of the motion which calls for the production of papers in the possession of the Civil Service Commission, perhaps it will be within the memory of the house that the extent of our jurisdiction to order the production of papers from that body has not been definitely decided. With the understanding that such papers as the commission may furnish the government will be laid upon the table, there is no objection to the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the reservation
made by the Prime Minister the motion will carry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: It was suggested the other day that
the newspaper report to which reference had been made, indicating that a certain attitude might be taken by the Dominion government with regard to the proposed economic conference, was similar to despatches appearing in at least two or three other newspapers. I have taken the trouble to secure the report appearing in the Toronto Star, as well as the reports appearing in the Toronto Telegram and the Montreal Daily Herald, and I find a very substantial difference between the reports in these several papers.
The article in the Montreal Herald is by Robert Lipsett, special correspondent of the Montreal Herald, and it does not give the views that are attributed to the government in the report appearing in the Toronto Star. The article in the Toronto Telegram is very short, and in neither the Telegram nor the Herald does the report appear under a large headline, as is the case in the Toronto Star. In the issue of the Star of March 29 this article has a very important place. There is also a very vital difference in the substance *of the reports, the one indicating the possibility of a boycott, while no such indication appears in the other reports.
Apparently there may have been a common foundation for these reports, but whether in the process of transmission to the several newspapers the reports were altered I cannot say, but at least they do not appear the same in their printed form. I have endeavoured to ascertain the source of the information but I cannot speak with any degree of certainty as to the source from which it emanated.


OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: With respect to the Imperial economic conference, may I ask whether the Prime Minister would consider setting apart, at the convenience of the government, a day for the purpose of discussing matters pertaining to the conference. If one or two days were set apart for that purpose I believe it would meet the wishes of all sides of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an item in the estimates for an appropriation to defray the expenses of the conference, and it occurred to me that this might offer an opportunity for a very full discussion by the house. If it took a longer or a shorter time than might at present be contemplated, it would be quite all right. It would perhaps be inadvisable to set aside a day, but opportunity will be afforded to take as much time as might be desired for the purpose of discussing every aspect of the conference, upon that vote being considered by the house. We shall make special arrangements to endeavour to meet that view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is
wholly satisfactory provided my right hon. friend will see that the item is not brought on too late in the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in the main
estimates.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the
Minister of Finance whether he is in a position to make an announcement as to the day on which he will bring down the budget?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: The budget will be brought down c.n Wednesday.
Beauharnois Power Project


BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is not in his place but the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) is, and since I was last in the house an announcement has appeared in the press that a protective committee of the holders of second mortgage debentures of the Beauharnois Power Company Limited has been appointed. I believe that notice is appearing in the press throughout Canada. I have made certain inquiries and pending a thorough understanding of just what is involved I will not make a statement to the house. It is undesirable to make a statement that does not embrace every feature of the present position so far as it is possible to ascertain it.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask whether the Prime Minister expects that statement to be delayed for some time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think it should be delayed a very long time, but there are certain legal positions now arising that will necessitate very careful consideration, and the government has instructed that the information be obtained as soon as possible. I suppose the hon. gentleman is under no misapprehension as to what the position was. The debentures, so-called, of the Beauharnois Power Company, are secured by a trust deed, and the security for these debentures is the shares of stock of the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company, and of certain other subsidiaries, and until such time as there is a clear understanding of just what the financial implications of the present default and the appointment of the committee may be, I do not care to make a statement that might be misunderstood.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): I have a question which I wish to direct to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). There was a meeting of the Saskatchewan traffic council at Moose Jaw on March 22, when two resolutions were unani-

mously passed, one requesting the Minister of Railways to publish, for use between Churchill and prairie destinations, merchandise class rates of eighty-five per cent of the standard prairie mileage freight tariff, the other being a request that the Canadian National Railways publish the same rates forthwith. May I ask the Minister of Railways what action if any he intends to take on these two important resolutions.
Robert James Manion: These resolutions have been
sent to me and also copies of resolutions by various organizations in the western country. For a considerable time now I have been urging the Canadian National Railways to deal with this matter. My hon. friend knows, of course, that we do not make rates in this house, nor does the Minister of Railways; rates are made by the managements of the railways, subject, of course, to consideration by the Board of Railway Commissioners. They are working at them quite assiduously but there are some difficult questions that have to be considered, and it may be some time yet-not long, I trust, because I am urging them to do it at once-before they are able to publish a statement of rates to be put into force. I have been urging them to do this as early as possible, and in fact within the last few days I have taken the matter up again with Sir Henry Thornton and asked him to impress upon his officers the importance of early action. My deputy, also, has been working on my behalf for several weeks on the question, and I hope it will be done in the near future.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I thank the minister
for his pointed reply.


EMPLOYEES AT TRANSCONA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
wish to ask the Minister of Railways a question based on a telegram which I have received from the citizens of the town of Transcona, stating that, according to current reports, .there will be a twenty per cent layoff of Canadian National employees at that point.
I assume it is generally known that Transcona is the site of Canadian National shops. There are between seven and eight hundred employees at that point, and this layoff will be a serious matter. I venture to say that these employees will have to seek relief through the ordinary relief channels if they are laid off at the present time. The question

Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan
I wish to ask the Minister of Railways is this: Has he any knowledge of this matter; has the movement by any chance been instituted by the government and, if not, will the government use its best endeavours to see that it is not put into effect?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend no doubt knows
that the government has nothing whatever to do with the taking-on or laying-off of men by the Canadian National Railways; that is an entirely administrative function of the management over which we have no control. I have been carrying around in my pocket for the past few days a telegram which I sent to Winnipeg with reference to the matter. This telegram explains our position. While my hon. friend was putting his question I took the telegram out of my pocket and perhaps it might be well to read it in order to put our position before this house and the country:
Regarding your inquiry as to rumoured layoff of men in Canadian National shops I assure you this matter has been giving myself and my colleagues grave concern. Conferences have been held with the Canadian National management-
That is, by myself.
-who are by act of parliament in complete control of administration of the railways, including, of course, all dealings with the employees and their unions. The management agreed to keep as many men at work as possible considering the continually decreasing earnings of the railways, and they have been discussing the whole matter for some days in Montreal with the representatives of the men with whom they have agreements.
This was sent some days ago when the conferences were on.
Management assure me that they have cut down the proposed temporary layoff very materially, in fact to absolute minimum because of fact that men agreed to lessened time per week spread out over the employees in the shops. They state that they have kept on the maximum number of men for whom they have any work whatsoever to do. In this regard the management tell me that the representatives of the men's unions insist on seniority prevailing according to their agreements. Management inform me they are putting out complete explanatory statement through press to-day or Monday.
That was on Friday, and on Saturday they did put out a statement. It appeared in the press, but in some papers it was merely a synopsis, while in others it was complete. There came to my office to-day, with reference to this matter, some returned soldiers from Winnipeg, and I directed them to the management at Montreal, whom I requested to give these men an interview and to give their
representations every consideration, because I thought they had a good case. This is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the management and not under our control, and while, as Minister of Railways, I have endeavoured to have the management handle the situation as carefully as possible, in view of unemployment conditions, the management ultimately are in a position to do exactly as they see fit.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heenan.
['On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the statement the hon. gentleman is now making is entirely without foundation.']
Mr. F. R. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: When the house rose at eleven o'clock on March 1, I was directing imy attention to the motion now before the house. I was explaining to the house how timber permits had been given to a firm in Prince Albert, friends of the right hon. gentleman. I stated that in all some sixty-four permits had been given by the late government to this firm, in each instance the timber being listed as fire-killed. The regulations provide that fire-killed timber pays only 50 per cent of the royalty paid for standing green timber. I was reading into the record certain information which had come to me, and I shall continue with my quotations. I hold in my hand an affidavit made at St. Walburg on March 10, 1931, by Alex. Wilson of Glenbogie, a farmer. It reads as follows:
I am a farmer residing at Glenbogie and have been employed during the past two years in taking out railway ties for Hett & Sibbald Limited, and have personal knowledge of the matters herein deposed to.
That none of the railway ties removed by me for the above mentioned Hett & Sibbald Limited were fire-killed jack pine ties.
That all the said jack pine railway ties were green and were made from green timber.
That all dues charged to me by the said Hett & Sibbald Limited, for all ties made and delivered by me were at the rate of five cents per tie, whether grading number three, number two or number one.
I received the following letter dated March 24, 1931, from Mr. I. N. Cave of St. Walburg. It reads:
Pursuant to your request for information concerning the operations of Hett & Sibbald in the timber areas north of St. Walburg, I am pleased to give the following information:
I am a timber cruiser and tie operator during the past three years and have had con-

Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan
siderable experience in cruising timber and estimating the value of standing timber on crown lands. I think I can speak with as much certainty as any man in northern Saskatchewan as to the timbers I have cruised.
The whole township 64, range 25, west of the third meridian has been inspected by me and is green timber. It is unsurveyed and I state positively that the timber is not fire-killed.
And further:
I know and personally inspected the west half and N.E. of 12, W. half and N.E. 13-62-25-W-3. This timber is not fire-killed but on the contrary is good green jack pine suitable for railway ties.
I trust this information is what you require.
I have also a letter from Mr. Fred McKenzie, Dominion land inspector at North Battleford. This letter refers to timber permit number 5068 which comprises some seven and three quarters square miles, and is one of the permits to which I have already referred. The letter reads:
I beg to report having inspected the above lands as to the timber thereon. These areas consist of a scattered cut of fire-killed jack pine and spruce situated on the north side of Pierce lake, Saskatchewan. As over 50 per cent of this timber is fire-killed or will die as a direct result of fire, I would recommend that it be disposed of under section 47 of the timber regulations, before it becomes a loss.
I have another letter from the same gentleman dated North Battleford, March 17, 1930, referring to timber permit 5069 which comprises some six and three-quarters square miles. Mr. McKenzie states that the timber therein was fire-killed, while these other gentlemen state it was not. I desire to continue to read from the evidence from which I was quoting when the house adjourned on March 1. I quote as follows from the examination for discovery by Mr. Reed of Mr. Sibbald, taken at Battleford on February 18:
Q. How is it that Marshall got a contract for ten thousand ties last December?
A. As I said before in the year 1930-31 on account of this unemployment situation they have let all kinds of small contracts.
His Lordship: I understood that was limited to one thousand?
A. The contracts to settlers is limited to a thousand.
Q. Nevertheless why should the Canadian National divert from their policy and take Marshall's contract or anybody else's contract rather than yours?
A. We still have our contract but they have been giving them to a great number of settlers. I think there are thirty contracts in the province of Saskatchewan to-day. This is the first year they have got away from it, and they say it is on account of the unemployment situation. Mr. Merkley, the Minister of Labour, made some arrangements with the Canadian National Railways with a view to relieving the unem-

ployment situation and the matter is in his hands. He I think has a great deal to say about it, and it is under that general policy- Mr. Reed:
Q. You know Sam Ferrie?
A. Yes.
Q. He had a contract for 50,000 in 1927-28?
A. Yes.
Q. You remember Ernest Atkinson had
50,000	in 1924 or 1925?
A. He may have. As I said before, we have only had control since 1925; several people had contracts until then.
They have had control only since 1925. The evidence continues:
Q. During that time from 1925 until last fall did the Canadian National Railways let any contract in northern Saskatchewan except through you?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. What about Sam Ferrie?
A. Sam Ferrie got a contract but when it was brought to their attention it was cancelled immediately. It was brought to the attention of Mr. Dunning and Mr. Ferrie's contract was cancelled.
I understand Mr. Ferrie was the campaign manager for the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh).


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, he was not.


Frank Roland MacMillan: That is
the information I have.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member's information is wrong, like a lot of the stuff he is putting out.


Frank Roland MacMillan: It is very strange that with the great influence of the hon. member for North Battleford, Mr. Ferrie, his campaign manager, could not hold his contract.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I think the hon. member should take that back; the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) denies the statement.


Frank Roland MacMillan: When the natural resources were turned over to the provincial government of Saskatchewan I understand a royalty of five cents was being paid for these ties, but in the first year since that time I understand the royalty amounts to some eighteen cents. In the fall of 1929 and the spring of 1930 these people received contracts from the railway for 250,000 ties; they delivered 501,000, for which they were paid $380,000. My point is that had the settlers been given the opportunity to supply these ties to the railway they would have been in better condition to-day. Probably a lot of this timber which was rated as fire-killed should not have been rated in that manner.

Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan
The people in this part of the country would not be in their present condition had they been able to have had contracts with the railway for the supplying of ties.


John Vallance: How is the present government handling it?


Frank Roland MacMillan: This government has nothing to do with it.


Robert James Manion: The railway bought so
many ties before we came into power that none are needed at the present time.


Frank Roland MacMillan: My hon.
friend knows that the control of the natural resources now rests with the provincial government, and they control this business. He also knows that owing to the situation in which the national railways find themselves at present, they will not need any more ties for a long time to come. This is the manner in which our natural resources, the trust that the late government held for the people of Saskatchewan, were administered by them. I was glad to note that the former Minister of Interior, (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), the other day suggested that some examination or investigation of this matter should be made by the provincial government of Saskatchewan.


Charles A. Stewart: Certainly.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I concur heartily with him in that. It should be done in the interest of peace, order and good government in this country. I have talked to fire rangers in that section, and may I say to the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh)-and this is largely in his constituency -I am told by these men that the bush has been left in a deplorable condition. I am told that trees, sometimes three feet at the stump, would be felled -and as the stump was too big for a tie, that big piece of timber was left to rot away. They cut the slash and let it lie where it fell; they did not try to burn it, and thus there is a great fire hazard in that -part of my bon. friend's constituency. I thought my hon. friend would be -much more concerned than he is about the interests of those he represents.


Charles A. Stewart: While I concur in the suggestion for an investigation, if that investigation is held, my hon. friend will not find his statement upheld.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I can only say to the hon. gentleman that this statement was made to me by -men who were in his department when he was minister.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and I know the employees who made it.


Frank Roland MacMillan: What are their names?


Charles A. Stewart: I shall give them when the time comes. There were two of them.


Frank Roland MacMillan: The matter can be very easily established as regards permits 506S and 5069. It is supposed to be fire-killed timber. They are both standing monuments to the mistake that was made by someone because it is green timber.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it not true the -two individuals he mentioned who had contracts were responsible people? Can the amounts about which my hon. friend is complaining not be recovered from them?


Frank Roland MacMillan: I am not so much concerned about the contractors; I am concerned about the manner in which the timber was rated as fire-killed when it was not.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the very thing my hon. friend can prove by having an investigation so as to have the amount recovered from them.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Yes, but that is not up to the contractors; it is up to the Minister of -the Interior of the late government.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I shall have a word or two to say about that.


Frank Roland MacMillan: That is all I have to say in connection with that matter.
Before I sit down I should like to say a word about the riches of that great area of northern Saskatchewan. Last year we sent up from our city to that area some forty-two families who were on the unemployed list. We financed them to some extent, and I am glad to say that forty of the forty-two families will remain in that area, and that -they are doing exceptionally -well.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: That is because the government has a good member.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They have not a railway built there yet.


Frank Roland MacMillan: Had the railway not been constructed for political reasons and to serve my hon. friend's interests, they might have had it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is buncombe.
Unemployment-Mr. MacMillan


Frank Roland MacMillan: I want to read the following letter:
Loon Lake, Sask.,
October 1, 1931.
You can see that we are still on the map. Last night was the first time I had to write since being up here as the evenings are getting short-but talk about work! Prom daylight to dark, and moonlight.
Sure, it is great! When working for oneself it is a pleasure. We have got things comfortable. The cabin, or mansion, is a kitchen, dining-room, sitting-room, combined, with a nice big pantry, also good sized bedroom and clothes closet.
Last week I built an addition to it, 8 x 15, joining the kitchen which I have piled up with wood so the wife don't have to keep running outside every time she needs some. Have also built a chicken house, have nothing to go in it as yet. _ Cleared about 12 acres of land ready for breaking. Built a rail corral about 500 feet square, also a well. I am starting to get logs out for a pig pen and barn. Of course it will take longer than it should to build the barn, etc., as I have to pack most of the logs on my back, so don't know how I will make out at present, but will never say die. As far as the wife and I are concerned, we say the government will never have this homestead again, as I have no fear it will alii turn out all right. We will never starve up here. I shoot an average of two or three partridge, ruffed grouse, chicken and ducks. There are quite a few deer and moose. They come within a hundred yards of the house but I have not anything big enough to knock them down with.
I read that letter just for this reason: in
the three cities of Saskatchewan, Regina, Moosejaw and Saskatoon, we have a scheme whereby, with the assistance of the provincial and Dominion governments-and I hope the Dominion government will see its way clear to assist us in this connection-we propose to take these 2,000 unemployed families up to that country which is represented by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh). The cities have agreed to contribute $100; the province has agreed to contribute $100 and we are asking the Dominion government to contribute $100 also, making a total of $300 a family so that these people may be put to productive work whereby they can earn their living. I think a scheme of that kind should commend itself to the government, and I hope the government will see their way clear to assist in that respect.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North
Battleford):	About a month ago, I think it
was on March 1, I listened to the harangue of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). I have listened again to-day to his diatribe concerning something about which his knowledge is zero, and I think now that 
he has exploded and handed to parliament all that is on his chest, it is about time I said something. I should like to add some truth to the falsehoods that have been uttered, because from first to last I do not think the hon. member knows a solitary thing about what he has been talking. Before I go fully into the subject, may I draw the attention of the house to the opening remark of my hon. friend when he said on March 1:
I desire as the representative of a constituency in Saskatchewan

One would imagine from the attitude of the hon. member since coming into this chamber, instead of being a representative of a Saskatchewan riding, he is more of a delegate for the Tory party. His attitude in the house has from time to time been that of an interrupter, a scowler, a scorner, and insolent interrupter and grunter.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I rise to
a point of order. I think that is unparliamentary language.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He is posing as a kind
of political uplifter. I would suggest if he intends to do any uplifting, he should commence in his own backyard and in his own party.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Did the hon. member
refer to another member as a coward?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, I said he was
prone to be speechless-a grunter-and so he
is.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I hardly think that is a
proper word to use.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, it is the best I
can choose for the occasion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member says
that he used the word "grunter" in referring to another hon. member. That is unparliamentary and improper, and I ask him to withdraw the word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Give me time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do it now. I ask the
hon. member to withdraw that word.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am willing to withdraw
it,	Mr. Speaker, if you will give me the opportunity.


Mr. ROWE:: Withdraw. It is not debatable.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask the hon. member
to withdraw the word.

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If you would give me
the opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask the hon. member
to withdraw the word "grunter" as applied to another hon. member of this house. It is impolite, and unparliamentary.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If Mr. Speaker says the word is not parliamentary I quite willingly withdraw it, and I might, as suggested, perhaps say instead that the hon. member is a *"squealer."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That word is not parliamentary. The hon. member must not use any such rude epithets at all. It does not add to the weight of his argument nor to the dignity of parliament, and I would ask him to desist from the practice.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. gentleman opposite was the first to start it a month ago, and why did not you call him to order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member
is incorrect in that. No such epithets were used in my hearing.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: His insinuations were even worse. He may get away with such insinuations against others, but not as far as I am concerned. The hon. member on the first of March told us how he was representing a Saskatchewan riding. As I said, I thought he was representing the Tory party better than he was representing his own riding. A little further on he said that he thanked the government for the sympathetic manner in which they had come to the assistance of the people in the province of Saskatchewan. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we can leave it to the people of Saskatchewan to say how the present government has come to their aid. We have to-day the farmers of Saskatchewan on the dole, we have them giving hundreds of promissory notes and liens on their crops and farms which they will not be able to pay off for years hence, and if any hon. member of this house from any part of Saskatchewan can get up and sincerely thank the government for aiding the people in that way, for getting on the people's backs, he is welcome to do it, but I will not be a party to thanking them for any such thing.
A little further on the hon. member spoke about the problem of unemployment. He 'has spoken of unemployment in his last two addresses, but he will not admit that when his own party came into power there were only a little over one hundred thousand unemployed in this country, but that by October 41761-105
of that same year the number had increased to over two hundred thousand, and the number of unemployed in this country to-day is over five hundred thousand. What did the hon. member say about the problem of unemployment? He now tells parliament and the country that the unemployment problem is an international and dominion problem, but during the election campaign in 1930, he and his party said that it was a national problem and that the Liberals were responsible for the unemployment then prevailing in the country. Now that hon. gentlemen opposite are in power they say that the problem is an international one. Now we have this pigmy wizard coming along, and telling us that it is an international problem and a national problem. This is another new combination to explain the situation.
A little further on in his address the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) quoted a letter from W. L. McQuarrie, of the Retail Merchants' Association, to show that the retail merchants were satisfied with the attitude of this government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the speech of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) fully explains the situation in that regard. Speaking in this house not long ago the hon. member for Melville accurately described the conditions in Saskatchewan under the present relief commission. He told us that he lives in municipality 186 where there is one supervisor and nine relief officers in the municipality, and in order to show the political nature of the organization he told us that nine of these officers were Conservatives and one was a Liberal. In other words, the party of my hon. friend opposite came into office and scrapped the organization of the rural municipalities which would have looked after the administration of relief in a non-political way, and they put in its place a straight political machine, and then my hon. friend from Saskatoon has the audacity to come into this house and tell us that relief is being well administered in the province of Saskatchewan. I say that it is not. I say that it is being administered politically, and so long as that is the case anyone who can read between the lines can tell what the results will be-money squandered, farmers on the dole, the giving of promissory notes and liens that will not be paid off for a generation.
A little further on my hon. friend from Saskatoon referred to the constituency of North Battleford and said, "I have listened many a time." I am glad that he is a good listener, because that is all he has been up to the present time. He has certainly not been



Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
much of a speaker and he has refused on more than one occasion to stand up for the rights of the people of Saskatchewan or the people of western Canada. So I am very pleased to know that he is a listener-something at all events. Then, referring to myself, he said that I was greatly concerned about who voted for me in my riding. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is a member of parliament who does not care who voted for him, I am the man. As long as I get a vote I do not care where it comes from, and the hon. gentleman certainly does not know his man when he talks like that. It does not matter to me whether a vote comes from the country, a village, a town or city-wherever it comes from it is as good as the bank. I am very glad to get it, whatever its legitimate source.
The hon. member went on to say that the vote that I got was not a vote of the urban centres, but was largely a vote of the people in the country back of North Battleford. I have the returns here of the last federal election, giving the figures with respect to my hon. friend's riding and my own, and we will find out exactly how the thing stands. In the North Battleford federal riding there are .170 polls, of which 56 are urban and 114 rural. Of the rural polls the Liberal candidate, that is myself, carried 88, and the Tory candidate, a camouflaged candidate, carried 19-19 out of 114-and the other candidate, a radical, carried 7. Of the polls largely urban in nature the Liberal candidate carried 30, the Conservative candidate 24, and the radical candidate 2. Summing up we find that the Liberal candidate carried 118 out of 170 polls, the underground Conservative candidate, about whom my hon. friend is doing so much blowing, only carried 43 polls, and the other candidate carried 9 polls. There were five polls which had an equal vote between the Liberal candidate and the camouflaged Tory candidate; by that I mean a man who was a Tory and ran as a farmer to capture the agricultural vote. But he did not get the farm vote. The farmers were too wise. Of these 118 polls three were equally divided between the radical candidate and myself. So the Liberal candidate carried 113 polls out and out against the Conservative candidate, and 115 against the third candidate.
The majority over the Conservative candidate was 1,095, if I remember correctly, and the majority over the third candidate was 4,920. In 1925 the majority of your humble servant, Mr. Speaker, was over 1,500 in a three party contest, and in 1926, with a straight Tory in the field and a straight Liberal,

my majority was over 3,000. And the majority, with only a Conservative and a Liberal in the field in 1930, would again have been in the thousands.
Now let us go into the riding of my hon. friend from Saskatoon. What do we find? In the Saskatoon federal riding there are 160 polls, of which 47 are rural. Hon. members will notice that the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) wanted to lambaste the country people; he wanted to make out that the rural vote was not as good as the urban vote. Here is the reason: Of the 47 rural polls my hon. friend was well licked in 35. Eleven polls he carried, and in one the vote was even. In the rural area of the Saskatoon riding he was beaten by approximately 1,000 votes, beaten by the men and women who had done business with him for fifteen or twenty years in a merchandising way. He was beaten by people who know him better than the city people, beaten by men and women who had been in and out of his store for years and years. That is the standing of my hon. friend in the country part of the Saskatoon federal riding. In the city, by false propaganda, by a deliberate attempt to blame unemployment on the Liberal party, and by playing in a way which was anything but manly he managed to secure a majority. That is the standing of my hon. friend in his own riding-the rural part.
I should like to indicate his position in the city of Saskatoon. When on my way to Ottawa at the latter end of January I happened to go into the Saskatoon union station, and there met a business man. He said, "Well, Mac., are you going down to Ottawa?" I said, "Yes; where is your man? Has he gone?" He said, "It does not matter whether he goes or not; he is better in Saskatoon than he is in Ottawa." Then a little later I dropped into a restaurant and met another business man with whom I discussed the political situation. I said, "What about F. R.; how is he getting along?" He said, "Oh, he is the worst member >we ever had." Of course I could not at the time contradict that statement, because I hardly knew whether or not it was true. Later I went into the King George hotel before returning to the station and got into conversation with a third business man concerning the political situation in Canada, and I said, "How is my friend Mr. MacMillan standing in the city of Saskatoon?" He said, "Oh, no good." I said, "What do you mean; you will elect him next time, will you not?" In reply he said, "No, he will not have a chance at all in the next election in Saskatoon." That is his standing

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
in the city of Saskatoon, and I have defined his position in the rural community by giving the votes cast. I leave it to hon. 'members to conclude the worth of the hon. member opposite who has been attempting to show that he is a wonderful man from the west. I will leave to the judgment of my hon. friends the position held iby the hon. member for Saskatoon.
May I go a little farther. In his speech he said that no company but a certain firm in Prince Albert could get a tie contract, and that that was the only company which had a chance on any permits or any Canadian National railways contracts. I claim Mr. Speaker, that that statement is absolutely false, and I have gathered evidence from the riding to prove that there is not a word of truth in it. For instance, when I became member in 1925 many people in the riding said, " We would like to get contracts for making ties; we can get the wood, we can secure the timber, we can arrange for fire-killed areas, and we think we should have as good an opportunity to make ties in the winter time and make some extra money as any others in the riding, or outside of the riding, so far as that is concerned." I said, "I am with you. As far as I am concerned I think every man in my riding should have a chance to make some of these ties, if he can produce the goods at a competitive rate, and in a manner to satisfy the Canadian National Railways." As a result I wrote the authorities and said, "When your next timber berth is up for sale, when you have more timber limits to put up at auction, I want the notices to be published in every part of the riding of North Battleford." Up to that time the notices had been limited to the larger cities in Saskatoon, North Battle-ford and Prince Albert. I said, "I want them in every post office in my riding, so that all people may have a square deal, so far as getting a chance at timber limits and making ties are concerned." So that was done, and the result wTas that men with smaller credit and smaller means came forward and tried to get some of these contracts. One man actually got a contract for 40,000 or 50,000 ties, I am not sure which. He went to Montreal. To prove there is no truth whatsoever in the statement that the Canadian National Railways wanted to give the contracts to one firm and one firm only, Mr. Ferrie went to Montreal in a businesslike way and talked the matter over with officials of the Canadian National Railways. They said, "Why, by all means; if you can make the ties we want, if you can produce them at a competitive rate
41761-105J
and if you can deliver the goods we are quite willing to give you a contract." And they gave him a contract.
Now. he had a contract, but he did not have any timber limits from which to make the contract good. So the next timber berth sale was advertised throughout the whole of the North Battleford riding in accordance with my departmental suggestion. An auction sale was held for the first time in North Battleford, and it was held as a result of my request for it. At the auction sale Mr. Ferrie bid. What was the result? He got lost in the bidding, that is all. They bid the timber limits away beyond what he could pay, and the result was that he did not get them. He could not fill the contract, and not only Mr. Ferrie but all other small contractors felt the effects. They had not the money or the bank credit. They may have had experience and ability, but without money and credit they were not able to do anything. I must say the work was let, as usual, to the company with the equipment, the experience, the first class reputation, the credit and the money. That is the situation exactly. Any man who makes a different statement is not telling the truth. Statements which have been made have been made in ignorance of timber limits and operations. As I said, I am having irrefutable evidence brought forward to prove my contention, and at a later time I hope to put it on record.
May I say a word or two respecting Charles F. Marshall. Well do I know Charles F. Marshall. Here was a man who held a position under the crown as postmaster at Spruce Lake. From the return I have before me I understand he got the position in 1923. I was not at that time a member, and was not responsible for making him postmaster; I am glad I was not. On June 6, 1927, he resigned. What did he do? He decided to move from Spruce Lake back to the land of the stars	and	stripes, from	whence	hecame. What	did	he do to get	back?	Hehad not much money or much credit. He secured the services of an assistant for the period of a month, and at the end of that time he sold	the	post office building,	thelot and the	post	office to the	assistant, I
understand, away beyond their proper values and then skedaddled to the United States. That is the man whom I often befriended and who later came back and became one of the Tory ward politicians in North Battleford federal riding. His affidavit does not mean anything; if he took a hundred of them, people would not believe him. That is the

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
situation so far as Mr. Marshall is concerned. I claim he took money under false pretences when he did what he did. He is still working for the Tory party in Saskatchewan, and giving affidavits to my hon. friend from Saskatoon who apparently is badly in need of them.
Then, we have another man here-another Marshall. They are not brothers, but they might as well be, so far as that is concerned. This other Marshall of business profits tax delinquency reputation makes an affidavit in which he tells about certain timber limits. I want to say that for this man Marshall to take an affidavit against Sibfoald who had frequently protected him was one of the most dastardly tricks ever done by any man.
What are the facts? They are that this man, who was a painter, had to get out of North Battleford. He went north, and is still there. He went into the store business; time and again he was almost bankrupt, owing his wholesalers and other people large sums of money, and if it had not been for the contracts he got from Hett and Sibbald he would have been driven to the wall financially. Yet, after being saved from the financial gallows through tie contract after tie contract, that man comes forward and, in order to build up Tory propaganda in Saskatchewan, maliciously gives an affidavit which is said by those who know the facts to be a complete falsehood from the first line to the last. I should like to support what was said by my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart); I should like to see this tie question in Saskatchewan investigated to the hilt. Further I would say that my hon. friend can get an investigation started immediately by getting in touch with the provincial government, which now owns the resources in Saskatchewan. Let him bring on this investigation; let him find out the men who are straight and the men who are crooked, and he will find that all the crooks if any are on his side of the political fence. This man Marshall has been doing work for the present government, and Hett and Sibbald have done work for this government and the provincial government with regard to unemployment relief. As I understand it, there was no publicity; there was no competition. The contracts were handed over holus bolus, without regard for the public interest. That is the situation under the present order of things.
I should like to refer to the stand taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) in 1930. The hon. member compared the urban and rural votes in the riding of North Battleford. When the election

campaign was on in 1930, according to a statement of Doctor A. MacGillivray Young of Saskatoon, my hon. friend's opponent, as reported in the Leader-Post, Regina, July 17, 1930, the hon. gentleman did his level best to secure the Mennonite vote in the riding of Saskatoon. He and his political machine promised grants to the Mennonite schools and hinted that land under the control of the province would be parcelled out to the Mennonites if they would break away from their former political faith with the Liberal party and support the Conservatives. My hon. friend was supported by the provincial government; both did their best to get the Mennonites to change their vote. In one case, in the Gruenthal school, the provincial government promised a special grant of $1,000 for the salary of the teacher and $500 for school equipment for a second room of the same school in another building, while in another case they promised free school seats. In other words they were out to buy those votes; they were also trying to besmirch the Liberal party in the eyes of the Mennonites.


Frank Roland MacMillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the statement the hon. gentleman is now making is entirely without foundation.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker. His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.
An Act to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (summary trials).
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conveyance of prohibited articles).
An Act relating to the submission to parliament of certain regulations and orders in council.
An Act to amend the Admiralty Act.
An Act to amend the Marriage and Divorce Act.

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize additional provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year, 1931.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cheques without funds and grand juries).
An Act respecting Unemployment and Farm Relief.	[DOT]	.	.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending 31st March, 1932.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heenan.
['I did not intend to touch the civil government salaries. I assume the house will desire to be informed about a number of employees in connection with the preventive service, and matters of that kind, and that is why I mentioned that item. The acting Minister of Fisheries is not here to go on with his estimates, but the Minister of Finance, who is very familiar with the work of the Department of Fisheries, will assist in those items.\nProgress reported.']
Cameron Ross McIntosh: When the Senate interrupted my address-and I do not know what I ever did to the Senate to have them do that to me-I was dealing with the attempts which were being made by my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan), hand in hand with the Tory organization of the province of Saskatchewan, to break up the Men-nonite vote for the Liberal party in the Saskatoon riding.


Frank Roland MacMillan: The hon
gentleman implies that I used any ability I had in order to get the provincial government to use provincial funds to manipulate Men-nonite votes in my constituency. I had nothing whatever to do with the Mennonite vote, so far as schools are concerned. That statement is entirely false.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is a matter of controversy between the hon. members.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The truth will come out. I did not say that the provincial government used public funds. I said that special grants were made to certain Mennonite school districts. These grants were for teachers' salaries and for school equipment, and in one case free desks were promised a certain school district. We have it on the word of the municipal secretary, C. R. Lane, of Warman, that this was not a municipal question and that the secretary attended a certain meeting at Warman but was there only for informative purposes. It was absolutely an attempt to influence the Mennonite vote to support my hon. friend on July 28 in the city of Saskatoon. No question about it.
Let me go further. My friend went out of his way to make it appear that the Liberal party had insulted the Mennonites. He was
becoming a friend of the Mennonites, a sort of knight-gown friend of the Mennonites all at once, and his only solicitude for the Men-Donites was their vote. Consequently he got out a poster, accusing Dr. Young and the Liberals of insulting his dear little Mennonites. What was the result? The Mennonites who were said to have been thus treated drew up a petition in the Osier school district. There were 148 who signed that petition to the effect that the tactics of my hon. friend and of the organization that helped to elect him were antagonistic to their ideals and absolutely contrary to their conception of citizenship. More than that, may I say that the provincial government made an attempt to defend their actions in regard to supporting my hon. friend by saying that they were dealing municipally with this question, that it was not simply a problem of giving school grants to get the Mennonite vote. That, however, is absolutely repudiated by the evidence of the secretary of Warman municipality. He said that he did not attend that meeting as municipal secretary, and that at the meeting mentioned these questions were not municipal but had reference to school matters and school matters only. Let me read what is stated by Mr. Boldt, who signed the' petition with 147 others in Osier. This is what he has to say with reference to my hon. friend's tactics:
On the other hand, we resent bitterly the tactics used by F. R. MacMillan in his efforts to secure votes.
He knew what the hon. gentleman and his party were doing. Let me show with what success the hon. member met in his attempt to split the Mennonite vote for his dear little Conservative party. In one poll in Osier he was defeated by 65 to 42 votes. That shows his standing in that poll. In another poll in Osier, he was defeated by 55 to 44. At Miller, he was defeated by 106 to 22; at Peters, he was defeated by 104 to 19; at Mennon, he was defeated by 114 to 18; at Hepburn, he was defeated by 168 to 44; at Smithburg, he was defeated by 75 to 23; at Hochcfeld, he was defeated by 110 to 14; at Hague, he was defeated by 54 to 45; and at Ademuka, he was defeated by 73 to 22. At Gruenthal, the hon. gentleman had the very slight majority of 4, the votes being 48 in his favour and 44 in favour of his opponent. In this poll, where a dastardly attempt was made to break up the Mennonite vote by school grant pressure, that was the meagre majority he received. Had not that attempt been made, he would have been beaten overwhelmingly in that poll as in the others.

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
Now there is the story. That shows what success the hon. gentleman met with notwithstanding that he and his organization did their very best to break up the vote in favour of the Tory party. But the people there were not the fools they were in Saskatoon; they saw what the hon. gentleman was trying to do and they voted accordingly.
The man who made these inspections in the North Battleford federal riding was a Mr. McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie was a follower of the party of my hon. friend-a Conservative. But I'm told he is not any more. He has had his fill. He has made all the timber inspections since 1923 in the North Battleford federal riding and my hon. friend is being placed before the house and the country in this position: he is stating that one of his own timber inspectors does not know how to inspect timber; that he inspected it falsely and did this in order to see that one firm got the business and that the Canadian National Railways and the Department of the Interior were not playing absolutely fair with the farmers in the riding who could handle this work. That is what it means. Personally I am loath to accept one of these wild statements.
Before I close I desire to put on Hansard a letter received from Hett & Sibbald, Limited. It reads:
142 Bloor Street West,
Toronto, March 5, 1932.
The Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., Leader of the Opposition,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
The writer's attention has been drawn to certain statements made by Mr. MacMillan, M.P. for Saskatoon, in the House of Commons on the 1st of March this year.
It would appear that Mr. MacMillan aimed to cast a slur upon the name of the firm of Hett & Sibbald, Limited, and as his inferences differ so much from the actual truth, we wish to put before you, sir, as member for Prince Albert, some facts bearing on Mr. MacMillan's criticisms.
Referring, I presume, to our firm, as our name is definitely mentioned in certain letters he read, Mr. MacMillan says: " . . . and it is a strange thing that no one but this particular firm could obtain a permit to cut timber in northern Saskatchewan;" he follows with: "it is also a strange thing that apparently no one but this particular firm could obtain a contract from the Canadian National Railways for the supplying of railway ties."
Fire-killed timber berths, Mr. MacMillan stresses on, are put up at public auction after being advertised, and the person bidding the highest cash bonus is awarded the permit, he may then manufacture what the timber is suited for at a fixed rate of dues, and let me state here that we do not hold and never have held a fire-killed timber berth that we have not purchased in the proper way at a public auction sale. Anybody could bid these in, and I will 
give you a list of a few that our firm did not get-by looking up our records we could give you many more, but these will probably suffice for the present-these are the registration numbers, and anybody who cares to take the trouble can get full details of same: 3870, 3917, 4221, 4487, 4802, 4811, 4462, 4629, 4665, 4481.
We have supplied ties for steam railways, street railways, factories, etc., and we are not ashamed to admit it because it is through building up a business within the last twelve years on strict and sound business principles that we believe has won for us the confidence of those who require ties. We wish to appear anything but boastful in this connection, but wish to be quite frank and think you will appreciate this.
It is most important to make sure a company or individual will get exactly the ties they require, and by the date they require them,- otherwise you fail.
You know parties who have had contracts in Saskatchewan from the railway company; some of them through inexperience or lack of finances have fallen down completely. In connection with three of these eases the parties never delivered one tie, two of them came to us; we were able to finance them, watch their operations, and they had work for the winter.
Regarding fire-killed timber:	These are
designated according to section 47 of the timber regulations by timber inspectors who must be real timber men as they have to judge whether or not trees are going to die as a result of being fire swept. We know cases in both Saskatchewan and British Columbia where we have operated where the timber appeared from the outside to be perfectly sound, but on cutting or boring trees was found to be worthless, and had to be abandoned. It had been left too long after a ground fire.
Mr. MacMillan read several letters or documents.
The writer knows only one of the parties who wrote a letter. This is J. H. Marshall of St. Walburg, Saskatchewan. This man was a painter and is now a store keeper, but it is the first time we had any idea he was a timber expert, that he can say how long it will probably take a tree to die after being fire swept. Another letter was read from one William Mattila. This man says we told him we had a permit on certain timber, and that he was to cut it. and then he found we hadn't such permit. The fact is unless a clearance is got from the department saying government dues have been paid in full, the purchaser of the ties will not pay for them-and no clearance could be got in the above case. This is a rigid rule and always has to be carried out, so you can readily see how absurd Mattila's statement is.
The writer is sorry he has not his office data with him, otherwise could go more fully into the subject, but as far as this letter goes, any facts stated are absolutely true.
We hope the substance matter of this letter will be put before Mr. MacMillan, as it is not fair that the impressions he has tried to estab-'ish in connection with our firm should stand.
Yours very truly,
Hett & Sibbald, Ltd.,
S.	Hett, President.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more except to remind the hon. member for Saskatoon that we have some

Unemployment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
fine timber areas in North Battleford while in his riding he has not sufficient to make one third-class tie. If he knows as little about timber as he has demonstrated this afternoon, I doubt if there is sufficient timber in his own makeup to make even one cull tie. Further, may I say that the next time the hon. member encounters a dust or silt storm down in Saskatoon we cordially invite him to come up north where there are many fresh water lakes. We will endeavour to cleanse him thoroughly before he returns.
The heart of the hon. member seems to be bleeding for the settlers north of St. Walburg, but if he wants to help them the best thing he can do is to go to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and try to obtain for these poor settlers who are trying to carve out a living on the frontier the railroad which they have been promised. South of the Beaver river forty-four miles of roadbed is prepared and ready for steel, but no effort has been made to give these people the railroad which it was promised would be finished by 1932. From present indications, not a mile of steel will be laid this year. Beyond the Beaver river, twenty-five miles is graded and ready for the steel but still no attempt is being made to complete this railroad. The result will be that these settlers for years to come will be without the railway facilities promised to them by the Liberal government. Had that government been returned to power, these people would certainly have received the railway consideration to which they are justly entitled.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to
add to the affidavits submitted and the allegations made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) except to say that had these affidavits been handed to me when I was acting as Minister of the Interior, I would have ordered an immediate investigation. That would not have been the first time an investigation of this character was conducted in the department. These files are now in the possession of the Saskatchewan government and it would be an easy matter for that government to investigate the charges made by my hon. friend. I would suggest that he get in touch with the provincial government and request an immediate investigation. Mr. Smart who was in charge of the office at Prince Albert is now the superintendent of a national park in Manitoba; all the other officers concerned are somewhere in the vicinity of these alleged transactions, and
there should be no difficulty in carrying out an investigation. The report of the ties purchased by the Canadian National Railways is available and will disclose whether they were burned or green timber. The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) has indicated that the contractors mentioned in the statement are responsible people and if any mishandling has occurred, recovery could be made.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is submitted to the house, I have one or two observations to make. According to the terms of the resolution, the problem of unemployment is one of the most important with which parliament has to deal; but during the debate this afternoon we have listened to speeches which have really nothing to do with this serious matter. Apparently the question in the way it has been discussed for some time, has been boiled down to one affecting a particular locality, ei tiier in eastern Canada or in Saskatchewan or in some other part of the dominion. Unfortunately unemployment is not local but national and can be dealt with only in a national way.
I should like to say first of all that I have every sympathy with the last part of the resolution. I am very anxious to see the government take immediate action and state its policy in regard to this question. I also realize that from the time this motion first came before the house, quite a number of things have happened and a different slant has been given to the subject. I see by the papers to-day that within the next few days a conference between the federal and provincial governments will be called to discuss how unemployment is to be dealt with, and therefore I prefer to leave my remarks to a subsequent occasion when I shall be able to discuss that aspect of the matter more intelligently.
My main purpose in rising to-day is that I do not desire to see this question of unemployment discussed in the party spirit in which it has been debated during the past few weeks. I am always afraid, when the 'party spirit begins to manifest itself, as it often does in the house, that unemployment may be lost sight of altogether and when it comes to a question of what the Liberal party did here or the Conservative party did -there, we forget entirely about the large number of people who happen to be out of work. The amendment as set forth by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) takes up almost a whole page of Hansard, and more
Unemployment-Mr. Heaps

than nine-tenths of it deals with something that has been threshed out in the house time and time again. This is a form of politics with which we in our group have no sympathy. We would far sooner have the question discussed entirely on its merits. If the amendment had been confined to the latter part, asking the government to submit to the house its program of dealing with this great question, there would be no doubt as to what we of the labour group and the other members in this corner of the house would do. But when we find coupled with this resolution all these "whereases" as to what was said by the Prime Minister in about fifteen different parts of the dominion, it is time this kind of politics was cut out entirely from our proceedings and we got down to the really fundamental questions before us. Therefore, as a protest against this form of resolution, we have decided to abstain from voting on this question.


["Mr. Speaker, before the motion is submitted to the house, I have one or two observations to make. According to the terms of the resolution, the problem of unemployment is one of the most important with which parliament has to deal; but during the debate this afternoon we have listened to speeches which have really nothing to do with this serious matter. Apparently the question in the way it has been discussed for some time, has been boiled down to one affecting a particular locality, ei tiier in eastern Canada or in Saskatchewan or in some other part of the dominion. Unfortunately unemployment is not local but national and can be dealt with only in a national way.\nI should like to say first of all that I have every sympathy with the last part of the resolution. I am very anxious to see the government take immediate action and state its policy in regard to this question. I also realize that from the time this motion first came before the house, quite a number of things have happened and a different slant has been given to the subject. I see by the papers to-day that within the next few days a conference between the federal and provincial governments will be called to discuss how unemployment is to be dealt with, and therefore I prefer to leave my remarks to a subsequent occasion when I shall be able to discuss that aspect of the matter more intelligently.\nMy main purpose in rising to-day is that I do not desire to see this question of unemployment discussed in the party spirit in which it has been debated during the past few weeks. I am always afraid, when the 'party spirit begins to manifest itself, as it often does in the house, that unemployment may be lost sight of altogether and when it comes to a question of what the Liberal party did here or the Conservative party did -there, we forget entirely about the large number of people who happen to be out of work. The amendment as set forth by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) takes up almost a whole page of Hansard, and more\nUnemployment-Mr. Heaps", 'than nine-tenths of it deals with something that has been threshed out in the house time and time again. This is a form of politics with which we in our group have no sympathy. We would far sooner have the question discussed entirely on its merits. If the amendment had been confined to the latter part, asking the government to submit to the house its program of dealing with this great question, there would be no doubt as to what we of the labour group and the other members in this corner of the house would do. But when we find coupled with this resolution all these "whereases" as to what was said by the Prime Minister in about fifteen different parts of the dominion, it is time this kind of politics was cut out entirely from our proceedings and we got down to the really fundamental questions before us. Therefore, as a protest against this form of resolution, we have decided to abstain from voting on this question.']
Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LENNOX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FAFARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McDADE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ARSENAULT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion agreed to.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Earl Rowe: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair. International Institute of Agriculture, $10,000. Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would voted against the amendment.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradebte). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GAGNON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Grants are made by very many
countries to the International Institute of Agriculture, to be used for the purpose of setting up machinery for the gathering of facts and statistics relating to agriculture for dissemination amongst the countries which are members of the institute.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What is the explanation of the reduction? Has the contribution by other countries been reduced?


Robert Weir: I could not say at the moment, but this reduction will not in any way interfere with the obligations that we have undertaken. I understand that we shall receive not quite so many publications.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who were the Canadian
delegates to the convention in Europe last year?


Robert Weir: I understand that
there was no official delegate sent from this country, but that we were represented by Mr. French of the Imperial government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-M iscellaneous

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $956,772; contingencies, $50,000.
Mr. CHEVRIER:: A few evenings ago
when items in the Departments of Public Works and Trade and Commerce were under consideration we were led to understand that the items for salaries would not be touched until the bill had been passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, to learn whether or not my hon. friend has stated the understanding correctly, I would have to verify his statement by an examination of Hansard. I understood the items would not be considered until the bill was brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course I am subject
to correction.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Take another item.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Mr. Chairman, there are only two items to deal with, so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The items for that department have been called; that serves my hon. friend's purpose.
Mr. RY'CKMAN: If that is all the house desires, I am content.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Publications of League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to the League of Nations Society in Canada, $3,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in
this item, nor has there been for some time. In connection with the various other items on page 55 of the estimates there may be some discussion. This however seems to be the one item in connection with which there will be no controversy. It deals with publications, and is for an amount similar to that asked last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $18,900.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This seems to be a noncontentioUs item.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Is there not a change in
the regulations concerning the fishways which have to be constructed? I have heard some protest in this connection in the province of Nova Scotia.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The query raised by my
hon. friend from Hants-Kings arises out of some suggested changes in the law which are contained in the provisions of an amendment to the statute to be brought in this year, and which are now under consideration of the fisheries committee.


James Lorimer Ilsley: If there are any contentious features in the changes, where may they be discussed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There may be discussionbefore the fisheries committee, and on the second reading and committee stages of the bill.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Does northern Ontario
come under the item for clearing rivers?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The fisheries of Ontario
are within control of the province.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I understand the
federal authorities are taking care of some of the rivers in northern Ontario.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the Hudson bay area
that may possibly be true, but as my hon. friend knows the fisheries of Ontario are under the control of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay compassionate allowance to John Davidson, formerly lightkeeper at Cape Mudge, B.C., $500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an allowance
voted every year for this gentleman, who is still surviving.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The Postmaster General
is not in his seat, but if we could take one item we might expedite business. I am content with any item which would be acceptable to the committee.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose the Postmaster General is busy in connection with the Montreal elections, too?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have some reason to
believe that is true of many hon. members.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: What item shall we consider?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any item which is noncontentious, commencing at page 61.

C.N.R.-Expenditures in 1931
Post Office-outside service, $31,451,100.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We might just consider
this item and go on. I would not be prepared to deal with it in any event, so we might leave the consideration of the item until a later date.
Item stands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having provided that
the house may go into committee with respect to the several departments I mentioned on Friday I propose now that we should deal with second readings of some government measures. Later, if the house is in a position to do so, the different ministers will go on with supply, taking up Justice and National Revenue. Agriculture, of course, is highly contentious, and we will leave that for the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: National Revenue is mainly salaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not intend to touch the civil government salaries. I assume the house will desire to be informed about a number of employees in connection with the preventive service, and matters of that kind, and that is why I mentioned that item. The acting Minister of Fisheries is not here to go on with his estimates, but the Minister of Finance, who is very familiar with the work of the Department of Fisheries, will assist in those items.
Progress reported.



DESTRUCTIVE INSECT AND PEST ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 18, to amend the Destructive Insect and Pest Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Scope of regulations.
Mr. BROWN:: Were any amendments
made in committee?


Olof Hanson: No, there were none.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council may authorize the guarantee of securities of the Canadian National Railway Company to an aggregate principal amount at any one time outstanding of $11,372,498.86, to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931 (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient), by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railways or any company controlled by or any company comprised in the Canadian National Railways, or in respect of Canadian Government railways entrusted to the Canadian-National Railway Company. .
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This measure is to provide the money with which to pay the debt incurred by the bill which has already passed this house, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to borrow this sum of money.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of securities to be issued under the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1931, No. 2.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PETROLEUM AND NAPHTHA INSPECTION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 20, to amend the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act.-Mr. Ryckman-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Tests of petroleum.
Mr. YOUNG:: The last time the bill was before the house we asked the minister for particulars as to the effect of the amendment on the quality of kerosene which would be sold for illuminating purposes. Perhaps he can give that information to-day.
Mr. RY'CKMAN: Inquiry has been made by the Department of National Revenue and also by the petroleum engineer of the Department of the Interior, and I am assured that the oil is of a quality quite as safe and as good as that produced in other fields. It is only a question of specific gravity. The specific gravity of the -oil found in this dis-

Petroleum, and Naphtha Inspection
trict is heavier, and, as stated before, it has been necessary to import gasoline to mix with it in order to reduce the specific gravity. I am assured that in every other respect what is asked for will result in as safe and as good an illuminating oil as can be found elsewhere. There can be no objection bo this being done in the interests of those who have this heavier specific gravity oil. Since the matter was before the committee in the middle of Febru-rry last there has been no adverse comment of any kind with respect to this bill.


James J. Donnelly: When the bill was last under consideration I asked whether some definite temperature should not be mentioned in subsection (b), which reads:
If it weighs more than eight pounds and four-tenths of a pound per gallon.
As I pointed out on that occasion, there should be some stipulation of a definite temperature of so many degrees fahrenheit. I believe that sixty degrees is the temperature generally taken for gasoline; I do not know what temperature is intended here. If the oil is very warm, a gallon will weigh much less than it will if the oil is cold. There should be some temperature specified in the section. Is there any temperature in the old section?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is certified by Dr. Tingle, chief of the laboratory in connection with the customs and excise branches, and by Mr. Madgwick, petroleum engineer, that the flash point has nothing to do with the value of the illuminating power; and the same statement has been made with regard to the specific gravity. I cannot see that the point raised by my bon. friend relates directly to the matter. This is an amendment of a rather lengthy statute which defines the fire test and the flash test, and so far as my knowledge goes, so far as I have been able to get any information in the department, we are not particularly concerned with the heat test. We are assured of the safety of the oil and that, of course, is the first consideration; we are assured also of its illuminating power, and that also is desirable. When that is seen to, will mv hon. friend tell me what relation the heat test has to it?


James J. Donnelly: I am not asking for a heat test. I readily understand what the minister means by the flash test; it is to show that there is no danger. But does not the minister see that a gallon of coal oil which is very cold will weigh much more than a gallon of coal oil or gasoline which is correspondingly warm? Take it at 200 and it will be all vapour and will weigh little or nothing,
fMr. Ryckman.]
whereas if you get it down to freezing point it will be quite heavy. The oil weights so much at a certain temperature, and if that provision with respect to temperature is not in the act. it should be there. Subsection (b) provides for oil that weighs more than eight pounds and four-tenths per gallon, and if we do not provide the temperature at which the oil shall be of that weight then this means nothing at all. I can put it down to freezing point and it will weigh nearly nine pounds; and if I put it up to boiling point it will weigh practically nothing. I repeat, the temperature should be specified in the act.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Probably the hon.
gentleman's criticism is answered by the old act, chapter 159 of the revised statutes of 1927, section 10 of which reads:
Except as herein	otherwise provided,
petroleum shall not be sold or offered for sale for use in Canada, for illuminating purposes: (a) if, when tested by the pyrometer described in the schedule to this act, at a lower temperature than eighty-five degrees by Fahrenheit's thermometer, it emits vapour that will flash.


James J. Donnelly: But that provision has reference to the element of danger.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: With regard to sale, this condition (a) must be complied with. Subsection (b) reads:
If it weighs more than eight pounds and seventeen-hundredths of a pound per gallon.
In the bill now before the committee that weight is changed to eight and four-tenths pounds. Subsection (c) reads:
If it weighs less than seven pounds and seventy-five hundredths of a pound per gallon.
The oil may be sold if these conditions are complied with. That has been the law heretofore, and the point raised by my hon. friend is covered by subsection (a), which is not altered.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not suppose we can
do anything but accept the assurance of the minister that this oil will be equal in all respects to the standard that now obtains. But this oil will be used not only for illuminating purposes, because kerosene is now used largely for motive purposes in tractor engines. We know that the higher the specific gravity, the more difficult it is for the oil to volatilize, and that is my point. This is used for motive purposes, and the fact that there has been no adverse comment from the public means nothing, because the consumers of the county are not organized so as to make representations in a matter of this sort; only through experience can they find out the quality of the oil. It is only when summer

Judges Act
comes and this oil is used in tractor engines that we shall be able to decide whether for this purpose it is equal to the oil that is now in use.


James J. Donnelly: What the minister has
read with regard to the pyrometer test, which is eighty-five degrees fahrenheit, is correct; but my contention is that subsection (a) does not apply to subsection (b). A temperature is fixed in (a) but in (b) there is no mention of any temperature. Unless it is provided what the temperature 3hall be, this provision with respect to weight means nothing at all. I venture to say that if the minister will take this matter to the officials of his department they will advise him that it means nothing unless the temperature is specified, because as I have pointed out, at a temperature of two hundred and twelve you will have nothing but gas, and a gallon of gas will weigh very little, whereas if you reduce it to zero it will weigh nine or ten pounds. There must be some stipulation with regard to the temperature; the officials will so inform the minister, I am sure.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I have asked the officials and they say that this does not influence the matter at all. The point is this. Section 10 of the act lays down three conditions that shall be complied with before petroleum may be sold for use in Canada, and in one of these conditions only, namely, subsection (b), is any change being made, the purpose being to alter the seventeen-hundredths to four-tenths. Otherwise the law as it existed before must be complied with. As I have said, I have received assurances that this amendment will be distinctly in the interests of certain sections of the country and that it will hurt no one.


James J. Donnelly: I contend that if
temperature was not mentioned in the old act, it should have been. This amendment means nothing unless temperature is mentioned. I do not say that the change is wrong, but something should be said as to the temperature which shall prevail when a gallon of gasoline or petroleum is to be weighed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I ask hon. members to look at section 10 of, the act, where it will be seen that nothing else is required. Perhaps it might be of interest to the committee to hear a letter addressed to Mr. Taylor, commissioner of excise, by Alfred Tingle, chief, customs-excise chemical laboratory. This letter is dated July 3, 1931, and reads:
In reply to your letter of June 27 having further reference to the request of the Regal
Petroleum Company, Limited, of Calgary, I beg to report the result of a further talk with Mr. T G. Madgwick, Department of the Interior.
I should evidently first explain that until lately Mr. Madgwick was departmentally subordinate to Mr. C. C. Ross, but handled all matters concerning petroleum which were referred to Mr. Ross's branch. In any case Mr. Ross cannot be consulted as he has lately been superannuated on the abolition of his position in the service.
Mr. Madgwick and I are both of opinion:
1.	That the illuminating properties of the oil under discussion are not likely to be very different from any other oil of the present high test class.
2.	That neither flash point nor specific gravity have any necessary connection with illuminating power.
3.	That the act makes no attempt to protect purchasers against the sale to them of oils inferior in illuminating powers, but only endeavours to protect against fire hazard.
4.	As we consider that lowering the flash test to 135 degrees F. does not materially increase the fire hazard, we feel that the purposes of the act would be still carried out.


Edward James Young: Section one reads:
(b) if it weighs more than eight pounds and four-tenths of a pound per gallon.
If a dealer had a substance which he wanted to sell as kerosene but which did not comply with this condition, he could perhaps make it comply by changing the temperature.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He could have done that before.


James J. Donnelly: Every company selling gasoline puts out a chart which gives the weight of their gasoline at certain temperatures, 60 degrees being taken as the average. However, we all know that as the temperature rises the weight decreases and as it lowers, the weight increases. The same thing must be true of petroleum, and I contend that the temperature should be mentioned in the bill.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am anxious to meet any reasonable demand made by any hon. member and, therefore, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
AUDITING OF ACCOUNTS FOR TRAVELLING .	ALLOWANCES
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Judges Act.
Ernest Lapointe: May we have an explanation of this legislation?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I intended to make the necessary explanations in committee.
Judges Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Hugh Guthrie: This bill is drawn with the idea of improving the method of auditing judges' accounts for travelling expenses. A good deal of difficulty has been experienced in the past because of the various methods of accounting adopted in the different provinces, and it is hoped to change the present variegated system into a regular one and make easier the auditing of these accounts. At the time the bill was drawn, proper attention was not paid to section 1 as it affects the province of Quebec. In some respects the judicial system in that province is unlike the system in the other provinces, and a special clause is necessary to apply to Quebec. Prior to 1920 the judges in Quebec were designated to several areas as provided by the provincial laws; in 1920 a change was adopted abolishing to a large extent the old system. I understand in the district of Montreal there are twenty-one superior court judges; in the district of Quebec there are ten.


Ernest Lapointe: That is apart from the chief justice?


Hugh Guthrie: In the district of Sherbrooke, two, and in the district of Three Rivers, two. All courts are held in these four districts, the former districts having been abolished. This system does not prevail in the other provinces and since this bill was drafted it has been brought to my attention by some judges and certain prominent members of the bar in the province of Quebec that this section does not adequately meet the situation prevailing in the province. It 'has been sugested that certain amendments should be made to bring this act into harmony with the present system. The bill proposes, in respect to the province of Quebec, to amend paragraph (b) of subsection one of section 21. This, however, would not be a suitable amendment. The section requiring amendment is section 21. But subsection 6 of section 21 is the subsection which applies exclusively to Quebec, and in it are words which are not appropriate to the present situation in that province. It provides that:
In the province of Quebec no travelling allowances shall be granted to any judge requested to sit in review,-
Since that provision was made the court of review has been abolished and there is no necessity any longer for those words.
-or attending any court,-

Then the following words should also be deleted:
-except within the limits of the district to which he is assigned.
The old districts have been abolished. The only judicial districts in Quebec are the four I have mentioned. It has therefore been suggested that all we require is - an amendment first to strike out the words "requested to sit in review," and then to strike out "except within the limits of the district to which he is assigned."
And I propose to have that amendment made. That,' I am told, will be satisfactory to the bench and the bar and also to the officials of the department who audit the accounts. Under that system the chief justice of the province or of the district in which the judge resides, shall have the certification of the accounts for travelling expenses from the respective jurisdictions.


Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister kindly
read the section as it will read with the amendment he proposes?


Hugh Guthrie: The present section in
the bill will be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
1. Subsection 6 of section 21 of chapter 105 of the revised statutes of Canada is hereby amended by striking out the words "requested to sit in review or" in the second line of the said subsection, and also by striking out the words "except within the limits of the district to which he is assigned" in the third and fourth lines of the said subsection.


Ernest Lapointe: But unless we have the
statute before us, we cannot very well understand what this means.


Hugh Guthrie: The subsection, if amended, will read as follows:
6.	In the province of Quebec no travelling allowances shall be granted to any judge attending any court held at any other place than that at which he resides, unless it is certified by the chief justice, or the judge performing the duties of chief justice in the district where the court is held, that the attendance was in his opinion necessary.


Ernest Lapointe: That is satisfactory.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 2 of the bill is
directed to the other provinces of the dominion. At the present time judges who are called from their own districts to perform judicial services in other districts, render their bills to the Department of Justice, but there is in that department no proper method of verifying those accounts and year by year the amount of travelling expenses is gradually increasing. Judges are in the habit of interchanging work, as one may say, by going from one county to another or from one district to

Judges Act
another, and sometimes without any very reasonable excuse for the transfer. The present system has grown up over a long period of years and I do not know that anyone is particularly to blame for it, but at the present time it involves a heavy expenditure in judges' travelling expenses and allowances which we think could be very well reduced. All that this bill proposes is that accounts for travelling expenses shall not be paid unless the particular judge has been requested by the attorney general of his province to hold court in some county other than his own. If the attorney general has so requested him, that, we think, will be a sufficient check on what one might describe as somewhat unnecessary travelling expenses w'hich are incurred by judges in various provinces. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has suggested a question that some day will have to be decided, that is, whether the Dominion of Canada should pay any part of the travelling expenses of judges. We are called upon by the British North America Act to pay to judges their salaries and allowances, not expenses. It is argued that if it had been the intention of the framers of that act to compel the dominion treasury to pay those expenses, that would have been stated in the section. Apart from judges' salaries, we do not pay the provinces for the administration of justice; we do not pay for the upkeep of the courthouses or gaols or the salaries of clerks of the courts or anything of that kind. Why should we pay the travelling expenses of judges in connection with the administration of justice, which is a provincial matter? This bill, however, does not deal with that question. I know many lawyers who have been in the Department of Justice have from time to time expressed the opinion that some day the question will have to be settled; they do not think these expenses should be paid out of the federal treasury. The word "allowances" is used in the British North America Act, but it is pointed out that the word "allowances" means retiring allowances and matters of that kind which the dominion treasury has always paid, but does not include travelling expenses.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not want to express any opinion as to the last part of my hon. friend's remarks. I must say that I was strongly opposed to clause one of the bill as it stood, but I have not the same objection to the substituted amendment. I think this will meet all the conditions as they exist.


Mr. POULIOT:: I wish to express my
thanks to the Minister of Justice for having
had something to do with leave being given to a judge who was absolutely too old to sit on the bench. I remember distinctly that one day that judge while on the bench said he noticed that he was losing his memory, but he was on the bench for two years after that. Now he has been granted six months' leave. I am sorry the minister did not go further and see to it that he resign, because his work has to be done by other judges who have to do more than their share. As the minister knows, we have the rotation system in the province of Quebec, and it works very well. I might say that I have heard from a reliable source that this judge expects to come back to the bench after the expiration of his leave. If such were the case, there would be a strong protest from all the people in the districts in which he might sit. In fact he was a refugee from the bench in Quebec city. No lawyer who has practised in the Quebec courts will deny that every lawyer who has a case coming before this judge tries to evade him.


Olof Hanson: The hon. member can hardly make
those remarks on this bill. They are not relevant to the bill, and I think they are against the rules of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but I think I can show that they are relevant. It is only those judges who sat in Montreal or Quebec before the provincial law of 1920 was passed who are immovable. The judges who have been appointed since 1920 have to make a circuit of the different districts, and as they go around the different districts they send in their expense bills. I submit that that makes my remarks relevant to the bill. Outside of his judgments I have great respect personally for this particular judge. May I add that the judges generally are doing very well under the rotation system, with this one exception. I am sure the minister will continue his excellent work by stopping any attempt to have this judge come back to the bench. I repeat that I have a great respect for him outside of his judgments.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move the amendment,
Mr. Chairman, which has been suggested by the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Public Service-Salary Deduction
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to provide for the reduction of compensation in the public service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the principle underlying this bill was discussed so fully when the resolution upon which it is founded was under consideration that I do not think at this stage I can add anything to what I said on that occasion. I am content therefore merely to move the second reading and to reserve to myself an opportunity to discuss in detail in committee any questions which may arise.
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house is to provide for the reduction of compensation in the public service. On the introduction of the resolution I gave a number of reasons why, in my mind, the measure should not pass. When the resolution was introduced I expressed the hope that the bill to follow, which would be founded upon the resolution, might contain some alterations. I am sorry to say, however, that that is not so, that the bill is framed in the same terms as the resolution. I am sorely disappointed, and must quote the words of Virgil, una salus victis nullam sperare salutem-that to the vanquished there is but one hope of salvation, to hope for no salvation.
On second thought I am not very much surprised that the bill is as radical as was the resolution. After witnessing what has happened in this house during the past two weeks, after seeing a demonstration of the theory that might is right, I can expect nothing more than a bill in the terms of the one now before us. I say this bill is economically unsound because it purports to produce revenue through a reduction in purchasing power. It is economically unsound because it purports to create economy in one sphere, namely, in the national budget, by reducing the purchasing power of 65,000 civil servants throughout the country, and by reducing that same power in a large number of other portions of the population. It is economically unsound because it strikes at the very root of contractual obligations between master and servant. On a former occasion, however, I went extensively into that phase of the matter. It 
is economically unsound because it is of an extraordinary nature and should not have been resorted to until all other means had failed. It is equivalent to a measure of taxation, and hits hardest those least able to bear the burden; in other words, all will have to pay at the same rate. The father supporting a wife and family will pay the same as a married man with no family. The widow with dependent children will pay the same as the civil servant who, with no dependents, lives in security and comfort. The son or daughter supporting a widowed mother or invalid father will pay the same as other sons or daughters living at ease. At page 59 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
-and desiring that the people of this country should understand fully that the government is anxious to lead the way with respect to matters of economy.
Sir, he has said the government is anxious to lead the way in matters of economy. There is no great skill in the announcement of the policy we are now discussing. Anyone can effect economy in his business by cutting the wages of his employees. The real test of the skilled administrator is to devise and put into effect such policies as will be beneficial to business interests, will produce increased profit, will put more money into circulation, increase employment and thereby increase revenues and extend trade. The Prime Minister went about his task in the wrong way. His policies have killed our trade. Decreased trade and decreased revenues have increased unemployment. Now the right hon. gentleman proceeds to cure unemployment by creating more unemployment.
The statement has been made that the very best antidote for poison is an extra dose of the same poison. I am told, however, that great skill is required in the administration of such remedies, and I submit the right hon gentleman has showed himself to be a very poor medical practitioner in the administration of medicines or remedies to cure our national ills. Then, we understand the reduction in salaries is made for the purpose of enabling the Prime Minister to balance his budget. He may balance it in the way of dollars and cents, but he is not taking into account the physical difficulties he is creating. He is not taking into account the mental and moral anguish which will follow in the wake of this legislation. He may balance his budget in dollars and cents, but he cannot balance the national budget when the individuals composing the nation are without work and are starving. People must be contented both morally and financially. There can be no balancing of a budget unless the

Public Service-Salary Deduction
individuals in the country enjoy a perfect state of happiness and contentment. There can be no balancing of a budget at a cost of starvation and privation due to reduced wages and lack of work.
The government has been sorely remiss in its duty when it has attempted to effect a balance at these costs. If a way cannot be blasted into the markets of the world the Prime Minister will blast his way into the pockets of the civil servants. Unable to blast his way into the markets of the world the Prime Minister will now blast open the doors of, and blast his way into the homes of the civil servants. No easier method could have been found than simply to tell his Minister of Finance to do a little juggling with the decimal point. In connection with the $93,000,000 paid to the civil servants he would simply move the decimal point a few places to the right and receive the benefit of the accrued revenue. Civil servants throughout Canada are being asked to contribute their share of the payment of the national debt. Are the people at the head of our large institutions doing the same thing? If the E. B. Eddy Company cut the salaries and wages of their employees, will they take that money and bring it to the Minister of Finance to lay beside the moneys collected through deductions from civil servants' salaries to be applied towards the satisfaction of the national debt?
Not only that, but we know the example set by the government will be followed throughout the country. Following the lead given by the Prime Minister, other employers of labour will make cuts. The money saved through wages cut in the ordinary course of business will not be added as special revenues to help pay the national debt. The few millions which would be collected in that way would be but a drop in the bucket as compared with the hundreds of millions of dollars of national debt. I cannot appreciate the idea behind the horizontal cut, that if, due to the depression, some people must suffer, those who are more fortunate should also suffer. In other words, I cannot understand why, if I should be suffering, I should insist that my neighbour suffer also, even though that suffering might alleviate my own. Certainly there is no warrant for my asking someone else to suffer while that suffering will not help me at all. I fail to realize the force of the argument that because the farmers are having a hard time, or because the financial situation is a difficult one, the civil service throughout Canada should also feel the pinch. I should think the spirit of solidarity should prevail and that we should rejoice in the fact
that during this period of depression the hard times are not felt by the entire population of Canada.
I say that these reductions in salary and these cuts in the personnel of the civil service strike at the very foundation of civil service institutions. Some day, when it is too late, the effects of this policy will be seen. I have not time to deal with each of the topics on which I had intended to speak, but I do want to point out that it is most imperative that the civil service of Canada should be maintained at its present high standing. I have no less authority for that statement than the report of the Beatty commission, which at page 9 contains the following words:
The formal distinction between the legislative and executive branches of government, between parliament on the one hand and the cabinet controlling administration on the other, obscures but it does not alter the fact that efficient parliamentary government is only possible when the decisions embodied in statutory form are made effective throughout the dominion by a body of trained administrators and experts.
Further down the page I find the following:
The problems of government are becoming ever more complex; the effectiveness of government action must Ire limited, to a substantial extent, by the quality of the civil service, which is called upon to investigate many subjects of national importance demanding consideration by the government, as well as to make governmental policies effective and governmental decisions operative; and we believe that no more important task confronts those in charge of the country's affairs, than that of improving, and continuing to improve, by every means at their disposal, the quality of the civil service of Canada.
-not to wreck it at every opportunity. Then on page 10 the report states:
Throughout our inquiries we have been impressed by the character of the work now done in the civil service of Canada. In accord with the highest traditions to be found elsewhere, its own tradition demands the faithful performance of his duties by the individual, though the results of the' work done, however important they may be, do not accrue directly to him, either in the form of wealth, or, as a rule, in the form of public recognition.
The quotation is most interesting, but it is rather lengthy. Then on page 11 I find the following:
It is essential to the continued welfare of the country that the civil service be enabled continuously to recruit workers with a proper scientific equipment for their tasks, and to retain them in the face of the high rewards offered for work of the same character elsewhere.


Public Service-Salary Deduction
Here is a most interesting extract from page 13:
.... in the past the civil service has been successful in enlisting and retaining men of first rate ability, despite the relatively moderate remuneration. We do not feel the same assurance, however, that it will continue successfully to recruit or hold such men in the future, unless conditions of employment and prospects of advancement in the service can be simplified and improved considerably.
Then they talk about those three factors so dear to the heart of the Prime Minister, security of tenure, superannuation and holidays and sick leave. I quote from page 14:
These three conditions serve, very properly, to assist in relieving the civil servant of anxieties with regard to his own future and that of his dependents; and so set him free, without such distractions, to concentrate upon his duties. But while they do constitute advantages, when compared with the conditions ordinarily prevailing in private employment, such advantages are not those which as a rule appeal most strongly to men of an energetic, creative temperament, among whom the leaders in the service, no less than the directing heads of private enterprises, must be sought. For the sake of the country, no less than of the service itself, it is necessary that conditions of employment should offer a permanent positive attraction to men of this type.
The very fabric, sir, of the civil service throughout Canada is being jeopardized forever by these continual dismissals, made in hit and miss fashion, and by these unwarranted, unjust, unfair and inequitable deductions. I say, sir, that the service is not in a position to bear this reduction. No one earning a moderate salary, such as the majority of civil servants earn, is in a position to stand this cut. A return was brought down recently which shows that 42.5 per cent of the permanent civil service of Canada earn up to SI,500 yearly, while 79.5 per cent of civil servants earn less than $2,000 a year. Those figures should be kept in mind.
When I spoke previously on this question the Minister of Finance said in reply that the only equitable way was to have a horizontal cut. Let me give a concrete illustration. In this house we as members are cut ten per cent; my S400 will lie next to the Prime Minister's $1,900, but that is done by virtue of an arbitrary rule. If a graded cut were made whereby the Prime Minister and myself paid according to our respective means, my $400 would not be $400, and the Prime Minister's $1,900 would not be $1,900! It is true that on the other hand the Prime Minister will pay a tax on his income, but I will have to pay an income tax of my own, so in that respect we are equal, because the income tax is based 
upon the capacity to pay. This ten per cent reduction, however, is an arbitrary rule disregarding the capacity to earn or to pay.
To follow that example through let us consider the civil servant who earns $3,600 a year. He is not yet at his maximum; this year he is entitled to a statutory increase of $120, but what will happen? First he will suffer a loss of $360, or ten per cent of his salary; in addition he will be deprived of his annual increase of $120, amounting to another three per cent, and in addition five per cent of his salary is deducted for superannuation, which would amount to $190. Therefore this civil servant will be mulcted to the extent of $670. It is true that his contribution to the superannuation fund ultimately will come back to him, but for the time being he suffers a deduction of 18 per cent, and in addition he will have to pay income tax on whatever is left of the $3,600 after the deductions are allowed. Right away that civil servant suffers a deduction of 18 per cent, while hon. members of this house suffer a loss of ten per cent.
I am further opposed to the passage of this legislation, because, as I say, it prejudicially affects the interests of this constituency, and I have no apology to offer for taking up the cudgels on behalf of the very large proportion of civil servants who live in the city of Ottawa, any more than I have anything to say against anyone who takes the part of any particular class in his community whose privileges and rights do not in any way conflict with the general wellbeing of that community. In this city the ordinary citizens have certain rights and privileges, and the civil servants, as a particular class, have particular rights and privileges, and as such they have the right to be taken into account. Therefore, I make no apology for taking up the cudgels, as I do, on behalf of that class, just as I would do on behalf of any other special class constituting a minority but with special rights, provided that those rights did not clash in any way with the rights and general interests of the community at large. Ottawa has a population of 130,000 inhabitants. On the 31st of March 1931 there were 11,766 employees of the civil service residing in Ottawa, of whom 8,009 were permanents and 3,757 were temporaries. The civil servants' ipay-roll for that year in Ottawa was $19,134,162; it is now, in round figures, $20,000,000, because of statutory increases granted last year but not granted this year. Now, ten per cent of $20,000,000 is $2,000,000, and the statutory increases cut off this year ajmount to about $500,000. Therefore Ottawa

Public Service-Salary Deduction
will be deprived this year of the sum of $2,500,000. Bad as that is. it might be tolerated with great difficulty, with great misery a.nd anguish. But we know that in trade a dollar is worth three dollars in turnover; so that during the coming year Ottawa will suffer a loss, not of $2,500,000 but of $7,500,0000. Now what does that mean? It means absolute catastrophe financially for the city of Ottawa It means that $2,500,000 is to be taken from the earning capacity of 12.000 people in a population of 130,000. Can hon. gentlemen realize what that means? Do they realize what it means to have $2,500,000 levied upon
12.000	people living in a community of 130,000? It means that every man, woman and child, every head in the city of Ottawa will suffer a tax of $19, and every civil servant in the city will be taxed to the extent of $209.
The Prime Minister stated, as reported at page 562 of Hansard:
There will accrue to the revenues approximately $8,300,000.
He will therefore obtain $2,500,000 from Ottawa, leaving $6,000,000 to be derived from sources outsides this city. That $6,000,000 will be levied on 62,000 employees, less the
12.000	in Ottawa, or on 50,000 employees distributed among a population of 10,000,000. This means that every one of the civil servants outside Ottawa will contribute on an average $120; but the population outside Ottawa will feel it to the extent of 60 cents per head, as compared with $19 in this city.
Of course, it will be pointed out that if all the civil servants resided in Ottawa, Ottawa alone would have to bear the burden. That is perfectly true; but is that any reason why this city should be made to suffer in the way I have indicated? If the Prime Minister and his government had had in mind an equitable measure they would have seen to it that this cut would be, not horizontal but graded, in order to alleviate the blow that has been struck at this community. Up to March 2 there were in Ottawa, according to the records of the city hall, 6,286 registered unemployed. But that does not take into consideration all those that do not register. It does not take into consideration the 169 who have been let out of the air force; it does not take into consideration the 82 artisans who have been let out of the Public Works the first of this month it does not take into consideration the 313 Department of the Interior employees who have not been reabsorbed into the service; it does not take into consideration the 150 other employees let out in this happy-go-lucky, hit or miss fashion;
41761-106J
and it does not take into consideration those who will be let out within the next few months.
This, sir, is a situation that is very far from being reassuring. The Prime Minister stated, as reported at page 561 of Hansard:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company a year ago instituted such economies; the Canadian National Railways last year instituted economies in that direction; and further economies have been effected by the findings of boards in connection with the running trades. Recently a board was sitting in Montreal when its duties were suddenly ended by an agreement being arrived at whereby a ten per cent reduction was accepted by the clerical staffs of the railways, the question then being under consideration by a conciliation board.
That is true, and with that I have not much quarrel. But why did not the Prime Minister listen to the representations that were being made by the civil service organizations, or which they were trying to make? Why did he not listen when they came to him that morning? I am not so sure he did not tell them that they ought to consider themselves lucky that they did not suffer a more severe cut. I am not so sure he did not tell them that they ought to "give until it hurts." The Prime Minister was right in using the language I have just quoted with reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But let me point out that the quotation includes the findings of boards. A board was sitting, an agreement was arrived at, and the reduction was accepted. There was a conciliation board, but the Prime Minister never granted a board of conciliation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the hon. gentleman? A ten per cent reduction was made in all clerical staffs of the Canadian Pacific Railway without a board or anything else. The hon. gentleman is talking about the running trades.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am quite prepared to accept the word of the right hon. gentleman, but this is what he said:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company a year ago instituted such economies; the Canadian National Railways last year instituted economies in that direction; and further economies have been effected by the findings of boards in connection with the running trades.
That is perfectly true. I have taken this verbatim from Hansard, and if the right hon. gentleman has been misreported, I am prepared to take his word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not followed me. In the hotels of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific and in
1684	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
all clerical forces, reductions were made by the company as employers without regard to any other consideration than the desire to effect economy. With respect to the running trades, with which they had an agreement, they had an arbitration under the provisions of the act in that regard.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is correct as
regards the running trades; they had an agreement and there were boards. But if they had no agreement with the clerical staffs, then my remarks apply to them also; and I say that the right hon. gentleman should have listened to the representations made on behalf of the civil servants, just as the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway should have taken their employees into consideration in an endeavour to arrive at some human understanding whereby the reduction might have been graded. Because the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National Railways did not do it right in one connection, although they did in another, is no excuse for the right hon. gentleman to think that he is at liberty to take the wrong course in every direction.
The right hon. gentleman is reported on page 561 of Hansard as having said that the cost of living to-day is about 14-4 per cent lower than it was in 1926. I am not concerned with what the cost of living was in 1926, I am concerned only with the cost to-day. I had intended to go into the different phases of the economic feature of this question, but this has been done quite fully by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). The Labour Gazette of February, 1932, shows the cost of living for December, 1931, as S17.76, and for the end of January, 1932, as $17.59, a difference of less than one per cent. Rent has not come down, fuel and light have not come down, the cost of food has come down very little, insurance rates on life and fire have not come down nor have telephone rates. The right hon. gentleman has had telephones taken out of the Supreme Court building, the Daly building, and other departments. There will be fewer telephones in use and the rates certainly will not decrease. The cost of electric light and gas has not come down; interest on mortgages has not come down; school fees have not come down; the rates of instalment payments have not come down; practically all contractual obligations have not come down. In this connection I shall quote from the Beatty report as follows: So rapid an increase in numbers, followed by so rapid a decrease, inevitably interferes with the smoothness of operation of the departments, and is a factor tending to reduce efficiency, at 
the same time that it causes innumerable problems of organization and classification, which cannot always be dealt with as rapidly as they arise.
And again:
The cost of living, which had already risen considerably from year to year since the beginning of the century, rose even more rapidly during the war years. In 1920, when the maximum was reached, foodstuffs were more than twice as expensive as they had been in 1913. The cost of living generally was 90 per cent higher than in 1913. Meantime, there had been no corresponding increase in civil service salaries. From 1913 to 1920, the average increase in civil service salaries was about 43 per cent, less than half as much as the rise in the cost of living. Since the salaries of the great majority of civil servants only sufficed, before the great rise in the cost of living, to keep them and their families in moderate comfort, it is easily seen that this failure of the average increase in salaries to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living involved a real hardship, during this period, for a considerable number of civil servants, for whom relief could only take the form either of resignation in order to accept better paid employment outside the service, or of a general revision of salaries which should have regard to the actual increase in the cost of living which had occurred.
These words should have been taken into account by those who have had to deal with matters of this kind. I continue:
Since the cost of living bonus had been calculated in relation to the needs of men with families, and had nothing to do with the merits of the services rendered by them, it of course acted as a levelling influence, reducing considerably the range between minimum and maximum salaries, and so narrowing the prospect of advancement in the service.
And in referring to the work performed at the present time by the service, the report
says:
It is safe to say that the tasks discharged by the civil service at the present time are very much greater and more-complex than they were in 1913; and these tasks have been undertaken by a service which is organized along the same lines as before the war, and with essentially the same structure. It is a tribute to the service as it now stands, that its structure has stood the strain so well.
The repeated blows it has received has sapped the foundation of this great institution. We hear a lot about the permanence and security of employment in the service, but in this regard I should like to quote from the Civil Service Review of December, 1931. The following is an article by a press correspondent:
Of course there is always the security argument. On more than one occasion, and under more than one administration when accompanying civil service delegations as representative of the press I have heard "high authorities" apply that blessed word "security" as a sort of salve or earwash against the sound claims of the service for long overdue salary revision.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
The security of employment in the civil service cannot be valued or fixed by means of orders in council passed under peace, order and good government. The article continues:
But now even this security, like other well known securities, is not so secure as it used to be-witness what happened (and is still happening) in the Interior department.
And again:
Despite the facts of the case, however, the service has always been, and doubtless always will be, a favourite cockshy for such as are unable to find better sport or more useful employment; and of course, it is in the trough of periodic depression that the brickbats fly thickest and fastest. Just an old Spanish custom but frankly, as a newspaper man, I am at times unpleasantly surprised to find unwarranted and illogical attacks on the service in the columns of journals that might be expected to maintain a higher standard of editorial criticism.
I think these words could be applied to the words of hon. members on that side of the house, to which I hope to have an opportunity of referring on another occasion. The article continues:	.
With this in mind I would suggest that civil service organizations and well-wishers of the service generally should lose no opportunity to keep the press and the public better informed concerning the efficiency of the service and the value and importance of the work that is being done by civil servants in the interests of the people of Canada.
I come now to what I consider to be the gem in the speech of the Prime Minister. When the right hon. gentleman introduced the resolution upon which this bill is founded, he stated that he did so because the Minister of Finance was ill and regretted that he did not have an opportunity of preparing himself adequately for the occasion. I wonder what would have happened had the right hon. gentleman prepared himself a little more adequately? He is generally very .careful in the selection of his examples or citations, and I was surprised at his quoting the authority which he did. He quoted a letter which he had received from a lady, and I shall read it again. It is as follows:
It is now, and has long been, a cause of deep thankfulness that I have a salary to be cut, and that in these times of stress, when burdens are so great, not only in Canada but throughout the British Empire, whose honours and greatness we share and enjoy, that we can share and share gladly in the pinching. Ten per cent of my salary now seems but a small premium to pay for the security and comfort enjoyed by me in my years in the service. Since we have enjoyed the good years, shall we not also have the iean?
The right hon. gentleman read one letter. To even up I shall read a second one. Then
if he wants to even up by reading another, I shall read a third. Let me say that at this game I shall trump every ace he plays, and he may play with a deck of aces so far as that is concerned. The first letter I wish to read is as follows:
Is it possible that Mr. Bennett is going to cut the salaries of those who have hardly enough to live? I am a widow with three children, all of them going to school yet. I earn $900 a year. I pay $20 a month rent. I have managed to live with $55 a month but I have deprived myself of every pleasure; not even a picture show for years, but I was glad to do it. I managed to get an insurance policy to protect my dear little ones if anything happens to me. $7.50 less per month means years of sacrifices and privations for nothing, as I will be unable to continue to pay the premium. It would be different if I was alone, but there are the children. Can you do anything to stop this and see that justice is done?
You might as well stand on the beach and command the sea to stay where is it as try to stop this! This is somewhat different from the "pinched" lady who lived in security and comfort! But in order to have the Prime Minister even up with me, I shall read another letter:
As you are one of our representatives I suppose I have the right to write to you. I was interested to see the letter from the nice lady civil servant who was glad to be "pinched" to please the Prime Minister and save the country. I wonder if she gets the same kind of a pinch as I do? I am the wife of a letter carrier; my husband reached his maximum $1,500 per year this year past. He had to walk many thousands of miles through all kinds of weather in order to get to that high salary. Now they are going to take $150 off. We have four children all of school age; our present monthly salary cheque, after $6.25 for superannuation and $7.40 for insurance are deducted, is $111.35. Our rent is $25 and I do not think the Prime Minister will care to live in our house. Food for six of us costs $60. Heat and light comes to another $10; we can't afford a telephone. That leaves $16.25 for clothes, doctors' bills, recreation and all other expenses.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour need not listen 'to this; their monthly expenses do not amount -to this:
Now, comes the cut of $12.50 per month. How can the Prime Minister expect my husband and me to enthuse! There are lots more in the same position as we are, thousands of us. Maybe I am not as patriotic as the nice lady, but my husband knows something about sacrifices for his country. He served for three years in the trenches in France. He risked his life then, like so many others and would do it again, but just the same the Prime Minister's horizontal idea of British fair play is not the kind that I was taught.
Would it not be more Christian and fair all around if some of the millionaires-like the
1686	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
Prime Minister-and many other Canadian wealthy men would give up some of their many luxuries before making us give up our bare necessities?
The Prime Minister also said that he as well as all the other members of his cabinet had received similar letters from many civil servants, stating that they desired to make contributions in this time of stress. When this matter was under discussion before, the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) was speaking. At that time there were only a few ministers of the crown in their seats. The hon. member for South Perth asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) how many letters he had received, and he replied:	"None came to my department." The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said the same thing. Those were the only two ministers who were present on that occasion. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman, after having put on the street hundreds of employees of the Interior department, a large number of temporary' employees, nearly 200 employees of the Department of National Defence and eighty-five employees of the Department of Public Works, after reducing the salaries of 12,000 civil servants in Ottawa; does not feel like opening the doors of his apartments and hearing what these workers of yesterday, the unemployed of to-day, have to say, rather than l'a:ll into rapturous ecstasy over the writings of a "pinched" lady. I wish just to paraphrase those famous words that have oft been quoted iu this house. "Let him open his door to the destitute widows, to the despairing fathers, to the imploring mothers, to the starving children. Let him for one day take contact with those who suffer. Let him take contact for one day with human misery! Then, were but one fibre of humanity left in the right hon. gentleman, he could not but put an end to this orgy of dismissals and of salary reductions." I think the words of the Latin poet are appropriate at this time:
Quos Jupiter vult perdere, dementat prius!
The Prime Minister came to Ottawa in July, 1930. He came to deliver what might be called the most important pronouncement of the Liberal-Conservative campaign in the political centre of Canada, the capital city. He came here for a distinct purpose: certainly it was not for the purpose of helping the Liberal cause throughout Canada: it was not for the purpose of helping the two Liberal candidates in this city. Throughout the campaign he had been most lavish in his promises, but when he came to Ottawa there

was no use in offering bridges, because we have all the bridges we need. There was no use offering free ports, because the Georgian Bay canal has not been built. He came to the city of Ottawa, the heart of the civil service of Canada, and so he talked of the civil service. This is what he is reported as having said, amongst others things:
Here dwell those who administer the departments of state. Here the major part of government is transacted. I have had a brief experience as a minister of the crown, but long as a member of parliament, and I would like to take the opportunity-
He never found the opportunity during the long time he was a member of parliament.
-of stating that the service rendered by the members of the government service in Ottawa has been and is invaluable.
That was no news to us in Ottawa, but it was a compliment well deserved and graciously expressed. He continued:
It has been said of the British civil service that it provides the stabilizing influence of government. That is true in Canada.
That was once true in Canada, but it is no longer true, not since the Prime Minister has started on his campaign of dismissal, salary reductions and general disruption of the service. He continued:
Good judgment and experience have always been placed at the service of the country. Canada must retain the services of its best brains.
Are we to infer from that that all those who have been retired, or will be retired, are the worst brains or have no brains at all? But that of course, was said on the eve of an election. He goes on:
We have them here-
Certainly, we know that.
-and we must see to it that those who forsake the greater remuneration of private business and turn a deaf ear to the' insistent calls and temptations of other countries, are not asked to pay too high a price for the loyalty and devotion which belongs to us.
But we must not forget this was said on the eve of an election. He talked then of loyalty and devotion! What does he say this year? At page 561 of Hansard of this year, introducing the bill providing for the salary cut, the Prime Minister said:
They could command a larger compensation in other walks of life, yet in these days it is apparent that the compensation given is not so much out of line as some people have thought. There is a measure of security of employment; there is a certainty of not too long hours.
In 1930 he talked of loyalty and devotion, and now he tailks of security of employment

Public Service-Salary Deduction
and not too long hours. On the eve of the election he talked of "turning down higher salaries" in the outside world, and now he says that "the compensation is not so much out of line." 0 tempora, O mores! Loyalty and devotion on the twenty-sixth of July, 1930, and security of employment and not too long hours in 1932! Why, Mr. Speaker, speaking of security of employment, since the Prime Minister started his campaign of dismissals, you could not get Lloyd's or any other insurance agency for any premium to insure the security of a .position in the civil service.
The Prime Minister also said:
I make no distinction of class or race; it applies to all.
Why bring that up? He also said:
The civil service contains men and women equal to those in any part of the world.
Of course, that was said on the twenty-sixth of July, 1930, on the eve of an election. It looked then as though better remuneration for the civil service were in the offing. But to-day the Prime Minister says:
We must not ask them to sacrifice their future entirely.
No, Mr. Speaker, we do not ask them to risk their future, but we order them arbitrarily by means of this legislation to risk their future and everything that is sacred to them. But we are not to-day on the eve of an election. The Prime Minister continued:
That is equally true of those in the lower grades.
That was on the eve of an election, on the twenty-sixth of July. The Prime Minister knew that a large proportion of the civil servants belonged to the lower grades. He went on:
They are one in the great machinery that moves the government of Canada, everyone of them discharging as they do their duty and obligation to this country, and we render them homage for so doing.
We render homage-
-the gallant knight-
O see him stand His hat in hand,
His heart on his sleeve,
On this election eve.
Yes, that was on the twenty-sixth of July, on the eve of an election. But to-day the army of the dismissed and of those about to be dismissed now returns the gallant knight's homage, and in the words of the Roman gladiators about to enter the fatal arena they now cry, Ave Caesar! Morituri te salutant! Hail Caesar! Those about to die salute thee!
The lower grades! When the members on this side of the house said that the exemption of five per cent to those earning less than $1,200 and who paid into the superannuation fund was a sop, no truer word was spoken. When I asked the hon. Minister of Finance how many civil servants there were in receipt of $1,200 or less, he answered at page 901 of Hansard that there were 16,408. That seemed a formidable number. It seemed as though an army of civil servants would receive the benefit of the five per cent exemption. But I subsequently asked him how many of the 16,408 paid into the superannuation fund and . how many into the retirement fund, and he answered that 5,550 were paying into the superannuation fund and 550 into the retirement fund.
Subsection 2 of clause 5 of the bill makes it quite clear that the five per cent exemption will apply only to those who pay into the superannuation fund, and will not apply to those who pay into any other fund. So, after all, the benefit of the five per cent exemption will apply only to 5,550 civil servants earning $1,200 or less, and will not apply to 10,858 civil servants with a remuneration of $1,200 or less. It means that 10,858 civil servants with a remuneration of $1,200 or less will be called upon to pay the full ten per cent.
0	ye employees of the lower grades! On the eve of the election the Prime Minister rendered thee homage, but to-day, two years later, he cuts your salaries by ten per cent.
The Prime Minister also said on the twenty-sixth of July:
1	am not here to-night to make that kind of preelection promises.
Oh, no! On that sultry evening, butter would not melt in the mouth of the right hon. gentleman. He said:
All I. say is they are the same promises I have given to the people of Canada.
Don't the civil servants know it? Promises of what? Bridges, free ports, highways, and not least, the promise to end unemployment. The Prime Minister said:
I promise to deal fairly by them.
And the report in the Ottawa Journal shows that statement was greeted with cheers. Today that ought to be changed to tears. The Prime Minister went on to say:
To see that they have justice, and as a great chieftain of my party once said, a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.
That was true in those days, Mr. Speaker, but to-day there is not a fair day's work to
1688	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
be had in order to give one a fair day's pay. Here is another gem:
I have long since by personal investigation-
The right hon. gentleman has always been very strong on personal investigation:

satislied myself that all is not well to the extent that they would have it-
That is, that the civil servants had cause for complaint. He went on:
-and from my investigations and they are ConsiderableNothing small about the Prime Minister: -I have concluded-
What did he conclude? After these numerous personal investigations, and they were considerable, what did he find? Did he find that there was overlapping, overmanning, money being squandered? No, Mr. Speaker, he did not find that. All he found on the eve of the election was "All is not well to the extent that they, the civil servants, would have it." If there was overmanning at that time, surely his considerable and numerous personal investigations should have revealed it to the right hon. gentleman. If there was anything wrong at that time, why did he not find it out in his numerous personal investigations? If he did find out anything wrong, why did he not say so? Why did he wait until the introduction of this measure to say that there was overmanning and overlapping in the civil service? He did not then use these words which are to be found in Hansard of the twenty-sixth of February, 1932, at page 560:
That does not detract from the value of the service that is rendered by the painstaking and thoughtful men and women who serve the state with loyalty, and who do not look upon their positions merely as an opportunity to enable them to see what they can get from the treasury, but there are those who take that attitude, and ultimately that matter must be determined by suitable and proper investigation.
The right hon. gentleman did not find that out on the twenty-sixth of July, 1930, or if he did, he did not say so. Well, after his personal investigations, what did the Prime Minister conclude? He concluded (1) to add to the Civil Service Commission a member chosen from the ranks of the service itself; (2) to have the merit system rigidly adhered to; (3) to have a survey of all the civil service with a view to a proper reclassification, and the Prime Minister said " Such action will be taken at once, and not nine years hence." I will end unemployment, the Prime Minister said, and unemployment two years afterwards has not been ended. Nor 
has the Prime Minister made any attempt as yet to have the service reclassified. The Prime Minister also promised an amendment to the Superannuation Act to ensure equitable operation. But that was on the eve of the election, and no amendment of the sort has yet been brought down.
Just before I conclude I should like to put on Hansard a verse that I have just received: The Psalm of Bennett Bennett is my shepherd, I am in want,
He maketh me to lie down on park benches, He leadeth me beside still factories,
He restoreth my doubt in the Conservative party.
He leadeth me in the paths of destruction, For his party's sake.
Yea, though I walk in the valley of the shadow of debt
I will fear much evil, for thou art against me. The politicians and profiteers, they frighten me.
Thou preparest a reduction in my salary before me
In the presence of mine enemies.
Thou anointest my income with taxes;
My expenses runneth over my income.
Surely unemployment and poverty
Will follow me all the days of the
Conservative administration
And I shall live in a rented house forever.
For 'the reasons I have indicated I repeat that I am absolutely opposed to any cut in the salaries of the civil servants of Canada. I realize a considerable number of hon. members in this house feel that some reduction should be made; still I cannot agree with them.


An hon. MEMBER:: The oup runneth over.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do believe that the
cuts should be graded, and I honestly and sincerely believe that if those who interrupt me were as free to speak their will as they are to make interruptions, if they were as free to stand up and express their own views, they too would say that the reductions should be graded. I dare not use the word I had intended to use because it would not be parliamentary, but I say they are not brave enough to stand up and state their views.
If I cannot prevent the passage of this measure, if the vote in favour of the reduction- is to be taken, I am driven to a middle course. I therefore move seconded by my colleague from Ottawa:
That all the words after the word ''That" in the said motion be struck out and the following words substituted therefor:
"the said bill be not now read a second time, but that this house is of opinion that any deduction from the salaries of public servants by way of a fixed percentage applying indis-
16S9

Public Service-Salary Deduction
criminately to all such salaries, except as to those under $1,200 as provided for in the said bill, is unfair, inequitable, and unjust; and that any proposal to make such deduction should have regard to the cost of maintaining a decent standard of living.
Mr.T.F.AHEARN (Ottawa): Mr. Speaker, in seconding the amendment proposed by my colleague the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chewier), I, like him, felt that I was proposing the lesser of two evils. Dismissals and reductions should come last of all and not in the middle of the government's efforts to retrench. To-day, coming as they have at the beginning of retrenchment, they have shaken the morale of the civil servants of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada has said that the horizontal cut of ten per cent should be received gladly and patriotically-


Sidney Cecil Robinson: May I ask a question?


Mr. AHEARN:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I am wondering if my hon. friend is speaking for the civil servants in the border cities, because if he is he is wrong.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: We have heard of the
kindly old lady who wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the letter which has since become so famous. The general public and the civil servants, however, are entitled to seek the cause of this legislation, and I have no doubt they will find that it is brought about through the failure of the high tariff policy of the Conservative party to cure the depression which is at the root of our trouble. To my way of thinking the so-called cut is simply a ten per cent extra income tax imposed upon public servants. Elementary economics teach us that taxation shall not be imposed on one particular class or community. Practical politics are found often to be diametrically opposed to that principle, and all through history isolated classes and communities have been specially picked out and made to suffer, as are the civil servants in Ottawa to-day. This is nothing new.
In August, 1930, the government changed its tune. Formerly it had said that the growing depression in Canada was due solely to alleged Liberal misrule, but in August it announced that the condition in Canada was only part of a growing world depression. I think the choice then presented itself of either advising private industry in Canada to maintain wages and salaries and thereby to maintain spending power, or to do the reverse.
The government chose to cut down salaries and dismiss employees. It must take the responsibility of giving a very definite lead to private industry throughout Canada. No government can escape that responsibility.
The example the government has set as to dismissals and salary cuts has been followed throughout Canada. This is a bankers' policy of deflation; it is being carried to an extreme, and the end is not in sight. If the government had called a conference of employers late in the year 1930 and had made an appeal to them, as did President Hoover of the United States, to maintain spending power by maintaining wages in my opinion Canada would be in a better position than it is today. Only private concerns already facing financial difficulties would have failed to follow that lead.
Very often hon. members in this house have quoted letters and books in support of their arguments. Instead of that I purpose to speak from my personal experience in some companies with which I am connected.
I happen to be a director of several Ottawa companies, and I am glad to say that more than two-thirds of those companies up to the present time have not reduced their pay-rolls or the number of their employees. Among these is the largest company with which I am connected. These companies decided that the maintenance of spending power in Ottawa would, in the net result, benefit them more than the discharge of employees, provided red figures could be kept at a reasonable distance from their ledgers. Another company of which I am a director, even before 1930, was worrying aibout the red figures in its ledgers, and the directors decided that the service -must be cut down by 30 per cent, or if the regular number of employees was to be maintained that the employees and management must take a ten per cent cut. There was an agreement that either one or the other course must be adopted. There was also unanimous agreement, however, that only one and not both of these courses would be followed. This company was operating in a position different from the others because it was working on a fixed tariff, extending over a period of years, its reserves were depleted and its borrowing powers were therefore much restricted. But it did not cut wages and dismiss employees as well; it did not, as an hon. member of this house characteristically stated, cut wages and also discharge forty per cent of its employees. A reference to the bureau of statistics will disclose the fact that the number of employees of this company has

Public Service-Salary Deduction
remained practically the same, except for the usual seasonal variation.
The government cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be compared to a private company experiencing financial difficulties. No private concern has such enormous powers of borrowing or of taxation, yet the company of which I speak-and I know there are many others like it-chose to cut wages rather than discharge employees during the continued depression. The government of Canada is doing both, and I think that is the important point that should be remembered by this house. I do not think the actions of the big companies are absolutely typical of what is happening in Canadian industry; thousands of employers in Canada are maintaining employment and wages in spite of falling revenues, and those in charge of these concerns think they are doing a helpful and a patriotic work.
What will be the reaction to the lead of the government? What are employers in Canada going to think? Unless I am very much mistaken they will decide that the government would not adopt this course if it had any real hope that its policies would get this country back to normal within a reasonable time. How can this cold-hearted and panic-stricken move of discharging men and women and reducing wages be viewed except as a confession of failure? That is what the business men who have been maintaining wages and employment are saying to-day. They are also wondering,
I think, if they should delay very much longer in making cuts and dismissals, following the lead of the government, because naturally they feel that if the depression is going to last for several years they had 'better lay up reserves. I think the government is setting an example which will have its effect in every constituency in Canada. How many hon. members will be able -to return next session and say that men and women were not dismissed as a result of the example given by the government, and that as a result the purchasing power in their own constituencies has not been further contracted?
I suppose the action of the government will be popular with a certain type of individual, and it may be approved by a certain type of farmer. But it is a distinct threat to the farm hand, and no one who works for a wage or salary can fail to see the threat to that wage or salary in the wide-open invitation that the government is giving every employer in this country to-day.
For over two years the President of the United States has followed the policy of ask-
[Mr. Ahearo.J
ing private industry to maintain wages and salaries and thus help maintain purchasing power. The president has never deviated from this policy, and I believe that as a result hundreds of thousands of people in the United States are at work to-day instead of walking the streets. Only a few weeks ago President Hoover let it be known through the press of the country that he wished civil service salaries maintained, and he stated that he would veto any bills coming before him which had in view the reduction of salaries. I think no one in the United States is more anxious to bring into effect every reasonable measure of economy possible, but the president would not consent to the reduction of salaries. I am told the United States treasury faces a deficit of about two billion dollars, but in spite of that fact the president evidently realizes what an unwise lead to private industry would mean. I should like to quote from an article appearing in the Literary Digest of January 23, 1932, headed, "Swinging the Economy Axe." I think this illustrates my point;	[DOT]
Four representatives introduced bills to slash the pay of federal employees, who number more than 600.000. But President Hoover, strongly as he advocates economy, let it be known that he would veto any bill to reduce government workers' pay. He feels, the correspondent tells us, that such action would impair the efficiency of federal departments. . . .
This is the big point;
. . . . and set a bad example in private industry.
The Minister of Finance speaks of the 88,000,000 that will be saved by this special and extra income tax. What about the direct losses it is bound to cause? The government cannot make dismissals and wage cuts without this action being reflected in the national revenue. It will be almost impossible to compute, but I believe the loss to the treasury in the end will over-balance the gain, and the government will have a residue of unemployment, misery and discontent with which to deal.
I do not propose to enlarge upon the despair and the misery which will be caused to so many people in the city of Ottawa by the policy of the government as contained in this bill. I can only say that we feel it too deeply to say veiy much about it. Who can stand up and honestly say he believes this horizontal cut is equitable? Let us consider the case of a mail carrier receiving we will say 81,350 a year. First he gets a ten per cent cut, and then he loses his statutory increase, which makes a total loss of about 8255. In addition

Public Service-Salary Deduction
he must pay five per cent of his salary to the superannuation fund. Then let us consider the contribution of the cabinet ministers under this special income tax. On taking office their salary was S10.000 per year which, with their sessional indemnity of S4.000, gave them an income of 814,000. On that amount they will pay 81,400 by this special income tax. Since taking office in 1930 the ministers have had their government cars taken away from them by the edict of the Prime Minister and to make up for that the head of the state showed great compassion and allowed each minister S2.030 per year in lieu of a car. I understand that this amount is not taxed. Fifty dollars a month, or 8600 a year, will pay for a great many taxi rides, and we have some very luxurious taxis in Ottawa. Of course we are always delighted to see members of the cabinet on the Ottawa street cars, because it shows that they still have some spark of democracy left. Now consider the mail carrier and the twenty per cent contribution he is asked to make, and then consider hon. ministers. How can any man with any regard for equity and justice defend this bill? When you come to figure the financial sacrifice, it is the amount a man has left that counts.
When speaking on the resolution on which this bill is based, the Prime Minister referred to some remarks which I had addressed a few days previously to the Ottawa Liberal Twentieth Century Club. The right hon. gentleman chose to say that I was making political capital; I choose,to say that I stated facts. I suppose that what aroused the right hon. gentleman was the statement that the Liberals expect to win the traditional and almost sacred Tory county of Carleton, which has always selected a Conservative, no matter what his record in public life might be.
Ever since the ten per cent extra income tax was first announced by the Prime Minister, it has, I think, been quite apparent that every effort by the Liberal members to express disagreement with this bill has been met with the cry, "This is making political capital". The Ottawa newspaper supporting the government, or one that used to support it, set up that cry. When the hon. member for Shel-bume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), who spoke from the heart, pleaded for those unfortunate men of the Royal Canadian Air Force who will soon be walking the streets, his successor in office replied to the effect that he was making politioal capital; and this was said in such unparliamentary language that I could not repeat his exact words without falling foul of you, Mr. Speaker.
If making political capital has suddenly become a major offence, does the right hon. gentleman think that his record in that respect entitles him to reprimand or rebuke anybody? Does he imagine that his remarks during the last general election campaign are gone and forgotten? Am I to take it that not one hon. member sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, will attempt to make political capital out of this bill if it passes, nor that one Conservative newspaper will make any attempt in that direction? We on this side of the house, as a matter of fact, are not worried very much about making political capital, because hardly a week passes in these strenuous days when the right hon. gentleman himself does not supply us with all that we require.
To very many civil servants in the constituency which I represent, the passing of this bill will mean a double income tax. To the people of Ottaw-a it will mean the drying-up of purchasing power. To those unfortunate men and women whom the government is letting out, it will mean misery and privation. What a far cry from July, 1930: "We will end unemployment." Whoever thought that those who raised that cry would actually cause unemployment? The city of Ottawa, in a business sense, has been very adversely affected by the government's action in respect to the civil service. Perhaps nothing that has been done has so adversely affected the city as this government's statement that a survey will be made to ascertain whether further dismissals cannot 'be made. That statement hangs like the sword of Damocles over the head of every civil servant and, to a lesser degree, over the heads of all the citizens of the capital of Canada. What is to become of the men and women' who are being dismissed? If another $150,000,000 is to be spent by the dominion and provincial governments and by the municipalities under the same conditions that have obtained up to now, it means on the average less than a month's employment in the year, and at small wages.
This government came into power because it promised to end unemployment, and today, in spite of its election promise, the government of Canada is leading the way in cold-hearted dismissals of civil servants, and, in addition to that, it is bringing in this wage cut. In 1933 or 1934, when this parliament is dissolved and the Tory party composes its bedtime story for the campaign, does the right hon. gentleman imagine that the people of Ottawa will believe him again? If he does, he had better recall what President Lincoln*had to say with regard to the extent of the people's credulity.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull):: Speaking to the resolution on March 3, I stated that the government, in introducing this legislation, was certainly setting a bad example to private industries, to contractors and to municipal and provincial governments.
1	did not think I was making any mistake in that regard, because I felt that private companies would certainly follow the example set by the government. I regret to say that my prediction has been justified. I have here an article that appeared in the Citizen of April
2	under the heading "Lower Wage Rates in effect by May is New Decision." I understand that contractors in the city of Ottawa decided at a meeting to follow the government's example. Let me quote exactly what was published in the Citizen:
"The contractors and other employers of labour in the building industries of this city have been considering for some time the relative value of the wages paid to employees in this industry, as compared with the existing cost of living, together with the cuts in salaries that have, and are, taking place in other occupations throughout the city. Finding the rate per hour is entirely too high in proportion, and also finding that under existing rates it is almost impossible for a prospective builder to receive any return whatsoever upon a commercial building, we feel that under the present conditions the public at large is paying too much for the necessary repairs and improvements that have to be done to keep their existing property from deterioration."
"We also consider that the existing rate, as paid to labour on civic work, is far too high, and take this opportunity of protesting against our civic authorities paying from five to fifteen cents per hour more than the rate paid by other industries. Having the interests of the public in view, the contractors have decided that the existing rates will be reduced from five to twenty-five cents per hour to take effect on May 2 next. It is our sincere hope that the residents of this city and district will appreciate the fact that it will give them the opportunity of having their work done at a greatly reduced cost, as already prices of materials have been materially reduced. The contractors feel, that, with these new rates, they will be greatly assisting the Mayor, J. J. Allen, in his commendable 'Work and Buy Campaign.' "
I certainly was not surprised at this move on the part of the contractors of Ottawa. I said on March 3 that I had been requested not only by the Liberal electors of my riding but also by the Conservative Association to protest against this legislation. One of the reasons given by these associations was the one I have given, namely, that if the federal authorities sought to save S8,000,000 by means of a horizontal cut of ten per cent, that example soon would be followed by private enterprises.
The employees of the E. B. Eddy Company in my own city suffered a cut last year, and although I cannot certify to my information,

I understand that this company intends to make a further cut this year. This is the largest concern in my constituency and ordinarily it gives employment to a considerable number of people. In addition to a cut in wages last year, these employees are to-day working only part time and are faced with a further cut.
The hardships borne by the civil servants in Ottawa and Hull do not seem to be known to the authorities. Over 12,000 civil servants in Ottawa and 500 in Hull will suffer this horizontal cut. Those receiving less than $1,200 per year will suffer the cut but have their superannuation paid. I believe the service will suffer because of this reduction. These men and women have been allowed to think that their salaries would be increased year by year, but this year they are not to receive the usual increase and are to suffer a reduction as well. As I said before, there are 4,000 employees in this city and vicinity who receive $100 or less per month, and these people will face a reduction of $60 in their annual salary. As stated by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) the prices of fuel, rent, mortgage interest and other contractual obligations have not decreased, but in fact have risen during the past year or so. Only three days ago the Department of Public W orks dismissed 102 of its temporary employees, and many of these employees who live in my city are to-day in the ranks of the unemployed. I have cited already the case of a father of eight children who after being appointed temporarily to this department decided to buy a home for his family. He invested all the cash he had saved at the time and assumed an obligation which to-day amounts to about $1,200. This man will not only suffer the loss of his position but must face the possibility of finding himself and his family out on the street. I have made representations to the department in this connection, but so far have obtained no results.
There is no use trying to find work in my city, as at present there are 3,000 unemployed. Some three or four hundred men receive one week's work per month, and the remaining 2,600 have no work and must live on charity. During last winter the city of Hull with the assistance of the provincial and federal authorities spent over $19,000 per month on direct relief. This will show to a certain extent what hardships this cut in the salaries will work on my constituents.
We in the province of Quebec are not used to these cuts in salary. The provincial government has taken drastic steps to balance its

Public Service-Salary Deduction
budget but it has never for one moment thought of reducing the salaries of its employees. As a representative of the city of Hull and one interested in the support of all those working in the service, I wish to renew my protest against this bill.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, since this bill was presented I must confess that the more I think of it, the less I think of it. I wish the government would bring down something which I could support. For three or four weeks I have been opposing a most objectionable relief bill and now I am faced with another bill which is almost as odious. I have not been able to discover one redeeming feature in this legislation, unless it be the five per cent sop which is given to the lower grades. This is nothing less than an admission of the soundness of the graduated system; in fact, it condemns the bill itself.
I think there has been only one minister who has stood up to defend this bill, and no wonder. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) undertook to defend it, and being the experienced and capable man he is in parliamentary practice and debate, it may seem like presumption for me to criticize his criticism. It was really a lamentable case he put up in support of the bill. I congratulate him for trying to father it, because before that it had been an orphan so far as the rear guard Tory forces of the house were concerned.
The minister said there was no difficulty in securing men and women for the lower classifications, while there is difficulty in securing and retaining those in the higher classifications. What does that mean? It means that it does not matter much about the lower grades because, according to the minister, or as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon) said the other day, " we can go out on the street and pick them up any old time." The higher classes are nurtured more carefully because they cannot be got every day and the government cannot be sure of keeping them. These reasons given by the Minister of Finance in support of this bill are not those which should be expected from a gentleman of his parts, and I do not think he. really holds that view. If I am putting a wrong interpretation upon his remarks I wish he would correct me right now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are not in committee.


William Richard Motherwell: I never did think
a maritime Tory was just quite as bad as an Ontario Tory, but what am I to think now?
The higher classes are being taken care of because there is difficulty in replacing them. That is given to us as a profound reason for supporting the bill. It was stated also that those in the higher grades donated to the income tax. Why should they not pay in both instances? To state that there should be a sort of saw-off because they are hit by the income tax is absolutely absurd. If lower classification escapes a cut, the minister said, a greater burden is thrown on the public. That was thought to be a cincher, but it is not. The same revenue can be secured out of the civil service on the principle of graduated cut, provided it is sharper at the higher salaries. So that is another piece of-what shall I call it?-nothing offensive, but a sort of highclass bit of piffle.
A graduated cut makes many inequalities, one at every grade, argues the minister. Of course it does. My hon. friend argues that it is better to have one great big differentiation between the lower and the higher paid ones than to have a number of small graduations. I never before heard that principle enunciated. If that were sound, how would you get along with your income tax graduation? How would you get along with all the grading in our wheat and cereals generally and other farm products? The closer the grades are together, the fairer the system, and the nearer you get to a sound and just graduated system. The same is true in this instance, but my good friend must have been in desperate straits when he pointed out that you would have a little inequality between each grade. If that is sound, how is it that every government that I know of except this one and one other, has had a graduated rather than a flat rate system of salary cut? Is his government right 'because it stands alone? Or is it wrong because this principle is unsound and has been proved to be so? I am very much disappointed with the Minister of Finance because I admire him greatly. What kind of defence would his colleagues and supporters have made if they had attempted to give one? They surely would have muffed it badly, because the bill is indefensible.
I am interested in this matter, not because I have in my constituency any more civil servants than any other member has in his I think I have one, but I take this ground, which I have always taken: I do not want to profess I have a tremendous amount of experience, but I cannot help having some. One who has been in parliament so long, whether he has made the best of his opportunities or not, cannot but have some knowledge of the civil service and the important part it plays in the
1694	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
affairs of government. Since I have entered parliament I have heard the veriest nonsense talked in all parts of the house except perhaps from the corner to my left which is so eloquently silent now. We have heard about the civil service of Ottawa, the silk stockinged brigade on Wellington and Metcalfe streets and that sort of thing. Because the staff dressed respectably, it was apparently thought they were not doing anything. I am sorry to admit that long years ago-I shall not say how long-I used to hold such opinions myself ; but when we grow up we try to absorb some knowledge of affairs, although apparently some members opposite have not yet done so. I take the ground that it is more important to have a first class civil service staff and a second rate government, such as we have, than to have a second rate staff and a first class government, such as we have not. I do not. want to put the government in the second or third class; I shall just say an inexperienced government. We all have to be freshmen at some time or another and gain by experience, but there is not very much evidence of that experience developing yet in our hon. friends opposite. After long years on my farm in hiring men and women and my experience in the government of Saskatchewan as well as some here, I feel strongly about securing the very best staff that money will buy, using them well, paying them well and then expecting good service from them. That pays every time. At this time above all others it seems to me that principle should be carried out. But we are told the country's finances are bad; the budget must be balanced and therefore we have to go after the civil service staff and try to practise economy-that kind of so-called economy. I do not think that is economy at all. It is, as the old saying goes, saving at the spigot and wasting at the bung; penny wise and pound foolish.
Lest I be thought wrong, let me call to the support of my contention some of the findings and sayings of the Beatty commission. I do not think anybody has cast any reflection uipon the capacity of that commission to deal with the question of civil service salaries; my only regret is that these findings have not all been carried out. I am sorry to have to quote, but this is so good it is worth while, and lest my stand be challenged, I wish to support it with this testimony. I read this from page 9 of the report of the Beatty commission:
The formal distinction between the legislative and executive branches of government, between parliament on the one hand and the cabinet controlling administration on the other, obscures but it does not alter the fact that efficient

parliamentary government is only possible when the decisions embodied in statutory form are made effective throughout the Dominion by a body of trained administrators and experts. Until well within the nineteenth century, there was no country which possessed a trained civil service.
Therefore the importance and efficacy of our work in this legislative chamber depend upon a trained civil service staff to carry on the administrative services. Otherwise our legislation would be of no effect; we might as well have so much waste paper. Thus the administrative arm of government as represented by the civil service staff is a most important part of government. Because of that, this is not the time to weaken that arm; this is the wrong time to do so. Then, on page 10 of the Beatty commission report, I find this:
Throughout our inquiries, we have been impressed by the character of the work now done in the civil service of Canada. In accord with the highest traditions to be found elsewhere, its own tradition demands the faithful performance of his duties by the individual, though the results of the work done, however important they may be, do not accrue directly to him, either in the form of wealth, or, as a rule, in th" form of public recognition.
It is the service as a whole, whose prestige is increased, or whose influence for good is extended, when work of outstanding merit is performed; and it is within the service only that the individual worker obtains his reward. His reward is not in material advantage, but in the recognition and approbation of his fellow workers.
He gets merely a salary and the state gets the advantage and profit which is sometimes very great, of his work. On page 11 I find the following:
The importance of the responsibilities devolving upon the scientific workers in the Department of Agriculture, for example, it is almost impossible to exaggerate. In these days, when improvement of the quality of farm products is all important, their work is of lasting benefit to every farmer practising scientific agriculture, and to every organization marketing farm products. Much the same may be said, in a very different field, of the research work carried on in the Department of Mines by the staff of the Geological Survey and others. Many mining camps in Canada have presented new mining and metallurgical problems, upon the solution of which the development and economic use of their ores has depended.
That bears out my contention in full. Let me supplement it by another quotation from page 13 of the report:
In the course of discussions with deputy ministers and others who appeared to give evidence, we were impressed with the keenness and ability of many of the senior officers in the service. Their calibre is proof-if proof be needed-[DOT] that in the past the civil service has been successful in enlisting and retaining men of

Public Service-Salary Deduction
first-rate ability, despite the relatively moderate remuneration. We do not feel the same assurance, however, that it will continue successfully to recruit or hold such men in the future, unless conditions of employment and prospects of advancement in the service can be simplified and improved considerably.
That was said about two years ago, but the Beatty commission at that time took the ground, just as the Minister of Finance did, that it was difficult to hold good men, and they *were fearful then that they would not be able to hold them. Conditions have since changed rapidly, not due entirely to our friends opposite coming into power, of course, but reading this report I am bound to ask myself and the house this question : Are the conditions surrounding the civil service to-day conducive to holding men and getting good service, when the axe is now uplifted and threatening to strike at any time? The Prime Minister said that there were still too many in the civil service. Who knows who is going to be the next victim? Under such conditions how can you possibly get the maximum service from a staff, no matter how good it is?
I think I have quoted sufficiently from the Beatty report to show that the Beatty commission, a recognized authority, more than confirms what I said about the importance of the civil service. What did they say would be the cost of putting their recommendations into operation? They say:
We estimate that the net additional .cost in the first year will be approximately $360,000; and the total additional cost, when adjustment is completed, approximately $750,000 annually.
That would have secured the salary increases that were recommended for these 2,500 members of the scientific and technical service. A new classification was also made recommending increased salaries to various classes, but I shall not dwell on that except to say that the increases recommended run all the way from ten to forty .per cent of an increase for the 2,500 members of the technical staff. Then there was that vast body of civil servants comprising some fifty or sixty thousand whose salaries were also under consideration by the Beatty commission, with a view to having the salaries adjusted upwards or downwards as the case might be, although it was generally expected that the revision would be upwards.
There is another class of civil servants, the research workers on the staff of the bureau of research. These men are doing very, very important work. The then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) was organizing the bureau just about the time the Beatty commission started their investigation, and I observe that the Beatty commission in their interim report urged that the increases for the
staff of the research bureau be granted right away. That recommendation was carried out by the government, and it applied to about thirty or forty research men. They got their increase. Why? So that Doctor Tory and the Hon. Mr. Malcolm would be in a position to attract the very best men that good money could secure. By giving these men their raise right away, we got a good staff. Where is the fairness in applying a straight ten per cent salary cut to these men, who got their increase, and to the 2,500 technical men who were recommended for an increase by the Beatty commission, ranging all the way from ten to forty per cent, and who did not get it? And applying the cut also to that other great body of civil servants whose salaries were under consideration by the Beatty commission and who have received no increases, whose cases have not even been dealt with yet? I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that you could pick up sixteen men from the highways and by-ways who would make a worse muff of this job than has been made by this government. I cannot conceive that it would be possible.
How did the government go about it? I must largely absolve the Minister of Finance of blame, because at the time the decision was hastily made I do not think he was Minister of Finance. We know, of course, that estimates are dealt with a considerable time before the house meets, so the present Minister of Finance could not have had very much to do with it. There could be only one man responsible, and I do not think there is another man in Canada who would have thought of dealing with this matter in the way he has dealt with it. That one man, I am sorry to admit, is the Prime Minister. He made up his mind that the salaries of the civil servants were too high, and that ten per cent must come off, and without giving them a chance even to make a squawk the head comes right off by the shoulder. You must have noticed in your boyhood, Mr. Speaker, having been brought up on a farm- nearly everybody in politics claims to have been brought up on a farm-that when you go out and out the head off a cockerel-the axe is a very unscientific but a very sure way of doing the job-when the head is severed from the body the cockerel's mouth opens and gives a last gasp. That gasp is not very effectual. It is somewhat guttural, and accomplishes nothing. Now the civil service beads were cut off right by the shoulder before they were given an opportunity even to squawk. Of course the Prime Minister is a courteous gentleman, and when the civil servants asked for an interview it was granted, but on the very day that we were discussing
1696	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
the salary out in this house the civil servants' representatives trooped into a room in this building to present their views. Just imagine! Does any class of people in the world deserve that kind of treatment toy the Prime Minister of the country? I submit that they do not. Kicked around like old boots; that is what they were. The rest of the government must bear their share of the responsibility, however, whether they had anything to do with it or not, and they are bearing it and trying lamely to defend the government's course. The civil servants troop in and present their case to the Prime Minister, although it is already all over. Does the government think that the morale of these men will be improved by such treatment? Does the government think that the ship of state will be any safer in their hands, especially when the axe is still suspended over their heads? I lack words, Mr. Speaker, with which to express my utter disgust at such conduct towards such an important arm of government. I would not speak with such assurance, sir, if I did not know that that was the wrong way, from years of personal knowledge in dealing with government employees. Even if they were the most unworthy wretches under heaven, they did not deserve that kind of high handed, imperious treatment. Many of the staff are organized. Even the letter carriers and those workers who clean the rooms in this building are organized and the government could easily have consulted with them first and eased the blow. But there was another way to do it, and I am going to refer now to another Tory government to show apparently that good things can come out of Tory governments as well as bad things-I would be glad to say good things of this government and to throw a bouquet if I could only find an opportunity to do so. Up in Queen's Park, Toronto, they had the same sort of unpleasant duty to do. They desired to cut the salaries of the civil service, and how did they go about it? The premier of Ontario called in the heads of the civil service organizations. Every government should welcome every class of society that is organized, and should be ready to hear its representations on behalf of its many members. Well, in Ontario they called in the heads of the various civil service organizations and said in effect: We want you to sit down with us and assist us in doing an unpleasant duty which we think it is in the interests of the province to have done. And that was done. They did not adopt a flat rate, remember; no such nonsense as that, but a graduated system from top to bottom.

Have we heard any kick about it? Not one. What was that graduated system, Mr. Speaker? I must say I have been carrying the information around in my pocket ever since this bill came down. I find that to-night I am without it but I feel I know it well enough from memory to give some of the more important features. There was provision for a two per cent cut on the low salaries up to SI ,000, and there are about ten steps in the ladder. Of course from the standpoint of the Minister of Finance that will be an objection, if he is serious. The cuts run from two per cent on small salaries to twenty-five per cent, the latter on salaries from $10,000 upwards. If such a system were adopted here all the deputies with salaries of $10,000 would receive larger cuts, and if the same scale were used in this bill the ministers would be cut about 50 per cent instead of ten per cent as at present proposed. The rate in Ontario, however, stopped at $10,000, and all salaries over that figure were taxed 25 per cent. Had the same rate continued I repeat there would have been a out of 40 or 50 per cent on ministerial or other salaries of $20,000.
A survey of the salary cuts in Ontario raises the point that this question must have been viewed from a different angle by the provincial and federal governments. The government in Toronto viewed the matter from a fair, honest and just angle. Surely members of the federal government are not trying to save their own hides by taking the same cut as their most humble stenographer at $60 per month. If that is not the reason, what is it? What is more, Mr. Speaker, we learn from the schedules which have been worked out by the various organizations that not only are the lower paid servants to receive the same cut as the Prime Minister and his cabinet, but their cut is to be greater, even after allowing for the superannuation refund sop. In some cases the cut is greater by four per cent, depending upon the salary range. Those in the lower classifications in many cases are losing their statutory increases, plus the ten per cent. We can see the look of guilt on the faces of hon. members opposite, and especially on those of cabinet ministers, but they will commit this crime whether or not we object. We thus see that the humble charwomen and the post boys on the street are receiving greater percentage cuts than those of the cabinet ministers. This legislation is on all fours with the income tax outrage which was proposed last year by the government, but which fortunately for themselves was withdrawn. They would do well to-night if they were big enough to refrain from such a heinous crime against

Public Service-Salary Deduction
the lower grades of Canadian civil servants. No man living who has any heart in him at all can defend this measure; yet it will become law. Well, if there is a political gallows or a political purgatory there will certainly in due time be some contributions to it by hon. members opposite.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the world is in sad difficulties; no wonder, if there are many governments like this one. The ship of state is in danger. We remember a short time ago that one of our passenger ships ran on a reef at Bermuda, and on that ship were some of our Ottawa civil servants. I fancy if we had been on that ship in distress we would not have submitted to a lessening of the crew or have told them that they would be given hail Columbia later on regarding their salaries. That would be the time we should encourage them to do their duty. That is what we should do now: We should encourage the staff by simple justice and improve their morale instead of the opposite as the government are doing at present.
No wonder the countiy is wondering what will happen next. There is only one joy left to many in Canada, and that is that of guessing what hon. gentlemen opposite are going to do next-nobody knows. I do not wish to take too much time in a discussion of this matter, but hon. gentlemen opposite know they are deserving of my criticism and that is the reason they are saying so little- they have a guilty conscience. If I were doing them an injustice they would be howling like a lot of coyotes.
So it is that instead of having a staff at its top notch of efficiency, we have one suffering a deep sense of injustice. I do not have to go round looking for evidences of their views in the matter; I can hear them from all points -I do not need my audiphone to know that; I can hear it without any trouble. Some of the staff are wondering who is going to get the axe next. They are in a state of dread and anxiety; some of them are in almost despair.
As a rule the farmer, although he may be badly off, has enough to eat. True, some of them just now have hardly that much, but the great average class of farmers do not suffer from lack of food. The same does not apply to those civil servants receiving only about $80 per month. My hon. friends opposite know perfectly well there is a prejudice against civil servants because of misinformation on the subject on the part of so many people, and some of the general public also hold the mistaken idea that civil servants do not do very much work, when as a matter of fact
some of them are broken down with overwork. If we get more legislation like this, after the unemployment proposition, I do not know what may happen. Words fail to describe our indignation and disgust with this government, composed of men who are capable of better things and who know better. I have not one word to say against any member of the government as an individual, but some evil genius or evil spirit gets possession of them when they get together, and then there is the devil to pay.
Let us consider a certain family I know, consisting of two parents and four children. This man was on the canal first, until he reached his maximum of $100 a month. He was an ambitious young fellow, but he reached the limit of his salary range; children are a greater charge on the family budget as the years go by, so he decided to try to qualify for a higher classification. In order to do so. he had to go to school at night after working hard all day, but finally he started as a letter carrier at $85 a month, dropping $15 a month from his previous salary. He was given one increase, which brought his salary to about S90 a month, but while he was still getting $10 less than he had received previously, along came this legislation and he is now cut off from any further statutory increase, plus 10 per cent cut, or more than the Prime Minister is cut.	.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken for forty minutes.


William Richard Motherwell: It seemed very
short, Mr. Speaker; I hope it seemed as short to your honour and those to whom I regretfully directed my remarks.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before this amendment is put, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should say just a word, even at this late hour. May I pay my respects to my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who, perhaps unwittingly, paid me a veTy great compliment when he suggested that I might reply to his argument. Although my hon. friend treats the most serious subjects with levity, and sometimes in a most entertaining fashion, I know of no hon. gentleman who asserts bis views with greater vehemence. In fact, when the hon. member for Melville says a thing on his ipse dixit he rather leaves the impression with the house that t'he last word has been said. May I also say to my hon. friend-and I do so not unkindly-that he paid me a compliment when he said he was disappointed in the Minister of Finance. If my hon. friend had not been

1698	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
disappointed in me I would have been disappointed in myself, because had it been otherwise I would have been afraid something was wrong with my course of action. You can always count on my hon. friend from Melville to be against the government.
But I notice, Mr. Speaker, that even my hon. friend is not infallible in his arguments. He proceeded to find fault with me because of an argument I used during an earlier stage of this discussion. In the first place let me say that he took from its context a sentence which I used on that occasion and put an interpretation upon it which it should not properly be given. I will let that pass for the moment, but I also brought forth the argument on that occasion with respect to the difficulty of securing permanency in the higher grades, and my hon. friend said that was mere piffle. Within two minutes the hon. gentleman proceeded to read from the report of the Beatty commission, after commending that commission as one with respect to which no criticism could be offered, and as a recognized authority. Then, if you please, one of the first things he read from that report was the very same argument I used on that previous occasion and which my hon. friend * called mere piffle.
There would be some merit in my hon. friend's argument if he were right in his assumption that this is a salary reduction. It is nothing of the sort, and I want to make that point very clear. The bill itself says in.terms that this is for one year, and the government has repeatedly asserted that the idea is to ask for a contribution from the civil servants for one year only. No one will be more delighted than the members of the government.-and I am sure I can speak for all hon. members of this house, on whatever side they sit-if a similar sacrifice is not called for in future years.
My hon. friend said that no government, admitting a cut or reduction to be necessary, would be so foolish as to follow the course taken by this government and make a level cut. Let me say .to my hon. friend that the very first act of the Liberal government when it came into power in 1897, when civil servants received salaries as low as $400 a year, was to deny to them their statutory increases for that year. That applied throughout the service, to the high man and the low man, and the government did it without statute or order in council; they just did it, in defiance of the statute which said that the civil servant "shall" receive an annual increase of so much.


William Richard Motherwell: May I ask my hon. friend if that was not the war pension that was taken away?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, the statutory increases of all civil servants, as provided by statute in 1896; I have described the action taken by the Liberal government in 1897.


William Richard Motherwell: Can my hon. friend point out a precedent in Canada for a ten per cent reduction all along the line?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am just using that as an illustration, to show that there was a level action taken with respect to every employee irrespective of salary; in other words, it was a straight reduction. I was merely dealing with the principle. As I said previously, if we are discussing this as a salary reduction which was to be permanent and which would have a bearing upon the salaries of civil servants I believe the matter would be entirely arguable, and for my part I would be prepared to discuss it upon its merits. But let me say again that we are asking for a contribution for this year only; this measure has no bearing upon the salary status of civil servants or upon their superannuation.
Hon, gentlemen opposite-and I do not find fault with them-have been rather at pains to take the attitude that this is rather a pleasant duty on the part of the government. I want to say that the government took this step with very great reluctance, but I also wish to point out to my hon. friend from Melville and to his associates that I have discussed the matter quite frankly with many civil servants, who realizing the gravity of the situation as it exists to-day, are prepared to make the sacrifice which the government, in the circumstances, has felt called upon to ask them to make. But I think, rather than be condemned, the government should receive some degree of commendation for taking their life in their hands and exhibiting enough courage to sponsor an unpleasant measure of this character. If we were after popularity, and wanted to help our peace of mind, we would ask for an increase in the salaries of the civil servants instead of asking that a reduction be made.
I do not propose to labour the argument at this hour of the night, especially as I discussed the question at considerable length during the better part of a day while the house was in committee on the resolution. With respect to the amendment, I have only this to say. No one knows better than my hon. friend who moved it, and who is a lawyer of parts, that irrespective of any merit

Public Service-Salary Deduction
there may be in the principle of the amendment itself, it simply means that if his motion were passed it would have the effect not only of defeating the bill itself but would be a direct vote of want of confidence in the government. For that reason I must say to the hon. gentleman and to the house that we are unable to accept his amendment.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the minister
a question? Can I gather from his remarks that this contribution which the government is asking from the civil service and from members of parliament will be just for this year and no longer?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Mark Cecil Senn: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MULLINS:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Alphonse Fournier: I was paired with the
hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Maedougall). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


John Anderson Fraser: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) : Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amend-


Murray MacLaren: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
ment.


Mr. HURTURISE:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. McIvENZIE (Assiniboia): I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Earl Rowe: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauoe (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.	; . 'i li 1


George Manning McDade: I was paired with the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
17C2
Business of the House


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Richimontd-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Fizalam-William Perras: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I draw the attention of the house to the fact that whenever we have a vote and the pairs are declared, we take up a great deal of time, there is absolutely no order, and although pairs are supposed not to be recognized by the Speaker, at the same time they must be because the Speaker allows the members to declare themselves. I would suggest that in declaring pairs the members be asked to do so in order, as they sit, just as the ordinary vote is taken.
Main motion (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sun-bury) in the chair.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved the adjournment of the house.
He said:	In order that business may be
expedited, we propose to-morrow, if we reach supply, to take up the remainder of the departments that have not yet been considered, and the convenience of the opposition will be studied as to which department it is desired to take as we proceed. There are, I understand, certain members of the opposition who wish to deal with different departments, and their convenience will be considered in that connection. So far as I am aware, the following departments have not yet been before the committee: Finance, Railways and Canals, Labour, Mines, Immigration and Colonization, National Defence, Interior, Pensions and National Health. There is the resolution on bankruptcy, and there are other government orders. If we reach supply we shall make the necessary arrangements to suit the convenience of the opposition as to which department they wish to consider.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand it is the intention of the government to take up any of the bills?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If we reach them, we
shall take up the bankruptcy resolution, the second readings that are on the order paper and the committee stages of any bills we may have an opportunity to deal with. If the
TMr. McDade.]
right hon. gentleman will intimate what department he would prefer we take up tomorrow if we reach supply, we shall be glad to suit his convenience.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to express the appreciation of the opposition of my right hon. friend's attitude this evening.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, April 5, 1932