[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury) presented the first and second reports of the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) moved that the second report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. EARL LAWSON (West York) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to consider and report upon appointments to and control and direction of the civil service of Canada and the general administration of the Civil Service Act.
Mr. LAWSON moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the first report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
Mr. SENN moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. c. MATTHEWS (Toronto East Centre) moved that the first report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg) presented the first report of select standing committee on marine and fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
translation service
['It is answered.']
Mr. CAHAN:: An arrangement has been
made for the appointment of one official only in the department of the Secretary of State who is to take charge of the translation of foreign languages, that is, languages other than French and English, into French and English as may be required by the several departments of the government. I infer that this question does not relate to that appointment, but in direct reply to the question I would say that suggestions have been made orally and the government is considering the possibility of the organization of a bureau to have charge of translations other than the translation usually made in the different departments by their regular staffs. As no conclusion has been reached and no report is available I am unable to give a more definite answer to this question.
united STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN FISH


['An arrangement has been\nmade for the appointment of one official only in the department of the Secretary of State who is to take charge of the translation of foreign languages, that is, languages other than French and English, into French and English as may be required by the several departments of the government. I infer that this question does not relate to that appointment, but in direct reply to the question I would say that suggestions have been made orally and the government is considering the possibility of the organization of a bureau to have charge of translations other than the translation usually made in the different departments by their regular staffs. As no conclusion has been reached and no report is available I am unable to give a more definite answer to this question.\nunited STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN FISH']
Mr. BENNETT:: As this matter still is
under consideration with the government of the United States obviously it would be impossible to make any statement as to the present position of the negotiations.



Mr. HEPBURN:: 1.	Has the Dominion government or the Ontario provincial government jurisdiction over fishing regulations on lake Erie?

Questions
2.	Is	the	Dominion	government	the	only
governing body empowered to legislate a short limit for gill-net fishing on lake Erie?
3.	Can such a regulation be made by the Ontario government as a condition of licence?
4.	Is	the	Dominion	government	the	only
governing body empowered to legislate for the close season on lake Erie?
5.	Can such a regulation be made as a condition of licence by the Ontario government?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I do not think these questions are proper. They are all questions of law and I do not think the minister is bound to answer them. There may be some differences between the two authorities, the provincial and the federal, and it will be for the courts to decide whether the provincial authorities or the federal government can regulate certain things within the boundaries of Ontario.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I think the question is
a proper one. In any event it is a contentious question; the minister can answer it if he so desires.


Mr. STEVENS:: It is answered.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many officials were employed in the year 1931, under the supervision of Mr. Lewis, on the St. Lawrence river coast, to enforce the Migratory Birds Convention Act?
2.	What were their names, addresses and salaries?
3.	By whom were they recommended?
4.	Will the same officials be employed this year?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Three.
2.	Mr. Thomas Beaulieu, St. Andre de Kamouraska, Kamouraska Co., Quebec, salary i,part time), $200 a year, $180.02 paid in 1931; Mr. Adrien Dion, Bic, Rimouski Co., Quebec, salary, $200 for three months; Mr. Edmond Petitpas, Havre St. Pierre, Saguenay Co., Quebec, salary, $300 for six months.
3.	Employed on instructions issued by the minister.
4.	Will be decided in due course.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since August 1, 1930, did the Minister of Labour make or give to the press statements about unemployment in this country?
2.	If so: (a) at what dates; (b) what was the number of the unemployed in this country each time?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Prior to February 3, 1932. No information. Since February 3, 1932. No interviews.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



TEMISCOUATA POSTMASTERS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed: (a) after an inquiry; (b) without an inquiry, in the county of Temiscouata, by the present Postmaster General?
2.	What are the names of those who were dismissed after an inquiry?
3.	What are the names of those who were dismissed without an inquiry?
4.	Who replaced each of them?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	(a) 12; (b) None.
2	and 4.
Post office - Postmaster dismissed - New postmaster
La Richardiere, Joseph Michaud, Frangois Michaud.
Gironde, Jonny April, Mrs. Marie Emma Santerre Rioux.
Raudot, Andre Beaulieu, Jos. Alexandre Lebel.
Montagne Ronde, David Lebel, Eugene Lepage.
Lamy Sud, Narcisse Ouellet, Isidore Ouellet.
Notre Dame du Lac, Antoine Landry, Thomas Voisine (acting).
Sully, J. B. Plourde, Andrea Tardif (acting).
Ivry. Joseph Momeau, Pierre Fortin.
Riou, Omer Sirois, Mrs. Emile Ouellet.
St. Arsene, Edmond Rioux, J. B. Laforest (acting).
Chemin du Lac, Geo. Alp. Belanger, J. E. Caron.
Denonville, Thomas Dube, Theodule Michaud.
3.	See No. 1 (b).



MR. PAUL LANGL0I3

Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Following the charges made by the honourable member for Temiscouata in the House of Commons, on February 25, has the Postmaster General decided to hold an inquiry regarding the conduct of Paul Langlois, postmaster at St. Eusebe de Cabano, Quebec?
2.	If so:	(a) on -what date; (b) were
Timothee Dube, Pierre Dube and Joseph Albert Dube called upon to give evidence; (c) will the witnesses be sworn before giving their evidence; (d) where will the inquiry take place; (e) who will be the commissioner in charge of inquiry?
Mr. SAUVE;
1 and 2. As the house has already been advised, charges of political partisanship made in writing and accompanied iby affidavits will
Questions

be investigated but such written charges and affidavits have not yet been received in this case.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	What amount was received by the province of Quebec through the National Research Council during the calendar years of 1930 and 1931?
2.	To whom were scholarships awarded in Quebec?
3.	To which provincial institutions were the grants made in Quebec?


Mr. STEVENS:: 

RUSSIAN WOOD IMPORTATIONS

Mr. BOUCHARD:: What quantity of Russian wood was imported into Canada during the calendar years of 1930 and 1931?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No wood or timber recorded as imported into Canada from Russia during the calendar years 1930 and 1931.



HALF MOON BAY, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. MUNN:: 1.	Was the post office at Half Moon Bay, British Columbia, removed from its old location to Redroofes, British Columbia, three-quarters of a mile distant from the old location?
2.	If so, who asked for the removal?
3.	Was the appointment of postmaster made by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	How many applications were received by the department for the position of postmaster?
5.	How many of said applicants were returned soldiers?
6.	Is the present holder of said position a returned soldier?
7.	If not, why was a returned soldier not appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Premises of the post office are three-quarters of a mile from the former site.
2.	Office was vacant and new appointment was made.
3.	No.
4.	Two.
5.	One.
6.	No.
7.	Postmaster appointed was considered more suitable.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF, HALIBURTON, ONT.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1 What is the total amount of unemployment relief both direct and by works provided for in the district of Haliburton, Ontario, during the past year?
2. Was there an amount of $100,000 set aside for the purpose of building a sceuie highway?
Questions
3.	If so, what were the terms as between the federal and provincial governments and municipalities in this connection?
4.	What was the rate of pay for day labourers engaged on this work?
5.	What was the rate of pay to superm-tendents ?
6.	What is the name and residence of the person in charge of this work?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Return attached hereto.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	In the county of Haliburton the Dominion government contributes forty per cent towards provincial highways, the balance being borne by the provincial government.
4.	No information.
5.	No information.
6.	No information.
Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931 Ontario
Public Works Schedules in the County of Haliburton
Schedule
No.
195
197
199
200 249
3B
5B
Municipal Works Clause 6
Dysart twp	
Cardiff twp	
Glamorgan	
Lutterworth twp	
Monmouth twp	
Snowden	
Minden twp	
Stanhope twp	
Total expenditure	Percentage Mun. Prov. Dom.	Dominion proportion$	%	S40,000	25	374	374	15,0004,000	25	371	374	1,5004,000	25	374	374	1,5002,000	25	374	374	7506,000	25	374	374	2,2504,000	25	374	374	1,5004,000	25	374	374	1,5002,000	25	374	374	75066,000	24,750
Provincial Highways Clause 9
The construction of roads in districts of Algoma, Kenora, Manitoulin, Mus-koka, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Cochrane, Timiskaming and Haliburton. .
The construction of roads in districts of Algoma, Kenora, Manitoulin, Mus-koka, Nipissing, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Cochrane, Timiskaming and Haliburton
3,000,000
1,600,000
4,600,000
60	40
60	40
1,200,000
640,000
1,840,000
.	COMMONS
Questions cts Orders for Returns



CANADIAN RED CROSS-PENITENTIARY-MADE BOOTS

Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	Were any boots supplied by Kingston or
any other penitentiary in Canada to the Saskatchewan Relief Commission, or to the Canadian Red Cross Society, Saskatchewan section, between September 30,	1930, and
February 1, 1932?
2.	If so, how many pairs, and at what price? Mr. GORDON:
1.	Yes, to the Canadian Red Cross Society at Regina, Saskatchewan.
2.	One thousand pairs free of charge.



ST. GEORGES DE WINDSOR, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. LAFLECHE:: What was the revenue of the post office at St. Georges de Windsor in the county of Richmond, Quebec, for each of the years 1930 and 1931?


Mr. SAUVE:: Fiscal year ended March 31, 1930, S562.47; fiscal year ended March 31, 1931, S53S.83.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	How many applications for pension and for the revision of pension have been received by the Board of Pension Commissioners since the coming into force of the latest amendments to the Pension Act. on October 1, 1931?
2.	How many of these applications have been granted by the Board of Pension Commissioners, and how many have been turned over to the pension tribunal?
3.	How many of these applications have been heard before the pension tribunal?
4.	How many of those heard by the pension tribunal have been: (a) granted; (b) refused; (c) are awaiting decision under deferred judgment?
5.	How many are still waiting to be heard before the pension tribunal?
6.	How many of the decisions given by the pension tribunal have been appealed to the Federal Appeal Court by: (a) the applicants; (bl the Board of Pension Commissioners?
7.	How many of these appeals have been heard by the Federal Appeal Court, and how many are still waiting to be heard by that body?
8.	In how many cases heard by the Federal
.Appeal Court have the decisions of the pension tribunal been reversed:	(a) as to appeals
lodged by the applicants; (b) by the Board of Pension Commissioners?
9.	What is the average number of applications now being received each week by:	(a)
the Board of Pension Commissioners; (b) the pension tribunal; (c) the Pension Appeal Court?
10.	W'hat is the average number of final decisions given each week by: (a) the Board of Pension Commissioners; (b) the pension tribunal; (c) the Federal Appeal Court?


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Mr. MUNN:: 1.	Did the Vancouver harbour commissioners
purchase a second-hand locomotive in the United States during the latter part of 1930 or during 1931?	6
2.	If so, what was the cost of said locomotive laid down in Vancouver?
3.	What plan was adopted in calling for tenders for reconditioning this locomotive, public notice or private request?
4.	What firms or companies tendered for the job and what were the prices quoted by each?
5.	Was the job let to the lowest bidder?
6.	If not, why?
7.	What firm secured the -work and what was the total cost of the job including work done on the premises of the commissioners?
8.	What period of time was specified for the completion of the work by the competing firms who failed to secure the job?
9.	What length of time was occupied by the firm who secured the job before the locomotive was put into commission?
10.	What was the cost to the commissioners for substitute locomotive service during the excess period used in reconditioning?
11.	Was this locomotive originally purchased in Davenport, Iowa, in 1913 by a firm of railroad construction engineers for the sum of $12,000 and laid down in Vancouver, freight and duty paid, at $15,000?
12.	What is the total cost of the locomotive to the commissioners including cost price, reconditioning and substitute service?


Alfred Duranleau: This question should stand as an order for return. This information is in the hands of the harbour commission and we shall file what we get from them.


Mr. MUNN:: 1.	Did the Vancouver harbour commissioners purchase a second-hand car ferry in the United States during 1930 or 1931?
2.	If so, what was the cost laid down in the port of \ ancouver including original cost, towage and insurance?
3.	Did this car ferry require repairing before being put into operation?
4.	If so, what is the cost of reconditioning and repairs to date?
5.	Could a serviceable barge have been secured from the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National Railways at a much lesser cost?
6.	Has the barge been giving steady and satisfactory service constantly since its first day of service?
7.	How many cars have been transported in this barge since going into commission?
8.	What was the cost of constructing a ferry slip for its accommodation?
9.	What has the cost per car been, including cost of operation, interest and sinking fund on the barge and slip, repairs, etc?
10.	What was the cost per car for transportation over the Second Narrows bridge when it was in operation?


Alfred Duranleau: The same answer applies to this question: stands as an order for return.

Radio Licence Fee


AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT-VETERINARY SURGEONS
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How many veterinary surgeons were temporarily employed by the Department of Agriculture in 1930 and 1931 respectively?
2.	What are their names and in what localities were they employed?


MARINE DEPARTMENT-GASPE EMPLOYEES
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	How many employees of the Department of Marine and Fisheries have been dismissed or resigned in the county of Gaspe, since August, 1930, up to the present date?
2.	In each case, what was the date of his dismissal or resignation, the name and address of the employee, the reason for his dismissal and the name of his successor?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As this involves a reply from the Civil Service Commission, I ask that it stand as an order for return.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-F. POULIOT (Temiscouata): I rise to a question of privilege. As reported in Hansard of yesterday at page 721, the following question was put:
1.	What is the name of the postmaster at Pointe Lebel, county of Saguenay?
The answer is:
Henri Granier.
The next question is:
2.	Is he a British subject by birth or by naturalization?
The answer is:
By naturalization, according to postmaster s statement.
I claim that as parliament is the high court of this country, such an answer by a witness would be considered contempt of court, and I a sic the minister if he will give me a decent answer or if we shall press it further in parliament.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, ohl


Mr. POULIOT:: I want an answer. It is no joke.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
complained that the answer is not complete. It is within the right of the minister or the government to give a further answer or not. There is at present before the house no question requiring an immediate answer.



PRICE OF SEED WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I wish to ask a question of either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture. I
have under my hand a letter from Courval, Saskatchewan, stating that the farmers in that district are receiving fifty-two cents a bushel for No. 1 northern for seed wheat, whereas the elevators are being paid fifty-eight cents a bushel for the same wheat for seed purposes. The farmer writes to ask me why there should be this difference in price.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I shall look into the matter, but I do not think I have correctly gathered the point of the question. If the farmer can get more for his wheat at the elevator, I do not see the point.


Thomas F. Donnelly: This man says that if a farmer has No. 1 northern wheat for sale, the commission pays him fifty-two cents a bushel to give it to another farmer for seed purposes; but if an elevator has No. 1 northern seed wheat for sale the commission pays the elevator fifty-eight cents a bushel. Why are they paying the farmer only fifty-two cents and the elevator fifty-eight cents a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat? I should like an answer to this question because it is of importance.


Robert Weir: I think the hon.
member knows this does not come under the jurisdiction of any hon. member on this side of the house. I shall be glad to gather any information I can and give it to him privately.
RADIO LICENCE FEE On the orders of the day:


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: I wish to ask the Minister of Marine a question based upon an article in the Evening Citizen which states:
It was announced to-day by Alfred Duranleau, Minister of Marine, that the fee on radio receiving sets would be raised from one dollar to two dollars.
I would like to know if this is correct and, if it is correct, whether I can be assured it is a departmental regulation from which I wish to dissociate myself.


Alfred Duranleau: The information is correct. The
licence fee has been raised from $1 to $2 by order in council.



SEED AND FEED RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: On February 22 an order of the house was passed for a return of all correspondence between the federal and Manitoba governments in relation
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

to providing seed for the farmers and feed for starving live stock. I should like to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture or any other minister when I may expect this return?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I am sorry to say I did not hear
the question of my hon. friend, but I shall see it in Hansard to-morrow and give an answer then.
NEW ZEALAND TREATY On the orders of the day:


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I desire to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he proposes to table the New Zealand treaty. There are many in this countrj' who may think our salvation will come out of New Zealand, and naturally they are somewhat anxious to know the contents of this document.


Henry Herbert Stevens: (Minister of
Trade and Commerce): It is under consideration and I trust when it is tabled, my hon. friend's calling and election will be sure.
LOBSTER FISHING On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I should like to ask the Prime
Minister what steps the government are taking to safeguard the interests of the lobster fishermen with regard to a bill which has been introduced in the United States congress to impose restrictions upon importations of Canadian lobsters?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall treat the hon. gentleman's
inquiry as a notice of question and try to answer it to-morrow.
PROPOSED TREATY WITH GERMANY On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: I notice a Canadian Press despatch
which states that the German cabinet has decided to increase the tariff against Canadian and Australian goods owing to the fact that there is no trade agreement with these countries. What is the intention of the Department of Trade and Commerce as to a treaty with Germany?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The matter is under consideration.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: On February 23, I asked the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) what the possibility was of steel being laid on the proposed branch line from Bulwark, Alberta, to a point called Airways, where a grade has been made. This work is very necessary for the benefit of an area of about eight hundred square miles, and I should be glad to know whether there is any likelihood of its being done.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The other day I made
some inquiries of the management with regard to that branch line, so far as their estimates for the coming year are concerned. It is very much in the same position as a number of other branch lines which have been inquired about. There is a small amount in the estimates, but it is not sufficient to lay rails or to put the branch line into operation. In view of the financial condition of the railways the management is not at the present time recommending any great amount of work on that particular branch.



UNEMPLOYED ON PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: In view of the fact that Parliament Hill to-day has taken on the appearance of an armed camp, I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) whether his troops have been instructed to shoot the unemployed if necessary.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 26, consideration of the following proposed resolution (Mr. Rhodes):
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.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I am sure every member of the
house, with the exception of those who occupy the treasury benches, would much rather that we had before us for consideration some measure to provide for the relief of the unemployed than to provide a reduction in the salaries of those who are now employed; but inasmuch as the government has not seen fit so far to bring in such a measure, and inasmuch as this resolution is now before us, I have no alternative but to discuss it.
Last Friday evening when the house adjourned I was discussing the resolution and I pointed out at that time that the government was setting an example to private employers throughout the country to reduce still further salaries and wages paid by them. I said that hon. gentlemen opposite were setting this example by reducing the salaries and wages of government employees, and doing so in an arbitrary manner without any negotiations with those affected. The government, I pointed out, had already repudiated the principle of collective bargaining by refusing to negotiate on the question of reducing salaries and wages. I had quoted from order in council P.C. 1743 of July 11, 1918, and order in council P.C. 880 of May 1, 1919, in which the government had announced the principle of collective bargaining. Further, I had pointed out that the parliament of Canada had adopted the principle of collective bargaining and had endorsed and recommended the principle of establishing a civil service council to take care of just such matters as we have before us at the present time.
I was in the midst of my remarks at eleven o'clock on Friday night when the house adjourned, and I was reading into the record the provisions contained in order in council P.C. 970 of May 7, 1930. I do not think it is necessary to read any further, because the provisions of that order in council are well known. The order in council was the outcome of the assurance of the Liberal party to the civil service of this country that such a civil service council would be established, and it was as well the result of the deliberations of parliament. I need only tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to what I have already read into the record, the order in council provides for the composition of the council, and how it should be called; and the last paragraph makes provision for travelling expenses incurred by the representatives of the civil service coming from different parts of the country. The eleventh or last paragraph reads:
It is recommended that travelling expenses incidental to attending the committee's meetings incurred by those attending from points other than Ottawa should be defrayed by the government. It is further recommended that civil service organizations' representatives attending the meetings of the committee shall be accorded special leave of absence, with pay, for the purpose by their respective departments.
Now that provision has been entirely ignored by the present government. Indeed,
I read in the newspapers that the government had indicated that they were not favourable to such a measure. I know that excuses can be made by the present government; they can say that they were not in sympathy with a measure of this kind. But it has been my experience that anyone who is not favourable to any principle can easily find an excuse for its repudiation. So that this reduction in salaries and wages now contemplated is being made without proper representations, or proper hearing or negotiations on the part of the parties affected.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his speech a few days ago read a letter from a lady in the civil service signifying her satisfaction with the cut in her salary. My experience has always been-and I have had a long experience along this line-that in every such movement, whether it be increases or decreases in wages, you will find the exceptional person, the one who is ever ready to signify to the boss that he or she is not like the others but is perfectly satisfied with the position they hold. But why does not the Prime Minister read all the correspondence he has received? Why does he not read all the letters he has had for and against the reduction in salaries, and give the names of those who have forwarded them to him? Then the house would be in a better position to judge whether or not the civil servants are satisfied.
The Conservative party when in opposition pretended to have great sympathy with low-paid civil servants. I can see their tears now, rolling down their cheeks, when they were sitting on this side of the house, over the poor and lowly civil servants. It would not be fair for me to say that at that time they were bidding for power; that would be unparliamentary. I would suggest that they were not playing politics at all. But we have examples. We find that on May 21, 1928, at page 3241 of Hansard for that year, Mr. Manion had this to say with respect to the lowly paid civil servants:
One thousand and eighty dollars is $90 a month, and $90 a month is not sufficient for these men to live decently on and support their families.
.	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
The Mr. Manion of that time is the Hon. Mr. Manion now, a member of this cabinet who now appears on the floor of this house supporting a further reduction of civil servants' salaries.
Then, we have the utterances of the gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett): I find that in Hansard of March 21, 1930, at page 858, Mr. Bennett is quoted as follows:
I am sure the Minister of Justice will say that no man can live and maintain a family on $65 a month. That is the reason I have always favoured a minimum salary of $100 a month for the civil service.
The gentleman who uttered those words is to-day Prime Minister of Canada. He has it in his power to give the lower paid civil servants $100 a month, but instead of doing that we find he is cutting their present wage by ten per cent. This statement of the Prime Minister, the then leader of the opposition, was broadcast not. only throughout Ottawa but throughout the country. It was an example of his instructions given to Conservative speakers during the last election, as shown by the speakers' hand book. This statement I have quoted was set out in large capital letters, and of course the civil servants of Canada were not supposed to read them.


Mr. GOT  P@: It is a breach of political
etiquette for the hon. member to possess one of those books.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I should like you to try to keep the hon. gentleman quiet over there, because I do not want to be rude to him.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I should like to read to hon. members standing order No. 12 subsection (3):
When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
Then, quoting from May, the English authority, I find the following:
Silence is required to be observed in both houses. In the commons all members should be silent, or should converse only in whisper.
Continual interruptions when a member is speaking are most disturbing, and make it difficult to carry on the proceedings of the house.


Peter Heenan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, your intervention saved me a great deal of trouble. I thought I was going to have to call the member to order myself.
The words I have quoted were those of the Prime Minister addressed to the civil ser-
vants in 1930. Let us compare his words on that occasion with his present views when Prime Minister of Canada. We find that Hansard of February 8, 1932, page 59 contains the following statement:
But looking about us, realizing our obligations, and desiring that the people of this country should understand fully that the government is anxious to lead the way with respect to matters of economy, we have concluded that we will ask this parliament to pass a statute to reduce by ten per cent the indemnities alike of the Senate and of the Commons, and of the compensation paid to ministers and to every branch of the public service. That must be effected.
I am wondering where his sympathy for civil servants has gone, in view of the fact that in the year 1930 he declared that $100 was a minimum salary.
The government of Canada surely is leading the way towards salary and wage reductions, and those reductions quite evidently are having their effect throughout the country because we see, hear and read of wages being reduced in practically every industry. It is quite evident that the salary cut in certain circles has been well planned and well understood. The wages of railroad men including employees of the government's own railroad, have been reduced, and we have heard no protests from any members of the cabinet. Instead of protests, as a matter of fact it would seem that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways have approved of the action taken by the government railways. It is quite evident the government is satisfied.
I needed no evidence to assure me however, because even before the cut took place I knew the government would approve of it.
Let us compare the attitude of the government with that of the mayor of the city of Toronto. In that city the question of salary cuts was before the city council and in that connection the mayor is reported in the Globe newspaper of February 27, 1932, as follows:
"If we give leadership, are we not asking private enterprise to follow suit? The city will simply be giving the cloak of respectability to a wage-cut on the part of private enterprise, said the mayor. "I have a letter from a large employer of labour who is opposing the wage reduction."
I want to take off my hat to the mayor of the city of Toronto. The working men of Canada know now who is setting the example and leading the pace. In their minds and in mine there is no one to blame but the present government of Canada. Not only are they leading the way in the reduction of wages and salaries but also in the discharge of em-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
ployees, and in that way they are adding to the numbers of unemployed. They are dismissing many public servants and reducing the salaries of those remaining.
Let us for example consider the recent dismissals, releases or whatever you wish to call them in the Department of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). I am informed that 75 flying officers have been released. Where will those men find employment to-day? They will find themselves lined up with the boys we saw at the gate to-day looking for work. I am advised that 42 of those men served overseas in the great war, and that 38 of them are married with dependent children. At one time in their lives they offered to sacrifice their all for the defence of the British Empire, and I can well recall some of our politicians going around the country telling those boys that they were going to make Canada a place fit for heroes to live in. Now, when they are performing services of a useful character, their services are no longer required. Undoubtedly they could perform useful work; for instance, they could be sent into the Patricia district to see whether or not those Indians are dying, and whether their children are going blind as was reported in the press. It is not sufficient for this government to say that they have heard from some Hudson's Bay factor that the report is incorrect. Some of those flying officers ought to be used to ascertain whether or not there is need for assistance in that outlying country. But the government has discharged those flying officers and thrown them on the mercy of the world, not caring what will become of them. And if the British Empire needed them to-morrow they would be the first men expected to get into harness and defend it.


Mr. COTNAM:: You mean armour, not
harness.


Peter Heenan: The government undertook to provide work for all. Why, they are sitting on the treasury benches to-day, and they can only sneer and laugh at the unemployed of this country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Cut that out.


Peter Heenan: They cannot even keep
their own employees; they are adding to the unemployed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Talk a little sense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, because
the habit has grown up to make statements which, because unchallenged, are said not to be denied, I should like to point out that there
has been no sneering in reference to the unemployed from this side of the house. I think that that statement, at least, should be withdrawn. I rise to a question of order, Mr. Speaker, and direct your attention to it.


Peter Heenan: I direct your attention
Mr. Speaker, to the fact-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Peter Heenan: -to the fact that members elected to this chamber have just as much right to speak as the Prime Minister. I just wish to direct your attention to the fact that I was speaking of the sneers handed across to me just at the moment the Prime Ministe; arose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter Heenan: Any time any one on this side of the house has got up to discuss the question of the unemployed there has been nothing but "ha ha's" from the other side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Peter Heenan: In fact the unemployed
of this country have not got anything from the other side of the house but "ha ha's." So I think I was well within my rights in saying they were sneering at any discussion of the matter, but if I have transgressed the rules of the house I withdraw the expression.
During the elections the Prime Minister as well as his party promised not only to provide employment but to ensure a higher standard of living. Where is the higher standard of living as proposed in this resolution? He said there was no excuse for any Liberal asserting that other countries were suffering worse hardships than this country, and he declared: If elected my job will be Canada- to see that Canadians are employed. And he is working at it right now-making as many unemployed as it is possible for any man to make. He is busy at his job, and is doing it in good fashion. But what I object to more than anything else, Mr. Speaker, is the example the government are setting to private employers throughout this country to reduce salaries and wages. It is a fact that the financial and banking interests were taken into consultation as to the revenues of the country and the rates of interest to be charged on the recent bond issues. Well, if it was right and proper for those interests to be so consulted, then it is equally right and proper that the employees of the state, whose living depends upon their salaries and wages, should be taken into consultation before their means of livelihood are reduced. Consequently, no

Public Service-Salary Deduction
matter what anyone else does, I shall put myself on record by voting against this reduction of salaries and wages.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I was amused the other day, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister in introducing this motion read a letter to the house purporting to come from some lady in 'the civil service to the effect that she was glad to take the proposed reduction. I do not know whether it is because I am a married man, but I have received no communications from any ladies in the civil service; I have received communications from many men and representatives of civil servants protesting against the salary cut. The other day I met a civil servant who said to me: I am getting $100 a month; out of this I have to pay 5 per cent towards my pension fund, and the proposed 10 per cent reduction will leave me only $85 a month to maintain my wife and six Children. I do not see how any married man in the city of Ottawa can expect to do that on $85 a month. True, the Prime Minister has stated that in the case of the lower salaries the 5 per cent superannuation will be paid by the government, but still the salary cut leaves such men in a difficult position.
Last session during the debate on the budget, I made the statement that so far as I could see the only people the budget favoured were those of the wealthy class. Looking through the current estimates I find that the only people getting any benefit are those who are lending money to the government. As compared with the interest paid last year to the money lenders, this year the amount will be increased by something like $13,000,000. The Minister of Finance may retort: Well, many small bondholders are getting this interest; many widows and others who have invested $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 in these bonds are getting a part of the interest. Probably that is so. But I venture to say 'that within six months or a year, if conditions continue as they are to-day, and if the government does not change its policy in order to improve conditions-and they will never improve until the government does Change its policy-most of these bonds that to-day are in the hands of widows and other small investors will be in the hands of the big investors; they will have full control just as they secured control of the war bonds shortly after 'they were issued, especially the tax-exempt bonds. I submit that when the national service loan was floated it could have been floated easily at 4 per cent instead of at 5|- per cent, and 'thus the government could have saved the country a lot of money in interest payments.

The other day the Prime Minister stated that judges and army and navy officers were exempt from this proposed salary cut. How can you compare the position of a man who has to maintain a wife and six children on $85 a month with the position of a judge getting $9,000 a year and making no contribution to the pension which he gets on a very liberal scale when he retires? As a reason for this exemption it was stated that the judges' salaries are statutory. Well, this parliament is supreme, all-powerful; as it can make, so it can unmake; it can amend or repeal any statute. Last session we amended the Judges Act so that the Chief Justice of Manitoba by his acceptance of the chairmanship of the Board of Railway Commissioners should in no way prejudice his pension rights.
I am against this reduction unless it is graded, and unless it takes in the high-salaried officers of the army and navy, and the judges. I think the government will be ill-advised if they do not follow that course; I am sure it would be to their benefit, politically and otherwise, if they included everyone in this measure.
We have heard a great deal to the effect that conditions in Canada are better than in the United States, but the civil service of the United States is in a better condition than is the civil service of Canada. President Hoover said he would veto any measure proposing a reduction in the salaries of the civil service, but that he would approve of statutory increases being withheld. At the frontier ports between Canada and the United States, their men start at a salary of $2,000 a year, while ours start at a salary of $1,200. Their lowest paid clerk receives $1,700 a year. I know of one man who has been with the customs department for twenty-six years; he is a sub-collector, and he receives $2,340. Right next to him the United States subcollector receives $2,900. So I do not think we should brag any more about Canada being in a better condition than the United States; we are paying smaller salaries and now we are asking these officials to take a cut of ten per cent.
Personally, if the Prime Minister had come to me and said, "We need $400 of your indemnity to help carry the country through,"
I do not think I would have refused to give that amount, but I do not think it fair that I should be asked to give $400 of my indemnity while people receiving high salaries are taking no reduction at all. They do not have to carry on elections; they have no expense of that kind; they are not at the beck and call of every charitable and begging organiza-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
tion in the country. I am not criticising those organizations at all; no doubt they do a good work, but surely there is as much justification for taking SI,000 from the salary of one of these men as there is for taking $400 from my indemnity. Unless the judges and the highly paid officers of the army and navy are included in this reduction and unless the reduction is graded so that the people receiving small salaries will be relieved and will have a chance to look after their families properly, I intend to vote against this resolution.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the few observations I have to make I do not propose to attack the evident intention of the government to exercise principles of economy; rather I intend to discuss very briefly the practical application of the resolution to the members of the civil service receiving small salaries.
Naturally a proposal to reduce the salaries paid those in the employ of the government always will produce a clash of opinion. It is to be expected that those directly affected will object to the reduction, and in addition we have those, not directly affected, who believe that it is not a sound principle to make any reduction whatever. In fact, not only in this particular connection but in other relationships we have two schools of thought, the one contending that wages should not be cut at all and that we should spend more, while the other says we should spend less. I think those who argue that if wages are cut, purchasing power will be diminished, production will be lessened and unemployment increased are making a fairly good argument, though possibly the question is debatable. We have had the question discussed from many points of view in connection with unemployment, and I must say that I have sometimes envied some hon. members of this house who have very cheerfully and very profoundly given their opinions and their reasons for those opinions on such matters as the cause of the depreciation of our currency, the effect of the adverse balance of trade, the cause of unemployment, and all that sort of thing. For my part I have felt, and feel now, considerable reluctance to rush in where angels might very well fear to tread. I prefer to consider this resolution from one point of view alone, and that is this: Whether it will be possible under the resolution and the bill which will be based upon it for some of those affected to maintain a decent scale of living, and whether it will be possible for them to 41761-48
have what they are entitled to, a reasonably comfortable subsistence for themselves and their families.
I think, Mr. Speaker, most of the people of this country will now admit that both individually and as a country we have lived pretty high and pretty expensively until the last two years. We have created debts which ten or twenty years ago we would have thought it absolutely impossible for this government to carry. I think I am right when I say that the federal debt, added to the provincial and municipal debts, totals over five billion dollars, on which evidently the interest must be in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a billion dollars a year. To my mind that is a very serious situation. It may be that sometime I will be converted to the theory that the way back to prosperity is to spend more; I hope my mind is always open to conviction, but I am still old fashioned enough to believe in the principles of thrift and the policy of spending a little less than we earn or than we receive, and that applies to governments as much as it does to individuals. However, that is always predicated on the fact to which I referred a moment ago, that men must earn enough to make saving possible. There is an irreducible minimum below which no Canadian, whether he is in the service of the government or in the service of a private concern, should be asked to live.
I am entirely sincere, and I have no axe to grind-I think my hon. friends opposite as well as my hon. friends on this side will believe me-when I say that I have every sympathy with the government in its efforts to balance the budget. We are told, I think on pretty good authority, that this year the deficit will be very heavy, between $75,000,000 and $100,000,000, without taking into account the heavy loss on the national railways, and probably those deficits will continue. I am not a pessimist when I make that statement; it is very likely that we will find it very difficult to make both ends meet for some time to come. We cannot indefinitely take care of deficits by increasing the debt or increasing the taxes, or both; that would mean national disaster in the end. Sometimes I am tempted -and I say this also with reluctance-to say that if it could be done in a practical way it might be a good thing for all concerned if we made a capital levy to wipe out this incubus of debt, at once or over a short period of years. I do not offer this as a serious suggestion at this time, but perhaps some day it might be worthy of consideration. Perhaps we might introduce the practice which pre-

754	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
vailed in days of old, in Palestine I think, where they had a year of jubilee every fifty years when all debts were wiped off. That might be not a bad principle to follow.
In order to balance a budget, the government has two methods at its command. One is to increase revenues, and I suppose in due course when the budget comes down we shall be able to note the measures to be taken to increase revenues by means of increased taxation. The other method is to decrease expenditure. The government is adopting to some extent this latter method in connection with the estimates which involve, as we all know, a decrease in the salaries of government employees. If I am any judge of public opinion I am inclined to believe that the country generally favours anything in the way of measures of economy. I am inclined also to believe that public opinion will support the government in making a reasonable reduction in the salaries of the higher salaried officials serving the country. The question is just where these reductions should end. I agree with the bon. member who has just spoken; I, too, have every sympathy with the man on a small salary whether he is serving the people of 'Canada or a private employer. To reduce the salary of a man who has *to support a family on $60, $70, $75, $100 or even $125 per month does not seem to me to be consistent with the principle which I have laid down, that a Canadian is entitled to a respectable and reasonably comfortable living *for himself and his family. This is where I take exception to the resolution.
There are those who have not very much sympathy with government employees. Some believe that there are too many of them, and in this I am inclined to agree but I think the efficient employee has not been too well paid in the past. It may be that a man living out in the country may think that a salary of $100 per month is large pay and that a man receiving such a salary could well afford to take a cut, but I think those who live in the city would say otherwise. Some reduction has taken place in the cost of living but I am afraid that a large proportion of that reduction has not reached the man who has a large family to support, at least it has not reached him to subh an extent that he finds relief in the problem of making a living for himself and his family. There are those who believe that government employees are already well protected by reason of the fact toat 'they are sure of their employment, but that is not true to-day because many government employees have been discharged from the service for reasons of economy. I am not a special 
advocate for those employed by the government, but I think I should point out that men have been attracted to the government service because of the sense of security therein even though -the pay was small. These men received a small remuneration as compared with those in private employment only a few years ago; while they were sure of their jobs they had no opportunities to make a little extra money by means of investments or even speculation. If, during the period of prosperity these men had to bear a disability from which others did not suffer, it does not seem to me to be quite fair to take from them the little advantage which they had when the period of prosperity comes to an end.
The government is also cutting off the statutory increases. Some may say that a man cannot lose what he never had, but I think it is true that these employees relied upon their receiving the increase which the statute granted them from year to year. These employees made certain commitments-a man might purchase a small home or he might take out a policy of life insurance, and so on -obligations from which they cannot escape, and with this additional cut they will find things to be very embarrassing and difficult.
I think the government as well as the hon. members of this house desire to follow the wishes of the Canadian people generally in connection with this matter. There has been some suggestion made that we on this side are playing politics, but it happens that I have not very many civil servants in my constituency, and I can hardly be accused of playing politics in this matter. I have received representations from the letter carriers and the civil servants generally; I have had them from the Trades and Labour Council of my city, from the business men's association, from the ratepayers associations and from the Canadian Legion, and these representations have all been along the line of my own thought, that the government should not make a cut in the salaries of employees who are now receiving a remuneration just sufficient to keep body and soul together. I make the suggestion to the government in all seriousness, that they again consider this matter, if they have not already done so, and frame their bill in such a way that those receiving up to $100, or perhaps $125 per month be not subjected to any reduction.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the question before the house has already been debated at length, however I wish to explain briefly the vote which I shall probably be called upon to register.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
The government asks us to adopt a resolution the effect of which is to cut down the salaries of civil servants by ten per cent. It is true that the government has to meet serious financial difficulties of which it is solely responsible. There are two ways of levying revenues: First by increasing taxation and helping commercial enterprises; secondly, by decreasing the expenditure.
The government through its high tariff policy, has not only cut down its revenues but has almost exhausted its resources. The revenues are, to-day, much less. If for the last two years a reasonable policy, one identical to that of the Liberal party in 1930, had been resorted to, foreign trade would have maintained itself, imports and exports would have continued, and the government would have had sufficient revenues.
The government contends that it practises economy, but such is not the case. No matter where we turn, we discover that instead of economizing, the government displays extravagance in its administration. What is the situation? To quote only what took place in my constituency, the government appointed, since the last election, a large number of commissioners to hold inquiries, whose main work, in fact their only occupation, was to travel through the rural districts in order to ascertain who were the civil servants that sided with the opposition. There is not a post office to be found where the incumbent was suspected to be friendly to the Liberal party. These commissioners are still travelling through the country holding expensive inquiries. This government, sir, has also money to throw away to carry on inquiries as insignificant as the one relating to the travelling expenses of a certain Mr. Herridge. Although we must show respect to the Prime Minister of a country, however, one must not be led away to the extent of thinking that the honeymoon trip of Mr. Herridge or the Prime Minister's sister has such importance that we should have to spend enormous sums to inquire into events that are of no interest to the ratepayers of this country. If the government wishes to be extravagant in matters of this kind, I think it should not do so at the expense of our civil servants. In my opinion, the civil servants are not over paid, and furthermore, with the exception of two or three, I contend that they are not sufficiently remunerated.
Considering that the government should adopt other methods to increase its revenues, I shall be pleased to vote against this resolution.
41761-18J


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot let this resolution pass without stating my position and I do so to-day more particularly because I was in 1929 as Postmaster General of Canada, the subject of one of the greatest onslaughts ever made upon a minister of the crown by the opposition of the day in an attempt to convince me that the lower salaried officials should have their salaries increased. At that time we saw the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), then in opposition, the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), then in opposition, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), then in opposition, as well as the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then leading the opposition, appeal to the then government to increase the salaries of those who were employed at a salary of under 81,000 a year. For the information of the house and particularly of those members now here who did not occupy seats in this chamber at that time, I wish to call attention to some of the statements made on that occasion by the hon. gentlemen whom I have just mentioned. As reported on page 1874 of Hansard of 1929, I find the present Minister of Justice making this statement:
When it comes to the higher grade salaries they are not niggardly, they are fairly generous; when it comes to a question of increasing the salaries of gentlemen of technical or professional knowledge, they take other means of getting round the Civil Service Act. ... I believe that the lower grades of the civil service in Canada have been very badly treated by this government.
How are they being treated now, may I ask?
They have sent those unfortunate people from pillar to post.
Where are they being sent now? There is not even a post for them upon which to rest their shoulders. They cannot find a pillar from which they may expect some solace. The same hon. gentleman continues on page 2180:
I submit that the present salaries paid the lower grade officials in the postal service is a disgrace to Canada and to the public service, and should not be tolerated in this great country.
What has the hon. gentleman to say now when he is reducing those disgraceful salaries, as he called them at that time, to an even more disgraceful amount than they were in 1929? He continues:
I would not suggest giving them a niggardly $60 increase as recommended by the Postmaster General.
756	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
No, but he suggests a niggardly decrease to them and the decrease is even blacker than the nigger to which he was referring when he spoke about the low salaries.


An hon. MEMBER:: The nigger in the
woodpile.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, that is the nigger in
the woodpile that has come out. He continues :
I would give them something more substantial than that. I would see that a minimum was established of at least $100 a month.
An interruption took place at this point by myself and the present Minister of Justice, then in opposition, replied:
We will do it if you give us the chance.
After eighteen months of a chance given to him toy the people of Canada he cuts the salaries by ten per cent.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, who was also a member of the house on that occasion, appealed to what he called the adamantine heart of the Postmaster General to let that heart of his be softened to his appeal, and to give those poor underpaid officials, not the $60 increase, which I had recommended to the Civil Service Commission, and which had been refused sanction by them, but an increase to $100. He stood in his place on this side of the house and pleaded with the then Minister of Justice, saying: "I appeal to the Minister of Justice to plead with the Minister of Finance and the Postmaster General." He then turned his gaze upon the Prime Minister of that date, now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and appealed to him. He appealed to the then Minister of Finance; he appealed to each cabinet minister sitting on the front benches ait that time, to attempt to soften the heart of the Postmaster General on behalf of those underpaid officials. May I to-day be permitted to appeal to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him to appeal to the new Minister of Finance, to attempt to soften his heart and not to make the ten per cent reduction against the men who were underpaid at that time. Oh, the answer will come back that living is cheaper to-day than it was in 1929 and 1930. The figures given the other day by the Prime Minister or some other minister showed a reduction of fourteen per cent in the cost of living, and the idea was that this reduction of ton per cent in salaries would be within the mark. Let me point out that the present Minister of Justice, speaking on one of the occasions in 1929 to which I have referred, stated that the cost of living at that time

was $1,122.60 a year, and that for the mere necessaries of life for a family of five. That is a reduction of fourteen per cent, which leaves $965. Take the minimum salary paid officials in the Post Office Department, letter carriers and so forth. If you take ten per cent off what does it leave? It leaves them $972, merely five or six dollars above what the fourteen per cent reduction in the cost of living leaves them for the bare necessaries of life. And these are the gentlemen now occupying the government benches, whose tears flowed quite freely in 1929 on behalf of these poor, underpaid officials. There they sit to-day no doubt prepared to vote unanimously, as they have adopted unanimously in council, the reduction of ten per cent against these men. In the name of conscience, what reason can they give for it to-day? Let me quote the Minister of Trade and Commerce of to-day (Mr. Stevens) to show what his attitude was when he was in opposition in 1929. The hon. gentleman after appealing to the ministers of the government to be generous, said:
We have urged the government to take action. We have assured the government of our support, but we have failed up to the present to get any encouragement from them.
He was then appealing for an increase in salary for these men. To-day I am appealing to this same gentleman, now Minister of Trade and Commerce, to use his influence with the government so as not to have this ten per cent struck against the salaries of the lower paid officials. If in 1929 they could not live on a salary of $1,040 or $1,080 a year how can they live to-day with a reduction of ten per cent, which leaves them $972, according to government figures-an amount requisite for them to obtain the bare necessaries of life.
I believe in the principle that in times of stress such as the country is now passing through every man, according to his means, should bear his share of the burden; but let us not take from the pockets of poor families this ten per cent which they need so badly if they are to carry on. Let the reduction be graded. Let it weigh upon the shoulders of those best able to bear it. If the government will ask for a graded reduction I will support it on any amount above $1,200; but I do oppose, with all my soul and all my strength, a reduction of ten per cent to the man who is earning only $1,200 a year. Ten per cent of a reduction leaves him only $972, while the bare necessaries of life will cost $965.
At the time to which I have referred the then opposition went still further. I hold in my hand a circular issued during the cam-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
paign. When, we on this side of the house occupied the seats to the right of Mr. Speaker we heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) wax eloquent in his appeal to the Postmaster General to pay a living wage to mail carriers and mail contractors. He wanted to place them on the basis of those under the Civil Service Commission, on a yearly salary. He claimed that those on contract were not receiving a living wage. I pointed out at that time the difficulty that would be encountered in an attempt to carry out that suggestion. Well, what do we find now? Lest someone should call me to order, let me say that I should be the last man in the world to impute political motives to the Conservative party when they issued this circular. I know they would not stultify themselves by doing anything from political or any other ulterior motive when they issued this circular to the mail carriers of the dominion. What do we find? Let me quote:
King and Veniot oppose relief. The King government, including both Mr. King and Mr. V eniot,-[DOT]
They put me in very good company.
-voted down Mr. Guthrie's amendment for fair pay to the rural mail carriers, the vote being 160 to 70.
That was placed in the hands of every mail contractor in the dominion, and now my hon. friends opposite talk because we to-day undertake to criticize their actions and to defend the poor underpaid official, asking the government to carry out the pledges they made to the people with respect to unemployment. They say that because we do this we are playing the political game. I leave it to the public and to the friends of the Minister of Justice himself, sitting behind him, to judge whether he was playing politics when that circular to the mail carriers of Canada was issued.
There are several features about this question, and I was just going to forget one. I have a peach here and I do not want to miss it. I referred to the attitude taken by the present Minister of Justice and the present Minister of Railways-I see him taking copious notes and I hope I shall be able to soften his heart as he softened mine on that occasion.


Robert James Manion: I am taking notes on another matter.


Peter John Veniot: I referred also to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But I want now to refer to the gentleman who led the opposition at that time, and who now occupies the high position of Prime Minister of his native country. In one sense, Mr. Speaker,
since the people have chosen the Conservative party to manage the affairs of the country for the time being, I am proud to see the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett as Prime Minister of Canada, because he comes from my own province. The upper sections of Canada, on the Conservative side especially, have had in the past very often to come down to the maritime provinces for the brains to try to run their party, and for that reason I am proud, since fate has designated that party to run the affairs of the country at the present time, that my right hon. friend is Prime Minister. But, with that pride in the right hon. gentleman's occupancy of the office, I must say that it is very difficult for me to agree with him in many cases, and particularly in the case I am going to cite now. He also took a hand in appealing on behalf of the civil service of Canada; he also denounced the then Postmaster General before all audiences for his hardness of heart because he would not consent to an increase in the salaries of lower paid officials. I have here a letter written by him to a certain employee in the civil service. He says:
Your night letters of the 5th and 9th dealing with reclassification of letter carriers reached me in due course. You will probably have observed from the press that the opposition as a unit urged that this matter be taken up at the present session. I really do not know how these men support themselves and a family on the meagre salaries they receive.
I would ask the Prime Minister of Canada to-day to put that very question to himself seriously before he reduces the salaries of these men by ten per cent. Is it possible that the Prime Minister was sincere when he wrote that letter? Certainly, if he was then he cannot be sincere now.


Mr. GOTT:: What year was that?


Peter John Veniot: The year 1928. And in
1929 and 1930, Hansard will show where he took the same attitude. I am reading this letter to show that the right hon. gentleman played his game not only on the floor of the house but by letters circulated throughout the length and breadth of Canada in which he tried to tell the lower-paid civil servants of Canada that the Liberal party was treating them in a niggardly way.


Eccles James Gott: I hope the surly look of the hon. member is not intended for me.


Peter John Veniot: I would be wasting my
good looks if I directed any such look towards my hon. friend. The letter continues:
I really do not know how these men support themselves and a family on the meagre salaries they receive. We pressed the other day that
,758	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
provision be made in the supplementary estimates for the letter carriers, and assured the government that they might take this action regardless of the Civil Service Commission, and promised them our united support.
May I in my turn say to the Prime Minister that if he will change his bill and not reduce the salaries under $1,200, but grade the reductions, I think he will receive the absolute and entire support of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: I appeal to him now, as
he appealed to me then, to do justice to that class of civil servants. Then the letter continues :
Just what will happen wo do not yet know, but Doctor Manion made our position very, very clear.
I hope that at this time Doctor Manion will be able to make the position of the Prime Minister and his government very clear. As he was put up at that time to make the position of the opposition quite clear, I hope he will possess the same ability at this time to make clear the stand of the government towards the civil servants.
I do not know what the proposed bill may contain, but in the meantime I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to what I believe will be certain injustices. I am told that the government will assume the five per cent-and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, because I do not wish to be wrong-the five per cent taxed against civil servants for superannuation purposes. I want to ask the Minister of Finance now if that five per cent will apply equally to the retirement allowances?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend knows that to submit a question at this time is quite out of order.


Peter John Veniot: Is it? I did not think the minister was so-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If he will submit his question when we are in committee on the resolution I will be happy to answer him.


Peter John Veniot: I am sure there would be
no harm done if the minister would answer now.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We would be committing
a breach of the rules of the house.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, no, we would not be
acting contrary to the rules of the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes we would.


Peter John Veniot: It is against the desire of
the government that the Minister of Finance should give the information which we seek to the house.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: You will get it in plenty of time.


Peter John Veniot: This is the stand I take:
If the 5 per cent does not apply to the retiring allowance, an injustice is perpetrated against those who do not come under the superannuation but come under the retiring allowance.
Again I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the ten per cent cut. It would seem that the cut applies to those who have reached the maximum as well as to those who are grading up from the lower salaries to the maximum fixed by the Civil Service Commission. At the same time I understand the proposed bill will do away with the statutory increases, and in that connection I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to something which, if true, would indicate a great injustice to those men who would lose their statutory increases together with the ten per cent reduction as against the men who, having reached the maximum and not receiving statutory increases, will be reduced by only the ten per cent. Those who have reached the maximum have gone as high as they can go in their class. Is it fair that the ten pel cent should apply against those who have not reached the maximum. I hope the Minister of Finance will consider what I have said, and ascertain if my statements are correct. In my view any injustice would be eliminated by a reduced or a graded reduction, giving special consideration to those who have not reached their maximum and will be deprived of statutory increases. Their reductions should be less, proportionately, than the reductions of those people who have reached their maximum salaries and therefore are not deprived of statutory increases.
These are matters of detail to which I think the Minister of Finance might well give his studied attention before the bill is presented to the house.
In conclusion allow me to state very definitely, as I did in the beginning of my remarks, that in these times of stress I believe every man should bear his share of the burden in proportion to his ability to do so. I am convinced that the man working for $1,000 a year cannot within reason bear any part of the burden of the depression. I believe further that instead of a straight ten per cent decrease there should be a graded decrease beginning at a certain figure, and going up. I

Public Service-Salary Deduction
believe further, sir, that the highly paid officials who, I believe, are to be exempt, should be called upon.- to bear their share. Referring a few days ago to lieutenant-governors the Prime Minister, stated that their salaries *would not be touched, and that there was hardly -a lieutenant-governor in Canada who, in order to keep up the dignity of his office, did not spend more than he earned in the position he occupied. Well, let us do away with a little of that dignity; let us have fewer receptions during these hard times. Surely on salaries of $9,000 per year they could place aside S900 to help the rest of Canada. Surely they will not witness the reduction in salaries of lower salaried men in the services of Canada, and be content to suffer no reductions themselves.
What about the judges? I am not a lawyer, and I have nothing to fear from them. I am free to express my opinion, and I say that a judge receiving $9,000 or $10,000 a year should contribute his share. The civil service have been told: You are protected; provided you behave yourselves and discharge your duties you are selcure in your position and when you retire you get superannuation. Oh yes, civil servants are protected and they are entitled to superannuation on retirement -but they pay the greater part of that superannuation out of their own pockets; the government of Canada contributes only a minor portion. But, sir, if that argument is to be applied to the civil sendee generally, why should it not be applied to the judges? As I understand it, they do not contribute one dollar towards their superannuation, they are entitled to full superannuation after a certain period of service, and for any shorter period they get a pension based on the number of years of service. If because civil servants are protected they should not complain of carrying their share of the burden of this depression, then why should not the judges, who enjoy far greater protection and much more liberal superannuation benefits, bear (heir share of this burden also?
In these rambling remarks, Mr. Speaker, I have thought it well to state to the house and to the country where I stand before the vote is taken on this motion.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: It is rather deplorable, Mr. Speaker, that the house has had to listen to such remarks as those made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) on a matter that is now under investigation by a special committee of this house. Had the hon. member been present at the meeting of that committee
to-day, he would have found that those who made certain allegations, instead of trying to prove them apologized for what they had said.


Peter John Veniot: They were scared and had to do it.
Is it not against the rules of the house, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the doings of a committee before that committee has made its report?


Samuel Gobeil: I absolutely agree with the hon. ex-minister, and that is exactly why I referred to the remarks of the hon. member for Gaspe. It is quite true that afterwards we had a speech from the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) in which he dealt with the question from the broad national standpoint. Of course, the house knows that he was not trying to derive any political advantage from what he said.
With respect to the proposed reduction of civil service salaries, I was rather surprised at the attitude taken by the official body representing the public service. I say "official body" advisedly. I know that a great proportion of the civil servants have accepted -the reduction in the finest spirit, for they realize they -are just as well treated as any other class of the -community. Let me suggest -that if -the civil servants as a body 'had compared their position with that of wage-earners outside they would, through their official body, have taken a different attitude. For instance, all employees of commercial firms have had -to accept a reduction of pay and all classes of business men have seen their revenues shrink ' during the last year and a half or two years. Had the civil service as a body made that comparison they would have come -to the conclusion that even with -this proposed -ten per cent reduction -they -are still better off than their -fellow citizens who have had to get along during the past two years with incomes reduced anywhere from 10 -to 30 per cent. I realize that very likely within sound of my voice there are many civil servants who are ready and willing to accept this ten per cent reduction, knowing full well that -they are getting justice at the bands of -the -government, but I would ask those wh-o feel aggrieved to compare their lot with that of the farmers -of this -country, the largest cl-ass of our population, who for the last two years h-ave seen their revenues diminished- in many -cases by 50 -per cent. They do not work six, seven or eight hours a day, their hours of labour run from twelve to as -high as fifteen or sixteen h-ours a day, but notwithstanding these long hours hundreds

Public Service-Salary Deduction
of thousands of our farmers to-day, at least those in the province of Quebec, are not receiving anything like ten or fifteen hundred dollars a year, in fact many of them are not receiving even eight hundred dollars a year.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to compare the farmers' situation with that of the judges?


Samuel Gobeil: Not being a lawyer I will not undertake to answer the hon. member's question. I am told that the salaries of the judges cannot be reduced. Whether that is correct or not I cannot say, but I believe it to be the case. I may say to my hon. friend that I quite agree with him. And I might go a step further as he has raised the question : I do expect the judges will remit to the treasuiy at least ten per cent of their salaries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I should like to ask
the hon. member a question, just for my information. He knows that parliament is supreme in these matters. Would he not use his influence with the Prime Minister to have the judges included?


Samuel Gobeil: That must be decided by
those who have more legal knowledge than I have. Now just a further word about the farmers, as compared with the civil service. It has been said in this house many times that the farmers should not have automobiles, and I think in many cases that is quite so. I do not want to offend the civil servants, but if we are to judge from the number of automobiles around the public buildings of this city it is plain that the civil servants are better treated than are the farmers of this country.
Then I should like to remind the civil servants by whom they are paid. Do they realize that the men working on the streets of this city for $1.50 or $2 a day are contributing to their salaries? Do they also take into consideration the fact that labourers and other employees of commercial firms, who have seen their salaries reduced by from twenty per cent to thirty per cent in the last two years, have contributed during that period to the salaries of the civil servants, who received no reduction? For two years those whose salaries have been reduced by a great deal have contributed towards the payment of the regular salaries of the civil servants. I think if that had been considered by the organized civil servants they would have taken a different attitude.
IMr. Gobeil.]
Many hon. members have expressed themselves as against the reduction in salaries. I say that salaries are not being reduced. Whether a salary is high or low is a relative matter, in connection with the salaries paid to others. My salary at $1,000 may be very high in comparison with my neighbour, doing the same work but receiving a salary of only $600. Another reason why I say salaries are not being reduced, in spite of what hon. members opposite have said and will continue to say until this motion is disposed of, is that every reasonable citizen of Canada knows very well that during the last twenty-four months the cost of living has gone down, and I am not exaggerating when I say it has gone down at least twenty per cent. Therefore during the last two years the civil servants were getting a greater salary, and now we are only asking that their salaries be made more comparable to those paid other people throughout this country. I suggest that the civil servants consider their fellow citizens, many of whom would be glad to receive a salary of $1,000 or even $800 a year. There are thousands of farmers who would be very glad to have a salary of $1,000 per annum; there are thousands of workers of all kinds who would be extremely glad to receive that amount.
Let me conclude my remarks by repeating that I do not want to be unfair to the public service. I do believe a great majority of the civil servants are accepting this reduction willingly, but to those who are protesting I offer the suggestion that they think twice before they talk too much. Let them think of their fellow Canadians who are not getting the salaries they are getting and who are not sure of employment for twelve months each year.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I object to the exemptions from the ten per cent cut. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, those receiving less than $1,200 will be reduced by five per cent and those receiving more than $1,200 will be reduced by ten per cent. Then there are the exceptions: lieutenant-governors, judges, members of the military, naval and air forces, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I see no reason why those I have named should not be reduced ten per cent as well. I saw a table published in the Ottawa Journal of February 25, in which it was stated that in the Department of National Defence there are eighteen men receiving from $4,000 to $4,900; five men receiving from $5,000 to $5,900; one man receiving from

Public Service-Salary Deduction
$8,000 to $8,900, and one man receiving more than $12,000. With the rank and file of the defence forces so reduced I cannot think what these generals or colonels or whatever they are can be doing. It seems to me we have a general staff capable of handling an army of half a million men.


Mr. COOTE:: They are holding the fort.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Yes, they must be
holding the fort; at least they are getting very high salaries, and there is no sensible reason why they should be exempted. Then there is the navy. Of course our navy is not very large, but still we have a navy, and the officers and men are exempt from this reduction. One wonders whether, when this legislation was being drafted, the near mutiny of the British navy was recalled. The other day the Prime Minister told us how cheerfully the British civil servants accepted their reduction. I recall that there was almost a mutiny in the British navy, and possibly that had more to do with Great Britain going off the gold standard than anything else. No doubt the money lenders of New York and Paris thought that if the British navy was close to a mutiny it was about time to do something sensible, and they proceeded to do it. We all remember the demonstrations in Hyde park, so there is no use telling us such things as the Prime Minister told us, because after all, while we are very much under the domination of the Prime Minister, we are still intelligent and our memories are reasonably good.
Then the members of the mounted police are to be exempt also. We all saw the show put on to-day, with men wearing uniforms with expensive braid trimming standing at all the gates. I was not sure whether or not I could get in. There was also a detachment of mounted police hidden behind the buildings and in the courts of the different blocks. I suppose they need to be well paid for such arduous service.
In looking over the exemptions from the cut which have been granted to the judges, the army and navy officers and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it would seem as though all the agencies of force had been exempt. Possibly the judges may thus have clearer vision in giving decisions on the cases likely to come before them in the months to come. I do not suppose there is any use in getting excited over this matter or in protesting further, but it does seem to contain all the elements of force. These classes are exempt from the cut, while the rest of the service must take a ten per cent reduction.
I think a sharply graduated cut would have been more equitable to everyone. A man making $10,000 per year will not be hurt very much by a ten per cent cut. I am opposed to the whole policy of contraction, to the lowering of salaries, the lowering of commodity prices and the general scaling down because the purchasing power of the people will be still further reduced.	I am in a peculiar
position representing, as I do, an almost purely agricultural constituency. The people in my constituency have had to take a cut, not of ten per cent but of sixty or seventy per cent. They feel very bitter about this and some of them cannot understand that to reduce still further the purchasing power of the people will not help them. Those who can scarcely get together the necessities of life are resentful of those who have enough and to spare.	.
I do not like losing money any more than anyone else but I am glad to share to some degree in the suffering of my constituents. This may give some moral support. But my purchasing power will be reduced by 8400, and to that slight extent it will be detrimental to the general situation in Canada. When I returned $6,000 to the treasury I thought, and I still think that there is some moral value in suffering with those who have to suffer. This reducing of salaries and the slashing of commodity prices is economically unsound. We should have a different policy, one which would permit the issuing of more currency to be put into circulation without an accompanying burden of debt in the form of interest. I think that that should be done at once. I was interested in an article which appeared in last evening's Ottawa Journal, a reprint of an editorial of the Vancouver Sun. Dealing with the need of the reduction of wages which money receives, it says:
But did it never occur to Premier Bennett how important to the masses and how important to business it is that the wages of money should also be reduced?
In Canada, "money wages" are earned on the federal and provincial and railway debt, which amount to five billion dollars. An average interest rate of 5 per cent on this five billions means an annual interest charge or wage of 250 million dollars that the people have to carry.
Instead of allowing the wages of money to increase from 4 to 5 per cent and up to 7 per cent, why does our premier not have the moral courage to get up on the floor of parliament and declare that the interest on Canada's five billions of debt shall be reduced to, say 4 per cent? Four per cent interest at to-day's commodity prices and to-day's wages actually gives a greater purchasing power than 5 per cent gave two or three years ago. True, the interest on capital must be protected, but no. more than the wages of men.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
I think that is quite true. Speaking of the currency issue, the article reads:
A much more constructive and, so far as outside security holders are concerned, honourable adjustment on money, would be for our Ottawa government to dilute Canada's five billion interest-bearing securities by adding two hundred or three hundred million dollars to the Canadian note currency.
I believe that that will yet be done, but it should be done now. That would be a far sounder policy than the present reduction. After all, this reduction means a saving of only $8,300,000; that is not a great amount and, as someone has said, it only hastens bankruptcy. I have begun to think that bankruptcy is the best thing that could happen. Those in control of finance will never see the light until we are face to face with bankruptcy. This business of scaling down salaries and increasing the misery of the people seems to be the only method being used by the government.
I am going to make a statement which to some may not seem to be reasonable-I intend to act as a representative of Southeast Grey. I am sure that a majority of my constituency would be in favour of a ten per cent reduction in salaries of $1,200, but I do not think they would agree to the same reduction being made on both small and large salaries-the reduction should increase as the salaries increase.
While I believe the reduction to be economically unsound I do not feel I would be representing Southeast Grey if I did not support this reduction. If I were voting for myself as an individual and not as a representative of my constituency, I should vote against the cut in the salaries of the civil servants in Canada, not because I think the civil servant should not suffer with the rest of Canada-Ottawa has been an oasis in the desert of depression-but because I believe that this policy of reduction will add to the misery now existing. While I am opposed to the policy, I will support it, and in making this statement I am being distressingly honest In supporting this measure I am acting as a true representative of my constituency, and, after all, that is what we should be. The element of representation does enter into the membership of this House of Commons and one should not forget that as far as possible he should reflect the opinion of his constituency.


Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention,
being a farmer, to take a very active part in this debate, seeing that others better 
qualified have thoroughly gone into the matter. May I, however, humbly express in the house, my views on the question submitted to us. At the outset, I must state that the terms of this resolution hold no surprise for me, and the more I acquire parliamentary experience and the more I take part in the work of the seventeenth parliament, the more I become convinced that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was not in earnest in 1930. I shall repeat for the hundredth time, as my colleagues and the Canadian people have done, that the electorate was shamefully deceived at the last election. It is true that those who sit on your right, sir, are not fond of having the surgeon's knife pry into the opened wound of their extravagant pledges in 1930; they shun the sight of the quivering wound-flesh caused by their foolish political eccentricities; however, it is our duty to scrutinize in this house all their pledges, so as to show them up to the people under their true light, in such a way that they will not in the future deceive the electorate as they did in 1930. The right hon. Prime Minister then travelled over the whole country, and everywhere he pledged himself to remedy all the evils borne by the people. He promised everywhere a wonderful prosperity, everywhere it was the same singsong: he was to revive in Canada bountiful days and turn the country into a marvellous land of Eden. But, with bankruptcy staring his administration in the face and his powerlessness to relieve all the ills from which the country suffered, he now appeals, in 1932, to the people to bear up in order to help him to administer the affairs of the country and thus permit him to remain in power. He furthermore appeals to the small wage-earners, the humble, the working classes, that they bleed themselves to death in order to balance a budget which hobbled along after the first eight months under his administration, limped very sadly this year, and probably will be crawling next year. After having pledged himself to relieve the people's distress, he exacts a ransom for bread and hunger from those to whom so much sympathy was shown in 1930.
In 1930, the Liberal party was blamed for the economic crisis, my leader was charged with all the evils from which the country suffered, he was made the scape-goat burdened with all the responsibilities for the distress [DOT]then existing. In 1932, the Government faced with the failure of its administration, and its helplessness to relieve the economic depression, endeavours to make amends, and instead of circumscribing the crisis, or viewing it as a

Public Service-Salary Deduction
national problem, it now describes it as of
international character, as, after all, was the case in 1930. To-day faced with the impossibility of relieving the depression, the government states openly that this economic crisis in no way can be attributed to one country alone, but depends on uncontrollable circumstances, is of an international and worldwide character. Why did not the members sitting on the government benches acknowledge, in 1930, what they recognize to-day? Why did they not then view the crisis under its true aspect?
What did the Government do, after being placed in power, to relieve a'll the ills of which the liberal party was responsible, according to the conservative party? It called a special session, had $20,000,000 voted to relieve unemployment-an anti-social law in my opinion-it bungled up the tariff in all possible manner, once more neglecting agriculture for which so much sympathy was shown during the election. And to what purpose? To be followed by a general and much felt depression, an unemployment which spread in direct ratio of the square of the Government's incompetence. It ended in jeopardizing business and agriculture, and if there are here civil servants who hear me, allow me, sir, to tell them that if they are sacrificed by this government, agriculture had also its large share in these sacrifices. Last year, in the speech from the throne, four words were inserted on behalf of the farming class for which so much sympathy was shown; this year nothing was inserted, no allusion to agriculture is even made. I should like on this occasion to discuss agriculture at length, however, I shall have an * opportunity to refer to it later on in the session.
Prosperity was to flourish again and unemployment was to vanish. What result was attained? There is more poverty than ever, the unemployed are more numerous and notwithstanding the hard times, hundreds of civil servants are thrown on the street.
After having long sought to relieve the present depression, the Prime Minister, who on the day before had been torturing his brains to find a solution to the deplorable financial situation of the country by morning suddenly awakes, a flash of lightning seems to have illumined his thoughts and with a loud cry of "Eureka," he calls for the civil service list, slashes right and left, and on behalf of patriotism he calls upon all civil servants to sacrifice 10 per cent of their salary to help him in redeeming his election pledges. I quite agree that all should accept their share of sacrifices in the country's interest, and personally, I think that each should contribute
his quota to relieve the economic situation, but what I object to are the means adopted. This cut in salaries should be carried out not on the basis advocated, but on a graduated scale. As to the average and lower grades of civil servants, I agree with the Rev. Mr. Boileau, chaplain of the "Syndicats Catho-liques" of Montreal, that the measure proposed by this resolution is anti-social.
It is the custom in this House, to bring in support of the statements made, one's own preferred authorities. To support my own statement, I shall not have recourse to a letter written by a woman, whose name it is deemed proper not to divulge, a letter written by a woman ready to sacrifice herself for the country when it chances to please the right hon. Prime Minister, but I shall quote from an untouchable, undeniable, and indefectible authority, the authority of Rome.
In his henceforth unforgettable encyclical letter "Quadragesima Anno" the Roman Pontiff took up social questions and the following is what he states, speaking of the requirements of public welfare:
It is in the public interest that the workmen and employees should, after meeting the indispensable expenses, set aside part of their salary so as to build up a modest fortune.
And further he adds:
The estate must be sufficiently large to meet the needs of an honest living and to give the people some degree of comfort and culture which, providing a wise use is made of it, places no impediment to virtue, but on the contrary singularly facilitates its practice.
Instead of having recourse to this system of taxation, I think the government should have raised the rate of the income tax and taxed government bonds. The Dominion loan bonds last year was taken up in a very short period. Within a week we were informed that already $650,000,000 had been subscribed. Have you ever wondered why these millions were subscribed so quickly? I believe that a number of capitalists were anxious to shelter their capital by investing in state bonds. Probably there are amounts of $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 in this subscription which do not pay a cent tax to the government, because they are not registered. Why were the wealthy people living in luxury, that is those who can most afford to pay, allowed to escape taxation? Thus the opinion of the authority which I have just quoted would have been followed, for speaking of activities of the state in social welfare, the following is what the encyclical letter says:
It behooves governments to protect the community and the individuals who form part of it, however in dealing with personal rights they must specially look after the weak and the poor.
764	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
The wealthy classes make a rampart of their wealth and have less need of public guardianship. The poor classes on the contrary, without wealth to give them protection depend especially on the state for such protection. Let the state therefore be full of regard and solicitude for the workmen who belong to the poor classes.
I can quite understand that cabinet ministers are not making a great fuss over this measure, they thought fit to have a $2,000 bonus voted to them last year, they who at present receive an indemnity of $16,000 per year. If they contribute to the treasury $1,600, they still have a salary of $14,400. It is $400 more than the .ministers had under the King regime. While nobody suspected the plot, they so managed their own affairs that their salary was not affected, yet they are bold enough to place a tax of ten per cent on the small wage earners who are in receipt of $1,200, and on those whose income is $1,500, $1,800 or $2,000 per year. The employees who even now find it hard to get along with such salaries will be forced to contribute to the treasury $130, S140, $150 or $180 per year.
What effect will this measure have on the budget of those whose salaries put them in the average grade? A salary cut, that goes without saying, a decrease in purchasing power and therefore an upsetting of the family budget. Has anybody ever figured out what was the average cost of keeping a family of five persons? After consulting the Labour Gazette of February, 1932, at page 223, I find the following details, being the result of an inquiry held in sixty-nine towns of Canada: the following is the average cost per week for the upkeep of a family of five persons: food, including meat, butter, eggs, flour, peas, beans, sugar, vinegar, etc., $7.68 per week. No one will say that this is exaggerated. Heating and lighting $3.11 per week, rent $6.77 per week. Total expenditure per week $17.56. If you multiply this amount by 52 weeks you arrive at a total of $913.12 for the upkeep of a family of five persons per year.
Still according to the Labour Gazette one must further allow for clothes, underwear, and medical care or other unforeseen expenses, 50 per cent more, representing $456.53, which, added to the $913.12 brings up the total to $1,369.65. This is for the average class of civil servants. There still remains the lower grade to deal with. Let [DOT] us suppose, for a moment, that the latter only spend 30 per cent of the family expenditure for clothes, underwear, medical care or unforeseen expenses, we arrive at a total of $1,187.05.
How can you expect that a civil servant belonging to the average grade and having to
[Mr. Dubois.l
spend yearly $1,369.65 can possibly set aside savings for his old days? And yet, I repeat it, the following is what the authority I quoted, says:
It is in the public interest that the workmen and employees should, after meeting the indispensable expenses, set aside part of their salary so as to build up a modest fortune.
What is there that remains to these wage earners, to these employees to provide for the education and teaching of their children? Nothing. And yet,
The estate must be sufficiently large to meet the needs of an honest living and to give the people some degree of comfort and culture which, providing a wise use is made of it, places no impediment to virtue, but on the contrary singularly facilitates its practice.
Instead of taxing the small wage earner and the civil servant belonging to the average class, the government should increase somewhat the income tax, tax luxury but not the necessities, and ask those who can afford it, to contribute and not those who have already heavy expenses to meet.
It behooves governments to protect the community and the individuals who form part of it. however in dealing with personal rights they must specially look after the weak and the poor. The wealthy classes make a rampart of their wealth and have less need of public guardianship. The poor classes, on the contrary, without wealth to give them protection depend especially on the state for such protection. Let the state therefore be full of regard and solicitude for the workmen who belong to the poor classes.
Why does the Prime Minister seek with such stubbornness to introduce this arbitrary scale? He must have received protests from all parts of the country. To refreshen his memory, I shall quote a resolution adopted by the civil servants of Montreal, at a meeting held on February 22, 1932:
Whereas civil servants as a whole and particularly those whose salary is $2,000 or less did not draw remuneration proportionate to the increased cost of living when prosperity existed and everywhere salaries were raised.
Whereas the ten per cent will mean a greater loss, if the contribution made to the retiring fund (entirely paid by the employees) and the statutory increase which are to be cancelled, are taken into account.
Whereas this reduction will specially affect retail trade by decreasing the purchasing power.
Whereas civil servants have always been poorly remunerated.
Whereas the salary cut will affect the pensions.
Be it resolved that we request respectfully the government to modify its resolution relating to the cut of salaries by ten per cent, because it would not be fair that those who in no way benefited in prosperous times should be affected in such a radical way.
We understand the sad state in which the country's finances are, however, we believe that

Public Service-Salary Deduction
a decrease of salary is not a remedy to the situation, especially when it falls upon a class of civil servants who were unable, in heyday to economize owing to the insufficiency of their salary.
Furthermore, I shall draw the attention of the government to another resolution adopted by the Railway Mail Clerks' Association, of Montreal, which was forwarded to me on February 20 last:
Mr. L. Dubois, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Sir,-
Allow me to respectfully draw your attention to the following resolution adopted at the regular meeting of this association held in Montreal, on the 17th inst., and which resolution reads as follows:	.
"That this association protests against the general cut of ten per cent in all salaries without exception and requests that rather a graduated reduction based on the amount of the salaries be made, consideration being had for the smaller salaries."	.
Trusting that our request will receive your kind attention,
I reamain,
Respectfully yours,
(Sgd.) M. J. E. Blais,
Secretary,
Coaticook, Que.
I wonder, after all these protests, why the government still persists in adhering to the provisions of the bill. History must have taught them that a rash action of Napoleon caused the loss of thousands of lives in the steppes of Russia. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is endowed with exceptional qualities, I acknowledge it; but he has the defects of his qualities and those of certain small men. He realizes his perfections better than his failings. I would beg of him to act with care, and on the same score that he has requested this sacrifice from the civil servants, on behalf of patriotism, I also request him on behalf of the most integral patriotism not to disturb the small salaried men or those belonging to the average class; I further make this request on behalf of Christian justice, on behalf of Christian charity, on behalf of sound social doctrine.
As my good friend, the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) requested, I beg of him to introduce a bill in which humanism will predominate; and like the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), I would advise him to be silent for a day, so as to prepare, in quietness and meditation, a more just and sound measure.


Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont):: It is' my intention to take up the time of the house for only a very few minutes. I had not intended to participate in this debate; but after listening to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite which covered the whole range of argument from the calm and rather dispassionate address of the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) to the speech which was delivered with such evangelistic fervour by the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), I believe there is one aspect of the case which no speaker except the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) discussed at all.
In the discussion of a reduction of wages, there are always two sides to be considered -the opinion of the employer and the opinion of the employees. We have heard at great length just how the employees may feel about this reduction; that it may in some cases work a slight hardship; but it was the hon. member for Southeast Grey only who gave us the considered opinion of the employer. In this case who is the employer of the civil servants of Canada? Is it the government? Is it parliament? No; it is the ten million people of Canada who pay the taxes, who are the employers. The hon. member for Southeast Grey has told us that the people of her constituency are very much in favour of this reduction; that they consider it reasonable. I have gone to the trouble to ascertain the opinions of some of the representative citizens of my constituency, both in the rural part and in the industrial section, and I believe it is the consensus of opinion that owing to the present depression throughout the world and the existing condition of affairs in Canada when it is absolutely necessary that reduction in expenditure shall be made, this reasonable reduction of ten per cent in the salaries of the civil servants of this country, is something that should be put into effect without delay. There have been advanced during the course of the debate by speakers from the opposition side many, shall I say rather queer arguments. The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), who time and again has proclaimed himself in the house and in the country as the great champion of Liberal principles, who has told us time and again what the great Liberal party-and it has been a great party-has stood for, in the course of his speech argued in favour of a capital levy. After listening to that address I came to the conclusion that the hon. member for North Battleford should transfer his seat to the far corner of that side of the house.
I was rather surprised that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) should put forth the idea, I believe in all seriousness, that the various government bouses throughout

Public Service-Salary Deduction	.
Canada should be closed at the present time and that all these great social functions which are held in different portions of the country- and I suppose the social functions in Ottawa would be included-should be dispensed with during the period of depression. To people who are out of work and others who are in receipt of low salaries this appeal, that these social functions engaged in by the wealthy, leisured class, should foe dispensed with, sounds very well. But do you know that some of these gentlemen who in appealing to the people of the country are democrats to the hilt, can 'be on other occasions aristocrats of the aristocrats? It was my good fortune recently to be in my room in the house when I saw passing down the corridor the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) dressed in his Windsor uniform, and a fine figure he made; he might have been taken right out of the pages of some romantic novel of .the middle ages. I am sure he may be proud that he has reached the place where he can wear that uniform. I do not in the least blame him for it, and I 'believe that the making of that uniform, the preparation of the material Oif which it consists, .the employment of the men who made it, and the men who from time to time press it or repair it or keep it in good condition,-all this provides wages and helps to give a certain number of people a living, or to .contribute to that end. And so, when these social functions are hold in various parts of the country, including the capital city, I suppose in the great majority of instances where beautiful gowns are worn .the ladies who wear them can afford to do so, and we Should remember that the making of the gowns has given work to hundreds of women who needed it. The retailing of the gowns 'has given reasonable profits to many merchants, and I for one am not in favour of having any of the social functions done away with, because it is one of the means by which people with money may be induced to part with it, thus providing work for those who would otherwise be unemployed at 'the present time.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The hon.
gentleman speaks of the making or repairing of gowns. Does he realize that in the future the gowns will be shorter by ten per cent?


Frank Thomas Shaver: The bon. gentleman may have some inside information, and it is possible that in the course of time they may be shortened. Still they will provide a great deal of work for the seamstresses and others who are engaged in their manufacture.
There has been a considerable reduction in the cost of living; that question has been TMr. Shaver.]
debated to a great extent. The civil servants in Ottawa and throughout the country are having their salaries reduced by ten per cent, although in the great majority of cases of those receiving under $1,200 the reduction will be only five per cent. But I have taken the trouble to ascertain from one of the leading merchants of my own county, a man who has been in business for a quarter of a century and who keeps a very accurate record of costs in every department of bis business, what the average reduction in the cost of living has been from the year 1930 up to the present time. The figures he has given after a very careful computation are these: Foodstuffs 27 to 29 per cent; dry goods 22 to 25 per cent; and boots and shoes from 18 to 20 per cent. And these reductions apply all along the line in all classes of commodities. I am sure therefore that any civil servant whose salary has been reduced by ten per cent will find it easier to make both ends meet during the coming year than he could formerly with his salary as it was but with prices higher.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) made somewhat contemptuous allusion to the mounted police, the forces of law and order. As a citizen of Canada. I am proud of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I think every other citizen of this dominion should be equally proud of them. There is no body of men holding similar positions and doing similar work in any country in the world more worthy of the support and admiration of all citizens of the country employing them than is this fine body of men. 1 am sure we should be glad that men who possess so much tact and common sense and so great an ability to get along with people in a reasonable way, men who are able to quell disturbances with a minimum of trouble, are in our midst, and on every occasion we should do all that we can to support and strengthen that organization.
The civil servants of Canada are just as reasonable as any other citizens of this country. I have had occasion to discuss this question with various members of that fine body and I believe that we have a civil service in Canada the equal of any other service of the kind in the world. In my own county there are a large number of civil servants employed in two or three departments. They are very efficient men and I believe that, as reasonable people, they will regard this reduction as fair. It has been announced that it is for only one year, and we know that if times improve and conditions are better, the civil servants will have their former salaries restored in course of time.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
I believe that the civil servants of my own county will view the reduction as a reasonable one and will be ready to accept it in that spirit.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull):: I
feel quite at ease speaking on this resolution as a member representing the city on the other side of the river. One reason for my discussing the resolution is that I was requested to do so not only by the Liberals of my riding but also by the organized Conservatives of the whole county. I have here a resolution passed by the Conservatives of my city at a meeting on February 24, requesting me to voice their protest against the motion now before the house. Being so close to the capital, and having in my riding so many civil servants, I think I can describe to a certain extent the spirit in which they accept reduction in salaries. The resolution which I am about to quote to the house was supported by a gentleman who was the president of the press gallery last year. He is in the gallery again this year, and I may say that he was speaking in the name of the Conservative member for Hull in the Quebec legislature. I will not translate the resolution but will read it just as it was reported in Le Droit of February 25:
(Translation)
Mr. Edgar Boutet also approved of the resolution. He asserted that he was authorized by Mr. Aime Guertin, M.P.P., who had been detained elsewhere, to express the views of the member for Hull in this respect.
The following are the views of Mr. Guertin, M.P.P., conveyed by Mr. Boutet:
The proposed cut in the salary represents an economy of $8,000,000 while the deficit amounts to $300,000,000. Even if, adds Mr. Boutet, the government faces, at the end of the next fiscal year, a small deficit of $8,000,000, it will not prove a success. Why then force the small wage-earners to pay for abuses and extravagances of the previous regime.
Mr. Boutet states that he has no hesitation in censuring his leader (Mr. Bennett) on this question. He further censures Mr. King who approves of the principle of the cut in salaries from $2,000 up.
Further on-and this is where he requests me to raise my voice against the motion of his
leader-
"No bad example is to be given to other employers." And for that reason, it behooves the Conservative club to request our member at Ottawa to vote against the principle of any reduction whatsoever.
The same evening in another hall a meeting of the Liberal association was held, at which a resolution was carried requesting me to
oppose the measure now before the house, I hope I will not be charged with trying to create political capital out of this matter, but representing a riding where so many people are affected, I feel their protests should be voiced in this house. The reason given by the Conservatives for passing the resolution to which I referred was that the government were setting a bad example to merchants, industrialists and other employers. The Liberals gave the reason that the flat reduction would bear more heavily on the lower salaries than on the higher ones.
In my city I do not find the spirit described by the hon. member who took his seat just a few moments ago. I would suppose that in his riding there are practically no civil servants, whereas in the city of Hull there are about five hundred. Taking an average of five per family we find that in a city of
26,000	or 27,000 population, about 2,500 people must be affected by the reduction.
A few days ago, speaking on the question of unemployment, I stated that in Hull there were about 2,000 unemployed, and that in the month of February for direct relief the city council had authorized the payment of nearly
818,000.	I said that every Saturday morning there are at our city hall about 700 or 800 people asking for jobs, doles, or direct relief. Under such conditions our people cannot act in the good spirit described by a few hon. members who have spoken.
Referring to the additions to the number of civil servants I quote the Fnancial Post of December 12, 1931:
While the government has done something to restrict the increase in expenditures, this gain to the taxpayers has been, in part, destroyed by the inability to enforce economy in the ordinary business of government. The statistics on the civil service, just issued, show that the personnel which stood at 44,175 in 1930 increased to 45,581 in 1931, or an increase of 1,406 persons. The cost of the service rose from $67,178,198 in 1930 to $70,196,311 in 1931. And these figures do not take into account the number and wages of non-enumerated classes. All told, the cost of the service in 1930 was $90,808,425 and this year $94,310,983. This addition of $3,500,000 is just one of the important reasons why the government is unable to make headway with economy. All of these additional 1,400 employees must be housed, must work, and the only explanation is that governmental activities continue to increase, rather than diminish.
Then the article goes on to explain con-, ditions in the civil service in the year 1912. The figures I have quoted show that under
768	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
this government in one year the number of civil servants belonging to enumerated classes increased to the extent of 1,406, bringing a further expenditure to the government in one year of S3,500,000.	The proposed reduction
will affect the revenues or expenditures to the amount of $8,300,000. I wonder why the
1.400	people were brought into the civil service during the one year. I was under the impression that they had reduced their staffs. I find however that instead of reducing they have increased the staffs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. member permit a question? Upon what authority does he say that 1,400 additional appointments have been made to the civil service during the past year?


Alphonse Fournier: As I said before, I am quoting the Financial Post of December 12, 1631, as recorded by an Ottawa correspondent. I did not invent the figures I have quoted and, in fact, I find they agree-probably not exactly, but nearly-with the figures given by the Prime Minister a few evenings ago. He said the total expenditure for civil service salaries amounted to $83,000,000. In the figures I have quoted the amount is given at about $90,000,000. I am not sure however whether the Prime Minister referred only to enumerated classes and not to those receiving indemnities. I think if the minister compared the figures I have given with those given by the Prime Minister he would find very little difference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I doubt very much whether
1.400	new appointments were made.


Alphonse Fournier: I have given the figure of 1,406 new employees. That could be explained to some extent at least by the extra officials who were engaged to put into effect the operation of the 5 per cent bonus on wheat or other acts.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of course, during the past
year a considerable number of people were appointed census enumerators, but those appointments were only temporary and for the purpose of carrying out census work. Quite possibly there were additions in that connection, but as to permanent employees in the service, from my personal knowledge I am absolutely sure that the quotation my hon. friend cites is not correct.


Alphonse Fournier: I did not say that those
1.400	people were added to the permanent staffs of the civil service; I said new hands were taken on. For instance, there is no permanent staff in connection with the Public Works department in Ottawa; in that department there are only temporary employees. I

have known however of people who have worked there for the last twenty-five years. Additions of temporary employees might have been made in that department. Undoubtedly there were some civil servants employed in Ottawa for the census, but not 1,400. At least 80 people were engaged alt one time to put into operation the 5 cent bonus to the western farmers. If the information I have quoted is correct, however, it will show that the number of employees was increased rather than diminished, and as a result the expenditure in the last fiscal year was $3,500,000 greater than it had been in the previous year.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Before six o'clock I was stating that the constituency I represent is very much interested in this resolution, nearly five hundred people in my city being civil servants, and that the proposed reduction was opposed not only by supporters of the official opposition but also by supporters of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself. I recited a resolution passed by the Hull Conservative Association last week blaming the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) for introducing this resolution. At adjournment the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) questioned the figures I had cited, which I had taken from the Financial Post. During the recess I went to the trouble of looking up the figures given by the Prime Minister last Friday while speaking on the resolution. I stated that there were 44,175 civil servants belonging to certain enumerated classes, and that in 1931 they numbered 45,581, being an increase of 1,406. I also stated that the salaries of those enumerated classes for 1930 amounted to $67,178,198, and for 1931 to $70,198,311. I find on page 562 of Hansard the Prime Minister stated:
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.
On the same page he also stated that the total number of employees, including the seasonals and casuals, numbered 44,473, receiv-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
ing 375,481,243.72. There may be a slight discrepancy between the figures cited by the Prime Minister and those I have taken from the Financial Post. I do not think the t(vo calculations were made on quite the same basis; probably the correspondent for the Financial Post included the judges, the military staffs, and others not covered by the resolution, which would account for the difference in our respective figures. I believe the figures I quoted are substantially correct and stand uncontradicted by the figures given by the Prime Minister.
It was said by certain hon. gentlemen on the other side who have spoken on this resolution that the civil servants received the news of the ten per cent reduction in a good spirit. I do not know exactly where these supporters of the government obtained their information, but I have under my hand protests from various organizations in the city of Hull and from outside organizations too. The first protest I received is from L'Union des Employes des Postes du Canada:
The members of the Hull branch of the postal employees union of Canada at a special meeting have requested us to forward you a copy of their motion protesting against the salary cut of the civil servants.
Evidently they do not accept the ten per cent reduction in such a "good spirit" as was mentioned this afternoon. Here is a protest from the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada:
This organization strongly protests a ten per cent cut in the salaries of lower paid civil servants, but we regard the government's action in stopping statutory increases coincident with such a proposed reduction as ill-considered and something that could not be justified under any circumstances, in that it bears hardest upon those least able to afford it, and is discrimination of the worst type.
The Federated Association of Letter Carriers of Canada write me as follows:
We the officers and members of branch No. 2 of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers of Canada desire to enlist your assistance in protesting against the proposed ten per cent cut in salary to all civil servants.
Then follows a table showing the effect of the reduction. A copy of this has, I believe, been sent to every member of the house. The Ottawa Journal of February 22, 1932, contained an editorial under the caption The Civil Service Cut, from which I quote the following:
We are all only too well aware of the difficulties of the government. It must balance its budget. But isn't the answer to that simply that it is hardly fair to ask so much of sacrifice from one class-a moderately paid civil service 41701-49
class? The income tax exempts a married man up to $3,000. That being so, what is the justification of a demand that a civil servant getting $1,200 should contribute $60?
I believe there are over 60,000 civil servants in Canada, and in this city there are between
12,000	and 15,000. Certainly these people must have dependents relying on their salaries for a livelihood; in an ordinary family there are about five people, so if you multiply the number of civil servants by five you will find the number affected by this reduction. In Hull we have nearly 500 civil servants, which would mean about 2,500 people affected by this measure. A few days ago I explained how labourers and tradesmen in Hull have been affected by the unemployment crisis; if now we are to have another 2,500 people hit by this reduction, certainly they must be helped in some way. The best way to help them would be to keep their salaries at the same level as in the past. Since September, 1930, forty-five bankruptcies and assignments have been registered at the Hull court house, while five more from my district have been registered in other districts. One of the reasons for these bankruptcies and assignments certainly has been the lack of purchasing power of the people in my vicinity, and by this reduction we will not augment their purchasing power but will reduce it.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does not the hon. member think the employees of those firms that have gone bankrupt would be glad to continue working at ninety per cent of their former salaries?


Alphonse Fournier: If the people in my
riding to whom I refer, could not get along with one hundred per cent purchasing power I do not know how they will do with a ninety per cent purchasing power. We never like to see salaries go down; of course that is only natural, but I do not see why the city of Ottawa or the city of Hull should be singled out in this way. The people in these cities submit to the same taxation as the people living in other parts of the country; these civil servants have their municipal taxes and their income taxes to pay when they receive salaries large enough, and now, after this reduction, they will have to go on paying the same taxes. An hon. member opposite said many farmers would like to receive a salary of $1,000, but I doubt if many farmers would leave their own homes to come to a city like Ottawa and live on a salary of 31,000, when we know that this salary is not enough for the upkeep of an ordinary family.
The protests we hear on the streets of both cities with regard to this reduction in

770	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
salary might be summarized in this way: The flat reduction is unjust because it makes no difference between those receiving very low and those receiving very high salaries. A man receiving SI,200 or more is affected more severely in proportion than the man who receives 13,000, $4,000 or $8,000; while his family lives on a lower scale, nevertheless he must provide the primary necessities of life. It has been suggested that this reduction may mean that the civil servant who has been helping one of his own family who is out of work, or one of his relatives or friends who is in need, may not be able to continue to do so. If I am correctly informed, since last fall the civil servants have been paying so much a week from their salaries into a fund to help the unemployed, and they pay five per cent for superannuation also. Now they are to be reduced ten per cent, and they will not get their annual increases, so certainly they are suffering more than the farmers, who at least can grow many of the necessities of life. The income tax takes into account family charges; a married man with a family receives a much greater exemption than a single man or a married man without a family. This principle was applied to the income tax during the war, and it should be applied now in connection with this reduction.
The Conservatives in my riding stated the other night that certainly this reduction would set a bad example to provincial and municipal governments, private industries and merchants, who might follow the lead of this government and reduce the salaries of their employees, which are none too high at the present time. When the example is set by the federal government certainly it has more weight than it would have coming from a private corporation. Speaking in Ottawa in July, 1930, the Prime Minister expressed the view that he could render the civil service more efficient by keeping those wtho fulfilled the duties of their position most capably, paying 'them adequate salaries, and dismissing the others. But since that time no steps have been taken to attain that objective; the fust thing to be done by this government is to make this reduction and to dismiss quite a number of civil servants.
When this resolution was presented to the house we heard on the streets the complaints of civil servants, but for the last few days members of the service have become shy and bashful, and they do mot discus the matter. They are afraid of losing their jobs. Right after the introduction of this resolution the Department of Public Works served notice on eighty-two temporary employees that their

services would mot be required beyond the end of this month. Now members of the public service are afraid to look around, in the fear that to-morrow morning they may find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed.
If this reduction were graded, starting at say $2,000, certainly there would not be such protests as we have heard. I find that the bon. member f-or New Westminster (Mr. Reid) was told that only 805 employees of the public service were receiving salaries of more than $4,000 and that their contribution under this measure would be about $400,000. This means that some $7,900,000 will have to be contributed by civil servants receiving less than $4,000 a year. It has been stated that the average salary in the civil service is about $1,500 a year, so it will be seen that the lower paid civil servants will have to contribute the greater portion of the $8,300,000 which the Prime Minister said would be saved by this reduction. In 1929 it was stated in this house that there were 3,779 male civil servants in Ottawa receiving less than $100 a month, and at that time the average salary of civil servants in this city was $1,650.
This measure was brought in by the Prime Minister in order to balance the budget; he wants $8,300,000 from the civil service for that purpose. I do not know what will be the deficit, but certainly -this amount will not cover it this year, and certainly the civil servants will suffer more than those employed in private industry. I desire to voice as forcibly as I can the views of the people in my riding and of the others who have written to me with reference to this subject matter. I trust the Prime Minister will reconsider his decision as to this ten per cent cut and draft a bill which will graduate the reduction to be made in the civil service salaries.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: 
Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker, the civil service of a country, is the mechanism through which the government enforces its laws and collects the necessary returns for the good administration of the country. The civil service of Canada is the best medium under these circumstances to give the country a good government after the legislation we enact receives the sanction of the Governor General and the necessary regulations are passed by orders in council.
Our civil service, sir, is an excellent one. I rise this evening to champion its cause. We are aware that our civil service, copied on the English system, is not far from being perfect. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver) stated that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was a first class body of men. I state that the civil service also belongs to that class. I have the same admiration for the Royal Mounted Police as the hon. member has. On the other hand, if in India England can control 327,000,000 people with a civil service list of 11,000 employees and 55,000 soldiers, it only proves that we have in Canada a perfect system whose endeavours deserve to be recognized.
The service is open to those who are. gifted. One must undergo a test. I have often seen, after the examinations, the questions submitted to candidates. It is as difficult, to-day, to pass the civil service examinations as it is to obtain a certificate in our business colleges. I shall even state that in certain fields of activity, for instance in the Trade and Commerce department, it is as difficult to pass the test as it is to obtain a bachelor's degree in our classical colleges. Many of our young people after finishing their studies in colleges enter the civil service and believe that they
772	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
are filling lucrative positions, they believe that prospects are bright for their talents and that they will become experts. They pass the required tests and are given a fixed salary; they carry on with this salary and its statutory increases; they regulate their budget accordingly and work conscientiously, from the humble servant in the Public Works up to the officials of the Post Office Department, Marine, Customs and External Affairs.
We are asked, to-day, by this resolution to cut down their remuneration, their salary by ten per cent. It is the duty of the government to remunerate their employees. If we want the country to conform with the legislation we enact we must set the example. If the government does not sufficiently remunerate its servants or does not conform with the statutes which provide for salaries and statutory increases, I state that this is a very poor example to give to the industrial commercial and farming classes of this country.
These civil servants, as I stated a moment ago, have so regulated their budget, knowing that their limit had been reached, nevertheless endeavouring not only to provide for the necessary things but to afford some small luxuries during their lifetime. To-day, they are told:	we cut you down 10 per cent from
81,200 up. An employee who earns $1,225, will have to pay 8122.50 plus five per cent to the pensions fund; he would be better off if his salary was reduced by $25, so that he could be classed in the $1,200. He would then have only $60 as the government would also pay $60, to contribute to pensions fund.
Has this phase of the question been examined? I have not thoroughly studied the Civil Service Pensions Act, it however strikes me that thanks to this yearly five per cent, since its inception, millions must have accumulated in the treasury. Why does not the government come to an understanding with the Civil Service Federation of Canada? Why does it not borrow from the Pension fund? Why not borrow from that source the five or six million dollars needed to cover this year's exigencies, seeing that the Prime Minister stated the other day to the delega-gation that it would only be for a year?
Banks are being merged, anything can be done to-day through legislation or orders in council, except change a man into a woman! Why not borrow from the civil service pensions fund an amount equal to this salary cut, adopt the necessary resolutions, have regular meetings, bridge over the deficit and the spreads appearing in the year's budget. Desperate ills require desperate remedies! If, this year, it is found necessary to reduce the civil servants' salaries, why not take the

equivalent from their pensions fund. It is better to borrow it to-day and not have them default their financial obligations, rather than pay them a pension in twenty or twenty-five years hence when perhaps they will not need it. This is the time to satisfy those who, by statute, have a right to their salary so that they may live as in the past and provide for their children's education. We must act in such a way that the tradespeople be not despoiled of their fair profit and the business community be not deprived of this ten per cent which civil servants spend either in clothes, food or even, let us be frank, as it is their right, for themselves and family, in pleasure resorts.
I read lately in an Ottawa newspaper that the amount deducted from the civil servants' salaries will deprive the tradespeople of $2,000,000. Two million dollars taken from the local trade, is an enormous amount. Merchants as well as manufacturers will have to bear the loss. If the purchasing power is lacking, less sales will take place and the people of Ottawa as well as of Canada will suffer from it, its effect will be felt in all fields of industrial and commercial activities.
I also read lately in an American newspaper -it is well to make contrasts for we are quite close to the United States border-that President Hoover gave out the following statement, he who has under his jurisdiction
600,000	United States civil servants:
I have no intention to cut down the salaries; we must not reduce them; the purchasing power must not be lacking; we must not upset this service which is devoted to its work and needs the whole of its salary in order to give a good service to the state, help us to make of the United States a greater country and assist us in making the American republic a country of future still greater. However, owing to our heavy debts, if it is absolutely necessary, we shall reduce the number of employees but we shall maintain their salary on the level where it is to-day.
What is happening in Canada? By this resolution it is intended to cut the salaries, and pursuant to notices sent out the number of employees have already been reduced. On the one hand, the purchasing power of the permanent civil servants is decreased, while on the other hand, the temporary employees are dismissed, they that have, for the last few years, given the best of their life and energy in the hope of being taken in the service. In Montreal alone 120 are thrown on the street.
Under such circumstances, is this fair? I say no. The government must readjust its budget by applying, if necessary, to the magnates of finance. I am neither a communist nor a bolshevist, however, let those

Public Service-Salary Deduction
who have an income of $500,000 or $600,000, if necessary, contribute $400,000 to the state for a year, they still will have plenty to live upon with $200,000. Let heirs of estates who have never done a stroke of work to build up such fortunes and have thousands of dollars to spend yearly, let them, I say, contribute three-quarters of their wealth to the state for a year, let them follow the example of the right hon. Mr. Baldwin, President of the Council in England, whom I admire, and who generously gave to the treasury $625,000, representing the profits he made during the war, he handed over this amount to his country, saying that it was the price of blood. His son lately stated in an interview:
My father's income is less than it was in 1909, however he can live on it; our family still lives in great comfort.
Let those who can afford to do so make contributions to the treasury! Let them help the government to put order in their finances, let them contribute in putting the administration on its feet; I trust they will be induced to do so, because if our country is prosperous, so will we all be. All classes of the community will benefit by it and an alleluia of joy will be heard throughout the country. But allow the civil servants to live in peace in the discharge of their duties. I am aware that this resolution will carry. I have no illusions. During the ten years of my parliamentary life, I have learned that majorities rule in this house and all measures are enacted through these majorities, otherwise they would amount to motions of nonconfidence adopted by the ruling party. We, that belong to the opposition have very little influence in this house, however, we are on the watch like vestals, endeavouring to keep the fire of the Liberal party burning so that our friends all over Canada may see the flame through the window panes of this house; "Keep the fires burning." We do our best to keep our lighthouse continuously lit. There is not much oil left in the tank but the wick is good and the light is still bright. What I would suggest, under the circumstances, since I am convinced that this measure will carry: That the government make no cut in salaries under $4,000. From $4,000 deduct four per cent, if it so desires; $5,000 deduct five per cent'; $6,000, six per cent; $7,000, seven per cent; $8,000, eight per cent; $9,000, nine per cent, and $10,000, ten per cent. That would be a fair and reasonable measure, and I think that civil servants would be satisfied and continue to live with the hope of meeting their obligations. I am not saying this in
order to complain about the $400 which I shall, as a member, have to pay the 6tate. No, sir, I shall graciously do so; I shall do my bit generously, under the circumstances, and contribute to the treasury. It will make me happier to think that I have contributed, in the opposition, to help the government in the administration of the country, by my humble subscription of $400.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with
rapt attention to the words of wisdom of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson). It must be clearly understood that those who live in the cities of this dominion are not responsible for the industrial system under which they live. That system was brought into being by men whose chief motive was profit, and in a period of depression such as that through which we are passing, it is only natural in the sequence of events that those unfortuate individuals should suffer until such time as the government of this country assume the responsibility which is theirs towards the men and women who find themselves in their present situation under circumstances over which they have no control.
I know of nothing easier than to get up in a deliberate assembly such as this and suggest that the men and women who spend their lives working in the factories of this dominion should go into the vacant wastes of northern Ontario and, without any previous experience, without any capital and, in many instances, suffering from malnutrition, carve out a livelihood there for themselves. For many years organized labour, through the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, has made suggestions to the federal government along the same lines as those made by the hon. member for Lanark this evening. I trust that he will use his influence with the government of the day to see that such a policy is put into effect and carried out, so that those men who are fitted for a life on the farm can leave our cities, thus lessening the acute situation brought about by unemployment, and at least earn their sustenance on the lands of this country. I readily understand the position in which the farmers of the country find themselves. The first urge of life is to secure food, clothing and shelter, yet many thousands of the industrial workers in our cities are not in a position to obtain the necessaries of life in such measure as to ensure for themselves, and consequently for future Canadians, full bodily health and strength. I say this from my experience as a member of the hospital board in the city

Public Service-Salary Deduction
from which I come and a member for some years of the board of health of that city, where thousands of undernourished children pass through these two organizations.


Peter McGibbon: What is the connection between that and this?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will come to that in
a moment. Many of these civil servants are living in modern industrial and commercial cities; they are trying to get along on a thousand dollars or less per annum, endeavouring to bring up families. The hon. member who has asked that question will readily understand what bearing my remarks have on the question before us. The civil servants were not responsible for the condition that exists to-day. Had the government not made the twenty per cent discount in income taxation last year they would have been in a better position to-day, and this proposed reduction in salaries could have been largely avoided. From our experience, we of the labour movement know that every reduction in wages merely intensifies the present condition; it reflects itself in business, in industry and in agriculture, in the reduced consuming power of the people affected.
We have a paradox to-day in this, that the governments of this country are lowering the standard of living of their employees on the one hand, while on the other hand they are guaranteeing to the moneylenders increased returns on the money they borrow. The ramifications of this policy are felt far and wide. After all, what is the collateral of the money which is lent to the government of the country? It is the earning power of the men and women employed in industry and agriculture; and when the government in the midst of intense industrial depression offers to the moneylenders of the country rates of interest of five per cent and over in connection, for example, with the recent national service loan, the natural consequence is that when the provinces go to the country for money their interest rates are raised. The province of Ontario recently floated a loan bearing interest at the rate of over six per cent, and it was snapped up within three hours of the time it was issued. And why not? What better security can you have than the government of that province if you have the money to lend? But what chance have the municipalities to borrow money at lower rates than are offered by the provincial or the federal government? The cities throughout the dominion, those that can borrow money, are forced to pay more than the provinces or the federal government.

Then we come to the most important factor of all-the wage earners of the country who are trying to buy their own homes. These people are carrying mortgages at the present time at probably six per cent or a little better. What chance have they, in these circumstances, of renewing those mortgages at such figures? It is obvious that the security of the workingman's home or farm is not considered such a sound security as government bonds, and what is to become of these people? I predict that thousands of workingmen and women will lose their homes in the next twelve months or two years, and thousands of farmers their farms, and so the whole thing is being pyramided
At the last session of parliament an order in council was passed by the federal government dealing with unemployment relief, and there appeared in it the following provision:
Unless a modification of this requirement is previously agreed to by the minister, the provincial or municipal authorities may fix rates of wages to be paid, provided that such rates be fair and reasonable and not in excess of the rates required to be paid by the federal government for the character or class of work in the district.
Now, if it is logical for the parliament of Canada to fix a maximum rate of wages for human labour, is it not just as logical in the interests of the country, in a national emergency, to fix maximum rates of interest demanded by the bondholders of Canada? You cannot make the man on the street believe that if increased demands on lenders is not made this country of ours will be ruined. We have to remember that the reduction in wages hits a body of workers in this country who in many instances have no means of defending themselves. Cutting the salaries of civil servants is like throwing a stone in the water from which the ripples pass on to places beyond the human eye. Naturally these servants live right up to their incomes because, in the majority of cases, the incomes do not permit of any other course. In this debate we have heard the suggestion many times that the people should save. When one surveys the wages paid the civil servants in this dominion one might conclude that in the great majority of cases it would be economically impossible to save very much. The effect of the cut will be that food will be cut down, doctors will lose, and dentists will lose.


George Spotton: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: Somebody has said,
"hear, hear." I do not think this subject presents very much to smile about, or any-

Public Service-Salary Deduction
thing upon which one might exclaim "hear, hear." These people are placed in the position that, through circumstances over which they have no control they have to deprive themselves of very necessary dental and medical treatment for their families.
Mr. SPOTTO'N: When I said "hear, hear" my hon. friend was speaking of doctors and dentists. Don't wiggle.


Humphrey Mitchell: You do not look as
though you needed a cut in wages. We may find as a logical consequence of these reductions that the health of civil servants' children will suffer.


Mr. MORAND:: Why exaggerate?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not intend to suggest what certain selfish manufacturing interests would do under present conditions, but I believe it is the duty of this government, and of every provincial and municipal government, to see that none of their employees works under salary scales below the minimum standard of civilized communities. I think my position is sound, and it is backed by the labour movement of Canada.
Another angle of the problem presents itself. While I freely admit .that the price of food has declined, yet the major items in the ordinary family budget of one who lives in a city are coal, rent, insurance and other uncontrollable expenditures. In those items there has been very little reduction. We will see, therefore, that if any reduction is to be made in the family budget it will -have to be made on account of the reduction in food prices. Some hon. members have spoken about the judges. I am not -a lawyer, but I do not know of any British institution which does not control its own destiny. If the government of the day so desired, undoubtedly judges' salaries -could be cut; there is no question about that.
Then, we consider the man who enjoys a large salary. In -contrast we find the lower salaried employee who has to cut down his living budget to feed his family. Opposed to that we have the man who receives $10,000 a year who may have to curtail a few luxuries, and may not be able to make so many investments or put so much money in the bank, but whose real standard of living, so far as the provision of food for himself and his family is concerned, irrespective of this cut, will remain unimpaired.
Being a trade unionist of many years standing, and having passed through the struggle for the adoption of the principle of collective bargaining, I know of no reason why the government of the day should not have taken the same action as any other corporation or organization wishing to make savings. The labour people of Canada look with amazement at the present attitude of the government. This cut was made in a spirit of take-it-or-leave-it; the decision was taken without any regard for living conditions or salaries earned by the employees concerned. We believe that the government at least should have reflected the spirit of its own Labour department and referred the matter to a -board of arbitration or conciliation, thereby permitting 'the various organizations of civil servants at least to endeavour to defend their own membership.
In conclusion, I think it is -the general opinion of all hon. members that no person during the course of this depression should suffer want, whether he be engaged in agriculture, business, the professions, or industry.
I know of no better way to ensure this condition than that the rate of income tax from those receiving, we will say, $150 a month and up, be on a -graduated scale to supply funds to help maintain those who, through no fault of their own, to-day find themselves unemployed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make only a few comments in this debate before the vote is taken. Anything I have to say was inspired by so-me remarks made this afternoon. In the first place let me say -that the proposed policy on the part of the administration is a direct and inescapable result of their failure to undertake to adjust the credit situation within this country, and to cooperate with other countries in adjusting credit conditions so that the depression might be lifted. I say quite frankly that there is little hope of any restoration of world conditions or of internal Canadian conditions so long as the present monetary situation remains unchanged. I do not ask you to take my word for that; I will refer you first to a gentleman who unfortunately has passed, one who in his comparatively brief career in banking circles in Canada acquired a striking reputation- the late Mr. C. E. Neill, vice-president and general manager of the Royal Bank of Canada. In his annual statement last year Mr. Neill faced the situation frankly and said that the primary cause of world troubles to-day, including Canada's, is, first, a wrong monetaiy policy which has resulted in a steadily de-dining price level. I quote his words from pages 3 and 4 of his report:
Overproduction of agricultural products in relation to manufactured articles would justify a decline in the price of farm products as compared with the products of industry, but when
.	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
the average of all prices declines this can only be explained by an undersupply of that in which prices are expressed, i.e., money.
Mr. Neill admits there is an under supply of money which accounts for the dropping of the commodity price levels and continues:
It would seem that if the effective supply of money is kept in right relation to production of commodities, the phenomenon of declining average price level will not occur.
I agree with him entirely, and I am satisfied from what research I have made in the matter that until we undertake to keep the volume of money in exact relation to the volume of goods production we will not have stability or progress. But I go a step further. There was an opportunity for this country and for other countries to have assisted the internal and external situation. Mr. Neill points that out:
If on the collapse of the stock market boom the principal central banks of the world had decided that drastic contraction of currency and credit was not to be permitted, a drastic fall in the price level could not have occurred.
Now, those words are very clear. As I say, it is because of the criminal failure on the part of governments-including this one-to recognize the necessity for regarding monetary policy as fundamental that now results in the introduction of this legislation. Nay, more, Mr. Speaker, it goes further. It results in a policy of dismissal of employees; it will result in a general lowering of the standards of living all over this country, and the continuation and prolongation of the present depression for possibly a generation.
I said' a few moments ago, and I now repeat, in my humble opinion the only quick way out is by a process of anti-deflation. The government has declared itself to be definitely opposed to and is unwilling at the present time to introduce such a policy. I do not think it can take that stand' long. I do not think it will remain long in power if it does. The people will not permit it to, if this condition of depression is pursued deliberately after the facts have been placed in front of their eyas-whether it is in front of their intelligence or not is a matter for them to decide.
I said a moment ago that general conditions depend entirely upon what I call a monetary policy. Let me quote again from the much quoted Macmillan report. At page 196 will be found the following:
It is not easy to see how we can expect a revival in our foreign trade, on a sufficient scale to be of much value to us, by any other means than through a revival of world demand. To meet the immediate problems, arising out of the world slump, a policy intended to direct 
increased purchasing power into the right channels, both at home and abroad, with a view of restoring equilibrium at the present level of costs, would, therefore, be much wiser, in our judgment, than a policy of trying to cut our costs faster than the rest of the world can cut theirs.
The world has launched itself on a policy of cutting costs. Great Britain announces today tremendous cuts. We have already announced our intention as a government to cut right and left, to fire more -into the ranks of the unemployed, increasing the problem of unemployment, and prolonging this depression to an indeterminable length. I wonder how many hon. members are seized of the fact that in this very policy the principal guiding factor, whether intentional -or not I cannot say, is unquestionably the sacrifice of the [DOT] masses of the people to the interests of our creditors. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that under an emergency of this kind we might far more readily ask our creditors, external as well as internal, to await a time for their payments rather than attempt to maintain them at a cost of ghastly suffering to the masses of -the people of this country. There are times when balancing budgets may be wise and sound policy, but there are times when balancing budgets is not wise if it means pressing down further into the bog of debt and misery the people of the nation. In my opinion the policy at this time is not wise, but it is the inevitable one that must follow the steps that have already been taken by the administration.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask my hon. friend a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: With pleasure.


Robert James Manion: I made inquiries the other day and find there are over 200,000 people each bolding less than $2,000 worth of bonds. How would he treat such bondholders when cutting down the rate of interest?


Edward Joseph Garland: As my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Coote) has just suggested -to me, ithe cost of living in their case has already been reduced also. That is the protestation of the ministry in support -of the ten per cent cut in civil service salaries. Why not apply that principle all the way round? Why not let those bondholders take the cut too, if it is equitable in the other ease? That is my answer in ipassing; I know that it is not the answer the bon. minister would like me to make to his inquiry. But, as the last speaker has suggested, I say we can tap -the sources of wealth by direct taxation. That must be done this year, or this

Public Service-Salary Deduction
government stands utterly discredited in the eyes of the people of this country and in its own eyes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Will that hurt your own feelings?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, but I am afraid it will not help my hon. friend's.
I say to the ministry, this policy is a policy of despair, it is a policy that is not constructive, it is a policy of continual depression. There is no prospect of improvements under a policy of this kind. If anybody in the ministry has any hope for me in that regard,
I trust he will disabuse me in this particular instance. I have no desire to anticipate greater misery or gloom for our people than we are already facing, but unfortunately I happen to see 'the suffering around me and appreciate it at its value. I cannot, like so many hon. members, disregard with one sweep of my hand as a great patriotic effort the sacrifice of ten per cent of the income of persons receiving $70 a month, for I happen to be able to appreciate what $70 a month must mean to those people.
But without stressing the sentimental aspect, let me deal with the subject of remuneration in the civil service. The average wage paid in the whole civil service of Canada, including [DOT] all the high salaries as well as all the low, is between SI,500 and SI,600 a year. It is not a difficult thing, then, to make a rough estimate of the vast numbers that must be receiving miserably below-cost-of-living incomes. I take a statement just presented today by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to one of my colleagues, giving the total salaries of all classes in the civil service. The grand total, as given in the statement, according to the Beatty commission report of October 1, 1930, is 47,561. The total salary paid is $72,728,120.
Now I will ask you to take the first class mentioned; 16,408 people are receiving $13,573,030. That sounds splendid in the aggregate, but you analyze it you will find that it means an average annual income of $827, or less than $70 a month, for that number of persons. In all humanity I do appeal to the administration not to affect in any way, by any reduction, incomes of that Class. I appreciate that thesp people cannot live under a decent standard, educate their children and buy the necessities of life on those wages.
I come to the next class, those receiving salaries of from $1,201 to $2,000. A total of 22,745 persons receive $36,147,750, so in that class the average income would be $1,580. I have hastily estimated these figures; they
are not absolutely exact, but they are at least approximate. Taking the two classes together we find about 39,000 civil servants out of the total of 47,000 receiving an average salary of $1,203. I wonder how my hon. friends opposite, the rent of whose homes or apartments alone is in excess of that sum, would like to have to carry on their entire living and educate their children on this sum of money.


Peter McGibbon: How many of those are single and how many have families to support?


Edward Joseph Garland: Fortunately I am in a position to answer the hon. gentleman. It happened that a few years ago the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) was interested in the Beatty commission which was about to make an inquiry into this matter, and he made a request for a return showing the facts. The information given him, which I am glad to furnish my hon. friend, is that of the 3,761 employees in the public service receiving less than $100 per month, 2,376, are men with dependents.


Peter McGibbon: That was not the question I asked; probably the hon. member did not understand me.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, it
really does not matter. Even for single persons $70 a month is not any too much, even under present conditions. If the hon. gentleman has any illusions on that matter I suggest that he turn to' the report of the committee on industrial and international relations for the session of 1926. He will find some splendid evidence given there as to a budget for a decent standard of living, and for a poverty standard as well, in Canada. I turn to page 19 of this report, and ask the hon. gentleman to listen to the words of the official of the Department of Labour who was giving evidence. He said:
The investigation was confined to average families; that is, families with about three children. They found that when the income fell below $1,400 the family did not get enough to eat.
I will continue further; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre interjected some questions, and the answer was:
The budget published in the Labour Gazette conforms practically to the third one mentioned by Paul Douglas,-about $1,650 per year.
That is the moderate standard of Paul Douglas, 'the labour economist in the United States. Again, on the same page, he says:
I mentioned the United States investigators in 1918 found that when the family income was less than $1,400 the family did not get enough
778	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
to eat. They found they economized on their food to such an extent that they were not getting a healthy diet, they found they did not have enough rooms to live in; there would be perhaps five people living in four rooms; they might be living in a six-roomed house and renting two rooms and that is a very common basis for economy,-many people whose income is low and rent is high, rent part of the house. Another plan is to keep boarders, which is equivalent to the same thing.
Then he is asked:
In a case of malnutrition-
Such as is implicated here.
-who pays the bill?
A. The death rate is usually high.
Q. Is it in direct ratio with the amount of malnutrition?
A. It affects the community indirectly in every respect.
I have been talking about a moderate standard of living, and now I turn to the budget prepared by the Department of Labour of this dominion. This budget covers the yearly expenditure of an avergae family of five, with an income of 81,400, which, as I have just pointed out, is very much higher than the income of most of the members of the civil service. I leave out of the question for the moment, although hon. members would find it very interesting, the budget provisions for the man; and because most of the members of this chamber are married men I ask them to turn to that section which deals with provision for the wife. I will not give all the items, though they are very interesting to read. The wife, under this budget, is provided with one skirt worth $4. You go home and tell your wife that you are going to live on a budget of 81,400 a year, and that she will get only one skirt, and see what she says to you about it. The budget provides two wash dresses, worth $1.50 each. It also provides material for a hat. It does not provide the hat, but it provides materials for a hat at a total cost, for trimming and everything, of $3.50, and that is all. I do not mean that is all the clothes provided for the wife, but these are some items picked at random to indicate how closely pared must be the clothing comforts of the wife in that family with an income of $1,400 a year.
Let us even make provision for the reduction in the cost of living that has taken place since 1926. It is alleged by the Prime Minister that this reduction amounts to about ten per cent. Take S140 from $1,400, and you still have an income producing a standard of living so low that I doubt if any hon. member in this chamber would wish it for himself or for any member of his family.

Mention has been made of the condition of the farmers. I represent a constituency in the southern part of which we have had almost constant drought for three years. In the northern part we had moderate rains last year but a very light crop, and a heavy hail storm destroyed the crop over a large area. The fanners in my riding are as poor as any farmers in western Canada, particularly those in the south half of my constituency, but I venture to say that no considerable percentage of them would want me to sitand up in this House of Commons and vote to drag other already underpaid people in Canada down to their basis of living. But I will tell you what they do not want; they do not want the Sir Herbert Holts, the Gundys and the other millionaires in Canada to escape carrying their fair share of this burden. I am satisfied that my people will not ask that civil servants who are receiving less than 81,500 a year should be asked to accept any reduction. I do not believe my constituents will criticize or censure me if I reject this resolution, first on the basis that it is inequitable, and in the second place because the salary of $1,200 is too low a point at which to start the 5 per cent reduction. The salary adjustment should be on a sliding scale; I could offer proposals to the government in that regard, but I. will wait until the bill comes down. Then there is another reason: Much has been said about the cut of ten per cent, but very few hon. gentlemen on the government side have been frank enough to admit or to point out that there is actually more than a ten per cent reduction. In addition to the ten per cent cut, the statutory increase is to be eliminated. A man receiving a salary of 82,000 has a net salary of 81,900, after the superannuation is deducted; the proposed reduction of ten per cent amounts to $190, the elimination of the statutory increase means a further $120, making a total reduction of S310, or fifteen and a half per cent instead of ten per cent. I regard the abandonment of the statutory increase as a breach of contract. If the Prime Minister gives as a reason for exempting the judges from this cut the fact that their salaries are set by statute, I ask him how he can justify the elimination of this amount also provided by statute in the case of the civil servants?
While I am discussing this point, I ask the house if it realizes that after the embargo was placed on the shipment of gold from Canada the government continued to purchase gold from the mines, and I am informed in addition to paying the stated legal value in terms of

Public Service-Salary Deduction
Canadian currency, paid a premium sufficient to bring the price up to that which would have been received in the United States. Would it not have been fair in a crisis such as this to eliminate that premium? The gold producer has the price of his product fixed by law and no other producer is in as favourable a position as he. When the price of wheat was advancing on the foreign markets during the war the government brought into being the federal wheat board to keep down the price of grain, but in the case of gold, they put on an embargo and then paid an extra premium. That may have been a necessary and equitable policy, but if it was fair in that case I contend it is utterly unfair to break the contract with the civil servant without reducing all contractual salaries.
It might be interesting to know what men like the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna- who is, with all due respect to the Ottawa Journal, a little more than a theorist-have to say in this regard. Mr. McKenna is a practical banker of considerable reputation and at one time was Chancellor of the British Exchequer. No man can reach that office without having had a thorough and real experience in banking circles. He is not a faddist or crank, in fact, in my own humble opinion and in no way making an invidious comparison, he is the equal in financial matters of any hon. member in this house, including the Prime Minister of Canada himself. Mr. McKenna and several men associated with him in discussing changes in salaries and incomes, had this to say:
We consider that a change of this character cannot, with equity, be concentrated on salaries and wages, but should apply to every category of income alike, including those protected by contract. The benefit of an increased value of money is just as fortuitous in the case of the rentier as in the case of the wage-earner, and the burden of enterprise and on the budget of having to pay the same amount of money as before to meet interest charges, _ though the value of money is greater, is similar in character to the burden of having to pay the same money wages as before. Moreover a great social change of this kind cannot be carried through except by general consent.
This view is reinforced by a consideration of the monetary history of recent years. A large part of the national debt was incurred at a price level much higher than that which now prevails. The long period of deflation which culminated in the return to gold at the pre-war parity had the effect of increasing the burden of this debt.
This remark might well be applied to Canada. The statement continues:
The fall in world prices which has occurred more recently has caused a large further aggravation of the burden. In view of the fact that the increase in the value of sterling was delib-eratedly intended-
Just as it was deliberately intended that we should go back to the gold standard in 1925.

it seems difficult to require a reduction of salaries and wages without proposing any modification of the uneovenanted blessings which accrued to the holders of the national debt and of claims on money generally and to other classes whose incomes have remained unaffected.
Our conclusion is, therefore, that if a substantial change should become necessary, it must be a general change and apply, so far as possible, to every class of income alike.
The Prime Minister in pleading his case in this house the other day-no, I should not say pleading; he does not plead anything- in directing the house in regard to his opinion, quoted a letter which he said stirred him to the very depths of his being, or words to that effect. He said that he would not forget this letter to his dying day. It was a letter from a lady who expressed joy at the opportunity being afforded to her of making the sacrifice of ten per cent to Canada during this crisis. I have nothing but congratulation for that lady, but I should like to know her income and whether or not she has any dependents. The disclosing of that information might have given greater force to the illustration. In answer to the Prime Minister I should like to quote from one letter picked at random from many, and I ask the house to compare these two letters and decide upon which one the policy of the administration should be governed. This letter is dated Vancouver, February 27, and reads:
Dear Sir:
As the wife of a Canadian and civil servant and a mother of three small children under seven years (three boys), I am taking the liberty of writing you in regard to the wage cut. I am putting before you the bare facts. How in heaven's name are parents to bring up children with such a small salary as $75 per month, as that is what it will be if this cut takes place. We have made terrible sacrifices as it is to buy two quarts of milk and oranges for our babies. What of rent, insurance, fuel and clothes? If the government want healthy population for pity's sake try and get a decent wage for parents, as the children at present are not getting the proper nourishment. How can they? Please do your best to stop this cut if it is in your power. I thank you in anticipation.
I submit that that letter offsets absolutely the letter quoted by the Prime Minister. This is a letter from a woman who is burdened with the carrying of the load of budgeting for a family on $75 per month. In all decency, in all humanity, do not touch salaries of that kind. Hit the salaries over $2,000 if you must, but do not cut the very low wages. I urge upon the administration the necessity of taking into consideration a most serious and drastic cut in the incomes of the millionaires of Canada.

Public Service-Salary Deduction
Mr. JOHN T. SPROULE (East Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but after listening to the previous speaker (Mr. Garland, Bow River), I feel it my duty to say a word or two. The previous speaker mentioned the fact that he came from an agricultural district. I also come from an agricultural constituency, and I venture to say that if the average farmer in my constituency, were to sell every bushel of grain and every head of stock he possesses he would not realize S750, the figure mentioned by the hon. member. When he got that he would still have to pay taxes and interest, or he would be sold out.
I was interested in the remarks this afternoon of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). She said that she would follow the views expressed by her constituents and vote in favour of the resolution. I do not think many hon. members opposite know how the people in the agricultural districts live. The hon. member who preceded me referred to a letter he had received from some woman, stating that on account of the cut in salary they would not be able to buy oranges and milk for the children. That may be true, but in the agricultural districts there are many people who have not seen an orange for a long while and are not likely to do so for some time to come. I often wonder if hon. gentlemen opposite believe all they say, or whether they are speaking on behalf of their own salaries. I have every respect in the world for those returned soldiers and nurses, and I have every reason to believe they are broadminded enough to take this cut in a philosophical way, as we should all take it. While I am not a firm believer in the Globe, I noticed in that paper a statement that the agricultural people more than a year ago had taken a forty per cent discount, and they were not asked to take it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: What is wrong with
the Globe?


Mr. SPROULE:: My hon. friend no doubt reads a paper a little stronger than the Globe. The people in the agricultural districts will be veiy fortunate if they do not have to take more than a ten per cent cut, and the same thing might happen to other classes. I have every sympathy in the world for the returned soldiers, who voluntarily went to fight in defence of this country, but many men and women in the agricultural districts worked day and night to provide food and money during the war and many a mother sat up until midnight thinking of her son who was over there. I am sure those soldiers 
who have been fortunate enough to return to Canada are sufficiently big, knowing the present situation, to be willing to accept this ten per cent cut.
I do not think there is really half the complaint that we hear from the other side of the house. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen on this side are not very anxious to make this cut; it is not a thing any of us want to do; but we have all to share this burden together, and by doing so we shall live through it.
While I was listening to the speeches to-day, I was reminded of a trial that took place on a certain occasion, when a young man was charged with stealing a suit of clothes. There did not appear to be anybody who had seen him steal the clothes, but they tried to convict him and they employed such clever lawyers as there are on the other side of the house who are trying to convict us on this side. The young man's answer always was: "No, I did not steal the clothes." But just before it was all over, the judge turned to the accused and said: "Young man, you stole the clothes; you had better own up to it and we will make it as light as we can for you." The young man replied: "I did not steal the clothes, but after listening to these clever lawyers I am commencing to wonder whether I did or not."


Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. John-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, I have no intention to protest against the ten per cent cut in the members' indemnity. However, I wish to register my protest against the manner in which the government is treating the civil servants. This afternoon, when the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) alluded to the foolish expenditures the government is making in the Gordon inquiry, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) contended that the government was justified in spending that money. I entirely differ with the views of the hon. member for Compton. I state that if the right hon. Prime Minister's pride was wounded he could have applied to our courts to obtain redress. When Canada is passing through a crisis, I consider that it should not be called upon to make considerable outlays for such trivial things. I am anxious to see the government's counsels' bills in this inquiry.
The hon. member for Compton stated that within the last years the farmers' returns have considerably dwindled. I ask the hon. members on your right, sir, whether in making a ten per cent reduction on all civil servants' salaries, they will not also suggest to large
7S1

Public Service-Salary Deduction
concerns and departmental stores to cut down the salaries of their employees. I think the government has given a bad example, and I can state, according to my information, that here in the Capital, since the government announced this ten per cent cut, owners of departmental stores have reduced the salaries of their employees by ten per cent; yet the sale price of goods has not come down ten per cent.
I know that a number of concerns in my own county have taken advantage of this measure to cut down the salaries of their employees by ten per cent, giving as an excuse that it was to meet the competition of rival companies; yet I am in a position to state that I paid, previous and after the crisis, the very same price for goods that I bought from these manufacturers. However, the dividends as well as the salary of the managers and president. of the company were not affected. This afternoon, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver), speaking of the Royal Mounted Police, stated that he had a great admiration for that body of men which I admire as he does. However, there exists a class of employees whose work is unknown by members. Namely the post office employees, and I have a number in my constituency.
I notice that the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is in his seat. In the Quebec Legislature Assembly he once was the champion of the workmen and farmers. I trust that the hon. Postmaster General will take part in this debate and champion the cause of the civil servants whose salary amounts to only SI,080 to 81,500. These ^employees, namely letter carriers, are obliged, during seven or eight hours per day, to walk the streets of cities such as Montreal, Ottawa and other large centres; they must carry on regardless of weather, rain, wind or snow; whether it is fine or not it matters little. Yet, they are the very men who are the least remunerated. I trust that the hon. Postmaster General will champion their cause here as he did in Quebec.
Now, sir, there is a certain class with which no one dares to interfere, because their salary is supposed to be statutory. Namely the Lieutenant-Governors who receive a salary of SIO.OOO per year and cost the provinces over $100,000. Well, when the Canadian people are taxed to balance the budget, I contend that we should begin by taxing those who are in receipt of larger salaries. Salaries of $10,000, per year to Lieutenant-Governors and expenses amounting to over $100,000, for receptions, travelling, teas, etc., while the people are starving, I say that it is more than time, before we clip the salaries of employees receiving $1,200, to begin by these high officials.
I now come to army officers. I have some in my constituency and I state that if there are people who do not earn their salaries, they are the army officers. This afternoon, the hon. member for Grey Southeast (Miss Mac-phail) stated that there are 18 employees who earn between $4,000 and $5,000, 5 who earn more than $5,000, 1 earning over S8,000 and 1 over $12,000. I wonder what is their occupation. I suppose they are busy doing pretty much the same thing as those in my county: a little riding jolt of one or one hour and a half in the morning, and the day's work is over.	,
There is another class:	the judges. Their
salaries are as follows:	Superior Court, from
$9,000 to $10,000, and for the Supreme Court up to $15,000, and a pension when they become invalids or reach the statutory age. I wonder whether the judges' salaries should not be reduced by twenty per cent.
We find, in the estimates which were brought down for this year, that the budget of the National Defence last year amounted to $13,000,000 and this year $10,000,000, in round figures, namely a reduction of $2,500,000 or one-fifth. If there is money spent uselessly, it is for the National Defence; I do not think that there is a cent spent more carelessly.
The budget of agriculture for 1931-32 amounted to nearly $10,000,000; this year it has been cut down to a little more than $3,000,000, that is one third. The hon. members for the province of Quebec shed many tears, they were greatly moved over the lot of the poor farmers; I trust that, when the budget of that department comes up, they will stand to their guns and try to fulfil their pledges of 1930.	A ,
Last year the government had $2,000 voted to compensate the ministers for the loss of their motor cars. I understand that they made use of the government's cars for a period of over seven months last year; I am unaware whether they drew their $2,000, but I do know that this amount was voted when the supplementary estimates came up for consideration. I think that the government could not show a better example this year than striking out this $2,000 allocation. Let the government prove its sincerity. It is all very well to advocate economy, but let the government first set the example. This $2,000 is equivalent to $40 per week of motoring between the Chateau Laurier and the Post Office or Marine department. I am assured that for $5 this service can be had, for 5 or 6 days per week, from the Landreville Motor Co., that is, it would only cost between $250 and $300 per year instead of $2,000. I trust that the French
.	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
Canadian cabinet ministers will avail themselves of this advice and give the example by declining to accept this $2,000.


Peter McGibbon: Until a short time ago it was not my intention to say anything in this debate, but I feel that I must compliment the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), as one of the greatest interrupters in this house, upon the gentlemanly way in which he receives interrogations from this side. I want to compliment him also on the innumerable great people in the world with whom he agrees. Nearly every speech he makes is one largely of quotations of men whose opinions he always agrees with; but I have never, in my time in this house or in my reading outside the house, ever found very many of these great men who agreed with him.
The debate on this question has extended far afield. But after all the question is a simple one-a ten per cent reduction in the salaries of the civil service of Canada. Everything from Dan to Beersheba has been brought in, but I want the house to come back for a moment to the real question at issue, and that is whether the civil service of Canada should or should not take a cut along with every other man and woman earning wages in Canada to-day. That is the question, and I hope the government will see to it that every member of this house votes upon it, so that the public will know just where each of us stands. That is a duty that we owe the people of Canada at the present time.
The hon. member for Bow River is always quite eager to lecture the house. He sets himself up as the great defender of the poor of this country, but I venture to say that I could pick out at least a dozen in the house who do more for the poor of the country in a year than he does in a lifetime. I repeat that, and it can easily go on record. I know men in this house who have contributed, not from their revenue but from their earnings, and therefore it is a deduction from their revenue, eight to ten thousand dollars a year looking after the poor of the country. I get tired of being lectured by people who would rather play the demagogue than discuss the issues that come before parliament and the country.
This cut is either right or wrong. If it is right, then the people who are affected were receiving adequate compensation for their services two or three years ago, because the cost of living has fallen at least to that extent. And if the civil servants were not getting adequate salaries at that time, the fault lies not with this government nor on this side
	*
of the house but with hon. gentlemen opposite. But, sir, I rose to say this, that there are people in this country besides the civil servants of Ottawa. Ottawa seems to think that it is the whole Dominion of Canada, but as I said the other evening it is the people outside Ottawa who pay these salaries. Let me observe in passing that if the civil servants of Ottawa do not wish to take the cut of ten per cent they have the same recourse that every other wage-earner in the country has: they have the alternative of resigning. And if they did resign at the present time there would be such a rush for their positions that it would make the bombardment of Shanghai look like artillery practice.
There is, however, another side to the question, and I wish to present it to the house and to the people of Canada. These salaries and wages are paid by the people outside Ottawa I represent a workingman's riding, and I take second place to no man in standing up for the working class; and I venture to say that not two per cent of the wage earners of the district I represent earned in the last year half of $1,200, the amount at which the exemption is fixed. What does that mean? It means that if they are going to keep up their contributions to these salaries their tax is doubled, and in my present position I am not in the frame of mind to go back to my people and ask them in this time of depression to double their taxes to pay the civil servants of Ottawa.
I will not do it.
I say, what every man knows, that there is no one in the Dominion of Canada to-day whose wages have not been cut. I do not care whether he is living on an income or working for a salary, or is in business or in a profession-every man has suffered a reduction. The professional man's income to-day has not been cut ten per cent but sixty and seventy per cent; and the professional men are doing the same work to-day as they did two or three years ago. I therefore wish to voice my opposition to the speeches that have been made against the reduction. These speeches are not consistent with the times. Pick up any newspaper you like and see what it says. Here, for instance, is to-day's Globe announcing a ten per cent cut in telegraphers' wages; and both railways have done the same thing. A large number of industrial concern.? have done not only that but worse: they have dismissed their men. In many places people are taking a cut not of ten per cent but of one hundred per cent. Ask the member for Essex or the members from the border cities, and what will they tell you? Then we come to the great city of Ottawa. These

Public Service-Salary Deduction
people are protected from the day they enter the mem work from 3.30 or 4 o'clock in the the service until the day they die. They get morning until S o'clock or 9 o'clock at night *wages in good times and bad, in good weather for $25 or $35 a month. In the spring they and foul; and when they are too old to work get into the cold water of the rivers when ice they go on pension, to which the government	remains in them and drive the logs down, they
contributes so long as they are in the service,	are there not one hour a day but eight or ten
I fail to see any reasonable ground for ob-	hours, and get out of the water at night and
jeetion to the cut. In fact, I say that the	sleep on the banks in their wet Clothes,
opposition to this measure is, outside of the	Mr. COTNAM: They do not grumble, either,
cities of Ottawa and Hull, the best election-	^ McGIBBON' No, no grumbling there,
eering campaign that the Conservative or any	Hon ' members opp0Site ask this house, and
other party could imagine, because the action	agk to g0 to those men and say. "You
of the government is fair and honest. I can	arg earning only half what you earned before,
tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding there	^ wg wan). t0 double your taxes so that the
are many men who do a half day s work be-	overworked civil servants at Ottawa will
fore the civil servants in Ottawa begin theirs, nQt have tQ stand a cut* 0h, it is a beautiful and those same people do another half days dootrine
work after the Ottawa employees leave their	Then 'the h,on member for Bow River (Mr. offices at four or five o'clock in the afternoon.	Garland) gets up, and with all his IrishYet the party opposite would ask	me to go to	eloquence pleads an imaginary cause.	We	mustthe people who are now on half	pay or less	remember this; The hon. member	for	Bowand say to them. "Double your	taxes; work	RJver Iiveg on]y in a hurricane or	a storm,a little harder and a little longer	so that you	'j'he peaceful atmosphere never suits	him;
may keep the civil servants in Ottawa in ease contentment and happiness never suit him, and and luxury like they had a few years ago. there is not a storm he will make one. And It is time some one spoke in this house, Mr. he is pretty good at it, too.
Speaker, for the taxpayers of Canada. Their it seems, Mr. Speaker, that every time the burden is heavy and, I think, is getting almost civil service question comes up in the house to the breaking point. It would seem that we	members flock from all comers to speak. The
have to come here, sir, and be lectured because	other day I went into an office where there
we ask the civil servants of this city to accept	were five civil servants. Not a single one of
a meagre ten per cent cut. The people outside	them was doing a thing,-not a single one.
of the city of Ottawa are not grumbling about	I think that statement pertains to the civil


Mr MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I should object is to get on the pay-roll; they want to like to correct the hon. member on that point, let the country keep them. Let me say that
.	llllC Vi. V 11 OC A. VIVA- OliOlU	"J


Peter McGibbon: Probably the	people	in	woman who has the grey matter to	takeVancouver are, but those in the	decent cities	^vantage 0f it. That opportunity would	haveof Ontario are not.	meant a great deal to some of us who	were


An hon. MEMBER:: Ontario	is	not all	of	brought up back in the country with	very
it.
service in this city generally. Their main
the civil service offers a career to any man or
Canada.


Peter McGibbon: Public Service-Salary Deduction
to the house concerning the matter now under discussion. Coming from the county of Oxford, one of the fairest agricultural districts in the whole of Canada, "fair as the garden of the Lord," I can say we have some of the greatest, most tenacious and patriotic farmers to be found in the dominion. I want to state, however, that to-day they are carrying on with fear and foreboding, but are putting up a wonderful fight. They are heavily burdened by taxation of one kind and another, and I have received many sad tales of their heroic efforts to hang on. I want to tell hon. members that those farmers are expecting that every Canadian who is highly favoured in this country will do his or her part in this national emergency. I agree with the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Sproule) who held forth on behalf of the farmers of his constituency. What applies in his constituency applies equally in the fair county of Oxford. I know of the sad conditions there, and I can say that those farmers are expecting-in fact, I believe civil servants are expecting-to come across and to do their share willingly in this time of stress. I am sure the civil servants appreciate the seriousness of the present emergency. I do not doubt for a minute that they are ready to do anything they possibly can to help meet it. It is like a war-time emergency when every man and every woman must do his part. And they will do their part, but they want fair play.
The hon. member for East Lambton said that the greatest depression is on the farm, and that we must bend every effort to benefit the farmer. I did hope that if any one thing more than another would be emphasized this session it would be the necessity for solving the great problems confronting our farmers to-day. I do not see any signs on the order paper, I do not see much of a program, I do not see so very much indication that the farmer is going to get anything beneficial out of this session. Perhaps the emergency is so great that we cannot do anything. But I tell you the farmers are expecting something. They were promised something, and they are looking forward to the fulfilment of those promises that were made to them in such a convincing way. They want greater markets. The hon. member said that a farmer could sell all his cows, horses and everything else and they would not bring him $750. Of course, to a great extent that is true. Undoubtedly our farmers are in a very difficult position. A lady came to me not many days ago. She and her husband are on two hundred good acres of land.
fMr. Cayley.]
She said to me:	"What are we to do?
They are going to foreclose the mortgage on us. We cannot meet the payments. We have already borrowed on my husband's life insurance policy, we have raised every last dollar, we have scraped together and borrowed money to pay the taxes, and now we have reached the limit of our resources." She and her husband had devoted years and years of hard effort to cultivating their farm and developing herds of cattle-and there are no herds like the Oxford herds. They have done their very best, and now they are asking the rest of Canada if they will not join in an endeavour to relieve them of the burden of taxation; they are asking the great crowd throughout Canada to get off their backs and give them a chance.
This, I understand, is an interim appeal to meet a great emergency. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if I recall his words aright, implied that it was a great patriotic appeal. Then, sir, that appeal should stir the hearts of every Canadian. But when I go back to my people and tell them that in this great patriotic appeal for a ten per cent cut- and they are all for a cut, ,so am I; there is no justice unless we all do our part-when I tell them that this ten per cent cut will apply to everybody in the civil service, from those getting from $35 a day down to those getting a couple of dollars a day, what will they say? And what will they say when I tell them about the poor lad who came to me and said, "I get only $95 a month. They are going to cut off $5, and out of the $90 left I have to provide for my wife and seven children and pay $25 a month rent." Do you mean to say the good farmers and the workingmen of Oxford county will think this is a fair deal all the way down the line? No, I can imagine them saying: "That is what we have had to put uip with all the time. There is a favoured class in this Canada of ours, and there is an unfavoured class." Then worse than that, what will be their reaction if I have to tell them: "Here is a body of public servants who are exempt-they are the great 'untouchables ; you must not touch their salaries." Yet we are appealing to -the patriotism of all these great Canadians! It seems to me, and I know many of these gentlemen well, that they will resent being left out in the cold in this way. Now, in this great emergency why not call upon these men of the army and navy and the bench? Let the Prime Minister go out and in that convincing way of his ask them to make their contribution in this great national emergency. It is only an interim shift to balance our budget. Let us all work

Public Service-Salary Deduction
together. The farmers are doing their part, they are hanging on; and after all they are the foundation of this great dominion. They are doing their part. If they can only make ends meet you will not hear any grumbling from them. But I do believe there is a great deal this government can do to relieve these farmers of the oppression that is now upon them. The agriculture committee should get together and dhow greater interest in the problems of our farmers and do their best to help them solve their difficulties.
The other day the Prime Minister, speaking of the merit system, exclaimed: "If we had only some way by which we could ascertain real merit!" Is there any real merit in a ten per cent cut in salaries ranging all the way from $35 a day clear down to $2 a day? Let us bear this burden in proportion as we have strength to bear it. Then the farmers of Oxford county and the workmen throughout the whole dominion will say: "At least they were fair."


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but after hearing so many members offering apologies for a ten per cent cut it is well nigh impossible for me to keep my seat, for I have had over a fifty per cent cut. My constituents also have had a heavy cut, they are backed up against the wall, fighting conditions in an endeavour to bring back this old country of ours, this country Canada, to a condition of prosperity. If they are let alone by the agitators they will bring back this country into its rightful position.
While I listened to the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) I thought of a little pamphlet that was left at my farm some years ago at a time when I was paying my man $100 a month and giving him the very best on the farm. Some gentleman came around with a pamphlet called "The Slave of the Farm," in an attempt to get my man discontented. I have the pamphlet before me. It was printed in 1014. Ever since 1914 they have been agitating in various ways, sowing discontent throughout the country. This pamphlet was got up by the socialist party, not the communist party at all.
So far I have heard no practical suggestions to help the farmer. The farmer has a lot to contend with. I have made up a statement of conditions on the farm when the farmer was getting a dollar a bushel for his wheat, and I am going to place it on Hansard. I have no doubt it will be subjected to criticism by my friends of the United Farmers of Alberta. I am going to place it on Hansard because I know it is correct; it is based on fifty years' experience on the 41761-50
farm. The farmer has had more than a ten per cent cut; in my constituency he has been cut twenty per cent, thirty per cent or forty per cent, but he is not discouraged, and I tell hon. gentlemen opposite that this is the wrong time to try to shake the foundations of this old country of ours. My constituency is purely agricultural, and I made up this statement for the benefit of those who lack any knowledge of agriculture.
The other day I made a statement which I am going to repeat-and I do not refer to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) at all-that education without brains is the cheapest commodity on the market, but that education with brains is scarce and hard to get. I have listened to some hon. members who have had lots of education but very little practical knowledge. I am proud of my constituency, and one reason is because Sir John A. Macdonald represented it at one time. It has been represented by some outstanding men; the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, Hon. Doctor Roche, represented it for years. There are real men in that constituency, and they sent me back here with a majority of nearly 2,700. We had a few agitators running around the country, men with hyphenated names, calling themselves Liberal-Progressive, and Progressive-Liberals. One of them who called himself a Liberal-Progressive, should have cut off one part of that name. I said I was a progressive Conservative, and they could not understand it.
I want to congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on one thing. I do not think any other man in Canada could have held possession of parliament, as he held it in 1925 and 1926, with the various occupational groups with which he had to contend, made up of men with such a variety of ideas. He held them together; they flocked from all parts of Canada to gelt behind him; they came back here at all hours to support him, and I must congratulate him on that.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, what about to-day? I see the hon. member from Battle Creek-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: -or is it Battle River (Mr. Spencer), in his seat. He made the statement, which appears in Hansard, that I farmed the farmer, and made my money in that way. I emphatically deny that statement on the floor of this house. I am retired and out of business now; I am giving my services and my knowledge of farming in western Canada

786	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
for the benefit of the farmers, and I am proud to say that I paid every man one hundred cents on the dollar for everything I agreed to pay him. I never misled the farmers; I never farmed the farmers, as the hon. member stated.
I am supporting this resolution because my people in Marquette wish me to do so. They have suffered, and by this statement I am going to show that even with wheat at SI a bushel the farmer cannot make a dollar on a 320 acre farm under present conditions. They must have lower freight rates, but not one hon. member opposite said a word about that. I was a member of the local legislature in Manitoba When the freight rate was 20 per cent lower that it is to-day, but that was taken away from us in 1917. In order to obtain a lower freight rate we put the name of the province on the back of the bonds, and it did not cost the province of Manitoba one dollar. We had a ten cent rate on wheat; we secured a lower rate on cattle, and through the actions of the government of Manitoba, of which I was a member, we were able to get the .products of the farm to the seaboard at a reasonable rate. Did I farm the farmer then?
We must have less agitation; we must have outstanding men to get behind the farmer and bring conditions back to where they Should be. I do not want to see our country crash;
I want to see prosperity come back, and the only way that can be done is to help the farmer to get his commodity to market at something like a reasonable rate. No man can farm at a profit under present freight rates.
We must 'have a little economy also. I wonder how many of these civil servants, who are getting a ten per cent cut, went to see Jack Dempsey box in Winnipeg. I saw several of them there, sitting in the $3 seats. A short time ago I was asked to go to the Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto to see a hockey match. There were 15,000 people at that match, and the seats cost from $1 up to $3. I see all the luxuries of the city, and I think of the hardships and struggles of my people in Marquette, who are fighting with their backs to the wall. These men who have all the luxuries of city life, who can afford
to pay S3 to see a prize fight in Winnipeg or a hockey match in Toronto, are complaining about a ten per cent cut. I asked the gentleman who took me to see the hockey match What he paid for the seat, and he said he paid $3. He bought three seats, and I told him he was pretty fortunate, since he was on a salary. Let me tell you what you must get down to. I walked from Sfcouffville to Toronto, with one cow on the end of the rope, and made $8 out of it. When we get down to work and start off again we might get somewhere.
We must have economy and we must work. Talk about work; I see so many people earning money so easily, and it makes me thank back over my life. I have worked, and I have every sympathy for the worker. I would be the -last to go against the worker, but this is not a normal year, as hon. gentlemen opposite know very well. We all must make a sacrifice, I am making one just as much as any other member of this house is making one. I say that if we get back to work and practise economy we will save this country from getting into a worse condition than exists to-day. This statement I have referred to, showing the operating costs of a 320-acre farm in the province of Manitoba, discloses that under the 'beat of conditions the lady of the farm cannot buy even a four-dollar skirt.
We hope to get Churchill opened up to bring Manitoba nearer to the seaboard, and with the prospects of the St. Lawrence waterway we hope to be able to ship from the prairie provinces at something like a reasonable rate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Marquette (Mr. Mullins) has mentioned putting something on Hansard, but I would advise him .that nothing goes on Hansard which has not been either read or spoken in the house.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The statement is rather lengthy and I did not want to tire the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I spent some time in the preparation of these figures, and they may be received with some criticism. They are as follows:

Public Service*-Salary Deduction
320-ACRE FARM
Estimate of capital invested in land and equipment necessary to farm a half-section in western Canada.
Also revenue therefrom and expenditure in connection therewith to cultivate in proper manner, averaging over a ten year period.
Land apportioned as follows:
Acres
For buildings, yards, lanes, garden and pasture	 20
For grain and feed for horses, cattle and hogs	 50
Summer-fallow, to keep land clean	 80
For wheat-or other equivalent crop	 170
Investment in land:	320 acres at $20 per acre	 $ 6,400
Requisite buildings thereon as follows:
1 dwelling house (medium size)	value	$1,5001 barn and stable, sufficient for horses and cattle	value	1,500Hog stable, hen house and implement shed	value	500Portable, or other granaries	value	500Well and pump (water reasonably obtainable)	value	100Investment in land and buildings	
4,100Total investment in land and buildings	
$10,500
Implements required and cost thereof:
1	general purpose plough	
2	gang ploughs (4-horse), $136 each	
1 disc harrow (4-horse)	
1 sixsection diamond harrow	
1 double disc drill (24 spouts)	
1 nine-foot cultivator (6-horse)	
1 pulverizer and sub-soil packer (or manure spreader)	
1 binder (4-horse) 8 ft. cut	
1 mower 5 ft. cut	
1 steel rake, 10 ft	
1 fanning mill	
1 small gas engine, jack and belt	
1 cream separator	
1	platform scales (2,000 lbs.)	
2	wagons, box and seat complete, $177 each	
1 buggy, fairly good class	
1 cutter (jumper)	
1 sleigh (running gear only)	
1 grindstone and frame, wheel barrow, forks, shovels, rakes, hoes, pails,
bags, tools, chain, racks for hay and grain, hay-fork, rope and pulleys and sundries-say	
cost	$ 30
cost	272
cost	69
cost	47
cost	233
cost	142
cost	210
cost	250
cost	91
cost	53
cost	40
cost	115
cost	100
cost	50
cost	354
cost	145
cost	50
cost	55
	147
Investment in implements



$ 2,500 HORSES, CATTLE, HOGS AND POULTRY

[Stage Direction]
9 horses (8 working and 1 driver) at $150 each	cost	$ 1,3504	sets general purpose harness at $40 each	cost	1601 set single harness	cost	309 halters for stable, etc. ($1.50 each and up),	say	cost	15Blankets, robes, brushes, currie combs and sundries	cost	505	cows, good grade milkers at $50 each	cost	2503	young cattle, averaging $10 each	cost	301 brood sow (good class)	cost	355 shoats, for meat supply for table	cost	50Chickens, ducks, geese, etc., say	cost	30Investment in horses, cattle, hogs, etc	$ 2,000
Recapitulation, capital invested
Land and buildings, etc	 $10,500
Machinery, implements, etc	 2,500
Horses, cattle, hogs, etc	 2,000
Total investment in land, buildings, implements and equipment	$15,000
41761-50}
788	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction
Revenue from crop sales-From 170 acres wheat, or equivalent crop, as follows-*
Bushels
80 acres summer-fallow, 20 bushels per acre over seed	 1,600
80 acres 1st year stubble, 17 bushels per acre over seed	 1,360
10 acres 2nd year stubble, 14 bushels per acre over seed	 140
3,100
3,100 bushels of wheat, or equivalent at $1 per bushel	 $3,100
Less cost of threshing, etc., elevator charges, dockage and storage, average
20 cents per bushel	 620
Net revenue, 3,100 bushels at 80 cents per bushel	$ 2,480
Note:-In addition to sale of grain, there will surplus proceeds from brood mares, cows, hogs, poultry, etc., in excess of table requirements. It is not, however, considered that such sales will be in excess of necessary purchases of flour, fresh meats in season, tea, sugar, coffee and other groceries required for the table in addition, for board of owner and wife and hired help.
Operating expenses, etc.-Hired help-
1 farm hand for 7 months at $45 per month and board	 $ 315
1 extra hand for 1 month in harvest and board	 75
Cost of hired help	$	390
Depreciation and maintenance-
On buildings, including painting and repairs, $4,000 at 5 per cent	 $ 200
On machinery, implements, etc., including repairs, $2,500 at 10 per cent.. ..	250
On wagons, horses, etc., including shoeing, etc, $2,000 at 7 per cent	 140
Cost of depreciation, maintenance, etc	 $	590
Taxes and Sundries
[Stage Direction]
Municipal taxes, estimated average	$ 165
Hail insurance, 170 acres at 5 to 10 per cent for $10 per acre	 100
Fire insurance on buildings and contents, $5,000 at i per cent annually..	25
Binder twine, 2 pounds per acre and sundries-say	 60
Fuel for cooking and heating and illuminating oil-say	 100
Cost of taxes and sundries	$	450
Recapitulation-
Hired help	$ 390
Depreciation, maintenance, etc	 590
Taxes and sundries	 450
Total operation expenses	 $ 1,430
Balance net revenue over, for services owner and wife	 1,050
Total	$ 2,480
Note:-Nothing is left over for interest on capital invested, or if balance over be treated as interest on capital invested, yielding 7 per cent, nothing will be left over for services of owner and wife.
With the above figures of cost of land, buildings, implements, horses, etc., any farmer can readily figure out the profit of farming. If, from his experience, his grain will yield more or less of an average per acre over a ten year period, then he can add on or deduct from as the case may be but, when these prices and yields of grain were prepared the farmer was given the benefit of any doubt.
It will be noted in computing the revenue that I have allowed $1 per bushel for wheat. I did that because I believe wheat will come back to SI per bushel, and I am looking for us to get that price this year. The compilation of these figures took some time but I thought they would be interesting to hon. members who may not understand the operation of a 320-acre farm in western Canada.
This proposed cut of civil service salaries is not a large one and it will be in effect only for this year. It will not fall heavily upon 
them to make that sacrifice as compared with the sacrifices that others are making, and I ask hon. gentlemen opposite not to be too critical and not to be continually finding fault with this side.
I know the right hon. gentleman who is piloting the ship of state; I have known him for over thirty years, ever since he came to Calgary. I do not know of one dishonourable move he has ever made. I have watched his career during the last thirty-two years in western Canada. Thirty-two years ago I had

' Public Service-Salary Deduction
the privilege of standing on the platform with him in southern Albeirta when he was first branching out, and I have watched him all down through the years. I know he will, if at all possible, bring this country back to prosperity, and it is a godsend that he is at the helm.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Hon. gentlemen smile and laugh at that remark, but while they were doing so I was thinking of an old ship called Canada on which I left the Prince of Wales landing dock in Liverpool to come home. How she did rock and pitch and roll all over the ocean,, setting in the trough of the sea. At present Canada is in the trough of the sea and we are working to get her out, just as they did with that old ship Canada that ran for so many years across the Atlantic. They put her into dry dock. They took the top decks off her and put her on an even balance. That, from my knowledge during the past thirty-two years of the right hon. gentleman who is leading this party, is what he will do for Canada.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the house only for a couple of minutes. We all join in the hope that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) will, thirty-two years from now, be again standing on the platform with his chief of whom he thinks so highly. I say that with all good wishes and sincerity.
As regards the subject of the debate, I am willing to agree to the cut not only in the civil service salaries, but in the indemnity as well. But I am strongly of the opinion that the cut should have been extended to all branches of the civil service, including the judges, also that it should have been on a graded scale so that the money forfeited should have come rather from money that would ordinarily be spent on luxuries than from money that would otherwise be spent upon necessities. I am also very much in favour of the suggestion that has been made that there should be a total exemption of the ten per cent cut as regards those having a salary of $1,200 or less. Further, I would point out that the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that on salaries under $1,200 a concession would be made by the government paying the contribution of those civil servants towards the superannuation fund, is not a contribution in this regard; that a large number of civil servants do not contribute to the superannuation fund, and if they are receiving less than $1,200 a year, they will get no rebate whatever, so that they
will be heavily penalized. To suggest that the burden be taken off only those who happen to be paying superannuation, is unreasonable.
My real object in speaking was to make some comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bon) who I am sorry to see is not in his seat at the moment. He said that he had visited one of the departments lately and had seen five of the employees doing nothing. That, in his opinion, was the condition that prevailed generally throughout the civil service in Ottawa. When an hon. member or, indeed, anybody enters an office, it is natural for the employees to look up. Perhaps they were arrested by his striking personality and possibly they did what is recorded of the people in Goldsmith's Deserted Village:
And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small head could oarry all he knew.
They may have been arrested by some such thought as that. At any rate, we do not know the reason why they were doing nothing at the moment. I must, however, enter my protest against the statement that idleness is the prevailing condition in the civil service. These people in Ottawa are not able to speak for themselves. I should have been glad had some member more directly associated with the service taken up the cudgels, but perhaps this comes with more force from one who lives a long distance away and who has no personal interest in these people. I have had business at many of their offices and I have found them obliging, courteous and for the most part painstaking and willing to woTk. I wish to enter my emphatic protest against the suggestion of the hon. member for Muskoka that the conditions that generally prevail are those of doing little or nothing for their salaries. Of course there are defections in all ranks, but for the most part they are a hard working, industrious, decent body of people.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker,
I was glad to listen to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins); he always entertains the house for a time. But perhaps the best thing he has done since he has been a member of parliament has been to put on record, for the benefit of the house and the country, what it costs to carry on a farm in western Canada. The hon. member has done just what some of us have been endeavouring to do during the last ten or eleven years, namely, to show what the real cost of carrying on farming in the west is and how little profit the farmer is able to make under present
790	COMMONS
Public Service-Salary Deduction [DOT]
conditions. If, however, I may say so without offence, I am glad the hon. member is now clothed and in his right mind, for we ean readily recall how he has told the house what wonderfully prosperous conditions have prevailed in the constituency of Marquette. Probably the hon. member has been receiving letters from home.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Will the hon. member
allow me to explain that?


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, if the hon. gentleman
does not take too long.


Henry Alfred Mullins: It was to keep the mortgage companies from bothering any of the men who had loans from them, and I did not want to keep on wailing and crying.


John Livingstone Brown: That may be so; but after reading some of the wonderful statements made by the hon. member for Marquette in regard to his constituency, I had an incident reported to me of an agent for a machine company who was fired from his firm because he was unable to collect more from those very prosperous farmers. As a further indication of the conditions that prevail in Marquette, the other day I received information that in one municipality there were 271 parcels of land listed for tax sale, most of them quarter-sections as well as some town lots. I had the amount added up on an adding machine in one of the departments and the unpaid taxes amounted to $29,000.
I was interested also in the hon. member's reminiscences of the session of 1926. I do not think any of us who were here at that period will ever forget the hectic time we had. I was interested in the tribute the hon. member paid to the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on being able to carry on under such circumstances.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: He should have paid it to the hon. member.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not unwilling to take
part of it. Perhaps if hon. gentlemen opposite knew of the tremendous efforts that were made by those now sitting on the other side of the house to wean us away from our allegiance, they would realize something of the pressure we had to bear.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. gentleman was weaned anyway.


John Livingstone Brown: Before I come to the resolution itself, while I have been listening to the debate that has been carried on from one side of the house and the other, two questions have arisen that are clamouring for an answer. One is this. How did it come about that com-

ditions which in 1930 were entirely the fault of the then government were, six months after, and still are, the result of world wide conditions? Another is, how the present plea for economy in this particular direction can be reconciled with the declared efficacy of the policies which this government has put into effect. We will leave the solution of these problems to a later date; probably when we have nothing better to do we shall try to answer them.
With regard to the matter before us I want to say this. Representing as I do a rural constituency, representing people who have seen not only a ten per cent reduction in their income but the whole equity in their holdings wiped out in the last two or three years; knowing as I do that to-day a letter and yesterday a telegram have come from home reminding me that the farmers are losing their horses and every day or two are compelled to draw one out into the field; knowing that, and knowing that I can get no satisfactory answer from this government as to what they propose to do, and believing as I do that the farmers have borne their full share and more than their share of the burden, I can offer no objection to the general principle of a reduction in salaries. I do believe, however, that the proposed reduction, if made along the lines indicated so far, will not give fair play all round. I believe that the people of this country should bear the burden in proportion to their ability to bear it. If I were discussing this question theoretically I would say that all men, from those receiving the highest salaries to those receiving the lowest, should bear some share of the burden; and if we find it not practicable to levy contributions upon the smaller incomes it is only because the cost of collecting it would be greater than the amount that would be received. So that for practical purposes it is probably desirable that there should be a minimum amount fixed below which there should be no reduction. I do hold, however, and very strongly, that when the government is attempting to levy this burden upon the people of Canada they should try to levy it as equitably as possible, and I want to endorse all that has been said in regard to the exemptions proposed. I see no reason why judges and military and naval officers should be exempt from the burden; I see no reason why they should not be asked to carry a share of the 'burden which the other people of 'Canada are being called on to carry. If the bill when it comes down is framed along those lines I shall have no hesitation in supporting it; if there is any indication that there is an attempt to distribute the burden

Public Service-Salary Deduction
fairly among the different classes in the country. We all realize that it is not a pleasant thing to reduce salaries, but we are face to face with an emergency such as prevailed during the war. At that time we felt that we were under obligation each and all of us to carry what share of the 'burden it was possible for us to bear. Some accepted the burden freely and gladly, while others made the war an occasion for piling up wealth for themselves. While we should like to think that all men are willing to bear their share of the burden we must not forget that there are possibly those who will be only too glad, if they are able, ,to escape their share. I trust that the government, now that they have taken this step to balance the budget, will realize that this is only one of a number of possible means that might be taken; and I hope that the Minister of Finance will not pay any attention to a letter he has received, a copy of which came to us to-night, from some commercial bureau protesting against any increase in the income tax. That to my mind is the one source from which we oould receive large sums of money that would help us to balance the budget.
While accepting the general principle of this bill, that is for reductions in salaries, I should like to see it along a graded line, so that the small salaries would not be burdened while a heavier tax would be laid upon those who are much more able to bear the burden. Let us remember that after all it is not so much what is deducted from our incomes that counts; it is what we have left; and we have good reason in this regard for bearing in mind the commendation of the poor widow who gave her two mites to the treasury. She had given all that she had, and had nothing left. We must therefore judge the measure of sacrifice not by the amount deducted but by the amount left.


George Gibson Coote: I regret to have to speak on this resolution at this hour. I did endeavour to get the floor earlier in the debate but did not succeed. I want to say at the outset that I do not intend to oppose the resolution, but at the same time there are features about it that are objectionable. I believe that if we had in Canada an intelligent and scientific monetary system there would be no need of putting wages up and down every few years, nor should we hear ministers making any reference to "normal depressions." If we are to have normal depressions then I suppose wages at such times must be reduced, and we cannot at the present time help ourselves. We have
this system. It seems as though the majority of people are willing that it shall continue, and that being the case I think we must submit to a reduction in salaries at this time.
Most of the people outside the civil service have had a reduction in wages or salaries; at least that is the statement I understood the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to make, and he goes on to justify the cutting of salaries of civil servants because of the fact that in foodstuffs there has been a reduction of thirty per cent; in fuel cost, 5.8 per cent; in rents 7/10 of 1 per cent; in clothing, 23.6 per cent, and in sundries, 2.2 per cent, or an average reduction of 14.4 per cent. Then to-night some speakers on the other side of the house have stated that the farmer has taken a induction in his income amounting in some cases to sixty per cent. In view of all this, I feel that in a great many instances the civil servants can have no valid objection to a reduction in salaries. But I think it is to be regretted that the reduction which is being introduced was not made on a fairer basis. I believe that some of the smaller salaries are too low at the present time and should not be reduced at all; on the other hand, some salaries, particularly those over $5,000 might stand a reduction of more than ten per cent to make it equitable. But one thing I cannot understand-I do not think it is just-is that while the cost of living in some cases has been reduced as much as 14 per cent; while the salaries and wages of civil servants are being cut ten per cent, and while there has been a general cut in wages throughout Canada of about ten per cent, interest rates have been raised. That is, the wages of money have been increased. I believe this matter should receive the serious attention of the house, and at this time we are justified in bringing it to the attention of hon. members. The people of Canada should not be compelled to accept reductions in their wages, and reduced incomes from the sale of their products, and at the same time have the wages of money raised. In so far as it is within the competence of parliament, interest rates should be reduced in the same proportion as wages and salaries.
Exemptions from the reduction form another objection to the proposal now before us. My first objection will be directed towards the exemption given to lieutenant-governors, and next comes the exemption given to judges. I can see no reason why lieutenant-governors and judges should be exempt from the reductions. They are drawing high salaries, and surely if there is any equity in this
Narcotic Drugs

country we should begin at the top and reduce the big salaries. Judges hold their positions for life and retire on substantial pensions. To my mind there can be no justification for exempting these people when civil servants, some of whom receive less than $100 a month have their salaries cut.
Next I come to the case of the officers of the National Defence department. I can see no reason why they should be exempt from the reduction of salaries. Mr. Speaker, would you call it eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 4, 1932