1932-02-26

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R.. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian National
Railways, and to authorize additional provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really one which in the past has been put through the house as a supplementary estimate, where necessary, for the Canadian National Railways. The object of the bill is to authorize the Canadian National Railways to raise an additional SI 1,372,000 for the purpose of paying various accounts for the last year which the estimates of last year did not meet. This bill is introduced for the purpose of allowing the railways the S11,000,000, which they require.
Probably I had better go a little farther in my explanation because, although I was informed by my officers that there were plenty of copies of the bill, I am now informed by the Clerk of the house that they are not available. With the consent of the house I should like to proceed a little farther. The fact is that in last year's estimates the Canadian National Railways were allowed the sum of 868,000,000, and they find they now require this additional 811,000,000 odd to meet the requirements of the past year. May I read one or two clauses from the bill, which I think, explain the situation:
The net additional income deficits including bond interest but not including interest on the Dominion government advances, is $20,000,000, against which-
That is 820,000,000 extra. There was an allowance last year in the Canadian National Railways estimates for a deficit, so far as interest to the public investor was concerned, of about 831,000,000. They find however that it is in the neighbourhood of 851.000,000. It is obvious therefore that about 820,000,000 is required to cover that amount. Against that however there is S13,000,000 odd under the authority of the proviso contained in last year's bill. That proviso permitted money which was not used for other purposes, and which was contained in the estimates of last year, to be utilized if the deficit turned out to be more than the estimated deficit. That provision allowed a 813,000,000 credit against the 820,000,000 extra deficit. Then there are some smaller amounts for equipment principal payments, sinking funds, and the like, amounting to 8192,077.30. For the purchase of new equipment the amount is set at 811,014,284.11.
May I explain that the purchase of equipment by the Canadian National Railways is usually done on what is known as the Phila-
Canadian National Railways-Finances

delphia plan. A payment of 25 per cent is made, and the remaining three-quarters is financed by lien notes usually issued-in fact, I think always issued-by the banks in the United States. The Canadian National Railways carried those lien notes without the guarantee of the government. However, because of financial conditions in the world, generally, and in the United States particularly the amount of 811,000,000 cannot be borrowed in the United States to-day, and therefore it comes back as an ordinary estimate to be paid by the Dominion government. That adds another $11,000,000 odd. Against that however there is $7,331,000, which w'as borrowed last year, and which was not spent for purposes authorized. There is in this bill a clause permitting the utilization of that balance. I do not wish further to enter into the matter because figures are confusing. The result is however that a net balance of $11,000,000 is required to-day by the Canadian National Railways as a supplementary estimate.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Did I
understand the minister to say that the money was used to pay interest to the public?


Robert James Manion: Yes, to pay interest to the lending public, and for other purposes.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: It is for the calendar
year 1931?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is this over and
above the $10,000,000 authorized by order in council?


Robert James Manion: Over and above what?


Eugène Fiset: Over and above the $10,000,000 authorized last year by order in council?


Robert James Manion: I do not understand my
hon. friend.


Eugène Fiset: A meeting was held, and at that meeting we were asked to endorse the action taken by the department to finance the Canadian National Railways. Does that include such an amount?


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I do not know to what my hon. friend is referring.


Mr. RALSTON:: Is the bill to provide for the payment out of the consolidated fund, or to provide for funding this amount, and borrowing?


Robert James Manion: Funding and borrowing,
yes.

Mr. CA\ LEY: Is there any provision made for payment of the back interest in default on the Toronto suburban electric lines?


Robert James Manion: No.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Does the statement of the minister mean that the Canadian National Railways failed, to the extent of $79,000,000, to pay their way last year?


Robert James Manion: No, it means that the
interest to the public last year is short by $52,000,000, in round figures. The interest was $57,000,000, and they have about, in round figures, $5,000,000 towards that amount. That does not include interest to the government. The interest to the public is about $57,000,000, and there is a surplus on operating of about $5,000,000 which leaves about $52,000,000 which the government of Canada has to meet. In addition to that there are statutory obligations which brings the total higher than that.
Mr. GARLAIsD (Bow River): When the minister refers to "interest to the public," does he really mean that, or does he mean interest to the bondholders?


Robert James Manion: Bondholders are the public.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Quite true.


Robert James Manion: I shall make it clear.
There is owing by the Canadian National Railways the amount of $57,000,000 annually in interest to the bondholders, the public purchasers of the bonds.


Mr. BENNETT:: Bondholders other than
the Dominion government.


Robert James Manion: In addition to that there
is interest owing to the government of about $32,000,000 which has never been paid and, frankly, I do not expect ever will be paid!


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Does that
mean a deficit of $1,000,000 per week?


Robert James Manion: Yes, there has been a
deficit of about $1,000,000 per week in interest to the public. When I refer to the public I am referring to the lending public. The other $32,000,000 to which I referred is in connection with the Dominion government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be
read a second time?


Robert James Manion: I wish to ask the consent of the house to have this bill read now a second time. As I am asking an indulgence I probably ought to make some further

Canadian National Railways-Finances
remarks, because I see my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) shaking his head. Ordinarily I would not make this request, but the Canadian National Railways have informed me that this money will be required very early in March. This is only a supplementary estimate, and there will be full opportunity afforded to discuss the matter when the regular estimates come down, probably within the next two or three weeks. The request was made to my department only within the last few days, and therefore I say it is not our fault that the matter comes up late. They require the money as soon as possible and the earliest date we can get it, even if it were given its second reading to-day and submitted to the special parliamentary committee, would be next Tuesday. The bill would be referred to the special committee on railways and shipping which meets next Tuesday, and would report back.


Mr. EULER:: Has that committee been
appointed?


Robert James Manion: Yes. On behalf of the
Canadian National Railways I urge that this bill be given its second reading, and be referred to the special parliamentary committee on railways and shipping.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are most
anxious, so far as is possible in conformity with the practice and rules of parliament, to facilitate the work of the house. May, however, I say quite frankly to my hon. friend that hon. gentlemen opposite have developed a habit of rushing measures into discussion in the house, and not permitting time for the due consideration which should be given. The government has a knowledge of the business of the country, and my hon. friend in particular is responsible for knowing about the business of the Canadian National Railways. If he had any reason to believe that a bill such as the one now before us would be forthcoming he might have extended some word in advance to those of us on this side of the house whom he expects to accommodate him. If the government know there are matters of importance which will have to be dealt with by a certain date, if they are anxious to expedite matters, we will try to accommodate them if they will intimate to us in advance particulars of the case. I do not think, however, it is in the public interest that measures as important as the one to which my hon. friend has just referred should be other than safeguarded by the stages of procedure provided for by the rules of the house. I do not see that this measure is going to get any more prompt consideration by passing the
second reading at the moment and having it referred to the committee of railways and shipping to-day than if that step is taken on Tuesday next, which is a government day. The bill itself is not printed, it is not distributed, and we have had no opportunity to look at it. I think my hon. friend will have to tell the railway management that there is a grave responsibility upon parliament to consider carefully every stage of Canadian National Railway financing-a responsibility that is not consistent with unduly rushing through the house measures pertaining to the railway.


Robert James Manion: While I sympathize very sincerely with my right hon. friend so far as the need of parliament discussing this or any other measure of the kind is concerned, I do not intend that the government shall 'take any responsibility whatsoever for the late introduction of the bill. The Canadian National Railways management had just put the matter before us in time for us to get the bill ready, and in fact, as my right hon. friend says, there has not been time to get it printed and' distributed, although I was instructed that it had 'been printed. I simply tell my right hon. friend that the Canadian National Railways management claim they need' the mtoney. If my right hon. friend takes the attitude he does he is perfectly within his right, but I repeat, I do not intend that the government shall accept blame for the delay. As I have said, the Canadian National management put the matter up to us within the last few days.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say, Mr. Speaker, we each have our responsibilities, the Canadian National has its responsibilities, the minister his, and we have ours. So far as the opposition is concerned, our responsibility is to see that all public measures are carefully considered and fully discussed according to the rules of procedure of the house. It is on that ground that we take our stand. As to the division of responsibility between the railway and the ministry, I leave it to my hon. friend to claim or disclaim any share in that regard.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Legislation can only be advanced one Stage except by consent. Consent having 'been withheld, the second reading will be at the next sitting of the house.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved:: That the following orders in council laid on the table on the 5th day of February, 1932, be approved:-
Unemployment Continuance Act

Orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 21st day of January, 1931, and the 17th day of December, 1931. in accordance with the provisions of section 75 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 113. R.S. 1927.
Orders in council which have been published in the Canada Gazette between the 21st day of January, 1931, and the 17th day of December, 1931, in accordance with the provisions of subsection "c" of section 21, of the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act, chapter 78, R.S. 1927.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8, and substituting the word "May" therefor.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the resolution you have just read, that it involves the expenditure of public moneys, and before it can be passed the Prime Minister, or whoever has charge of it, must announce that the measure has received His Excellency's assent and give the customary notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was about to rise to
say that this is only by way of notice to indicate that the resolution will go to committee of the whole at the next sitting. His Excellency has been advised of the measure, has given his approval thereof, and commends it to the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The resolution as it
appears on the order paper is not in the regulation form. It should be:
Moved by Mr. Bennett, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, that the house will at the next sitting resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend chapter 58 of the Statutes of Canada, 1931, striking out the word "March" in section 8. and substituting the word "May" therefor.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Hansard at page 564 the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) makes the following statement:
[Mr. Murphv.l
I regret that I am not in a position to give the details of the arrangements that are being made by the Saskatchewan government in supplying this seed grain.
Is it the intention to supply that seed grain through the Saskatchewan government or through the Saskatchewan relief commission?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The Saskatchewan relief commission, Mr. Speaker, is a body under the control of and appointed by the Saskatchewan government.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). It is based on an article in the Toronto Daily Star of the 25th instant, as follows:
The federal government is preparing to dismiss forty-nine trained agricultural experts from the Department of Agriculture, Senator Hon. Cairine Wilson told the Ontario Women's Liberal Association at luncheon yesterday in the King Edward hotel. "All are highly trained men," said the Senator, "and nearly all are graduates of Canadian universities."
Will the minister say if there is any truth in this report?


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, the statement that
is attributed to Senator Wilson is not correct and is very much a misrepresentation of the truth.



CORRECTION-MR. WEIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day :
Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, in Hansard at page 411 the following statement is attributed to the hon. member for Temisoouata (Mr. Pouliot):
To such an extent was that true that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) allowed a large quantity of butter to come out of storage without paying duty.
I feel confident this must be a misprint, because it has no foundation in fact.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to ask
the Minister of National Defence (Mr. FEBRUARY 26, 1932
C.N.R.-Branch Lines
Sutherland), whether the government has in any way altered its attitude as to giving more favourable treatment to the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force who have received notice of dismissal as from March 31?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: I do not know that the
government has announced its attitude, Mr. Speaker. About sixty-nine officers and one hundred men have been notified that their services will be dispensed with on the first of April, and every possible consideration is being given to them.	.


William Daum Euler: A few days ago I asked the minister with regard to the dismissal of certain men who claimed they had received two weeks' pay, and whether their claim was founded on fact. He was kind enough to send me a statement-really to the effect that it was. It seemed to me at the time that this was scant consideration for men who had been employed for many years. He has just said in reply to a question by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) that full consideration is being given. May I ask if such consideration contemplates any departure from the attitude he announced a few days ago?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I may
have given a wrong impression to my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). The officers who are leaving the service get one month's leave with pay for every five years of service, and in addition, of course, if they have any annual leave coming to them in the past year that leave is added. With regard to the airmen, under all circumstances they are allowed three weeks' leave with pay, and if they have extra leave coming to them, of course, they are credited with it. That leave will start so that it will coincide with the closing of their period of service on March 31.


William Daum Euler: The minister says a month's leave or a month's pay is given if the man has served five years. Is that month the minimum or do they receive a proportionate leave or salary if their period of service has been less than five years?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If their period of
service has been less than five years they may get less.


William Daum Euler: They might get only two
weeks?
Mr, SUTHERLAND: It is possible.


James Layton Ralston: Arising out of the questions asked by my hon. friend from North Waterloo, and the answers of the Minister of National Defence with regard to the leave given the officers and men of the air force, may I ask the minister if the consideration which is being given in the way of leave is not simply the ordinary, usual provision in that respect? It is not any special consideration in view of the summary and wholesale nature of the dismissals?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is the usual leave, of course.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I should like to ask the Minister of Railways a question arising out of a question I directed to him the other day. I do not think the answer then given was as complete as the minister would like to have it. Between North Battleford and Edmonton sixty-nine miles of roadbed is ready for steel, and I understood the minister to say that he did not expect that any construction work would be undertaken this year, whether it was expected the line would pay or not pay. I should like to ask the minister whether that was what he meant, or whether consideration will be given to construction work in areas where the chances of paying are one hundred per cent.
Robert James Manion: I did not make the
statement that there would be no construction in any area whether or not it could be expected to pay. As far as I remember I simply stated that in view of the serious financial condition of the road the management had not recommended to us the continuation of practically any branch lines at present.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Then apparently there
will be no construction this year even in areas where it might be expected to pay?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am just asking for
information. You can keep refusing all you like; that does not bother me.

Public Service-Salary Deduction



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT REPAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Is it the intention of the government to bring into effect the new tariff schedules covering repairs to all agricultural implements, as proposed last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So experienced a member as the hon. gentleman would hardly be expected to ask that question. These are not questions that should be asked until the budget is brought down, and then they are answered before they are asked.


John Vallance: I am being asked today, by those who are vitally interested, if this is the intention of the government. I merely asked the question of the Prime Minister, and I think his answer was quite unwarranted.



ADMIRALTY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Hugh GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 15, to amend the Admiralty Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time
and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize deductions of ten per cent from the amounts of certain salaries or other compensations or indemnities payable by the government of Canada during the fiscal year 1932-33.
And to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of all current contributions payable under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act in respect of the salaries payable during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, of all employees who receive not more than one thousand two hundred dollars per annum.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving that you do now leave the chair to enable the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider the resolution which has just been read, I do so in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) who is still indisposed and confined to his bed. Since the opposition have indicated that they do not propose to consider items concerning salaries in the estimates of the two departments now before the committee of supply
[Mr. McIntosh.J
until such time as the policy of the government has been made known with respect to the reduction of civil service salaries by ten per cent, I am moving this motion in the place and stead of the Minister of Finance. I greatly regret that it falls to my duty to do so, because the Minister of Finance had prepared himself more adequately than I to explain the resolution to the house.
I should like to preface anything I have to say by the observation that the civil service of this country has now become a very large body; approximately 65,000 people are affected by this resolution. The civil service is a body of which this country has become justly proud, because there are many employees in the service who discharge onerous and difficult duties with credit and distinction. On the other hand it is beyond question that the service has become overmanned in many departments. That, I think, is a commonplace. That the Beatty commission, charged in 1930 with the responsibility of determining the extent to which the service could be reduced or improved, has not made a report is well known to every hon. member of this house, but that there are larger numbers on the payroll of the country than the necessities demand I think has been felt by every thoughtful investigator for many years.
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 opportunities to enable them to see what they can get from the treasury, but there are those who do take that attitude, and ultimately that matter must be determined by suitable and proper investigation. After all, the civil servants of this country are the instruments by which the business of government is carried on, just as in every business there are employees, clerks, managers and executive heads, for the purpose of directing the activities of that business. So the state through its government has the right, which it exercises, of employing from time to time men and women to discharge the obligations that are necessary for the conduct of public business, and as I have said, in the main these duties have been discharged satisfactorily to the Canadian people.
During the last few days we have had much discussion as to the principles that should govern in appointments to the service, in promotions and in the payment of compensation for services rendered. The committee that was appointed, and that reported upon professional compensation, indicated that in their opinion the professional class, having

Public Service-Salary Deduction
regard to the salaries commanded in other walks of life, were not adequately compensated, and certain recommendations were made. I think it goes without saying, and at least my observations lead me to believe, that there is no question at all as to the fact that there are certain classes of the public service that are not adequately paid. 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 and there is also provision for a pension. To this the individual makes a contribution, but he does not pay the whole cost; the state itself makes continuous contributions from year to year to the superannuation funds in order that these pensions may be paid.
Then, of course, there is the other class which, in the opinion of most people, is overpaid. It is not my purpose, however, to do more than say that that is a matter which will be subsequently investigated at an opportune time. The principle upon which compensation has been awarded in the past and salaries paid has been, in my judgment at least, too elastic to bring about reasonably proper results. I know of salaries that are being paid to those in the service which are out of all proportion to the salaries paid to others also in the service. Those who are receiving, for instance, $250 a month or $220 a month, as compared with those who receive $150, are not called upon to discharge, nor do they discharge obligations a*t all commensurate with the difference between the two levels of salary.
Leaving that for the moment, we find that during the last two years, owing to the great pressure of depression upon the public purse, and owing to the difficulty of raising taxes beyond a certain measure, there has been, not only on the part of governments but by private enterprises, an effort to curtail and, by the practice of economies, to restore a balance between income and outgoings. 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 41761-36
under consideration by a conciliation board. In private enterprises throughout the country, apart from the great transportation companies, the same principle has been followed. The public service is called upon, therefore, to consider the conditions that now exist in the light of the treatment accorded by other employers to their employees, which has been governed not only by the economic necessities of the various enterprises to which I have referred but also by the fact that there has been a considerable reduction in the cost of living. The figures furnished by the Department of Labour indicate that at the present time the cost of living, as compared with 1926, is as follows: Food costs, a reduction of 30-4 per cent; fuel costs, a reduction of 5-8 per cent; rent, rs of 1 per cent; clothing, 23-6 per cent, and sundries, 2-2 per cent. Weighted, as is done by statisticians in an endeavour to arrive at an average comparable with other averages, the average given is 14-4 per cent; and so far as wages and salaries generally are concerned, the statisticians report that the average reduction throughout the country is approximately ten per cent, or perhaps a little more.
The proposals contained in this resolution contemplate a reduction of compensation awarded to the public service of ten per cent in the case of all those who receive upwards of $1,200 per annum, and inasmuch as under $1,200 a ten per cent reduction might effect some hardships, the state or the treasury is absorbing the five per cent for superannuation, leaving the net contribution made by the individual receiving $1,200 or less per annum five per cent of his annual salary. In other words, if he receives $1,200 per annum his contribution to the welfare of Canada will be $60 or $5 per month. That applies to all classes and all persons except the representatives of the crown, judges, and the members of the military, naval and air forces, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It will include all payments, regardless of designation. Some employees receive regular salaries plus various allowances payable either in cash or in kind. These additional payments may be designated as salaries or allowances, or other similar terms may be used; but if they form part of the remuneration attached to the office they will be subject to the ten per cent reduction. I may say that where living allowances are provided for, obviously the living allowance would not be included in the amount from which the ten per cent would be deducted. But where there is a sum added to another sum for the purpose of determining the amount upon which the superannuation
[Stage Direction]


Public Service-Salary Deduction
allowance is paid, then that will be the sum from which the ten per cent reduction will be made. In other words, everything that is received by the individual that might be classified as remuneration, compensation or salary, for the purpose of enabling the contribution to the superannuation fund to be determined, will be the sum or the amount from which the ten per cent will be deducted.
So far as the exceptions are concerned, the representatives of the crown in the various provinces are not subject to that deduction; and those of us who are familiar with the costs and expense involved by any Canadian who has accepted the office of lieutenant governor will agree, I think, that although he pays income tax upon that sum he has not-at least so far as I have been able to ascertain-[DOT] except in one province ever been able to succeed in maintaining the office on that sum or in fact on one very much larger. The judges are not included in this measure. It has been contended by legal authority, and an article in the last issue of the Law Quarterly Review goes into the matter rather fully, that it would be a breach of the statutory rights of judges to undertake to make a curtailment in their salaries in this way. There are, however, other methods by which the matter may be dealt with, and the government has not finally determined what action it may take in that regard. The ten per cent reduction will also apply to all those bodies or agents or trustees of the government that are discharging functions in the name of or for the government-for instance, the grain commissioners, the railway commissioners, the harbour commissioners. Obviously, however, there is no jurisdiction on the part of this administration or of any government to impose this reduction, if it is so called, upon the employees of the Canadian National Railways. They are dealt with by their own organizations-that is, the executive of the railway itself. But I should like to make it clear that the ten per cent reduction will apply in all other cases of employees of the public service, direct or indirect, with the exceptions I have just mentioned.
Superannuation benefits will not be affected. The contributors will make their contributions on the salaries received after deducting the ten per cent, and those retired will receive benefits based on the regular compensation rates before the reduction.
Charles A. Stewart: Will the Prime Minister please repeat that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contributors will pay contributions to the fund on the amount that they actually receive, being the present salary 
range less ten per cent, but they will receive benefits based on the regular compensation rates before the deduction. And, as I have already indicated, the superannuation contributions of persons whose remuneration does not exceed SI,200 will be paid from the consolidated revenue fund, thus relieving them of one-half of the deduction applying to the public service generally. There are, of course, many cases in which there may be what I shall call purely administrative difficulties. In the measure to be founded upon this resolution it is proposed that the treasury board may make regulations to meet any difficult cases which may arise in connection with the adjustments which will be incident to the application of a principle of this kind to so large a number of persons.
I will next point out the extent to which the revenue will be affected and what it will mean in the way of increased revenues to the dominion. It is estimated that about $83,000,000 will be the gross amount from which deductions will be made, and that there will accrue to the revenues approximately $8,-
300,000	by reason of this reduction. On January 18, 1932, we had 36,595 permanent employees and 6,058 on a temporary basis, making a total of 42,653 receiving salaries and wages amounting to $66,808,653.01. There are a large number of seasonal and casual employees not included in the list to which I have referred, receiving various rates of pay. These total about 1,820 computed on a permanent basis-the temporary basis fluctuating from day to day-and receiving remuneration amounting to $1,297,743.50, while the temporaries, as of January 18 last, received $7,374,847.21.


Mr. VENIOT:: What were the first figures given by the right hon. gentleman?


James Layton Ralston: Was not that figure of seven million included in the other figure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The $1,297,743.50 is received by 1,820 permanent employees, for the purpose of convenience classified as seasonal and casual employees; those who come and go received for the year, S7,374,847.21. This makes a total for 44,473 employees receiving $75,481,243.72. Then there are revenue postmasters totalling 12,300 in number who receive in round figures $6,000,000. The indemnities to senators amount to $384,000, and to members of the House of Commons, including compensation paid to ministers and to the leader of the opposition, $990,000. The in-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
cidentals in connection with the printing bureau and matters of that kind amount to approximately 8873,000. The grand total is 57,565 employees receiving 883,728,000.


William Daum Euler: Are the rural mail contractors included in that list?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Mr. POWER:: Are the labourers receiving
prevailing rates included in that list?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not included
in the figures I have given. The total number of employees which I have just given is estimated by the departmental officials to be somewhat lower than what should be estimated. In 1930 a return was prepared with much care for the Beatty commission, and this gave the total number as 64,946. After making allowances for duplications and staff reductions, the departmental officials estimate the present total to be upwards of
62,000,	receiving something over $83,000,000. The future of these employees has been taken care of by the provisions of the old superannuation act, the new superannuation act and the retirement act, with which this house is more or less familiar.
The general attitude of the civil service of this country as manifested by the official representations made to-day to the government and by communications received from all parts of Canada, indicates a sharp division of opinion. The official representations made to-day probably have been seen by hon. members, but every mail brings, not only to myself but to all members of the government, communications from men and women indicating a willingness, nay a desire to make some contribution in this time of stress to the country which has .protected and supported them and in which they have found such ample opportunity for self-expression and development. It has been marvellous to read some of the communications which have been received. It wrouId not be right or fair to indicate the names of the persons who have so communicated with the government, but some of these communications are so striking as to warrant their being referred to. One woman gave a. striking example of what I might call the attitude of the average Canadian employee to the problem of the maintenance of this country's position and its integrity financially. She says:
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 *nd 41761-36i
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 lean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the right hon. gentleman be kind enough to give the name of the writer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said distinctly that I
would not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is unparliamentary to read a communication without giving the name of the writer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask Your
Honour to rule on that question, whether or not it is unparliamentary for a communication to be read in the house without giving the name of the writer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not, unless it is a
public document.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The application of that rule has been insisted upon many times by the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a public document.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has indicated the distinction; the document quoted was a private and not a public document, and the name of the writer need not be given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it to be
understood that hon. members are to be free to read communications in the house without giving the names of the writers? I have always understood that that is one rule to be held inviolate-I know it has been so applied to myself-that no communication should be read without giving the name of the author.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice has been to
withhold the name of a person making a private communication.


Ernest Lapointe: Never.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not a
private communication; if it is, it should not be read in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If a private communication is addressed to me and I have the leave of the author to read from it, I assume I have the right to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: It becomes public when read.
564	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Where did the right hon. gentleman get that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the hon. member
read the report of the Liberal meeting the other evening in Ottawa?


Mr. BRADETTE:: The right hon. gentleman must have read about it in Brockville.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to the
Liberal meeting held here and addressed by members of this house during the past week. If the report is erroneous, I am sure the hon. gentleman will be only too glad to deny its accuracy. I am merely pointing out that, despite that, I believe the great body of opinion of the civil service leans to the view that this is not an unreasonable contribution to make under present conditions, nor will it lie within the mouths of those who oppose this measure to charge that there has been reckless expenditure of public moneys, for whatever else may be said, every department of the public service up to this moment has lived well within the estimates voted at the last session, which were substantially less than the estimates of the previous year which were not prepared by the present administration. What is more, I think it will be found as the session progresses that there has been a real and vigorous effort to effect economies in the public service, and if these economies are not popular and do not conduce to the popularity of the administration, we conceive our duty to be far greater than that which is involved in the popularity of a government. From day to day, week to week and month to month we have continued to discharge the duties which devolve upon us, endeavouring not only to maintain the economic structure of this country and its credit, but to enable it to meet its obligations in every part of the world in the terms of the contracts creating them.
In addition to that we have been called upon to support, financially and otherwise, the western provinces of this confederation so that, despite the extraordinary depression through which they are passing and the difficulties they have to encounter, their credit may be maintained. Now, at the very threshold of a new year, so far as crops are concerned, we are confronted with the request that not thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars be provided, but that millions of dollars be provided to enable the husbandmen between the lakes and the mountains again to sow their seed, trusting to the harvest which, for the last three years, has not resulted from their efforts. These are the difficulties under which we live; these are the difficulties under which we carry on. And we believe that when there is an understanding-as there will be- as to just what the situation is, hon. gentlemen who sit apposite will not be proud of any opposition they have urged against efforts made to provide, by methods indicated, a contribution to the welfare of this country to maintain its integrity and existence as a dominion in a time of the greatest stress through which the ship of state has laboured.
We believe that, and we are content to leave the issue with those who ultimately are to decide it. We have gone forward and discharged an unpleasant task, an unhappy task. We realized the responsibilities placed upon us because of conditions which are now worldwide, and are known by every thoughtful man to be universal, that are not measured in terms of what took place in 1929, 1930 or any other year, conditions the like of which have never been known to the mind of men. Realizing all that, we have endeavoured, Mr. Speaker, to the best of our ability, to provide that there shall be a balanced budget brought about by economies and by the utmost care in the public estimates, there being reductions in them such as this house has never witnessed before, and to which we hope to give effect. The taxation we 'believe will not be so unreasonable as to shatter the hope and courage of the Canadian people, because there is a limit to what a new people in a new country numbering only about 10,000,000 can stand.
Realizing all these considerations, we submit this resolution to the house in the earnest hope that it may be considered fairly, free from prejudice or any efforts directed towards political advantage, seeing in it what it really is-a measure for the purpose of adding to the revenue of this country without doing hardship to any person. We have felt that a class which has received protection and security through all the years should make a definite contribution to the revenues of Canada, and I feel certain, as I said to the representatives at the meeting this morning, that as they do it gladly, when these dark clouds have passed away and this time is forgotten, they will look back with pleasurable pride upon the contribution they have made to the prosperity of the country they love so well.
566	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have again to refer to the opposition being taken unawares with respect to measures brought up for discussion. At the time of adjournment last night when the business of to-day was mentioned by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who was the acting leader in the house at the time, he spoke as follows:
The procedure to-morrow will depend on the health of the Minister Qf Finance (Mr. Rhodes). If he is able to attend, we will take up the resolution standing in his name; if not, I fancy it will be postponed.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that from that statement there was reason to believe that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was not in his seat to-day -the measure now before us would not be proceeded with. I remember at the time one of my colleagues remarked to me that it was somewhat extraordinary that the Prime Minister himself had not indicated he would take up this measure, in the event of the Minister of Finance not being in his place. In previous sessions he was not reluctant to assume most of the work of toe ministry, and we were somewhat surprised that the Minister of Justice had not said that, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister would take up the measure; it is the more surprising this was not said if such was the intention. I can only say that this is another illustration of the way hon. members opposite seek to treat this side of the house, so far as the discussion of public measures is concerned. In tihe long run I do not think anything will be gained, 'but I would say to hon. gentlemen opposite that in the matter of cooperation in toe work of parliament they are setting an example which unless they change toeir ways very materially they may some day live to regret.
Mr. Speaker, I am not at this time rising to oppose the principle of this resolution-the principle, broadly stated, being that in a time of great stress throughout the country when men and women in all walks of life are making sacrifices, the .public service of Canada should along with others be prepared to make some sacrifice. I believe our public service in Canada is just as public spirited as any service in the world; in fact, I would not go to England for an example of public spiritedness by public servants. I think our service is quite prepared to do its part to meet any emergency, and I am sure they have shown time and again that they are prepared to do so with a glad heart. There will be however a number of questions which

will come up for consideration when the resolution is in committee, and we shall reserve discussion until the bill is introduced.
The Prime Minister himself foresaw one of the obvious criticisms certain to be directed against a measure involving an all-round reduction in the public service, when he spoke of the possible mention of reckless extravagance and expenditures on the part of the present administration. He said it would not do for anyone to raise that question. This afternoon, I am not going to dwell upon toe point, but I do not hesitate to say that if toe Prime Minister had been less lavish in bis promises during the election campaign; and had since he has been in office refrained from doing some of the things which we on this side of the house pleaded with him not to do, there would have been no necessity to take this particular step to help meet toe existing situation.
I need not remind the house that, time and again during the debates last session when the ministry was introducing measures in the nature of grants to the provinces, grants in aid for sundry purposes, we on this side of the house stated most emphatically our view that under existing conditions such grants were not justified. We said the ministry would be pursuing a wiser course if it refrained from adding to the obligations of the federal treasury until such time as the budget could be balanced. One has only to look over the records to see the extent to which obligations and undertakings of one kind or another have been entered upon by hon. gentlemen opposite in their dealings with provinces, municipalities and in other ways to appreciate the fact that if the government had been as circumspect last year, as it is becoming this year, the public service of Canada might not to-day be facing such extensive reductions as those now outlined.
I am somewhat surprised that my right hon. friend wished to bring on this resolution this afternoon in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), particularly in view of the fact that it 'was only this morning he and some of his colleagues were waited upon by a deputation representative of the civil service of Canada. I assume the deputation was received about eleven o'clock in the morning and that its representation lasted for some little time. Now, one thing is perfectly clear, the Minister of Finance who has this measure in hand has not yet become cognizant of what those representations were or had any chance whatsoever to consider them.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to advise
my right hon. friend that a memorandum of the representations was sent to us some days ago-to the Finance Minister as well as to myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says a memorandum was sent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What they did to-day
was to read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to go into the question of whether or not the Minister of Finance has been in council since the memorandum was received. I believe if that question were pressed we should find that since receiving the memorandum he has not been in council, nor had any opportunity to discuss with his colleagues any of the representations made. However, it is quite clear that so far as the delegation of this morning is concerned the government's mind was made up before the delegation itself appeared. I feel sure as well that not only had the bill been drafted but that it was printed before the delegation waited on the government.
I should like to take very strong exception to what the Prime Minister said about the making of political capital out of this measure. It does strike me as an extraordinary method of introducing a public measure-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -for the Prime Minister of Canada to begin a discussion on a great question like this by raising the cry of political capital. May I say that so far as I have heard any expressions of opinion from this side they have been very restrained, and to the extent to which anything has been said it has indicated that in the view of the opposition there was a very strong reason why at least those who are enjoying high salaries and are in a (position to make a contribution to the state should be given an opportunity so to do. I have not heard one word in this house to indicate that in any way the opposition were opposing the broad principle of some contribution being made to the public treasury by those in the public service. What we have been concerned about, and what the public service is concerned about, is the justice of the particular contribution which is to be made. As I gather from the resolution, the purpose of the government is to make a horizontal cut. I believe-and I think the view is shared by all hon. members on this side of the house-that something in the nature of a graded contribution having regard to the salaries received, would be more equitable and
more just. It is from that point of view, and that point of view alone, that we intend to criticize the government on the measure which it is now introducing.
Speaking here the other day, I said that so far as members of parliament were concerned, and so far as I myself as leader of the opposition was concerned, I thought it was quite right that along with the ministers all of us should, as the representatives of the people in this parliament, make a contribution that would 'be helpful in relieving the present very serious situation throughout the country. I would extend that to all those who are in high places.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has mentioned a list of persons-lieutenant-governors, judges, members of the naval and military forces, the mounted police and others, who will be exempted from this proposed horizontal cut. I shall wait until we get into committee to discover on just what basis these exemptions have been made, but I should like to say at once that, speaking of lieutenant-governors, His Excellency the Governor General has set a noble example-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -by making
clear what the one who is in the highest office of state is prepared to do. With regard to the government houses throughout the dominion, I would say during a time like this it might be well to close them up altogether six months of the year. I see no reason why their social functions should be kept up at this time. When people are finding it as hard as they are to-day to make ends meet, and to get a bare living, it but adds to the bitterness and poignancy of their distress to read accounts of elaborate social functions carried on in government houses when in such quarters economy might very well be practised. I do submit that all of those in high places owe it to the country generally at a time like this to share in this contribution. There is such a thing as noblesse oblige. My right hon. friend keeps referring to the old country. A tradition has come to this land from the old country of noblesse oblige, and I am inclined to believe that the people of Canada as well as the people of Great Britain will be measuring what there may be of noblesse oblige on the part of those in high places by the extent to which at a time like this they are prepared to make sacrifices.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
My right hon. friend was not wholly clear, at least at the beginning of his speech as to the purpose of this resolution. My right hon. friend started in by saying that the public service was over-manned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear." Now, assuming that that is true, are we to understand that this is a measure for cutting down the public service of Canada? Because if it is it is a very different measure from what I have understood it to be up to the present time. I have regarded this as a measure for a percentage deduction from the existing salaries of those in the public service; I have not regarded it as a measure to lessen the total number of persons in the public service. I do not say that an investigation to that end might not be very profitably held and economies effected where it may be possible, but I do take exception to having the public assume from the words of the Prime Minister that he at the present time under this measure is trying to reduce the public service, when as a matter of fact so far as the measure itself extends it will not reduce the size of the service by a single individual.
My right hon. friend spoke of some salaries being out of all proportion to the work or service being rendered in some positions in comparison with the work or service being rendered in other positions. That may be perfectly true, but I do not understand this measure to be one having to do with any readjustment of salaries. It has nothing whatever to do with that, and I do not see why my right hon. friend in his remarks should seek to convey to the country an impression that his government is dealing with that particular matter in this particular resolution. Because they are not doing anything of the kind.
My right hon. friend also spoke of the economies which are being sought to be effected in the public service. Are we to understand that this is a measure for effecting in the public service, economies which will continue through the years, or is it, as it purports to be and what my right hon. friend in his concluding remarks said it was, a measure to occasion a deduction of a portion of the salaries for one year only? If it is a measure to effect economy in the public service, that would imply that these salaries are being reduced with a view to having them permanently maintained at a lower level. I say the ministry in that regard cannot be too emphatic or too clear in making its exact position known.

I gathered from the concluding remarks of my right hon. friend that it is not intended by this measure to bring about in any way a permanent reduction in the level of salaries throughout the public service; I take that from his statement that this measure would have effect only until March 31 of next year. The Prime Minister says it will have no vigour of life beyond that date. Again I should like to accept the Prime Minister's word, but I am not too sure of what may happen at the end of that time, and I refer to it at this moment in order that there may be some record of this aspect having been considered at this time. I speak as I do because on this very order paper of to-day there is notice of motion that on Monday next we consider the amending of an act passed last year so as to extend its provisions from the month of March to the month of May of this year. When the measure to which I have just referred was before parliament last year we were told in very plain language that it would expire on March 1 of this year; at that time the Prime Minister was quite emphatic that the provisions of the measure would not apply beyond that date. He stated that parliament would be in session when March came around and there would be no need for extending the measure beyond that time. So I say, with that motion on the order paper, indicating a position diametrically opposite to that which my right hon. friend took at the time of the introduction of the measure, we must be particuarly cautious in accepting my right hon. friend's words as to the length of time for which the present measure will be in force. However, I do accept them, and I hope my right hon. friend will see to it that what he has said in that regard will be given full value and effect when the time comes.
I do not wish at the present time to begin a debate on this measure. I think I have made it clear that to the broad principle of a deduction from public salaries to help meet existing conditions we of the opposition are taking no exception, but we will wish to examine very critically the effect of a horizontal cut of ten per cent, especially where it is applicable to those who are receiving small salaries and to whom it must mean much more in the way of sacrifice than to those who have higher incomes. The ten per cent cut, to a man who has an income above a certain amount, does not mean anything in the way of actual sacrifice; its effect may be shown in his accounts, but in actual privation it means nothing whatever. On the other hand,

Public Service-Salary Deduction
as respects salaries, of a limited size, a ten per cent cut is a very substantial contribution to make, and where people are living on salaries which simply provide them with a livelihood at the minimum standard of living it means a very great sacrifice. So far as families thus situated are concerned, while they may have escaped debt heretofore, because of this reduction they may get into debt immediately; where they have found it possible to contribute to the education of children, that education may have to be foregone, and so on. I need not enlarge upon the point of which these are only illustrations; I am just indicating the point of view from which we on this side of the house feel this measure ought to be considered. We believe that in considering a deduction of this kind regard should be had to the size of the salary and to the existing standard of living, particularly the minimum standard.
I do not wish to continue at greater length, but there is one further thing I feel compelled to say. It is this: If the salaries of civil servants are to be cut because of necessary retrenchments all along the line, and if non-essentials are to be avoided, I think we might well forego immediately the carrying on of some of the investigations that are being held at the public expense in order to satisfy some feeling of wounded pride, or some other sentiment, or feeling on the part of the Prime Minister. According to his own words the right hon. gentleman would have the country believe that the ministry is setting the country a very noble example. I say to him that the inquiry into the Gordon charges, so-called, is just beginning; it is going to mean a very considerable waste of public money; it is going to involve the printing of evidence in English and French; it is going to involve the bringing here of witnesses and we do not know how much in the way of time of stenographers and others engaged upon the work of that particular committee. It is going to occasion debate which will involve further additional expenditure. I say to the Prime Minister, in the matter of examples, let him begin with himself and eliminate that item of expense. Let him see if what will be thereby saved, cannot go to some of those in the publice service whom it would be possible to benefit if that amount were not taken out of the treasury.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
do not suppose the government will expect much sympathy from the Labour group in connection with the resolution now before the house. We object very strenuously to the
proposed cut, particularly as it affects the lower grades employed by the government. Not only do we object to the cut in salaries itself; we also object strenuously to the method adopted in order to bring about these adjustments. We feel that the government took a most arbitrary method of bringing these reductions into force; we feel that if the government proposed to reduce the salaries of civil servants this should have been done as good employers throughout the country usually do it, that is, by entering into negotiations with the employees and trying to arrive at an amicable adjustment of any differences that might arise. I believe the principle of collective bargaining has become so prevalent that the government at this stage should have set the example by following the practice, instead of saying, "You can take it or leave it."
That action is setting a bad example throughout the country. In addition, I am afraid this reduction will have many consequences which I fear the government as yet do not fully realize. I should like to point out one or two facts in that connection. At the present there are a large number of employers of labour who have agreements with their employees, and in some cases these agreements also cover men who are employed by the government. The men who are employed by the government and who may belong to a union will have their wages reduced by ten per cent. Other employers may not reduce their wages, and consequently we will have one set of government workers receiving ten per cent less in wages than another set of workers employed by a private concern. In that way I am afraid this reduction will create a tremendous amount of confusion in many parts of the country. I do not believe the government realized this when the cuts were proposed.
I feel sure that when the government decided to make this salary adjustment they had certain ideas and a certain objective. I have to look at this from a somewhat different angle than from the government's point of view. If the government intends to stabilize conditions in this country then I claim that their action in reducing wages by ten per cent will have the very opposite effect, because the more you reduce wages, the more you reduce the purchasing power of the people, the worse conditions will become. In other words, it is only accelerating the process of what is commonly termed the vicious circle. If the government really wanted to stabilize conditions in Canada one method they could have adopted would have been an increase in


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the hon. member tell the house what percentage of Canadian bonds are held by Canadians? In order to help him
to answer I will tell him that of the bonds of the Canadian National Railways, two-thirds are payable outside of Canada, principally in New York.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I thank the hon. gentleman for the information, but I was referring to bonds held internally. I referred to the sum of $135,000,000 as being approximately the amount paid in interest charges on federal obligations, and I stated that with a reduction of 22i per cent, as was undertaken by the Australian government, a saving could be had of approximately $20,000,000. This percentage of reduction applied to the total amount would give a saving of approximately $30,000,000.
I allowed for two-thirds of the bonds being held within Canada, buit I believe the exact percentage is somewhat higher. Speaking in Ottawa some time ago Sir Joseph Flavelle gave a figure considerably in excess of that given by myself. I understand quite well that we could not attempt any reduction in the case of bonds held externally, and I omitted' any reference to such indebtedness.
I was referring to 'the protection given to the bondholders while practically no protection is given to the people who work for low wages. The Prime Minister referred to a ten per cent reduction in the cost of living as is shown by the figures of the Bureau of Statistics, but I should have liked him to go to the same source of information to find out what it costs a family of five to live in ordinary decency. The figures submitted at various investigations which have been held from time to time go to show that there is no justification to cut any salary below $1,800 per year. That is the minimum figure given by statisticians which will permit a family of five to live in ordinary decency and comfort. When wages are cut below a certain level standards of living have to be reduced.
If the government had submitted a measure to exempt from this reduction those receiving salaries of $2,000 per year and less, no doubt the opposition to such a proposal would not have 'been as strenuous as it is likely to be to this particular measure; if the Prime Minister had come to the house with a proposal to ask all the people of this country, including the bondholders, the bankers and the financiers, to make some sacrifice, then some of the objections might have been cut away from under our feet, but when he comes to the house with a proposal whereby those employed by the government and earning $100 per month or less are to be cut five per cent, and all those earning over $100 per month, ten per cent, then I say there is no justification

Public Service-Salary Deduction
for such action. While the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has taken the stand that he would be in favour of graded reductions, I take the stand that until the government has asked a sacrifice on the part of those able to bear it I am opposed to any effort to reduce the salaries of the employees of the government.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have no criticism to offer of the government's action in suggesting a reduction in the salaries of civil servants, and of all others in the public service, and in the indemnities of members of the House of Commons and the Senate. I believe that the average member of parliament represents people whose incomes have been cut from ten per cent to as high as seventy-five per cent or in some cases one hundred per cent; indeed, there have been instances where the total income of people has been eliminated. I believe the majority of the civil service appreciates the fact that some reduction is necessary, but I think it might be made on a more equitable basis; there should be a larger reduction at the top and a more modest reduction at the bottom.
I protest against the exemption of the members of the judiciary from this contribution to the public service. We have in Canada the following judges receiving the salaries indicated:
1		 $15,000
6	 12,000
18	 10.000
113	 9,000
2		 8,000
3	 7,000
133	 5,000
I hesitate to think that the members of the judiciary are lacking in that devotion to public service and patriotism and love of country so necessary in a time like this, and I contend that the government should call upon these men to make a corresponding sacrifice. I do. appeal to the Prime Minister to change the policy in this regard and to call upon the members of the judiciary and some of the highly paid members of the military forces to make similar contributions. His Excellency the Governor General has seen fit voluntarily to hand back $5,000 of his salary to the public treasury. Surely the comfortably situated and highly paid members of the judiciary are not going to stand by and collect all their salaries while these other contributions are being made. I therefore, appeal to the government to change their policy in this regard and to ask these men to make a similar contribution.
IMr. Heaps.]


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few
words in connection with this resolution. To one who has always been in the ranks of the working class to object to wage reductions is nothing new; as a matter of fact, we have always had to do this regardless of whether times were good or bad. Times were never so good that our masters could afford to give us an increase in wages unless we were able to take it. For that reason, talking against a proposed reduction in wages has possibly become a habit with us. I am not however apologizing for the habit if it shows itself at this particular time. We do not altogether ofeject to a reduction in wages for civil servants. Speaking personally, I have no objection to the reduction in the indemnity of members of parliament, because I realize that we receive very much more than the average person we represent and really I do not think it is a good policy that the representative should have a much higher standard of living or enjoy greater comforts than those he represents. There are many reasons for that.
In opposing the civil service salary cut, we believe possibly no great hardship will be incurred by those who are receiving high salaries, but when we come to those lower paid people, we realize that they cannot accept a cut without a reduction in their standard of living. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), speaking to this resolution, read from one of several letters which he had received stating that this cut was welcomed by many. I have also received numerous letters, just as I presume other members have, and I shall read excerpts from one. This man writes to ask me to use my "voice, vote and influence against a cut in our already low salaries." He says:
For your information I may state that I am employed at certain work at $80 a month. Five per cent of that salary is deducted for sunei'-annuation.
I understand that this ball is going to take care of that, nevertheless ithe ten per cent cut will take place. He goes on to state how some of this already low salary is used. He says:
Five dollars a month for car fare, rent $20 a month, association dues and insurance $1 75 a month leaving us less than $48 a month for tood, clothing, church and lodge dues and other things.
Then he goes on to say:
We are not living very high even now. The work wre do attending sick men requires special

, Public Service-Salary Deduction
training, also demands that we live clean, respectable private lives, so that a 10 per cent cut will put us down to pork and beans and possibly beans without the pork.
This is the situation, so far as all these lower paid civil servants are Concerned. As I said before, for those who are receiving
S3.000	or $4,000 a year, a out of ten per cent will not mean very much; it will -mean they will have to cut out some slight luxuries; but for those 'lower paid people it will mean they will have to reduce in regard to various essentials of living, and this in a country where we have too much of everything so that we do not know what to do with it.
I should like to point out that when the speech from the throne was read, we were told that conditions in this country were improving. I hope we are not going to get a reduction in salaries or wages, which means a reduction in our standard of living, every time conditions in the country improve. It was also mentioned that all government employees do not come within the scope of this reduction. As those who have spoken before me have pointed out, in this class there are the judges, the mounted police, the military and naval officers and possibly their staffs. It seems to me rather strange; in fact, there is something sinister in the fact that judges, police and military and naval officers should be exempted at a time like this. Is it not just possible that with the ever-decreasing standard of living, with the ever-increasing hardships on the masses of the people, the government had in mind that they would not take kindly to it and it was decided it was necessary to have satisfied judges, satisfied police and satisfied military and naval officers to take care of the situation? Nothing else can be read into this, so far as I am concerned. This man in the letter which I have just read indicates the manner in which this situation has been received by many people.
I have not the figures for the income 'tax returns for 1931, but I have them from the Canada Year Book for 1929 and 1930. I notice that the number of those receiving incomes of from $30,000 to $50,000 increased from 847 in 1929 to 1,016 in 1930, an increase of over forty-three per cent. I wonder if the Prime Minister had any communications from those people saying that they were willing to sacrifice, in these times of distress, some of their enormous incomes. Not only did the number of those who were receiving $30,000 to $50,000 increase, but the number of those receiving $50,000 increased from 523 in 1929 to 603 in 1930.
I do not wish to take up -the time of the house. I just want to add my protest at this time as I realize many others will wish to speak on this question, but I protest against the reduction in the wages and salaries of those who are at ;tihe present time, as the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has stated, receiving $1,800 'or less per annum.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on some occasions it might have been sufficient if one member from this corner or from the Labour group should have spoken, but on an important matter of this kind I feel every one of us ought to protest to the utmost against any such action on the part of the government. No other proposal brought down by the government quite so fully illustrates the class nature of the government of this country as does this one to cut the civil service salaries as now proposed. It is only the other day that in Great Britain Lord Marley made this statement:
We have got a bankers' government carrying out a bankers' policy, to meet a bankers' crisis, caused by bankers' mismanagement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Lord Morley has been
dead a little over ten years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did I say he made the statement? Then I withdraw that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is that
statement not to be attributed to the younger Lord Morley who recently made a statement of just that character?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Lord Marley.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Lord Marley who
was the Minister of Air at one time. That is not Lord Morley.


Edward Joseph Garland: In any case the statement is true.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There seems to be some doubt as to which Lord Marley it is and just when the statement was made, but I am quoting from a review of last year's notable sayings as contained in The Observer, a prominent old country Sunday newspaper, a statement which was reproduced in the Western Producer. I presume therefore that this article before me covers what Lord Marley- not Lord Morley-uttered. It may be of interest to the Prime Minister to know tlfet in this clipping one of his own statements is quoted. Reference is made to the fact that the millionaire Prime Minister of Canada said, " I have always paid my income tax with pleasure."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.
574	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is correct, is
it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, we will presume Lord Marley's statement is correct, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I corrected the hon.
member by saying that Lord Morley died about ten years ago. Lord Marley is another gentleman, altogether.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was not talking
about Lord Morley.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the name you
first used.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I said "Lord
Marley."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member may
have intended to say that, but he certainly did not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Any hon. member
who has, as I have, read a great deal concerning Lord Morley, would not have referred to an utterance by Lord Morley made only last year. I am reading from the statement of Lord Marley, whom I do not know.
The statement before me was taken from a well known English newspaper. I do not think it is quite proper that the Prime Minister of Canada should try to discount my authority; fortunately however I have the clipping before me, and I shall refer to it- I do not care whether it was made by Lord Marley, or by someone else. I quote as follows:
We have got a bankers' government carrying out a bankers' policy, to meet a bankers' crisis, caused by bankers' mismanagement.
If that is true of any other country, I believe it is preeminently true to-day of Canada because, undoubtedly here the bankers have had a clear road. They have been given a free hand to carry out their policy; no one has interfered in any way. Under our Bank Act they were practically unrestrained, and under our Finance Act they could manipulate as they pleased; so if there is trouble it is their responsibility, and not that of the ordinary people. The present government and, I must confess, the former government also, in their financial policies took the word of the bankers. The ordinary people have not had any voice, and yet when we get into difficulties the ordinary people are made to suffer and the bankers go scotfree.
Previous speakers in this corner of the house have protested against cutting the salaries of those civil servants receiving small amounts. I think it would be well to put on

record the salaries received by some of these people. To give this information I quote from a statement prepared by the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada, and which, I have no doubt, was received by all members of parliament. It reads in part as follows:
The salary range of a grade 1 clerk is from $720-$ 1,020 per annum. An employee in this class, due to receive a statutory increase of $60 is first of all reduced by 10 per cent, or $72, then loses his $60 increase, a total reduction of nearly 17 per cent.
Canal lightkeepers whose range is $840-$1,200 per year are reduced by 10 per cent, then lose their increase of $60, making a total reduction of $144, or 16 per cent.
Customs clerks and examiners whose range is $1,200-$1,740 per annum are first reduced by 10 per cent, then lose their increase of $120, a total reduction of $240, or over 18 per cent.
Customs guards and truckmen whose range is $1,080-$!,500 per year are first reduced by 10 per cent, then lose their increase of $120, a total reduction of $228, or 19 per cent.
Cleaners and helpers whose range is $900-$1,140 per annum are first reduced by 10 per cent, then lose their increase of $60, making a total reduction of $156, or 15 per cent.
Postal helpers whose range is $1,020-$!.320 per year are first reduced by 10 per cent, then lose	their increase	of	$120,	making	a total
reduction of $222, or 19-5 per cent.
Letter carriers whose range is $1,080-$1.500 per annum are first reduced by 10 per cent, then lose	their increase	of	$120,	making	a total
reduction of $228, or 19 per cent.
Postal clerks whose range is $1,080-$1,740 are in the same circumstances as are letter carriers.
On the other hand, to indicate the range of salaries of the higher paid employees I should like to quote from a return given only a few days ago to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). This return shows that there are 805 employees of the government receiving salaries of S4,000 or over. The article which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Journal of February 25, is as follows:
The return showed the following in the various classes of $4,000 all over Canada: From $4,000 to $4,900. 537; from $5,000 to $5,900, 126; from $6,000 to $6,900, 72; from $7,000 to $7,900,22; from $8,000 to $8,900, 10; from $9,000 to $9,900, 14; from $10,000 to $10,900, 12; from $11,000 to $11,900, one; $12,000 and over, 11.
The return does not take into consideration in all classes of the $9,000 a year salary paid to 18 cabinet ministers and to the $13,500 paid the Prime Minister.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that to make a flat rate reduction of ten per cent is altogether unfair. The percentage one has to pay on his income is not so important as the amount rvhich is left for a man to enjoy after his taxes or reductions are paid. If the same percentage is taken from the lower paid employees the result is, as my colleagues have pointed out, a very great hardship. The Prime Minister pays his income tax with pleasure.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
He may accept his cut in salary and will not be worried in the slightest-not in the slightest. He will have plenty of pleasure left. Of course I know he derives his pleasure from his work, but if he took it in other ways there would still be opportunity, even with the amount allowed him by this government, to carry out a fairly normal and full life. That however is not true of the lower paid servants, and it is they we should keep in mind. The treatment accorded to them is manifestly unfair. I would suggest, as I did the other day, that we might very well cut down on some of the expenditures of cabinet ministers. Last year a discussion arose concerning the item of S2,000 per year for cabinet ministers' automobiles. It is very easy to follow the example of the merchants, namely to mark up your goods and then deduct a percentage. The result however is that the price of the goods, even after the deduction of the percentage, is higher than it was before the original alteration was made. It seems to me a similar practice has been in operation in some of our departments. Salaries have been marked up; now they are marked down, but the higher paid are very comfortable even after the marking down has taken place.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has suggested there should be no cut in any salary under SI,800, the amount upon which a family in Canada ought to be able to live decently and with the ordinary amenities of life. I won 1 d offer the suggestion however that there should be no cut in any salary under 81,500. In salaries ranging from 81,500 to 83,000 a cut of five per cent could be made; in my opinion that would not be too heavy; then from 83,000 to 84,000 an additional five per cent making a ten per cent cut. Then above 84.000 I would suggest that we might very well make an additional ten per cent cut on each additional 81,000 of salary. I am putting the figures in that way -they are arbitrary of course-because that would leave members of parliament who receive a S4.000 indemnity with their ten per cent cut. So I cannot be in any way accused of lessening the cut of hon. members. But if we made a graded cut along these lines, we would be bringing a little nearer something like equality of sacrifice, although even then if some of these men receiving 86,000, 88,000,
810,000	or 812,000 a year were subjected to a cut of sixty to eighty per cent they would still have a very great deal more left than the people whose salaries it is now proposed to reduce by ten per cent.
I would join with my colleagues in urging that we do not have any exemptions such as
are proposed. I would exempt lower paid employees, but I certainly would not exempt the classes it is proposed to exempt-judges, army and navy people and the mounted police. I cannot see any reason for exempting those classes. Take the salaries paid in the Department of National Defence. I have been in fairly close touch with the estimates as presented year by year, but I confess when the newspapers yesterday published the return I was almost staggered when I compared the salaries received by people in the Department of National Defence with those received by people in other departments, for example, agriculture and immigration. In the department of National Defence we have no fewer than one hundred and thirty-nine people receiving between $4,000 and $4,900; thirty people receiving between 85.000 and 85.900; fifteen people receiving between $6,000 and $6,900. I w'ould say that we have here an army of swivel-chair generals-that is about all you can call them. A returned officer called me up only yesterday in regard to this very matter. He said, "I am an ex-soldier, I know what it is to go to the front and all that it involves, but I want to protest against this kind of thing being perpetuated in this Canada of ours." The ordinary members of the militia force have been demobilized, but a great many of the officers have never been demobilized. What do they do? We all know the organization is a rather sketchy one, and it has been boasted that we have a very small force. Yes, we have a comparatively small force so far as privates are concerned, but we have a very large force of officers, and still more proportionately of higher officers. Before long these men are due for retirement, when their pensions will be based on the very high salaries they are now receiving. For the life of me I cannot see why in justice the salaries of these men should be untouched when poor postal workers and others doing constructive work throughout the country have to submit to this very, very heavy cut in their salaries.
I know it may be said that some of these salaries, those of judges and others, are statutory in character. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see why an act once passed by this house, sometimes under great pressure or influence, should be as the law of the Medes and Persians-unchangeable.


Edward James Young: Our indemnities are statutory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and they have been changed. These others are also statutory and might be changed just as readily.


Edward James Young: Are not they all statutory?
576	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was going to point that out. In a very real sense those who receive salaries as members of the civil service are in the same position as judges; their salaries are in a sense statutory, and their increases are statutory. Some of these civil servants, both high and low, gave themselves to the service of the country yearn ago; a great many of them have rendered faithful service; now, without any consultation, without their being given any chance in any way to make modifications, they are suddenly deprived of the right to their statutory increases and, in addition, have their salaries cut ten per cent. It seems to me if there is any idea of keeping contracts we are bound to keep contracts of this kind. I am not one of those who think a contract should be forever binding. It seems to me, with the variations which take place in our general social arrangements, and especially with the variations which have taken place in .recent years in the purchasing power of money, that all contracts should be subject to frequent revision; that is the only fair thing under the circumstances. But I cannot see the slightest reason why anyone should urge that the salaries of particular groups cannot be changed because they are statutory, while those of other groups may be changed ait will.
One of the most serious features about these cuts-and I have no doubt it is one of the reasons why they have been made-is the effect on employees outside the civil service. To no small extent this action by the government will be taken as an excuse for employers all over the country to reduce salaries. This is not merely an evil when looked at from the standpoint of the individual employee; more than that it is an aggravation of the disease with which we are now afflicted. The trouble to-day is the lack of purchasing power. I think the residents of the city of Ottawa are being taught a very salutary lesson in economics, because they are learning that this cut in the payroll means so many million dollars leas to the local shopkeepers. What is true in local matters is equally true right across the country. If we had an increase in public works, and in salary expenditure it would mean an increase in purchasing .power, and it might possibly start the wheels of industry moving again.
I know that looked at from the standpoint of the government in an effort to balance its budget something must be done, and I know the Prime Minister, looking at the matter from the standpoint of his own business, may say: Well, we have to slash; this is the only way we manage to balance our budget in our
[Mr. Youne.l
own private affairs, and we have to do it in our public affairs. I submit there is a fallacy in that statement that should be exposed. It is quite true that economy may be a good thing for .me as an individual. But it is equally true that economy practised by a government and on a wholesale scale is to-day a fatal thing, as is recognized by all the loading authorities on economics. A government at a time of crisis, of trade slackness, should stand behind any movement to increase the general purchasing power of the people, it should embark on public works and other undertakings to supplement what is being done by private individuals. That is the only way in which this private competitive system may continue to run, because under this system we 'have always had these slack periods, and if these slack periods are in any sense to be ironed out, it must be by a central government. But our government is doing precisely the same thing that every private employer is doing-cutting right and left. The economic effect will be disastrous.
But while we are cutting wages, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me wre ought to remember that there are what have been termed the "wages of capital." These are going scot free. As my colleague suggests, they are going sky high, for after all the decrease in dividends of the big concerns is not very marked. For instance, the decreased .percentage paid by the banks is not very substantial; they are keeping well up to their regular average. But it should be remembered also that to-day the purchasing power of the dollar is almost 'twice whait it was a few years ago. I do not think that most people have become quite seized of what that involves. We talk about a man with a $1,000 bond having the right to get his interest. It is said that that is guaranteed. Yes, but his interest on it at 5 or 6 per cent is worth to-day in its purchasing power almost twice what it was at the time the bond was issued.


Mr. MORAND:: Does not that apply to
labour also?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, certainly it
does not.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It is a funny thing if it
does not work both ways.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it does not.
There is a measure of truth, I concede, in what the hon. member says,-that is in so far as that the cost of living has gone down. I quite admit that.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: In direct proportion to
the value of the dollar.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Shaver Woodsworth: These things do
work both ways, but let me point out that while there has been a gradual coming down of the eost of living, it never has' dropped for the ordinary people, the working classes, anything like the way it has dropped for the bondholders.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: But surely in purchasing
power a dollar is worth the same to a bondholder as it is to a workingman.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, because there
are different things for which the workingman uses the dollar; there is the difference between wholesale and retail prices, and so on. But 'there is still another point which I do not think my hon. friend has considered. It has been impossible in the past for the workingmen to push up their wages quickly when the dollar was going up, so there always has been what the economist calls the time lag. Wages were pushed up very Slowly. There is an element of truth in the argument that to-day the man who is actually working is proportionately a little better off than he was a year or two ago, but a very large number of people are not working, or are working part time. Even under these relief arrangements men are working on short time, so that the annual income which the average worker is receiving to-day is below what it was a year or two ago.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: But you are discussing the question of the men who are working.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not of them alone; I am discussing the larger aspect. But I say that there are men all over this country, as the hon. gentleman who has interrupted knows perfectly well, who are working only three or four days a week, or six or eight months in the year, and in those cases the annual income has dropped. I think he will concede that. He comes from a constituency which contains a large working class.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I know that, but we are
discussing men who are working now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are discussing
the entire situation, I quite admit that there is something in the contention that the wages of the man who is working Ml time are worth more to-day than they were a year or two ago, and to that extent the objection is well taken. But I would point out, for the great majority of big concerns in this country capital is steadily at work. They have had their reserves in times of plenty; they have seen to that, and those reserves generally have been sufficient to tide them over the 41761-37
lean years, so capital has been receiving its return pretty regularly. I know that is not true in the case of the workingmen.
The situation is this: There are two ways of balancing a budget. One is by cutting down expenditures, whether on public works, salaries and wages, or something else, and the other is by putting an additional tax on those who are most able to pay it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Would it increase the purchasing power of the country if the income tax were increased, interest rates reduced, and so on?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, certainly it
would. Supposing our expenditures this year were the same as last year. That would mean that the employees who are being turned off to-day would be still in receipt of salaries; it would mean that the various public works would be proceeded with, and that much more purchasing power would be distributed.


Edward James Young: Where would this purchasing power come from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: For the moment I am speaking of the balancing of a budget, and I would repeat that there are two ways in which the Prime Minister could balance his budget. One is by cutting down; the other is by increasing the taxes on certain individuals who can pay. I am speaking now only of the balancing of the budget, and the Prime Minister has chosen the first method, that of cutting. He may be able to balance his budget in that way. I would suggest that there might have been another way of balancing it, and that is by a very heavily graded income tax, or a special tax on our bonds. There is no reason why we should not tax our bonds to-day.
Coming back to the consideration I advanced a few minutes ago, I would say that if we cut the value of the bonds in two it would not be unfair; that is, a man having a SI,000 bond could be given $500 in exchange; in view of the purchasing power of the dollar that would not be unfair. But altogether aside from the change in the value of the dollar I would say there is no valid reason why we should not put a tax of two per cent, three per cent or five per cent on our bonds, and if we did that it would enable us-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to ask the
hon. gentleman a question in order to be sure I followed him. Did I understand him to say that the man who had saved SI,000, took it out of the savings bank and bought a bond with it should be given a S500 bond in exchange, and that this would be just and right?

578	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the Prime Minister had been following my argument-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In any case I shall gladly go over it again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not that what my hon. friend said?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Going back for a
moment, this is what I said: [DOT] When a great many of these government bonds were issued the value of the dollar was very different from the value of the dollar to-day. I think the Prime Minister will admit that. So, that being the case, those bonds are worth roughly speaking twice as much to-day as they were at the time of issue. I think that is true also. Then I would say it would be no great hardship if the value of those bonds should be cut in two.
I would say this to the Prime Minister: There is no doubt that to do this would work considerable individual hardship, because possibly a man might have gone to a bank yesterday and bought a bond; so that in view of that possible hardship which might be involved in any scheme of that nature I think a better way would be an increased tax on income. That would be fairer all around.
Still another method might be adopted. I am not sure that I agree altogether with my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote), but I am inclined to think that a very considerable measure of inflation might be an even fairer thing than the income tax. Leaving aside the question of its ultimate economic effects, I think perhaps a measure of inflation would be the fairest way all round, since that would allow those people who have money to-day to get the real value of that money and not a fictitious value.
Let me come back for a moment to where I was when the Prime Minister interjected his question. It seems to me that to-day we should levy our taxes upon those who have money. They are enjoying their wealth because of privileges of some kind or another, and because of the protection of the state. It has been said that if we had not had the war we would have had no wealth in this country. Those people have enjoyed whatever benefit there has come from the war, though I believe it has been precious little. They are enjoying all the protection of ordered government; in a great many cases they are enjoying special legislation which has enabled them to make money. When it comes to a time like this why should they not be taxed?

I say that would be the only fair thing to do, tax them. So far, however, the Prime Minister has shown no indication of adopting such a course.
In one of the newspapers someone has figured out that by this proposal to reduce salaries the government will save between
87,000,000 and 38,000,000. This is not a very large amount when it is considered that in a great many cases it will result in much hardship. Someone has also suggested that a very small tax, even two per cent or three per cent, on bonds along the lines I have indicated would bring in something like $50,000,000. It would mean a great deal more than the saving effected by this proposed cut, but the Prime Minister refuses to take this way of balancing his budget. The situation is not unlike that which prevailed a few weeks ago in Great Britain, when it was stated that the only way to balance the budget was to make reductions in the unemployment insurance and in other directions.
I am hoping that from coast to coast across this country there will come a protest against the sort of treatment being accorded the common people of Canada.
As I said at the beginning, we have never had placed before us, legislation so clearly in the interest of a class as that brought down by the present government. The Prime Minister would object to individuals advocating what is called class war, setting one class against another, and I would suggest that actions such as this are doing far more to set one class against another than all the soap box speakers that could be stationed from Vancouver to Halifax.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Certainly, because
such legislation reveals what is really meant when there is talk of "equality of sacrifice," and that everyone should take his cut and keep smiling. We know that in reality such talk is the meanest kind of subterfuge to cover up inequality and to try to becloud the minds of ordinary honest people as to what is being done. I hope that even at this stage the house will take some steps to protest very decidedly against this sort of thing. I should hope that some members opposite, particularly those who come from working class constituencies, and who must realize what their own people are thinking about, will venture from their vantage ground to protest very vigorously-I would say, to the point of resigning rather than to acquiesce in a dictatorial policy of this kind being put over the country.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: At this stage of the prospective bill I shall have to reserve my remarks in regard to the details of the measure until the bill itself is before the house. All that appears before us is the resolution, and in my opinion, so far as it affects the civil service, it is utterly bad.
I make that statement without any reservation and I will give my reasons very shortly.
In the first place, you cannot possibly impose a straight flat rate of reduction like ten per cent, or any other percentage for that matter, on all civil servants regardless of whether they get SI ,000 or $20,000. It is utterly unfair; I have never heard of such a proposal either in war time or in peace time. Why impose it now? It is said that the ship of state is in danger. Well, are you going to cripple the crew numerically or degrade it in any way if you want to save the ship? Yet that is what is being done by this resolution at this critical time in the history of the country. Would not the government be better employed strengthening instead of weakening the civil service as they are doing in this proposed legislation?
I have another protest against the resolution and that is that it is intended as a mere sop to those of the civil service who receive salaries of less than $1,200 a year; it is-offered them as a means of making them satisfied with a ten per cent reduction. They are supposed to feel that it is all right because they will get half of it back. But do all of them get it back? From inquiries I have been able to make, inquiries not yet fully complete, about -two of them will get the five per cent back for every one who will suffer the full ten per cent reduction. The fact is, many are not eligible for the superannuation subsidy which is proposed in this resolution because they are not insured. Now, what is the sense of giving them something with one hand and taking it back with the other? Why not start off with a small cut and graduate the reduction as applying to the service generally? Instead of doing that the government are merely pretending to give with one hand while they are taking away with the other. I object to this most strenuously. As I say, it is merely a sop, a safety sop intended to save the face of the government in introducing a proposal for a straight flat reduction of ten per cent that cannot be defended by any body of representatives such as this.
May I refer to one class of men who will suffer very severely by this cut. I have in mind that class dealt with in the report of the Beatty commission. They are a class of
41761-37J
men for whom possibly, at this particular time, it is not popular to appeal, because they are getting fair salaries. Nevertheless for decades now the technical men in the civil service of Canada have been at a disadvantage; they have not received justice in the matter of salaries. During the years 1928 and 1929 we were losing many of them because government salaries were below those paid outside. It was therefore decided by the government of that day to appoint a commission to inquire into the merits of the question, and an interim report of that commission, the Beatty commission, was submitted, recommending an increase in the salaries of a certain number of these civil servants to go into force immediately. This went into instant effect-I refer to -the technical men in the research council. That branch of the government service was being newly organized by -the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), who was anxious to -have them paid such salaries as would attract the best qualified men in the country. *Consequently they got the increase recommended by the commission. Another large body was recommended for an increase, but for reasons which I need not go into, and because of the incompleteness of the investigations that have taken place since the present government came into pow-er, nothing further has been done so far as they are concerned. These are technical men who have been devoting their lives to the service of the country. Now, I ask, why reduce the morale of such a splendid and important branch of the civil service? These .men

I -believe there are about 2,500 of them-have not only had their proposed increase suspended during the last two years but now they are being asked to submit to a further cut, as though they had not suffered enough already.
This reduction is utterly unfair all along the line to -these classes I have mentioned. I do not like the whole thing a little bit; it is unjust and, so far as I know, entirely unheard of. But there is another aspect of the matter. If -the government intended to bring -about this reduction with the least possible upheaval in the country, why did they not treat the civil service just as -the railway employees were treated some two months ago? Those employees had the right to appear before certain -tribunals and have their -case argued by competent -men, and after discussing -the pros and cons they agreed to a -ten per cent cut. Have not the vast number of men and women employed by the government of the country a right to be
580	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
treated with equal justice and courtesy? Of all the civil service organizations in Canada, until to-day not one of them, so far as we learn from the newspaper reports, has been consulted or been encouraged to consult with the government. If this government realized the value of these organized bodies the first thing they would have thought of was consultation with them; they would have said, "Let us take counsel with these men who are being affected." The first thought that would have occurred to myself would have been this: What effect will this have on the state itself? Forgetting the civil service for the moment, can we afford at this time to weaken the ship of state by this action? And the next question I would have asked' myself would have been this: Should we not treat these competent public servants, who are vitally interested in the proposed reduction of their salaries, courteously by consulting with them? How oan this reduction be made to bear upon them with the least hardship? That is what the government would have asked itself if it had a heart at all, but it looks to me as if they have nothing but a gizzard where the heart should be, in dealing with 'the civil servants. Why could they not have put themselves in the places of these men and women whose salaries are being reduced? Take that body of men to whom I have referred, those civil servants for whom increases were recommended by the Beatty commission and who have been waiting patiently for the turn of the tide which would justify their receiving those increases. What is their position? Insult has been added to injury, by withholding the statutory increases and, on top of that, to impose this ten per cent reduction. I feel sure that if 'they had been brought into the councils of the government and had talked the matter over with them, as human beings had a right to expect, the whole question could have been amicably settled, and the government itself would not have been placed in such an objectionable and invidious position as it is to-day, trying to defend this flat rate cut which is entirely indefensible even with the five per cent sop, because it does not apply to at least one-third' of those who receive salaries under SI,200 and to none at all over that amount. This superannuation proposition I repeat does not mean a thing to that vast 'body of civil servants receiving over $1,200 per year.
There does not seem to be a redeeming feature in this resolution, and if the bill is as bad as the resolution, I intend to oppose it, even though I stand alone. If the bill is 
anything like its forerunner, a great injustice will be inflicted upon the civil service of Canada.
I think I have said enough to indicate that I do not approve of the manner in which this cut is being made, and I do not think there is one hon. member who really believes in the flat rate of ten per cent, whether the salary received is $1,000 or $20,000. I had the opportunity the other day of meeting some of the letter carriers, and they tell me that rents in Ottawa have not gone down. I hold no particular brief for these men, but I happen to know some of them. My own experience in Ottawa is to the same effect as to rents, and I think this fact is confirmed by the figures given to-day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). The price of cheap clothing has been reduced slightly, but taxes have not gone down.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Butter has gone down.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, butter and
other farm products have gone down, but that does not compensate these men for the loss of their salary ranges.
It seems to me that this government has a wonderful faculty of going about a thing in the wrong way. Take the conference in London, it went at that hind end foremost. Take the proposed reduction in the income tax schedules last session; there again they blundered so badly that they were forced to back away so quickly from themselves as to wear out their breeching straps. If it was not for pride, they would also, I believe, back away from the stand they take on this flat rate salary cut.
The Prime Minister apparently enjoyed seeing his name on the cheques which went out to the farmers in payment of the five cent bonus on wheat, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is going to enjoy seeing his name on these superannuation cheques-I fancy not.
Mr. E. R.. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):	Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the house at this stage, but will wait until the bill is presented for second reading. I should like however to appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to reconsider this matter before the bill is introduced and endeavour to mete out some measure of justice in the application of its provision. Namely some grading in the deductions. Before taking any further part in the discussion, I should like an opportunity of reading the memorandum which has been submitted to the Prime Minister by the civil service. I had nothing to do with the prepara-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
tion of this document; I have not seen anyone who was directly or indirectly connected with its preparation; and I saw it for the first time when a copy was handed to me this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I am sure the terms of this memorandum must be quite fair and I should think the Prime Minister and the government ought to consider the representations made before introducing the bill with a view of more equitably dividing the burden. I speak dispassionately in the matter as I have in all others, and it is with the utmost sincerity that I ask the Prime Minister to give to the representations submitted to him to-day the most humane consideration.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a
few observations on the resolution before the house-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would point out to
the hon. member that the resolution itself is not before the house; the motion is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee to consider the resolution.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well then, on whatever
is before the house. I will deal first with the remarks made this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He tells us in an informative way that there is a sharp division of public opinion in regard to the policy of the government on this matter. I believe the right hon. gentleman is right in making that statement as I have no doubt there would be a sharp division of public opinion if this action had been taken in the days of prosperity rather than to-day. In order to clinch his aigument the right hon. gentleman read a letter, but I fail to see why he should read only one letter. If any conclusion is to be based upon the letters received by the government, we should have them all.
So far as the policy of the government in making this ten per cent cut is concerned, I believe I am voicing the sentiments of hon. members on both sides of the house when I say that the membership of this house is quite willing to accept the cut. We stand on solid ground in that respect, but I believe the government has started in the wrong way- it has started to work from the bottom up rather than from the top down. That is the usual action of the present government, it does things in a wrong way. We have been told that there are three qualities in every
human individual, that he is a kind of triangle, as it were. First, he has intellect which gives him vision and enables him to have some objective in life; second, he has sentiment to give him a little fire and a little sympathy and, third, he has an executive side to his nature which enables him to work out his objective in life.


Frederick George Sanderson: What about vanity?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member asks
me what about the vanity of the individual. I would say there is a goodly display of that at times in this chamber. In this instance, it appears to me that the government has the wrong objective and there does not appear to be any sentiment, any fire or any sympathy in the makeup of the government, or it would not have done what it has done. As far as an effort to attain something is concerned, they are leaning upon the civil service for help in the working out of their policy.
Instead of cutting the salaries of civil servants by ten per cent; instead of dealing with men who have not a living wage; instead of handling in anything but a sympathetic way men who are receiving $1,500 or $1,600 or $2,000 a year, why not, when you are going out gunning, go after the millionaires and the multimillionaires? Why not have a capital levy in this country if we need $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 to balance the budget as we do? I think the Canadian people realize why we need money to balance the budget to-day. The reason is that the fiscal policy of the present administration has been a bungle; that we are in the hole financially and that we must now ask the civil servants to come through with a cut of ten per cent to help balance the budget by giving a total of $8,000,000 or $10,000,000. Why not go after the millionaires who have unproductive capital, who are not using this money in a productive way, and get your $10,000,000 or $20,000,000 or $100,000,000? Why not go out after the big fellows who have the money and who are not using it to build up Canada as they might, rather than after the men who are receiving a small salary, who have not had their statutory increases during the last year and who have on their hands obligations which they must meet? I would think there is an avenue there along which we might profitably go in order to get all the money we want. More than that, we would be asking the men who can pay to put up their money. If the men who have their money in unproductive channels to-day and who love Canada and are patriotic
Marriage and Divorce Act

will not come forward and put up their money, why demand of the civil servants to be so wonderfully patriotic? If they are patriotic in this respect, should we not look for greater patriotism from those in high circles? I should think we would.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister tells us that to save the economic structure of Canada we must have a ten per cent cut in the salaries of civil servants over $1,200 a year. I do not think so. I think the economic structure of Canada would be just as strong without this ten per cent cut as with it. Moreover, I believe there are other ways of strengthening our economic structure. One weakness in our economic structure to-day is that we have a wrong tariff policy. I believe we have a tariff policy that has helped to make the world condition what it is. There is no use in trying to save the government of the day by talking about world conditions. It cannot be done, because the government of Canada for the last two years has been helping to make those world conditions-to make them what they actually are. One w.ay to strengthen the economic structure of Canada would be to put into effect a brand new tariff policy, to remove the high protection that we have at the present time and to give the country a breathing space in a commercial way, in a trading way, thereby helping to balance our budget by developing and building up international trade.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) moved the third reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Marriage and Divorce Act.
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: I wish to ask the sponsor of the bill if it is true that we are now going a step in advance of the law in England with regard to marriage and divorce. Under section 2 of this bill a marriage is not invalid merely because the woman is a sister of a deceased wife of the man, or a daughter of a sister or brother of a deceased wife of the man. Section 3 adds the words "or sister of a deceased husband of the woman." It seems to me that this bill goes farther than it should go. It is only a few years since the marriage by the husband of a deceased wife with a sister of that

deceased wife was prohibited. This bill goes practically to the extent of permitting marriage with either a nephew or a niece of a brother or sister of a deceased wife. That is much farther than the law of England now goes, and I can see no reason why we should go so much farther than they have gone.
I refer my hon. friend the promoter of this bill to what has taken place in England. In 1919 the case re Phillips was tested, and was reported in 1 Chancery at page 128. This case does not validate or declare valid a marriage with a deceased wife's sister's daughter. Then, the law in England was amended, and the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act was passed there in 1921, two years after the decision in the Phillips case, and there is no mention made of the permission now given to the marriage of the nephew or niece of the brother or sister. I think we are going entirely too far; I know of no reason why the law should be extended in this way, and I want to voice my opposition to the bill as it now stands.


Mr. BURY:: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for West Middlesex is not quite correct. I did not expect opposition to the bill at this stage or I should have had full information on the English law on the point, which in fact I have in my room. My recollection is however that there is an amendment to the marriage law in England later than the one to which my hon. friend has referred, and that in point of fact so far as the man is concerned the marriage law of England now extends the validity of the marriage much farther than my hon. friend believes. The last amendment to the marriage law of England gives a list of the parties with whom the widower may contract a marriage The bill before us is much less extreme, if I may use the term, than the provisions of the English law.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend say that the law of England now permits a marriage with the daughter or son of a brother of a deceased wife?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I was referring to my hon.
friend's objection concerning section 2. I have not my notes in front of me, but my recollection is quite clear-because I looked into the matter a few days ago-that the law of England so far as the man is concerned goes much farther than roes this proposed amendment, and includes the provision contained in this bill.
As to the extension of the marriage law of England in relation to a woman, I am not

Public Service-Salary Deduction
prepared to say that the law goes any farther than this proposal; in fact so far as the woman js concerned, I am not prepared to say that it goes as far. As I have indicated, the extension to the man, curiously enough, is much greater than that contained in the proposed amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize deductions of ten per cent from the amounts of certain salaries or other compensations or indemnities payable by the government of Canada during the fiscal year 1932-33.
And to provide for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of all current contributions payable under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act in respect of the salaries payable during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933, of all employees who receive not more than one thousand two hundred dollars per annum.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, continuing the
observations I was making before recess may I just touch again upon the point raised by the Prime Minister that there was a sharp division of public opinion throughout Canada concerning the policy the government initiated in connection with the ten per cent cut in the salaries of the civil servants.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I said within the membership of the service itself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I accept the Prime Minister's statement-within the ambit of the civil service of Canada. I observed that to cut five per cent or ten per cent from salaries of 81,200 and under, or above $1,200, was in my opinion a very weak way to get $8,000,000 or $10,000,000, and thereby square the budget. I emphasized the fact that the government in its efforts to balance the budget was beginning from the bottom up rather than from the top down, and I ventured the opinion that when the government was out gunning to get money to square the budget they would have done well to have the courage of their convictions and extend some sympathy towards civil servants who are not getting any more than a living wage; that they ought to have possessed the executive ability to take action
the very opposite to that which they did take, and to tap the bigger sources of wealth, to go after the multi-millionaires, the millionaires, the half millionaires, the quarter millionaires and the other fractional millionaires to get the $8,000,0000 or $10,000,000 to square their budget.
If it is fair to out salaries of civil servants five or ten per cent and to ask them to take such a cut patriotically and in good nature, then I should say that those with the capacity to pay should receive their obligations proportionately patriotically, and be possessed of the same fine Canadian sipirit to come forward and give the best financially within 'their power to overcome the emergency in Canada, their native land. I do not care what they have done in Great Britain or in the United States; we -are looking after our own business, and it is not what they have done across the line or across the ocean that counts, it is what we ought to do as Canadians to be fair to our fellow Canadians, who perhaps are not earning sufficient salary to look after their family obligations. In a -matter of this kind it is very important to build our superstructure on a solid -foundation. I would go further

perhaps the Prime Minister himself and some of -the members of his cabinet might set 'the .pace financially to square away the budget; the Prime Minister contributing a million and -other members accordingly; and while they are abouit it they might induce eight or ten -other men of affluence to contribute $1,000,000 apiece. T-hese contributions would be more than ample to render unnecessary the desperate economies that are being effected ah the expense of our civil servants in order to balance the budget for 1932. All the government needs in order to get money from such sources is vision, courage and sympathy-sympathy with the great body of our people who are -passing through su-ch difficult times.
When touching on the question of the economic structure of Canada, I stated that I did not believe the political sovereignty or the economic integrity of the dominion depended upon -any five or. ten per cent cut in the salaries of our civil servants. We have to get beyond -this paltry idea of penalizing -the civil service in this -manner and making out that we are wonderful fellows. We know the inevitable result of this policy will be that every school teacher, every clerical worker, every industrial employee throughout the country will suffer to a certain extent. Salaries 'have been cut already by private employers, and they will be cut still further by the course
584	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
the government is now taking. This will have a very serious effect upon the buying power of tlhe nation at large, an effect so serious that it confirms me in my view that the government should have sought such means to balance their budget as would not impair the purchasing power of our people.
I think one of the most effective ways to strengthen our economic structure would be immediately to pull down some of these towering tariff walls, these retaliatory and provocative hindrances to trade that have been built up by this government during the last few years. They began their work at the special session of 1930. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this vast dominion is to become a united nation from ocean to ocean, this can be assured only by a moderate tariff policy. I am not opposed to a moderate tariff policy. In fact I am ready to go to any place in the dominion and take my stand on a moderate tariff policy. Both as a Canadian and a westerner I am strongly opposed to any policy that will restrict trade to such a degree as to cut in two our volume of imports and exports within a couple of years. But notwithstanding the fiscal blunders of this government, I am not a bit alarmed about our economic structure. I do not believe it is about to fail-I have more faith in my country. Neither do I believe that if we do not make this cut in civil service salaries the country will go to the bow-wows-not by any means.
Besides tearing down these towering tariff walls, these insulting tariff walls-may I say? -I would go a step further. We could get money to the amount necessary to balance the budget by increasing our income taxation, by going after the men in the enjoyment of large incomes. Graduate the income tax sharply enough to get the money from those who can afford to pay it, and so scale it down that the rate of tax will bear a proper relationship to the smaller -incomes.
I agree with the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in his statement that the method of procedure adopted to reduce civil service salaries by ten per cent is an arbitrary method. The government did not proceed in a dignified way, in a way that one would expect the government of Canada to proceed. I think the first step in a policy of this kind should have been a conference between the cabinet and the representatives of the civil service federation, and at such conference I am confident that a mutually satisfactory arrangement by discussing, conferring and concluding, could have been arrived at as a basis for introducing legislation. This course would I Mr. McIntosh.]
have been somewhat along the lines of the provisions of a bill introduced into this house in 1928 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). It was known as Bill No. 4. It was discussed in the house and then referred to the industrial and international relations committee, of which I had then the honour to be chairman. We took evidence under oath, and it was the consensus of opinion in the committee that there should be further discussion in regard to the constitution of such a council with a view to the establishment of a national civil service council. The then Liberal government was in favour of such a council, and once the necessary preliminary work had been done such a body could have been established by order in council. The committee so reported and thereupon the hon. member withdrew his bill. The committee also recommended that a committee should be established composed of equal representatives of the government, of departmental heads and of representatives of the civil service association, at which any grievances could be discussed and disposed of in a friendly way in the interests of Canada as a whole. It was further recommended that a drafting committee should be established to draw up a constitution of such a council for submission to the governor general in council. After the governor in council approved of that constitution all that would be necessary would be an order in council, and the foundation would be laid for a national civil service council representing all the civil servants of Canada, and if necessary further consultative machinery could be added in order to broaden out the council and make it representative of the civil servants from coast to coast.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that practically all that work was done. The committee was set up; a drafting committee was organized; the constitution was evolved and the necessary order in council was passed, but beyond that nothing happened. In other words the present [DOT] government did not create a national civil service council, and as a consequence other than the federation which met the government this morning there was no outstanding body representing the civil servants of Canada to meet the government and have this matter gone into thoroughly.
Had that body been set up I think there is no question but that it would have had the right in a matter of this kind to ask for an audience with the cabinet, and that audience could have been held long before the bill was decided upon, long before a resolution was brought into this house, and long before any

Public Service-Salary Deduction
arbitrary action was taken by the government. Since that was not done, as a member of this house I felt it incumbent upon me to rise in my place and say that I believed the time had arrived when that machinery should be established. Then the right would be guaranteed the civil servants of Canada, in any important question of this kind, to hold an audience with the cabinet and go into the matter of salaries or anything else in a practical and considerate manner.
That concludes my remarks in connection with this resolution; anything further I have to say I will reserve until the bill is in committee. I think, from the discussion we have had up to the present, that we may look for a frank and full consideration of this question in order that the people of this country may know exactly what are the intentions of the government in respect to this salary-cutting legislation.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to detain the house only a very few moments in connection with this resolution. At the outset I should like to say to those who have spent their lives in efforts to improve the conditions of working men and women and to provide employment for them, a reduction of wage rates or of salaries is never a pleasant thing, or a move in which we like to participate. But in relation to the situation with which we are faced today, representing as I do a constituency composed entirely of working men and farmers, I should like to say that in my judgment nothing this government has done or can do will receive greater commendation throughout the country than the action they are taking in reducing the salaries of all public servants, who must be paid from money contributed by the working men and the farmers of this country.
I have a picture before me of the men and women in the constituency I represent, railway employees, men working in lumber camps and in mines, and farmers throughout the scattered parts of the district. These men are harassed every day of their lives, because of conditions at present prevailing, to meet their tax bills; and after all these are the people who must pay taxes. A great deal has been said about starting at the top, taxing the large incomes, taking away the money from those who have it. I should like to say to the house, from the slight knowledge I have of general business conditions throughout this country, that the income tax receipts will be very much less in the year ahead of us, and in the year following, than they have been in the past. The higher you endeavour to put
the income tax the less you will get from it, because the men who are presumed to have these large incomes in many cases are not earning incomes at all. There is no class of men in this country who are finding it more difficult to meet the situation than those who are presumed to be the wealthy men, responsible for endeavouring to carry on industry in this country.
Let me return for a moment to the people whom I represent, the farmers in nor1 hern Ontario who are struggling every day and every night to meet the situation with which they are confronted. They are forced to pay their proportion of the taxes out of which the salaries of all civil servants in this country are paid. The workingmen are in the same position, and when I go back to my constituency, as I am going to-night and meet these workingmen face to face, I know exactly what will be their viewpoint. Already they have been forced to accept very severe cuts in their wages; it could not be otherwise. Hon. members speak as though a business man, an employer of labour, can fix his rates of wages high or low, just as he chooses; they seem to think that the farmer who must go out and employ labour on his farm can do the same thing. It matters not which it is; they can pay their employees only what they receive for the goods they are producing, and they cannot pay more. For example how will the Canadian National Railway pay its income tax during 1932 and 1933? Where is it going to get the money with which to pay the salaries and wages that must be paid? The rates of wages have been cut, and how could it be otherwise? The only alternative would have been to add to the taxes of this country ; that is exactly what it involved. Let me repeat that no one likes to see salaries reduced. I ain one of those anxious to spe working men and women get the highest rate of remuneration it is possible for them to receive, but we are faced with a situation which makes that impossible. Where are we to get the money for them?
Something has been said about reducing the interest rates on government bonds hold in Canada. An hon. member of this house undertook this afternoon to prove that a widow, if you like, who is receiving an income from bonds which she purchased from the proceeds of an insurance policy, could buy more goods with each dollar she received from that source than a workingman could buy with the dollar he received for working in a factory, a mine, the woods or anywhere else. A more ridiculous proposition could not be suggested. Let me ask this:	From whom
would this money be taken if we repudiated
586	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
fifty per cent of the interest on government bonds held in Canada? I think I have sound reason for saying that the great majority of these bonds is held by workingmen, widows, institutions taking care of small estates, and so on. I will give the house one illustration. I live in a community in which every citizen is a workingman. When the recent national service loan was floated, in the aggregate that small community took up something over $250,000 worth of those bonds. I took the trouble to find out who were the people who purchased those bonds. They were working people who had lived frugal lives, building up a small reserve which would care for them in their old age, or which they could pass on to their widows and children, or with which to assist in the education of their children, if you will, as someone mentioned this evening. Unpleasant though it is to see salaries reduced, and anxious as every right thinking man is to see business and general conditions brought back to the place where salaries can be again increased, I repeat what I said at the beginning, that in the interests of the people of this country nothing that this government has done, has created or can create a better feeling than the action of the administration and of the parliament of Canada in reducing our own incomes and the incomes of all those who are paid to serve the people of the dominion. The discussion that has taken place would suggest to one that the civil service of Canada was in a sort of holy of holies which the ordinary man dared not enter. I have the highest regard for the men and women who serve the country, but they are just men and women like all the rest of us, and they have a right to be called upon to make some of the sacrifices which other men and women in the country are making.
I should just like to refer to a remark made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon in discussing this natter when he took the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to task for giving notice of a resolution extending the time within which the federal government will assist in taking care of the unemployed from March 31 to May 31. He charged the government with failure to anticipate, when the relief measure was originally introduced at the last session of parliament, that it would be necessary to extend it that period of time. If I recall the debate that took place in this house, this was the position taken: that the grant made at the last session of parliament should extend only until parliament at this session should have had time to review the situation and to see 
what was necessary. It is because the people of Canada have a government administering their affairs who have courage to meet these situations as they arise that they have confidence in them. And may I say here that when I go home to-morrow, as I am going, and pass through the region of northern Ontario where tens of thousands of men are employed who could not otherwise be working, the very fact that this government is making that extension) will be the best bit of news these men have had for some months, and they will realize that the government is continuing to assist them to secure the means of ordinary livelihood, meeting in part the necessary taxation through a reduction in the salaries of civil servants, until conditions are such that they will once more be engaged in normal and regular employment.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman this question? When he returns to his constituents will he deliver to them the same speech he delivered to them before the elections of 1926 on civil service matters?


George Brecken Nicholson: Just exactly the same, and if it will please my horn, friend let me say here that if an opportunity is presented I shall be very glad to deliver the same speech in the presence, if he will guarantee it, of his own leader.


James Layton Ralston: To show your high regard for the civil service.


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, and no man in
this country has a higher regard for the civil service.


James Layton Ralston: You have changed your
mind.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have not changed
my mind, mo. I will repeat word for word what I am presumed to have said with regard to the civil service on condition that hon. gentlemen have their leader in his seat.


James Layton Ralston: You want an audience.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	I have just a few words to say on
this question and I shall say them very calmly, because there is nothing on my conscience that worries me. Let me assure the house at once that, in discussing this important question, I am not talking petty politics. I have been sent here by my constituents to express their views on the policies put forward by the' government, and from time immemorial it has been the right of the people's representatives to discuss such policies freely. I do not regard any measure brought forward by this

Public Service-Salary Deduction
government as sacred or tabou, as we say in French, so that no one can venture to discuss it. I have the greatest respect for the members of the government, but merely because a measure is introduced by any member of the government it does not follow that we should kneel before that measure and say, "sacred, sacred; this is sacred and no one shall touch it or discuss it." That is going pretty far, and as I have been brought up in a family that has been in this country for many generations, a family that knows what freedom is, I intend to exercise that freedom as I have done all my life. No one, therefore, will prevent me from saying just what I think of the resolution which is now before the house.
I would not object to the cut, although I am not a rich man, for I am a good enough sport to take it as cheerfully as anyone else; but I do not consider that it is a national duty to accept all the enactments of this government without protest, and to kneel down before them in silence with our arms crossed in perfect submission. I do not see why we should be expected to accept their dictates meekly simply because they tell us it is a national duty to do so. To many of us who are in this house, it is not a glory but rather an embarrassment to have to speak, but it is a duty which we are bound to discharge; and when we pay our debts there is no triumph in it but just satisfaction. So that there is a great difference between glory and ordinary duty. That brings me to the source of the present evil.
I am not going to censure the government to-night for any promises made during the last election, but after that election they tried an experiment, as they had a right to do. They had the support of the country in the election and one of the articles of their platform was an undertaking to protect everyone by increasing the tariff. They were free to give that undertaking and the people were free to support them in it, and I believe it was only fair for them, when the special session was called, to increase the tariff. When the question was put by Mr. Speaker at the time there were some hon. members who said -although this was not recorded in the journals of the house

"carried on division," and one of those who said this, as witnessed by the correspondent of Le Devoir, of Montreal, in large letters, was the humble representative of the county of Temiscouata. I took that view because at that time I did not believe that a high tariff was the panacea for all the ills of this country. At any rate, the
government saw fit to try that experiment and increased the tariff. I quote from Hansard the words of the Prime Minister on moving the motion for supply on September 16, 1930, at page 238:
Our tariff measure is not a general revision of the tariff, but deals only with such items in the tariff as it is believed will ensure additional employment to a large number of men and women in Canada.
The end in view was good; the intention was commendable; but -the result was bad. It is not my fault; it was an experiment which it was thought would succeed but which did not. And now we have to take things as they are. That is why I say that when we are discussing the present situation we must go to the source of the evil, because you must get to the root of a disease before you can cure it. We are in trouble at the present time, and I admit that other countries are in trouble too. Whoever has eyes to see can see that it is general, is repeated daily. Evils have existed in this country for some time, but they are growing still worse.
In replying this morning to the delegation which interviewed him, the Prime Minister said:
We are making the cut as a matter of national necessity

The word "national" should have been dropped, although the word "necessity" is all right. The remarks continue:
-and we do not -think it unreasonable to ask the loyal-
"Loyal" is a little too strong.
[DOT]-and enthusiastic support of 60,000 of our fellow citizens to cooperate with us in helping Canada to weather the storm by a year of self denial.
When is anyone enthusiastic about self denial? I read that phrase with the greatest astonishment, and I will read it again. It is as follows:
We do not think it unreasonable-
I think it is unreasonable.
-to ask the loyal and enthusiastic support of 60,000 of our fellow citizens-
Who are to suffer the cut.
-to cooperate with us in helping Canada to weather the storm by a year of self denial.
They are being asked to be enthusiastic in helping Canada out of the hole. They are asked not only to wave the flag but to be enthusiastic about helping the country to weather the storm. These storms do not come with the tide, they come from the high heavens probably as punishment for our sins.
5S8

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Did the hon. member say that tariffs came from heaven?


Mr. POULIOT:: I was trying to show the
difference, but let me say that tariffs are very high up. The Prime Minister asked
60,000	cavil servants to give a year of self denial. If that is done, no doubt Canada will be headed for heaven. The Prime Minister's remarks continue:
There is no doubt that the civil service is greatly overmanned in this community and that at a not distant date there must be a reduction.	[DOT]
Neither I nor any other hon. member in this house is able to say whether or not the civil service is overmanned. How the reduction he suggests is to be made will be the subject of an investigation, but why decide that the service is overmanned before the investigation is held? After the investigation has been held and everything has been considered, then will be the time to consider whether or not the service is overmanned, but not before that.
At times I poke a little fun at hon. members on the other side; I give them knocks and receive many in return, but it is all part of the game. It is all a matter of sportsmanship, and I hope no one will be hurt by my speaking as freely as I do. The right hon. gentleman's remarks continue:
From communications the government has received from former civil servants I am of the opinion that a reasonable reduction can be made without impairing the efficiency of the service.
I had thought that the government would be too serious-minded to pay much attention to reports which might come from former civil servants who perhaps had been dismissed for good reason. Such people are not the most reliable source of information as to the real situation which exists in the service.
The Prime Minister stated that the employees of the Canadian National Railways would not be affected by the proposed cut. This is only fair, because these men, through the brotherhood, have already agreed to a ten per cent cut to be effective from some time last year, and similar action was taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway employees. When they have already suffered a cut in their salaries it would be very unjust to impose another reduction.
I would like to see this government follow Mahatma Ghandi's example and set aside one day each week as a day of silence. Then they could concentrate, they could think over what is to be done, they could withdraw within themselves in order to have a clear understanding of the policies to be submitted later to the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about his goat?


Jean-François Pouliot: Since a cut is to be made, perhaps we can dispense with the goat.
This cut is being accepted quite willingly by the civil service, but not with any enthusiasm. It is done as a matter of sportsmanship and in the hope that future policies of the government will be taken as a matter of course and not as mere emanations from the Divinity. As my leader said one day in Quebec, we are all equal; the Prime Minister in the House of Commons is the first among equals. We do our best in our own way and according to our own principles to promote the welfare of this country and I give hon. gentlemen opposite credit for doing all they can in that regard. But there is one way in which the public business could be much better conducted, and it is this: instead of bringing up a matter of national duty and importance and asking us to vote this or that right away, we should be given time enough to consider properly all the proposals that are submitted to us. There would be nothing better for the government than to submit their proposals to the house in time to afford the opposition an opportunity to offer their humble suggestions. Then the government could accept or reject those proposals. So long as they are in power they have the responsibility for the management of the business of the country, but it is the duty of the opposition to offer constructive criticism and this is why we take the liberty to discuss very freely and sincerely the matters that are submitted to us.
After these preliminaries, there is one thing which I wish to ask the government and it is this, that they kindly consider the matter of grading the salary cuts of the civil servants. This is a matter of the utmost importance. Another thing-and I have to mention it again this evening-is this: it is a great mistake for the government to tell the people that there will be a reduction in the number of civil servants, for the reason that I mem tioned yesterday, namely, that when people are not sure that they will be able to retain their positions, they do not give the same good service as they do when they have minds untroubled by such threats. In my travels to and fro throughout Canada I meet many people and the feeling amongst them at present is not as good as it was last year. Why? The people are still patient, but I do not know how long this will last. We have an honest, law-abiding population, one that respects the social order, and I hope conditions will improve so that we shall not in

Public Service-Salary Deduction
Canada see the excesses committed in other countries. But men cannot suffer indefinitely. I am not talking party politics; I am speaking of very serious conditions. I know people who have come from rural municipalities or urban centres to Ottawa to enter the civil service. They have obtained positions where they can live honourably, where they can bring up their children, feed and clothe them, make good citizens of them, and then in a moment, without notice, they are deprived of their positions. Their career is broken. I admire the mother who takes care of the home while the husband is out at work earning money to keep his family. I admire the woman who is perhaps a greater business manager than is the manager of any bank. Those women are admirable and are to be found alike in Ontario and Quebec, and throughout the country. They make sacrifices in order that both ends may meet when the pay envelope is brought home. These men of whom I speak, when they enter the civil service from the rural municipalities, have been uprooted and are therefore unable to take up their old occupations again. When they enter the civil service they do their duty; they try to improve their lot by working as good public servants should do, and when they are deprived of their positions, their careers are ended. What happens? We see these men who are too proud to beg, unable to do anything. Such a condition is very sad and these men now expect and hope that within a short time the government will be able to restore conditions as they were some time ago in order that they may live in the same happy state as that in which they lived before.
I hope that social unrest will not prevail in this country. We are very fortunate now that the people are still law-abiding, that they respect the established order. Why is this? It is because our people have deep religious convictions. I respect people who do not have my creed. There was formerly a member of this house who was a leader of the Orange order and I asked him if he did not think it was better for the social order that people should have a creed instead of having none, and he said most certainly yes. I shall not mention that man's name, but it is evidence that it is only their creed and faith in the future that make the people respect the social order. There are, however, times when hunger, trouble, discouragement might overcome all that. I trust this will never occur in this country and this is why sincerely, seriously and earnestly I beg the government kindly to consider at once the case of the poor and humble classes in order that we may avoid social unrest in Canada.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I trust I may be pardoned if I do not follow the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) in his address. The only place that I shall agree with him is in his one day of silence and I honestly believe, after his speech of to-night, he has pretty nearly a week's silence coming to him.
This afternoon we heard the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in bringing down his legislation with regard to the cut in the salaries of the civil service. Knowing him as I do, when he, realizing as he does the financial and unemployment situation, stated this afternoon that the administration intended to do what they conceived to be their duty under the circumstances, I felt it incumbent upon me to say a few words on behalf of some of the civil servants of this country.
I have special reference to married men and others with dependents who are receiving, say up to $1,320 a year. In some cases there are sons or daughters of those who are already in the service and the former are receiving salaries of say $1,200 or $1,260. There are other cases of which I know where perhaps there are two young iadies in one family, each working for the government at $1,200 a year. In such instances no hardship is involved in cutting those salaries by ten per cent. But I request and urge the government, in the administration of this legislation, if possible to exempt married men or others with dependents who are receiving salaries up to $1,320 a year. If they cannot see their way clear to do that I should like them at least to exempt the married men or civil servants with dependents whose salaries are only $720. I should like also to include those employed in the char service, who come to work before a great number of people are up in the morning, who leave their homes in time to be at work about 6.30 in the morning and who work until 9 o'clock. If the government, in its wisdom, could see its way clear to exempt those people, it would be doing a great favour. I have outlined the classes whom I think the government will help, if it is within its power to do so.
Some statements have been made concerning the exemption of the judges of Canada. In my view if they are exempt legislation should be brought in to reduce their salaries.


Charles A. Stewart: Hear, hear.


William Foster Garland: I think
perhaps, however, the judiciary of Canada have enough patriotism to volunteer to accept a ten per cent reduction. An excellent example was given to them by the Governor General of Canada, and I believe that our judges in their wisdom will give their share without any change in our statutes.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
Sitting in this house and listening to hon. members opposite I have often wondered how many champions there would be among them if the civil servants did not have votes. I am of the firm belief that my hon. friends opposite would not be so enthusiastic.


Edward James Young: Would they have any on
the government benches?


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


William Foster Garland: Certainly
they could not depend on the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young), because he cam see nothing beyond the narrow principle of free trade. In fact, if he would consult Hansard he would find that some of his statements indicate he is not familiar with the different articles used in his own occupation.
An hon. member has said that if civil service salaries are reduced ten per cent there will be a reduction in purchasing power. In my view that is not correct; we are not reducing the purchasing power. The money which came from our civil servants came from the general public, and the money they spend goes back to the general public. If taxation on commodities such as suggested to-day were adopted, that money would not go back to our people.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that hon. members opposite did not wish to use this issue as an excuse to play party politics. May I read from the Ottawa Journal of February 25, 1932, a statement made by the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Ahearn):
In a brief speech Mr. Ahearn thanked members of the Twentieth Century Club for their support in the last election, and since then.


Mr. AHEARN:: I certainly did.


William Foster Garland: The article
continues:
He predicted the return of Liberal M.L.A's. in the three Ottawa ridings, in Russell and possibly in Carleton in the next provincial election, because he said he heard that "civil servants, of whom there are a lot in the county, are not altogether satisfied with present conditions."


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: Are they?


William Foster Garland: I say to the hon. junior member for Ottawa that, as a Liberal, he has the privilege to go out and contest that riding at the very first opportunity, and we will watch the result with interest; we will see whether or not he will be returned. I have enough faith in the civil servants of the county of Oarleton, knowing their patriotism, knowing their loyalty to the traditions of the Liberal-Conservative party,

knowing that they have returned a Conservative candidate since the year 1867, and that they will do it for the same length of time in 'the future, to have no doubt as to how my hon. friend would be received.
At the same meeting the recognized leader of the provincial Liberal party appeared, and made the following statement:
Those of us who come from outside ridings have a sympathetic understanding of the problems of civil servants, and are behind Mr. Chevrier in his efforts on their behalf, -was the statement of Mitchell Hepburn, provincial Liberal leader.
I wonder if the provincial leader will make the same statement in all rural constituencies of Ontario. I venture to say he will not. He did not hand a very large bouquet to the junior member for Ottawa, because he appeared to be behind only the senior member. I should like the members for Ottawa to realize that my chief reason for supporting the government in this resolution is that the general public in this city and the surrounding district realize that these are difficult times. Perhaps the junior member for Ottawa could explain why a certain Ottawa electric railway company reduced their pay ten per cent last summer, and reduced their staff by forty per cent.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: That is not so.


William Foster Garland: Yes, reduced their staff forty per cent.


Thomas Franklin Ahearn: That is not so.


William Foster Garland: What did they do with a few poor people of this city who on a few occasions carried passengers? Those people were brought into court. I say to the junior member for Ottawa that he is the last man who should say anything concerning the reduction of salaries. In this city to-day the Canadian Pacific Railway is reducing salaries by ten per cent; men who had steady runs out of this city for the last twenty years are receiving similar treatment. I have in mind a young man who worked on the Canadian Pacific railway for sixteen years, and who today is shovelling snow around the parliament buildings. Why? Because there was no work on the railroad, and he is willing to make a dollar wherever possible.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member who gave him the appointment?


William Foster Garland: Yes, I can tell the senior member for Ottawa who appointed that man. The member for Carleton appointed him; and if there is any other man in the county of Carleton who finds himself in a

Public Service-Salary Deduction
similar position, and needs a day's work, and if men are required to shovel snow I will extend the same help to him. The two hon. members for Ottawa are worried because when they walk up to parliament hill they do not know any of the persons shovelling snow.
The produce of our agricultural communities in the adjoining counties cannot be sold for a price sufficient to pay for the labour it entails. The majority of farmers in the county of Carleton are having great difficulty to pay their taxes and threshing bills. They are taking a cut of more than ten per cent; contractors are taking a cut of more then ten per cent; factories in the west end of the city are operating only three days a week. Civil servants realize those conditions, and so far as I can learn they are willing to take a cut. Do hon. members opposite believe for one moment that they are the only champions of the unemployed? They are not. They did not know there were any unemployed before the last election; in fact we were very close to the election date before they realized the state of unemployment.


Edward James Young: We have no trouble knowing it now.


William Foster Garland: No, and it would never be rectified until doomsday if the hon. member for Weyburn had anything to do with it. What has happened in the west? -family upon family without food. Do hon. members think the civil servants do not realize that? Civil servants know about conditions in the west and they are willing to take the cut in salary on the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister this afternoon-namely, that it will be for one year. They are willing to make a sacrifice. I have confidence and faith in the civil servants of Canada, and I know that when the year goes by and the Imperial economic conference is over, conditions will brighten and they will be satisfied. They have never got anything from the opposition. A few days before the last election the then Prime Minister, now the leader of the opposition, gave tp the charwomen a bonus or back salary for three months. In doing this our friends 'opposite had no thought whatever of helping those women; they were concerned about securing the return of their two local candidates.
For the reasons I 'have Stated, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote for the resolution.


Frederick George Sanderson: In the few remarks I propose to make, Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour as far as possible not to inject any political 'bias.


Mr. SPENCE:: It would be something new.


Frederick George Sanderson: I pay no attention to my good friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence).
I think this question should be discussed without any political bias at all. We are going through a very trying time, perhaps the most trying in our history, and it behooves every one to make certain sacrifices. I am not going in any way to criticize the proposed reduction of ten per cent. In fact from my observations while in Ottawa during the past few years I think the civil servants are willing to make the sacrifice without much murmur. Of course, no one likes a cut in salary-I think every one will agree with me in that. I rather think the civil servants expected a ten per cent cut, I am quite sure members of parliament were expecting it. I will go further- but I hope in this I am wrong-that if conditions do not improve within the next twelve months -hon. members of the Commons, h-on. senators, and civil servants will have perhaps to take another cut.
As to the exemptions, I cannot understand why the government -has adopted such a course. We have been -told by the Prime Minister that the officers of the army and navy are to be exempted from this ten per cent salary reduction. I should like to know from -the government side hoiw this exemption can be justified. The Prime Minister, I see, is not in his seat, but the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is. He may come to the defence of the army and navy. The officers of -the army who are exempted from this salary reduction are largely what we used to call the "brass hats." We have a lot of them here in Ottawa and in every military district throughout the country. They are well -paid; if I had the time I could go through the list- and give the amount of -pay and allowances -they receive. I suppose they work at least a day or a day and a half each week; they are supposed to "swank" rather than work. If the government cam show me any reason why these public officials should be exempted from the -ten -per cent cut, I shall be glad to hear it. Then we have the naval officers. Who they are, wh-a-t they are and where they are I do not know.
They may foe on the high seas.


Mr. DUFF:: The last place they were at was Salvador.


Frederick George Sanderson: I think there was a
social function about a hundred miles from there and they sailed away to take part in it. I should like to know from the government their reasons for exempting these two classes of officers. I am open to conviction if it can be shown to me conclusively that they should be exempted from this salary reduction, but
592	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
in the absence of any explanation I can conceive of no reason for their exemption. Then I come to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Now, if there is any body of public servants in this country who for years and years back have made sacrifices as Canadians, it is the members of this force. But I am inclined to think they will come forward and volunteer to take a ten per cent cut in their pay. Why they should be exempt I do not know, but I should like to know. The next class within the exemption is the judiciary. I know that when one gets up in this house and speaks about the judges he ;s on rather thin ice so far as the legal fraternity among the members of this house are concerned. I am a layman. I am inclined to think that the judges of this country, most of them at least, might have their salaries cut to the extent of ten per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it twenty per
cent.


Frederick George Sanderson: No, I will put it at
ten per cent. They are drawing good pay, they are not overworked, and if there is any body of men who should show an example in the way of sacrifice I rather think it is the members of the judiciary. Why they should be exempted from this ten per cent salary cut I do not know. Probably the Prime Minister will give the house his reasons for exempting them. He said the other day, in answer to a question, if my memory serves me aright, that their salaries should not be decreased by ten per cent because they were statutory salaries. I do not think that is any reason at all for their exemption. As a matter of fact all these salaries are statutory. I think the judges should come under this reduction of salary to the extent of ten per cent. I am not going to dwell on that because I know I shall be open to criticism from certain quarters. But this is a time of sacrifice when everyone must bear his share of the common burden. This afternoon the Prime Minister read a letter from a lady-who, he said, is in the civil service-saying she would be glad to make the sacrifice. I should like to know if the government have received any letters from judges volunteering to take a ten per cent cut. The Prime Minister is not in his seat. I do not know who is leading the government, whether it is the member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), or the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion).


Mr. RYCKMAN:: All together.


Frederick George Sanderson: You may be all together, but there is one man leading the government all the time. Will the Minister of National Revenue tell me if he knows whether any communications have been received from judges volunteering to take a ten iper cent reduction in salary?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: None came to my department.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will my hon. friend
from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) say whether he received any communication?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: None came to my department.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry the hon minister from South Essex (Mr. Gott) is not in his seat.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will speak for him; none came to his department.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then may I ask the hon. minister from Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) if any came to his department?


Mr. GOBEIL:: I might tell the hon. gentleman that as a member of parliament I received one letter from a justice of the peace.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to congratulate my hon. friend on being taken into the government. However, the point I am trying to make is that in my judgment-and I am speaking for no one but myself-the judges should share in the ten per cent cut in salaries, and I think there is also another method by which a saving could be effected.
This afternoon the right hon. leadeT of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke about government houses and about lieutenant-governors. I am inclined to think that under present conditions in this country all the lieutenant-governors should be asked to resign. I want to say to the government-and I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat-that speaking for myself only, as coming from the province of Ontario, but speaking also for a number of my own supporters, I think no appointment should 'be made to the position of lieutenant-governor of Ontario until at least business conditions have improved. I know many hon. members across the way have been mentioned as probable lieutenant-governors. The name of my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) was mentioned; as a matter of fact I think it was only a joke, but his name was mentioned. I hope he will use his influence with the Minister of Justice (Mr. FEBRUARY 26. 1932
Public Service-Salary Deduction
Guthrie), whom I am glad to see in his seat, so that no appointment will be made to the post of lieutenanUgovemor of the province of Ontario.
I do not think I have anything further to say, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see that my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) is in a jovial mood. As a rule he sits in the house looking as .though he has lost all his friends, political and otherwise. To-night he has something to laugh at, Mr. Speaker, and if in addressing these few words to the house I have done nothing more than to make the Minister of National Revenue smile, I am glad I spoke.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: They are free to-night; they have no leader.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes; my hon. friend
suggests that they are free, that they have no leader. But when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister walks in, as undoubtedly he will before eleven o'clock, you will see the members of the government sit up like good little boys in school, and there will not be much of a smile on the face of my good friend the Minister of National Revenue, or of any other member of the government.
I have stated my views in regard to judges; I have stated my views in regard to naval officers and permanent force officers, and in regard to lieutenant-governors. So far as I am concerned I have no criticism to offer in regard to the reduction of ten per cent in the salaries of civil servants. I quite understand that it will mean some hardship for those receiving salaries of perhaps $1,200; they will get a five per cent cut, and I would go so far as to say I would 'be quite willing to exempt those classes. But whatever is done in that regard I hope the exemptions I have mentioned will be included, as they should.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I want to take up
the time of the house very shortly in connection with the principle of the resolution which the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has proposed shall be considered in committee of the whole. The principle to which we on this side of the house particularly object is the principle of a horizontal and arbitrary cut regardless of the size of salary affected. That is a principle which has been too freely adopted by this government in connection with other measures affecting the public service and the administration of government.
Our complaint-and we will continue to make it-is that our friends on the other side seem willing to take a running jump at almost 41761-38
any policy and put it into effect, and then sometimes take a step backward and make some corrections, or at other times-and more frequently-to stick to it through thick and thin, with resulting detriment to the people affected. I submit that in this case the government have already shown that they are not quite happy with regard to the proposal made by the Prime Minister some little time ago, the proposal which appears in the estimates, whereby ten per cent is simply cut off every civil government vote. Already they have begun to take a backward step in the second part of the resolution before the house. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Garland), who spoke a short time ago, mentioned politics, and the Prime Minister spoke of introducing politics into this matter. I wonder if perhaps it was not because the civil servants have votes that this second paragraph was included. Does anyone think that paragraph would have appeared had it not been for the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are just as sensitive to public opinion when expressed through the polls as anyone else in this house or in this country? I say, Mr. Speaker, that the second part of the resolution, the sop which is now thrown by way of contributing five per cent towards the superannuation funds of certain officials, is an attempt by the government to take a step backward, and is an admission that they went too far.
That has only come about because the opposition have steadfastly set their faces against the voting of any estimates which recognize salary cuts until this resolution and this legislation should be brought down, and already we see the fruits of that policy. I submit that it should be elementary in government and in the administration of public affairs, particularly in taxation, that taxes should be imposed on those best able to bear them. This is nothing but a taxation measure which is imposed upon a certain class in the community because they happen to be civil servants. There is an old adage about tempering the wind to the shorn lamb, but that was completely forgotten in the proposal first announced by the Prime Minister.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the arbitrary way in which this government went at this matter is just an illustration of what has been done with regard to other matters, to which I will not refer to-night. Can you conceive of anything less fair and more inequitable than that the people who are to be affected should see it broadcast all over this country that the ten per cent .cut was going into effect, have the estimates brought down with

594	.	,	.	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
ten per cent deducted, and then have the Minister of Justice solemnly announce that he would hear the people who were affected? They appeared this morning, by their representatives, to present their case, while upon this very order paper was the resolution providing for the reduction in salary, and I have no doubt that the bill to be founded upon this resolution has been already printed. You might as well speak of a court giving people an opportunity to bring their witnesses and present their case while all the time the judgment of the court is written, ready to be pronounced as soon as the presentation ends.
My hon. friend from Carleton pretends to speak for the civil servants; he says they are perfectly willing to take this cut. I sincerely hope that is so, because it looks as if they are going to get it whether they want to take it or not. But I do say that I doubt very much whether he is in a position to speak for the civil servants and to say whether the reduction is one that does approve itself, particularly as regards the feature to which I am referring, to the great body of civil servants of the country.
This principle is all wrong, of imposing a horizontal cut in salaries regardless of their size. Suppose a man receives a salary of $720 a year; he has to contribute the sum of $06 to the revenue of the country. Does anyone pretend for a moment that a man can as well afford to contribute $96 out of an income of $720 as the man drawing a salary of $10,000 can afford to contribute $1,000? There is certainly a scale of living in this country which is absolutely necessary. Certain absolute requisites a man must have if he is to keep his family, and these things must be provided first. As was well said by my hon. friend from North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), the principle seems to be to start from the bottom and work upwards instead of from the top down. What is being done by the government with respect to the reduction in salaries is precisely the same sort of thing that has been carried on right along; it is exactly the same thing as was done by the Minister of National Defence and by the government in connection with the air men of whom I spoke the other day. That is an illustration of the arbitrary way in which our friends opposite are acting in regard to matters of taxation and these so-called economies.
The Prime Minister read a letter which he said came from some lady who wrote that she was glad to have a salary to be cut. I am sorry the right hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but I would *ask him whether as a lawyer he regards this as the proper sort of
IMr. Ralston.]
evidence to bring against the great body of civil servants of the country-a letter written by a lady whose name he will not give, whose condition of employment we know nothing about, about whose responsibilities in life we are absolutely ignorant, -when I venture to say that the Prime Minister himself, in common with others in this house, has received letters by the score from civil servants all over the country protesting vigorously against the cut because of what it will mean to them in their daily lives. I say to the right hon. gentleman, and I submit to the house, that he should not have brought forward a letter of that kind, an isolated case, and presented it to this house or to the country as an evidence of the way in which the civil servants of Canada generally feel in this matter.
Misery likes company, we know, and we are all receiving the cut; but everyone has been suggesting that someone else should make sacrifices. It reminds one of what Mark Twain said about being perfectly willing to sacrifice his wife's relations. In this case, the lady to whom reference has been made might sincerely have felt like making the contribution; but there are a lot of married men in this city and throughout the country with large families and very grave responsibilities, who cannot afford the cut no matter how patriotic they are. I have spoken of the air force as an example of the arbitrary actions of the government. My hon. friends opposite rush headlong at salaries, striking off ten per cent, and it means headlines in the papers the next day and possibly some applause in some quarters. But is it scientific? Is it intelligent? Is it considerate? Is it a thing that ought to be done in the interests of public business? Take the men in the air force; they were officers who were under contract for three years, men who had enlisted for that length of service, men who had seen service overseas, half of them married men with family responsibilities who had expected that their employment would be fairly permanent and many of them on the strength of that expectation had acquired little homes of their own. They have no other profession than their training in the air force and they were working for their country to the very best of their ability. These men receive summary notice that in six weeks' time they are to be cut off the salary list altogether and they find themselves adrift in the world without any support whatever. Now, that is not the way to use Canadians. What would any employer of labour have done?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: What has he done?

Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Layton Ralston: This is what he has done. He has said to his superintendent or his supervisor:	We have to reduce our staff. Show
me the married men; tell me who have been longest with the firm; point out those who have responsibilities, and then we will try to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, endeavouring as far as possible to adjust matters, dropping some who have not as great responsibilities, and others who have not been as long with us, or who have not had service overseas. That is what the employer of labour has done. But he has not made an absolute brutal and ruthless cut or dismissal regardless of salaries, contracts, abilities and responsibilities. And I say that is what is being done. It is because my hon. friends opposite do not realize that there is such a thing as human flesh and blood in this country as well as questions of economics and all the other things they talk about in connection with government. They say, "we are going to do this and that or perish in the attempt," and they do it regardless of whom it hits.
I submit that the time has come in this country when we ought to call a halt to that sort of thing. My hon. friend from Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) gave some excellent advice. It would be well for the country if the government would stop for the space of just one day and give consideration quietly and soberly to the things that are being done instead of rushing at them, particularly in regard to these so-called economies. After all, we are dealing with human beings, Canadian citizens, and when you reduce by ten per cent the income of a man who gets $720 a year, or when you throw out into the world a man who has served his country well, it is time to point out that the same sort of human feeling and sensibilities that move the employer of labour should actuate the government.
Coming back to the air men, may I point out that the only employment open to these men in Canada at the present time is with the federal government. I would not mind it so much if there were not plenty of work for them to do and if they were not needed in the service of the country for the development of its resources. But I have seen, as other members of this house have seen, the excellent work which has been done by the air service, rvork which could not have been done, in the development of this country, without their invaluable assistance. There is not a country I know of that has made such a varied use of aviation as this dominion has done in connection with the development of our natural resources. Let me give one or two illustrations to indicate what little
consideration has really been devoted to these matters. One would have thought that the government would first have considered the usefulness of these men and what they are doing in the development of this country. Hon. members know that the air force has been used most successfully in connection with the mapping of the country and the opening-out of new mining areas. You could not lay off mining areas, you could not plot them, you could not allot them nor stake them ou't without a map. Take the Red Lake district for example. Three or four years ago there was a request that it be opened up. A request came for a map of the district. How long would it take to make such a map by means of ordinary foot survey? About three years. The matter was handed over to the Department of the Interior and through that department to the air force, and the map was ready in a space of a little more than six months. The claims were staked out and the district was opened for development. I have in mind an engineer who wanted to make an inspection in that district. He was coming from Vancouver, having been asked by his firm to make an examination. He knows that from the time he gets off the train at Minaki until he gets on again it will take three weeks to go into the district and out again by the usual method. He wires for a plane, the plane meets him at Minaki and takes him into the Red Lake district, and he makes his examination and catches the very same train the very same day at Sioux Lookout and is on his way to New York-all this by reason of the aviation service rendered by these very men who have been dropped because the government gives no thought to their usefulness in the development of Canada.
With regard to the great northwest, of which you know a good deal, Mr. Speaker, we have lately had mineral discoveries of importance at Great Bear lake. I have no doubt that the Department of Mines will bear out the statement that it is absolutely *necessary that we maintain our air service if we are to develop that country. The same thing may be said in connection with the air mail service. Civil government aviators developed air mail routes throughout the country, investigated conditions, mapped out the courses, provided the necessary information to enable contracts to be let, made experimental flights themselves, selected sites for emergency landing fields and laid the foundation for a splendid airmail service in this country of vast distances. A similar statement may be made in connection with
596	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
the forest patrol. Something like a quarter of a million miles have been photographed and a quarter of a billion acres have been under ipatrol. These are some of the things which the air service has been doing and I have no doubt that the records of the departments of the Interior and of National Defence will show that years of work were ahead of this service.
Yet in the face of this great service which is being rendered, 69 officers and 100 men are told that they must go. I submit that such action is poor business and is very shortsighted. If something of that kind had to be done it should not have been done so arbitrarily. The matter should have been given the same consideration as would have been given by an employer of labour to a similar problem.
I submit that the government should give further consideration to this matter. The hon. member for Carleton says that he is going to vote for this resolution but he asks the government on his bended knees to give further consideration to the lower salaried class. I think the government would be acting in the interests of Canada to heed his suggestion.
With regard to the air force, in the interests of humanity, in the national interest and furthermore in the international interest, the government sLould reconsider this whole matter. At the present time there is talk abroad that these air men who have been thrown out in the world are about to enlist in the forces of another country. No one can blame them because it is the only thing they can do, that is the only profession they have. They say: If our own country does not want us, if our country leaves us in the lurch, we will have to take the best employment we can get. I submit that that will not be a good thing for Canada regardless of whether or not it is legally possible.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not a Canada first policy, either.


James Layton Ralston: As my hon. friend says, it is not a Canada first policy. On that ground alone the government should reconsider this matter. The other day the Prime Minister intimated that there would be some difficulty in the adoption of this course by these men, but there is no law that I know of which prevents enlistment in the service of another nation when that nation is not technically at war. I submit that the right hon. gentleman was wrong in giving that impression. But regardless of the legal position it would be regrettable for these men to leave this country 
under these circumstances and the dominion might be precipitated into an embarrassing international situation.
I contend that everyone in the public service who has given faithful service is entitled to due consideration. The circumstances should be inquired into, the conditions should be investigated and full consideration given to the whole matter before a horizontal cut is made or wholesale dismissals take place.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reply to part of the address given by the last speaker (Mr. Ralston), but not because of its importance, as I consider the hon. gentleman's address from beginning to end was nothing but a piece of cheap party politics and an endeavour to make capital out of the troubles of a group of men who are in difficulties at the present time. I maintain that it lowers the reputation of the hon. gentleman to bring such a thing into this discussion in such a way. Last Friday he attempted to interject this matter into the discussion then taking place in the house under the guise of its being a matter of urgent public importance, but he did not succeed in getting it before the house because of Your Honour's ruling.
If the hon. gentleman had the interest of these air men at heart he would have gone about the matter in a different way. He knows very well that if a member of this parliament desires to get anything before the house or to advance any interest that is nonpolitical, all he has to do is to go and see the particular minister and put the case before him. Many hon. members on the other side have done this very thing with me and other ministers, and I defy them to say that they have not received every courtesy.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. minister was
asked on two occasions from this side of the house for information in regard to this matter, and he made the most non-committal answers; he said he had no information to give.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Within two hours of my being asked the question I wrote to the hon. gentleman who had asked it, giving what information 1 had. I gave information to the hon. members for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) at the earliest possible moment.


James Layton Ralston: What was that information?

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In bringing this
matter before the house the hon. gentleman has not had the interests of the air force at heart; it is simply an effort at self-glorification and an attempt to gather part of the advertising which the Chinese situation has been receiving.
This reduction in the air force is not properly a matter to be discussed at this time; it is a matter which should be taken up when the estimates of the Department of National Defence are before the committee. However, as it has been interjected into the debate I will give the cause for the reduction which has been made.


James Layton Ralston: We have been waiting two weeks for this.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As the hon. gentleman has said, the air force has done a great deal towards the development of the north country. He instanced a number of ways in which this has been done, such as map making, exploring of various air routes, air photography and many other useful services. This air force developed to a large extent as an aftermath of the war. I have no objection to make to the expenses incurred by the air service during the few years following the close of the war in the establishing of air clubs, the inaugurating of airports and other features of the service, but in this regard the estimates for previous years are interesting and instructive. In the year 1928-29 the estimate for aviation amounted to 85,042,731; in 192930, they amounted to 85,921,163, an increase of $878,432. In 1930-31 the estimates amounted to S7,475,700, an increase over the previous year of $1,554,537. The depression which now exists in this country started to show itself in the fall of 1929, and surely prudence and reason would have dictated that under circumstances of that kind instead of an increase of 81,554,537 being made in the estimates for aviation, they should have been reduced.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend know that was for the development of Trenton?- and he is keeping up that development.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Trenton will be very seriously cut down.


James Layton Ralston: But my hon. friend is
adopting Trenton instead of Borden.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman, instead of developing Trenton, had stopped the development at that time, a great deal of the trouble we are having at present would have been obviated.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. gentleman had better ask some of his supporters about that.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: How any hon.
gentleman in charge of the department could at a time of stress, when the depression had already started, give an increase of a million and a half dollars, is beyond my comprehension. The only way in which it can be explained is that in the year 1930 an election was coming on and the hon. gentleman wanted to pad the estimates at the public expense. Surely any man with reason or judgment would at such a time have enough grasp of the situation at least not to increase that estimate. If the estimate had then been decreased by $1,000,000 or S2,000.000, a good deal of the trouble that we are now having would not have occurred.


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend
suggest the reductions he would have made?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I certainly would
have reduced the estimate very materially at that time.


James Layton Ralston: In what items?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I consider any man who used reason at all in the administration of -the department would have used it then.
Now we come to this year. The government is faced undoubtedly with a very difficult situation, and every minister who has charge of a department has had to do his share in meeting it. A minister is in this position: many people think -that I, for instance, represent in the house the Department of National Defence, the navy, the army and the air force. I do not do that. I represent the people of Canada in dealing with those branches. When a question of -this kind arises, the rights of the country as a whole must be borne in mind as against those of the defence department, and therefore there can be no doubt as to what the decision must be. If there is a portion of the Department of National Defence the maintenance of which cannot be justified at a time when there are men, women and children having difficulty in getting enough to eat and wear, that portion must go and when it is part of the air force that can be spared at this time, it must go. You cannot get away from that, and I think the wisdom of the decision will be recognized by the people throughout Canada. That was the condition which made the cut imperative. The hon. gentleman has said that we are breaking contracts. My hon. friend is a lawyer and he knows much better than that, because I presume he wrote or at least is familiar with this contract on which all the air officers who are being let out were taken into the force.
598	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


James Layton Ralston: I can assure the hon.
gentleman I did not write any contract.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If the hon. member
followed the happenings in this department when he was in charge, he would be familiar with it. This is the form to be signed by the applicants for a non-permanent commission such as these gentlemen had:
To The Director,
Royal Canadian Air Force.
1.	I, the undersigned, hereby apply to be attached to the permanent active air force for continuous air force employment for such period as my services may be required but not exceeding three years.
Therefore how can we be breaking a contract, as the hon. gentleman has said, when the contract distinctly says it is "for such period as my services may be required but not exceeding three years"?


James Layton Ralston: What does my hon. friend say about enlistment?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The form continues:
2.	In consideration of the said application being granted, I hereby undertake and agree:
That, I will serve in continuous air force employment for a period of three years, if so required, under the conditions of service prescribed in the King's Regulations and Orders for the Royal Canadian Air Force, and at the rates of pay and allowances prescribed in the pay and allowance regulations for the Royal Canadian Air Force.
This shows that no contract in the slightest is being broken, and I may say that in the case of at least thirty out of the sixty-nine who are being let out, the three-year period has already expired or will expire in the course of a few days. Therefore I maintain that 'the department was entirely justified and was in no sense breaking a contract.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask whether these men are being let out because their services are no longer required, or because there is no money to pay them?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot see the
point in that question. Their services can be dispensed with, and undoubtedly the reason is that the money must be employed in a way that we consider more important and vitally necessary at the present time. That is the situation.
The hon. gentleman asked me with regard to the air men. He also well knows 'that in the regulations there is a clause for the air force that any man may be dismissed whenever his services are not required. That is in the King's Regulations and Orders for the Royal Canadian Air Force, section 392, subarticle 13-"his services be no longer required."

I may say that during the hon. gentleman's term in the office that I now have the honour to hold, a difficulty arose in the department and he had to let out very suddenly quite a large number of men. That was in 1928 or early in 1929, and advantage was then taken of that same 'regulation as it exists with regard to 'the permanent force of Canada. He acted in every sense in the same way as the department is acting at the present time. Therefore I maintain that everything he has brought up now is not for the interests of 'the air force but for the Old game of party politics and nothing else.
The statement has been made that these men were let out without notice. That again is incorrect. As I stated in the house this afternoon in answer to a question of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), the officers were given one month's leave for every five years they had put in, and -they were of course also given any leave that might have been due to them for this year. They were treated in exactly the same way as any man of the permanent force who was leaving the service; in other words, they received their terminal leave and I do not think any business man or employer of labour in this country could do more than that or be fairer about it. As regards the 100 airmen, they will get three weeks' leave with pay.
May I mention another point to show that the air force has not been badly used, at least in a certain particular. They have not paid anything in to the superannuation fund as the permanent air force officers have done. Therefore, during the time they have been in the service they have really been getting more in cash than -have those other men. That is the way they are leaving the service, and if there is any other way we can make the best of a 'bad job-because no one likes this any worse than I do, and I have every possible sympathy for them-I should like to know it. If it were not -for 'the absolute necessity for economy this would not have been done. I can say no more about the matter. That is the situation as I understand it and what I think has justified the department and the government in the stand that they have -taken.


James Layton Ralston: Is it also the case that the officers will lose about $400 of expenditure for uniforms?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 
James Dew Chaplin: Would the minister tell us-


James Layton Ralston: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend referring to my remarks, three times used the expression "cheap party politics."


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, that is what I meant.


James Layton Ralston: I did not interrupt my hon. friend, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker to point out to him that his language was unparliamentary, and that he cannot impute motives to a member of parliament. Furthermore, I deny in the most emphatic terms that anything of that nature was in my mind; there are no air men in my constituency. I ask you, sir, to request the minister to withdraw those imputations.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Perhaps the minister's
remarks wherein he imputed motives to the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) were not quite within the rules of parliament. It may have been that he was carried away with some warmth; I would suggest however that he withdraw the remark.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not remember saying-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My recollection of the
minister's remark was that the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth had been actuated only by cheap party politics. I was surprised at his statement.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not see how that can be wrong, Mr. Speaker. Under what rule could that be considered wrong?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling in this instance is that the remark is unparliamentary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I bow to your
decision, Mr. Speaker. If I have put my language in the wrong way, I regret it.


John Campbell Elliott: Do you withdraw it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I rise to ask a question-


James Dew Chaplin: I wish to ask the minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Dew Chaplin: He has withdrawn; what do you want?	.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has used the word "if."


James Dew Chaplin: I should like to inquire from the minister what-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand the minister to withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: For the information of the minister may I say the rule is as follows:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
In my opinion the language of the minister was not parliamentary, and should not have been used.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have already
expressed regret, if the language was unparliamentary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words, even at this late hour, in regard to this matter. Before proceeding to my remarks however I should like to assure you, sir, that the last thing in the world of which I would accuse any hon. member apposite would be playing party politics.


James Layton Ralston: The same to you.


Robert James Manion: Whether it be cheap or dear, I do not know. At any rate, I certainly should not accuse them of playing politics. I think I heard a few hon. members opposite both this afternoon and this evening state that we were playing party politics when we cut the reduction on smaller salaries from ten per cent to five per cent. So, apparently, after listening to the dispute which has just taken place, I might fairly come to the conclusion that some of them are not so particular about their own statements as about the statements of other people.
I have listened with a good deal of interest *to the discussions to-day, and have noted the different viewpoints of the different hon. members on the other side of the house. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) pointed out that we were treating the civil servants with cruelty, and with no more human kindness than would be shown by a private corporation. I am afraid I can
600	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
hardly agree with my hon. friend, because there are many private conporations in this country to-day which have completely closed their plants.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What?


Robert James Manion: Which have closed their plants.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and quite a few had closed their plants completely before my hon. friends went to the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh no.


Robert James Manion: The only trouble was that the hon. gentlemen over there could not see it, but the people did; that was the difference.


Charles A. Stewart: And they are regretting it now.


Robert James Manion: I have not seen any signs of regret.


Charles A. Stewart: Have you not?


Robert James Manion: They may not 'be very much enamoured of us, but they will never turn us out for that group over there.


Charles A. Stewart: The first
part of the statement was true.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth concerning private industry. As I have said, many of them have closed their plants. Business throughout the world is dull-not only in Canada, because I believe it is better in Canada than in other countries-and private industries are not as generous as the hon. gentleman would have us believe. They have to pick their good men, and take them according to seniority, as our railways have done. In my office every day, as Minister of Railways and Canals, I have protests against the actions of both railway companies, because they are laying off married men, returned soldiers, and the like; they have to take seniority into account. So I do not think the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth is quite correct when he says we have been more cruel than private corporations. As a matter of fact, the reason that labour people have always preferred government ownership to private ownership is because the former has always been, under this government or any other government, more friendly to labour than has been the latter. This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) took another attitude. He made the statement that we

should close government houses throughout the country, and the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) backed up the statement. Well, in these days 'that is a real touch of demagogism, because it smacks of politics. My hon. friends opposite would say. "Let us close up the government houses; let us throw these rich men out on the street." As a matter of fact, many people in Canada would not approve, and would not think we were acting in the interests of the working people of our country if we closed the government houses. Those houses are generally occupied by men who can afford to spend a good deal of money, whether it be well- or ill-gotten, and in spending that money they give employment to many people. Servants are employed, merchants are given an opportunity to sell their goods, and the like. How would conditions be improved by closing the government houses? Of course, for my hon. friends to talk about closing government houses is, at the present time, good politics.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask a question?


Robert James Manion: Yes.	.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If those people have so much to spend are they not in a position to take a ten per cent cut the same as ordinary civil' servants?


Robert James Manion: Yes, but that is a statutory matter. I have no particular objection'; I am as good a democrat as my hon. friend, and I have no particular objection to applying the ten per cent cut to them.
The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) said, "Let us get the millionaire." He was not playing politics-oh, no 1 He said, " Let us get after the millionaires." There are not many millionaires, so common people like ourselves who are not millionaires are rather pleased to get after them. Of course I would not think of accusing the hon. member for North Battleford of playing party politics when he said, " Let us get after the millionaires and let them pay a million dollars each." I know his statements were all made in good part, and he was doing it for the good of the country-oh, yes. Of course he was not thinking of getting a vote, when the time comes, from the labour people; of course his remarks were not made in that spirit.
The fact is however that, when all is said and done, it is not as easy to extract money from millionaires as he has pointed out. Not being a millionaire, I should like to go after some of them myself. The fact is that the millionaire is hit pretty hard, if one wishes to look at the facts fairly. His income

Public Service-Salary Deduction
taxes are heavy, and as he buys more imported goods than the ordinary working man, he pays more taxes on those goods. So in the words of the member for North Battle-ford the millionaire is "got" to a not bad extent.
Then I listened to the member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson), the Ontario Whip of his party. Coming from a rural section he did not play politics, but he did not condemn the ten per cent. Oh, no, not at all! He is good at asking questions of this side of the house. I will ask him a question: Did he oppose or support this ten per cent cut? I do not know.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will tell my hon.
friend. If he had listened attentively to me-


Robert James Manion: I did.


Frederick George Sanderson: -he could not come to any other conclusion than that I did not oppose the ten per cent cut.


Robert James Manion: That is exactly what I
thought; I thought the hon. gentleman was actually supporting it. In other words, coming from a rural section, not caring, of course, for votes, not playing cheap politics at all, his game-I withdraw that word; it is not parliamentary;-his idea was that he could agree with members on this side. No politics over there! Oh, no.


James Dew Chaplin: It is policy, not politics.


Robert James Manion: That is right, it is policy
for the next election. However, as I pointed out, there are various differences of opinion among my hon. friends opposite in regard to what should be done. To be serious for a few moments-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Well, if my hon. friends
opposite had been listening over on this side of the house to the rather unconsciously humorous speeches they have been making the whole day, they would think a little seriousness might well be injected into this discussion.
It is to be remembered that this ten per cent cut is for one year only. That has been made very clear to those who will suffer by this reduction-and taking ten per cent off any one's income entails, I suppose, suffering of a kind. But it cannot be forgotten that Canada, like the rest of the world, is in a very serious condition at the present moment. The whole world is suffering from a depression
such as it has not experienced in centuries. We are in the habit of saying this is the worst condition that the world has ever had to face, but certainly the depression is very serious and very far-reaching. It has been brought on by the war, by reparations-


An hon. MEMBER:: The tariff.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I
would even deny that many of the tariffs that have been imposed since the war may have had their effect also. Then there is the unfair competition from Russia-a country which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who is not in his seat, loves so much. But he comes back to Canada, I notice. Furthermore there is the very low price of commodities now prevailing, which is probably the greatest affliction that the world generally is suffering from at the present time. As a result of all these conditions we have unemployment, and it has to be relieved in Canada as in other countries. The United States is said to have seven or eight million unemployed, Great Britain with free trade-


Edward James Young: The United States with a
protective tariff-


Robert James Manion: I was going to say that
Great Britain with free trade has a higher number of unemployed than the United States in proportion to population.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: Yes, in proportion to population.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. I
have the actual figures.


Robert James Manion: I know the actual figures.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
are they?


Robert James Manion: The United States, 7,000,000; Great Britain, 3,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
figures are:	United States 7,500,000, and
6.000.	000 in addition to that number.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is conjuring up dreams.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, they are not dreams.


Robert James Manion: The highest figures I have ever seen give the United States about
7.000.	000 unemployed and Great Britain about
3.000. 000. If you take into account their
602	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
respective populations, there is greater unemployment in England than in the United States.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not a fact that in the
United States practically nothing has been done for the unemployed, whereas in Great Britain they are being taken care of?


Robert James Manion: That is another question. In Canada, by the way, the unemployed have been taken care of a good deal-with very few compliments from the other side of the house in regard to what has been done. I am not speaking of my hon. friend particularly. But I was pointing out that unemployment is world wide. France, the last country to feel the depression, has now a large number of unemployed, Germany has from 4,000,000 to
5,000,000 unemployed, and the condition is serious in Italy. I merely mention this to show that the condition is world wide. Undoubtedly the greatest trouble with a large portion of the world to-day is that commodity prices are so low. The wheat farmers of the west are suffering very severely from the price of their commodity being down to 65 cents a bushel.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Robert James Manion: Surely my friends do not
think we can control the price of wheat?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert James Manion: Two or three years ago
wheat was two and a half to three times that price. The very fact that it has gone down to 65 cents a bushel has lowered the purchasing power to such an extent that, with no exception, the farmer is the hardest hit man in the community. All farm products are hit in the same way. As a rough estimate I may say the purchasing power of the farmers of western Canada has been reduced by between S200,000,000 and 8300,000,000. Therefore I say that being the case, the wage earners of Canada, whether civil servants or otherwise, must expect to make some sacrifice on behalf of their country. And a large proportion of other wage earners have made sacrifices. The two great railway systems last year made cuts in the salaries of their higher-up officers by, I think, ten per cent, representing a reduction of some millions of dollars. More recently they came to an agreement with the running trades to accept a reduction of ten per cent. That is a fairly drastic cut. I notice that Roger Babson, a noted economist, said that in the United States during

October there were 650 wage cuts in 40 different industries, and in August 338 wage cuts in 32 industries. There you have a total of nearly 1,000 wage cuts in over seventy different industries in two months. I admit quite frankly that the civil service is being hit by this reduction. True, they are losing some of their purchasing power, some of their income, and nobody regrets it more probably than those who find it necessary to put the cut into operation. I do not suppose that my hon. friends opposite under stress of the strongest political feeling would say that they have more sympathy in their hearts for the people than have the rest of us. We do not like to throw men out of jobs, we do not like to take away their earning power, but when the country is in such a serious condition these steps have to be taken. It must not be forgotten that the civil servants, generally speaking, have what no men in private occupations have-steady work, superannuation, sick leave and holidays, and, what is most important, as my right hon. leader mentioned to-day, they have security of employment. I mean those who are permanent civil servants. Of course, there are exceptions; for instance, when occasionally a position is wiped out, but that affects a small proportion of the whole civil service. And after all, I am sure my labour friends will agree with me that one of the greatest worries of the working people in any country is the insecurity and uncertainty of being able to earn their living in the days to come.
Another thing I wish to point out; Canada is in the position of having to pay more heavily for carrying on her national operations than ever before in her history. It is worth while remembering that in 1931 our national expenditure amounted to $300,000,000 over and above what we expended in 1913. In 1913 our whole dominion revenue was- $168,000,000. This year, in addition to running the ordinary affairs of the country, we have to pay out at least $300,000,000 over and above what we paid out in 1913. These items include $110,000,000 or more for interest on the war debt, which was accumulated between 1914 and 1919, and about $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 for pensions and other allied servies of one kind or another also due to the war.


James Layton Ralston: All these charges have
been in existence since 1921.


Robert James Manion: I am not questioning that. I admit that if we take 1921 the same condition existed, but the present world condition

Public Service-Salary Deduction
did not exist at that time. In addition to those other amounts, this year we will pay out to the Canadian National Railways, for one reason and another-for deficit on interest due the investing public, for additions and betterments, for maritime freight rates and so on-about 8112,000,000. If you add those figures together you will find that they total about 8300,000,000, yet I repeat that in 1913 our entire national income was only 8168,000,000. and this country never had an income of more than 850,000,000 until after 1900.
In addition to the countiy generally, the provinces are in difficulties; everyone knows it. so there is no harm in my saying so. Everyone knows that the western provinces particularly have been very hard hit by the financial collapse not only of this country but of the world in general. The western, provinces have had to be helped very materially by this government. The Canadian National Railways have been hit to such an extent that last year the gross earnings were over $100,000,000 less than in 1928, a period of only three years. The same thing also applies in proportion to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In this connection it might be pointed out that in 1929, the year before the election under the regime of my hon. friends opposite there Avere greater capital expenditures put upon the national railways, many of them of a useless character, than ever before in the history of this country or of the national road. Of course there were no politics about it, but in that year there were commitments of $270,000,000, which to a large extent we have to meet now and for which we were not responsible. When we came into office on August 1, 1930. we were committed to the expenditure of $158,000,000, the amount remaining from that $270,000,000, over which we had absolutely no control.
Hon. gentlemen opposite are continually pointing out that during their regime they reduced the national debt. I am not going to question that; perhaps they did reduce the national debt, but they increased the Canadian National Railway debt by over twice as much as they cut down the national debt. The interest owing the investing public by the national road in 1923, the first year after the amalgamation, amounted to $35,000,000, while during 1931 the interest on bonds due to the public from the national road amounted to $57,000,000, an increase of $22,000,000 which has to be met by this government. That $22,000,000 represents interest at 5 per cent on about $450,000,000, so during their regime hon. gentlemen opposite added very considerably
to our second national debt, if I may so term the Canadian National Railway debt for which the government of Canada is responsible. Their additions to that debt wiped out by several times whatever little cuts they might have made in the ordinary debt of the country. Whatever else may be said, the people of Canada have to pay both debts; at least in the past they have had to pay the Canadian National Railway debt as well, and no doubt they will continue to pay a great deal of it.
I have practically finished, Mr. Speaker; I rose to say only a few words. I would suggest to my hon. friends on the other side that they might remember that these are serious times, and that we are not making these cuts because we are glad to make them or because we take pleasure in inflicting pain. We are making them because they are necessary for the good of the financial structure of this country.
By the way, I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his heated address today. He spoke of the decreased purchasing power that we were bringing about by cutting the salaries of the civil servants. This will not lessen the purchasing power at all, because you simply save collecting that amount of taxes from someone else.


Edward James Young: That is good, sound doctrine, and I am glad to hear you say it.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I see nothing wrong
with that argument. I do not know whether my hon. friend is criticizing it or applauding it.


Edward James Young: I am applauding it; it is
good.


Robert James Manion: This is the first time the
hon. gentleman has found anything good in my remarks.


James Dew Chaplin: You must be wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I will admit that I am
beginning to wonder if I am not wrong. However, I repeat that if you take the $8,000,000 of taxes and pay it to the civil servants you cut down the purchasing power of the people; that is all. There is no difference, so you are not cutting down purchasing power at all when you cut down wages that must be paid out of the taxes of the people.
I suggest to my hon. friend that while I know they would not play politics, and I know none of them would be demagogues, I
604	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
hope they will remember that they got my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) to withdraw a remark about politics to-night, and be sure that in dealing with this question in the future they avoid saying anything that might be imagined to refer to politics.
In closing I want to point out that we admit quite frankly that even with the great power of this government we cannot control the world.


Charles A. Stewart: You thought you could.


Robert James Manion: No, we never claimed we
could. My hon. friends have a habit of saying we told the people this or that, and that we deceived the people.


Charles A. Stewart: No, you
deceived yourselves.


Robert James Manion: No, we did not. My hon. friend is judging us by himself; he deceives himself so often he thinks we do it also. My hon. friends opposite, who were in the majority in this house when we went to the country, told the people the other story, but the people were so fed up with them that they would not believe hon. gentlemen opposite. My hon. friends had the same opportunity to tell their story to the people that we had to tell our story, but the people were so tired of them and so disgusted with them, and knew they had been such an utter, ghastly failure, that they were anxious to get rid of the late government.
Of course I would not bring politics into my remarks in any way, but in closing I suggest that it is well to remember that this is a world condition, and that whatever we do must be done in association with the other countries of the world if we are to bring about a stability which does not exist at the present time. So far as I can remember, and I remember pretty well, when my hon. friends were in power they did not foresee any of the troubles which were coming upon the world. They did not perceive any of the difficulties we were going to encounter, and so they should not be too harsh in their judgment of our actions in doing the things we find necessary in order to carry this country of ours on to a better condition than we found existing when we came into power.


Mr. GRAY:: Before the minister finishes I should like to have his personal opinion as to whether he is in favour of a straight cut of ten per cent, regardless of the size of the salary, as set out in this resolution.


Robert James Manion: This government differs
from the late government; we act together, and when we make a move we make it as a body. This is not a straight cut of ten per cent; it is a cut of ten per cent down to $1,200 and five per cent below that, to a large proportion of the civil servants.


James Layton Ralston: This government acts as
one.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I ask the minister a question? He asked me one and I was good enough to answer it. As a member of the government, in the absence of the Prime Minister, will he tell the house the reasons for exempting naval officers, army officers, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and judges, as well as lieutenant-governors, from the ten per cent salary cut.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I can give any particular reason apart from those already given by the Prime Minister. So far as the judges are concerned, their salaries are statutory.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are they not all
statutory?


Robert James Manion: I am informed-I am not
a lawyer; I am like my hon. friend. I have the great disadvantage of not being one-I am informed that they are on a different plane entirely and therefore different conditions apply to them. I do not wish to go into that phase of the question at the present time because that would start me off on another speech. But may I say before I sit down that I am a little tired of the joke which my hon. friends seem to be so fond of, that we do not dare to express ourselves, when ou-r leader is here, as we do in his absence. I can assure my hon. friends that the ministers of this government run their own departments; the Prime Minister does not run the departments. But the Prime Minister is leader of the government, and I should hope that my hon. friends opposite when they were in power had some respect for their leader. The suggestion, however, that any of us on this side are intimidated by the Prime Minister is rather ludicrous. I have no more reason to be intimidated by the Prime Minister than by the late Prime Minister.


Mr. HEPBURN:: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order; the house is not
in committee.

Public Service-Salary Deduction


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: While we on this side-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: How does the hon.
gentleman reconcile his remarks with his action and that of his colleagues in increasing their own salaries by $2,000 apiece just a year ago?


Robert James Manion: That is just a wrong
statement; it is not so. We did not do any such thing. We did not increase the salaries, but by cutting out the automobiles it is claimed we saved the country $40,000 a year.


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: My first expression must be one of thanks to the two hon. members of the administration who have spoken, for their frankness in informing this house of their absolute failure to redeem the promises which were made by their party, and in showing us how statesmanlike was the address given by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), who, as has been frankly admitted tonight, has clearly brought out the facts. There is no question that hon. gentlemen were speaking from the heart when they told us that this country to-day was in such an exceptionally unfavourable condition that the cabinet had no power whatever to remedy the present situation. That is what we have been trying to get them to realize for the last seventeen months. We know the situation into which the country has been brought is very largely the result of the way in which its affairs have been administered. The Prime Minister has told us time and again that we are now living in an entirely different world to that which existed some two years ago-a world, which calls for different treatment if we are to solve the present economic situation-different tactics from those that were employed in 1929, and in 1930 when they assumed the reins of power. So that I am glad to note the frank admission which these two ministers of the crown have made to-night. Before the session closes they will possibly hear more, which will cause them to realize that their administrative acts have been such that in many respects the government has been an absolute failure up to the present time.
Coming more particularly to the matter under discussion, I agree entirely with the gentlemen who have expressed themselves on this side when they say they are opposed to a horizontal cut in the remuneration of civil servants. I think the hon. member for South
Perth (Mr. Sanderson) asked a very reasonable question a moment ago when he inquired of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) whether it was the policy of the government that certain specified officers and employees of the service as well as judges would be asked to turn in a portion of their salaries along with other civil servants. Personally, I know I voice the feeling of my constituents when I say that they approve of the salary cut of ten per cent all around, but they are also firmly of the opinion that those receiving much higher salaries should be more deeply cut than they are according to the provisions of the resolution as it now reads. So far as judges are concerned, while as we have heard from ministers of the crown-and we did not expect any other answer-that there has been no word from any of our judicial officers offering to make a contribution from their salaries, in the situation which exists in this country today I think it is only asking what is right when we urge that the judges of our land should help us to meet the present crisis by making a substantial contribution along with other servants of the state. If ever there was a time in the history of Canada when those receiving higher salaries should accept with the greatest good feeling a proportionate reduction in their remuneration, that time is the present, and I do hope that before this matter is concluded, before the final decision is made by the house, the government will determine upon a deeper cut in the higher salaries that are being paid to our public servants, and also that the judiciary will be required to make their just and reasonable contribution.


Edward James Young: I agree with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in one remark he made, namely, that there is as much humanity on this side of the house as on the other, and that neither party is anxious to cause the civil servants of the country any undue suffering in a reduction of salaries, with malice aforethought. I agree with him in that regard; the only difference is the understanding we have of the problem. If hon. gentlemen opposite really understood the causes of our present troubles they would have taken measures to alleviate the situation rather than measures which can only aggravate it. While he was speaking the minister suggested that the principal cause of the trouble was the low price of wheat, but when asked why the price was so low he could not answer.
Now what is it that makes wheat so dear in Europe?
606	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tariffs.


Edward James Young: What is it that makes wheat so dear in Europe that the people cannot afford to buy it and so cheap in Canada that the farmers cannot make a living growing it? It is tariffs. What is it that makes manufactured goods so dear in Canada that the people cannot buy them and so cheap in Europe that the people there cannot make a living producing them? It is tariffs. What is it that makes it impossible for us to exchange our surplus wealth which other countries need for the wealth which we need and which they have in abundance? It is tariffs and nothing but tariffs.
This reduction in salaries which has already been submitted to by our railway employees and the employees of a good many other industrial and commercial concerns, and which is now being applied to the civil service, is the inevitable result of the fiscal policy of this government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tariffs.


Edward James Young: Yes, tariffs. When the people of Canada voted for the fiscal policy of my right hon. friend, they voted for lower wages, fewer jobs and a lower standard of living. Lower wages are the inevitable result of an increased tariff. When the people of this country voted to shut out New Zealand's butter, they declared by their votes that they were willing to eat less butter on their bread. When they voted authority to this government to raise the duty on woollen goods to 60 per cent, 100 per cent and 150 per cent, they declared that they were willing to be satisfied with inferior clothing or to continue to wear their old clothing.


Mr. GOTT:: What about socks?


Edward James Young: Yes, and socks too. When the people of this country voted to put a twenty-five per cent duty on agricultural implements, they intimated that they were willing to do without other necessary articles in the household in order to pay the extra price for their implements. When the people of this country voted authority to this government to make them pay $24,000,000 per year more for gasoline than was necessary, and to pay that extra money into an industry which has a pay-roll of only $8,000,000 per year, they declared by their votes that they were willing to do without many necessary articles which could have been purchased with that $24,000,000. The production of those articles would have given employment to many people. When the people of this
[Mr. Young.l
country voted authority to this government to divert the revenue of the country into the pockets of private individuals, they declared that they were willing to 'be taxed in other ways in order to make up that loss of revenue.
My right hon. friend stated that if he were elected to power he would Shut out $300,000,000 worth of manufactured goods whioh came into this country from abroad, and he now boasts that he has done it. However, if you look at his revenue returns you will find that when this year is ended-


Eccles James Gott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; the hon. gentleman has been speaking for ten minutes without once referring to the subject matter of the motion before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true; this is a budget speech but we might as well have it now.


Edward James Young: I can make another when the budget comes down. The right hon. gentleman told the people of this country that he would shut out $300,000,000 worth of goods-


Eccles James Gott: I submit that that has nothing t-o do with the motion.


Edward James Young: When I want to model my speeches after a master, I will come to the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gott). As I said, the right hon. gentleman told the people that he would shut out $300,000,000 worth of goods. He has shut them out, but his revenue will be reduced by $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 from customs duties alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that he would prefer that that $300,000,000 which has been kept at home should have been sent abroad?


Edward James Young: If I had some of the back Hansards before me I think I could quote from a speech delivered by the right hon gentleman in which he said that he thought the time had passed when men thought that we paid for imports with cash.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The goods must be
paid for.


Edward James Young: Everyone knows that those $300,000,000 worth of goods would have been paid for by other goods shipped out of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who would buy them?


Edward James Young: And the production of those goods would have given employment to our

Public Service-Salary Deduction
people just as much as the production of this 8300,000,000 worth to toe manufactured at home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who will buy them?


Charles A. Stewart: They did
buy them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not since the depression began.


Charles A. Stewart: Not since
this government came into power.


Edward James Young: No one will buy them if we refuse to take goods in exchange.


Eccles James Gott: What did they pay for them with?


An hon. MEMBER:: Onions.


Edward James Young: As I said before, this
$40,000,000 or $50,000,000 which has been diverted from the revenues of this country into the coffers of our manufacturers must be made up in some other way, and it is proposed to take $8,000,000 from the civil servants as their share of this sacrifice. This is the inevitable result of the fiscal policy of the present government.
My right hon. friend said that if we shut out this $300,000,000 worth of goods, they would be produced in this country; they have been shut out but they are not being produced. What has 'been the result? The real wealth of the world -consists of food, clothing, furniture and so on, the articles we use in everyday life. Three hundred million dollars' worth of these articles have been shut out; they are not being produced in Canada, which means that we have just that much less of real wealth available for the use of our people. That amount of wealth less in the pockets of our people means a lower standard of living, and my right hon. friend cannot get away from that. WThen we voted for a higher tariff, we voted for a lower standard of living. Tariffs cannot be raised without the cutting of wages and the producing of lower standards of living.
I will say a word or two with reference to our indemnities-


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member is now on
the subject.


Edward James Young: This is the part which interests my hon. friend. I was wondering what he was so anxious about. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that all our troubles can
be laid a.t the doors of the bankers. I do not believe that the bankers are responsible for world conditions as they exist to-day. If there is any one class more responsible for present conditions than another, it is the politicians. If there is any group of people in Canada more responsible for the necessity for this reduction than another, it is the members of this house. We passed the legislation wihich has made it necessary to reduce salaries. I know hon. members on this side did not support that legislation, but the house as a whole passed it.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have to take the cut.


Edward James Young: Yes, we have to take the cut with the others. If a person wishes to be philosophical there is another way of looking at it. Suppose all those members who do not support the present government and who were members of this house three years ago had taken the sum of S400 each from their indemnities and put that amount into a fund to be devoted to the educating of the people of this country as to the fallacy of the policies of my right hon. friend, the people would have never voted him into power and this cut would not have been necessary. We did not do that; we did not feel we could afford to do it and now we have to submit to this cut and the people have been denied their education.


James Dew Chaplin: You spent more than
that on Deaohman.


Edward James Young: No, we did not spend more than that.


Robert James Manion: What did he cost?


Edward James Young: I do not mind telling my hon. friend; as many of us as could afford it subscribed $50 per year to maintain the consumers league, of which Mr. Deachman was the representative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were other contributions.


Edward James Young: It was money well spent. I wish that the common sense which he taught us could have been multiplied a thousandfold and spread all over Canada. As I said before, I have no objection to the ten per cent reduction because I realize it is the inevitable result of the policies of this government, but I think we should follow the principle of placing the heaviest burden on the strongest backs; the biggest cut should be
608	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
made in the salaries of the higher paid officials who can stand it better than the lower paid employees.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was addressing the house he alluded to the fact that the railroad employees and those employed by private interests had been forced to take a reduction in their wages. I am sorry that the present government has had to follow the lead of private interests. I have been brought up to think a government should be an ideal employer and take the lead in showing how employees ought to be treated, but in this instance we have the government following the lead of private employers in Canada in reducing wages. I am sorry, however, the government has not followed the example set by private employers in this country in taking the employees or their representatives into their confidence and discussing the matter with them before introducing legislation such as is now before the house.
This parliament has several times enunciated the principle of collective bargaining. Indeed, some of the members who are to-day sitting on the treasury benches were members of the government in 1918 when they enunciated in an order in council this principle. Order in council P.C. 1743 of July 11, 1918, reads in section two:
That all employees have the right to organize in trade unions, and this right shall not be denied or interfered with in any manner whatsoever, and through their chosen representatives should be permitted and encouraged to negotiate with employers concerning working conditions, rates of pay, or other grievances.
That principle was adopted by the government of Canada on July 11, 1918, during the war. After the war was over, on the first of May, 1919, some members now sitting on the treasury benches were members of the government that passed another order in council cancelling some of the provisions in the former one, but leaving intact the particular clause which I have just read.
Then parliament endorsed the principle of collective bargaining and endorsed unanimously the principle of establishing a national council for the civil service of Canada. In conformity with that endorsation the former Liberal government on the seventh of May, 1930, passed the following order in council, P.C. 970:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 6th May, 1930, from the Minister of Labour, directing attention to the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of Tuesday, March 27, 1928, and

Thursday, March 29, 1928; and more specifically to the second report presented to the house from the select standing committee on industrial and international relations and to the record of the adoption of the said report by the house, contained therein.
It will be observed that by adopting the said report the house endorsed "the principle of the establishment by the government of a national civil service council, composed of representatives of the government and the organized civil service in equal numbers, to consider and advise the government upon matters of mutual concern to the government and civil servants in their respective capacities as employer and employees, also as to the establishing of any other consultative and advisory machinery that may be required." And further, the house agreed "that, as the form of constitution for such a council, covering its scope and functions, can best be determined by joint agreement between the parties concerned," a committee should be set up by the government, representing both the government and the civil service organizations, to draft a constitution for such a national civil service council, any such constitution to be subject to the approval of the governor in council.
Haying in mind the foregoing, the minister submits that the time would now appear appropriate for the taking of the initial step suggested by the report above quoted.
The committee, therefore, submit for Your Excellency's approval the following recommendations of the Minister of Labour.
1.	That a national civil service council drafting committee should forthwith be constituted, to draft a constitution for a national civil service council.
2.	In establishing such a committee there first arises the question of its membership. The policy of giving equal representation to civil service organizations and to the government should be observed.
3.	Representation of civil service organizations:
The Department of Labour has record of some twenty-eight organizations of civil servants throughout the country, varying in respect of their memberships from about seventeen to over 8,000. Obviously, with such a comparatively large number of organizations existing, giving direct representation to them all ivould not be practicable, in view of the fact that the setting up of a committee of at least fifty-six members would be involved thereby. Selecting those organizations reporting 500 or more members, it is observed that there are ten which fall into this category. These organizations represent substantially all classes of civil servants organized, covering practically all branches of the service in which there is organization, and they include an overwhelming majority of the organized civil service. These ten organizations should be given representation on the committee. While not directly represented under this plan, several of the smaller organizations will be represented through affiliation with one or other of the larger bodies. In order to represent as many bodies as may be possible while still limiting the size of the committee to a reasonable figure, numerical differences among organizations should be overlooked rvhen determining representation, and if each of these ten organizations had one representative to speak for it, even though these differences in size exist, the representation

Questions
would be as satisfactory as would be practical in the circumstances. Moreover, as an approach to unanimity on the part of all those interested is desirable, voting strength is unimportant. It is therefore recommended that each of the following organizations be invited to select one of the members of the aforementioned committee.


Eccles James Gott: I do not like to interrupt
the hon. gentleman, but I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it is eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 29, 1932