Crerar Backs Up MacLean’s Charges

Have you written your M. P. yet? Remember this is “Write-your-Member” week! April I-8.

HON. T. A. CRERAR M. P. April 1 1924

Crerar Backs Up MacLean’s Charges

Have you written your M. P. yet? Remember this is “Write-your-Member” week! April I-8.

HON. T. A. CRERAR M. P. April 1 1924

Crerar Backs Up MacLean’s Charges

Have you written your M. P. yet? Remember this is “Write-your-Member” week! April I-8.

7 he gouged Canadian tax-payer, as he fills in his tax forms this month, should not pass the buck” of responsibility, but ought to feel like Princess Bibesco, witty daughter of the Asquiths, who wrote a book and captioned it, “I have only myself to blame!” If you dont write your M. P. how does he know how “riled” you feel? On page 52, at the conclusion of Mr. Crerar s forceful article, you will find your member’s name and your constituency. Write him — NOW — and let him know that he must get behind this tax reduction campaign.


WHILE there may be criticism of some of the statements in the series of articles Mr. O’Leary has contributed to MacLean’s Magazine, there can be no difference of opinion on this, that they have been put before the public in an arresting manner; and that they are a severe indictment of the growth of public expenditures in the Dominion not only as to the cost of running our governmental machinery, but as well of the wastefulness that has characterized much of our expenditures for public works. Severe as the indictment may be, however, it is apparent to anyone who has made any study of the matter that it does, in the main, hold true.

If I may offer a general criticism of Mr. O’Leary’s articles, it would not be that they are too forceful or that the picture is overdrawn. It would rather be on the broad ground that he has not sufficiently stressed the responsibility of the individual voters for the condition of affairs that he describes. It is a fact that there is not, in the public mind, generally speaking, a sound and clear understanding in the expenditure of public money in either federal, provincial or municipal affairs. Here and there in Canada bright spots can be found, particularly in the handling of municipal expenditures, but these are the exceptions.

A study of the whole question of public expenditures reveals the startling fact that in hundreds of cases in the Dominion nowhere has there been greater extravagance in wasteful and unnecessary expenditures than in local municipalities where the governing body is elected annually, and where expenditures come more directly under the eye of the people immediately interested than is possible in the provincial or in the much wider federal field.

It is true these conditions, to a certain degree at any rate, have usually accompanied the development of any new country, and this is especially so in Canada, where the opportunities have been, and are, almost limitless. People under these circumstances naturally centre their attentions upon their own enterprises, whatever they may be, and, absorbed in these, give little serious thought or study to public affairs.

In this atmosphere of indifference the exploiter always thrives.

Moreover, it is a notorious fact that in the past programmes for the expenditure of vast sums of public moneys have always been popular with the people. It is only within the last year or two the hard truth is being driven home to the Canadian tax-payer, that for every dollar of money spent in a public way a dollar must sooner or later be raised through taxation, and in addition, if money is borrowed for public enterprises, not only has it to be repaid but the interest on it as well.

The manner in which our federal revenues were raised in Canada until a few years ago unquestionably had a demoralizing effect upon the tax-payer so far as his attitude to public expenditures were concerned. Money that comes easily goes easily. Until quite recently revenues in the Dominion were raised by indirect taxation, and the tax-payer was not consciously alert to the manner or degree in which or to which expenditures were carried on.

With, the introduction, however, of the direct taxing methods, especially through the Income Tax, the taxpayer—you and I and everyone else—has had his attention focused on expenditures in a way that did not happen under the indirect method of raising revenues, and there is consequently a vigorous protest against taxation, without any clear appreciation or understanding of the factors that have generally governed in the past in incurring the expenditures that make such taxation necessary.

During the period I was a member of Union Government I can recall several instances of public pressure, often from a considerable area, brought upon the

Government to induce it to embark onTafcourseXthat meant the expenditure of quite considerable sums of public money that could only be reflected later in more taxation. The arguments put forth in support of such proposals are varied and ingenious, but rarely sound. Somehow, the general notion of the public in the past

has been that governments got their money from some mysterious sources remote from the life of the individual citizen. Once get the understanding into the head of every citizen of Canada that every dollar of public expenditures means a dollar in taxation, and you are on the highway to economy. Had MacLean’s articles dealt more fully with this important phase of the question, they would have touched upon an even more vital aspect of the whole matter.

To come more directly to the “Orgy of Extravagance” articles, he deals with the expensive Civil Service, due to over-manning, short hours of work and the multitude of holidays; to the “Pork Barrel,” as he terms it, or to the practice of spending public money for political considerations and not because of the urgent need of the work that may be carried out. He also refers to the burden of railway financing. These are the three main points of criticism.

Respecting the first, there can be no doubt that in the main Mr. O’Leary’s indictment holds entirely true. The Civil Service as we have it now is the product of many years. In the good old days people were taken into the Service as a political reward for services to the party. In the matter of promotion the merit system received little consideration. It is not too much to say that both the Inside and Outside Services to-day contain thousands who received their positions in this way. Nothing is more demoralizing to administrative work. The clammy hand of patronage in the past has largely paralyzed the Service, discouraged and destroyed the power of initiative of thousands of promising servants and generally tended to reduce the whole to a dull, drab level.

1V/Í F) It is true there are many in the

J • ■*• Service, particularly in technical

and higher positions, who are able and conscientious and would do credit to themselves anywhere, and I would say that many of these are underpaid.

I am glad that Mac Lean’s Magazine has drawn attention to the short hours of work and to the numberless holidays. There is no reason on earth why the Civil Servants should not work the same number of hours each week that obtain in ordinary business establishments for a similar class of work.

As far as the second point in Mr. O’Leary’s criticism is concerned, he has given chapter and verse from the history of both old parties as to the expenditure of public money to effect election results. Without question, in the last forty years tens of millions of dollars have been spent in this way, every cent of which has come out of the tax-payers’ pockets. At the same time the business of governing Canada is not without its difficulties in this connection. The difficulties of our problems of Government are intensified by the wide area of our country, the diversity of its interests and its very scattered population. The Western Canadian and the man from the Maritime Provinces, for instance, very rarely come in touch with each other. I’hey each live in their own world, and yet they are part of the same country. And out of this you have a situation where money may be demanded for public works in Nova Scotia that Western Canada thinks is a needless and useless expenditure; and where, on the other hand, the Maritime Provinces man holds just as strongly that the expenditure of money, say on the Hudson’s Bay railway, is a criminal waste. Both are perfectly honest in their view points. One of the great tasks of statesmanship in Canada is to reconcile these diversities of opinion.

When we discuss railways, it furnishes the most glaring reflection on the intelligence of the Canadian people. In the last eighty years it is estimated that on a conservative basis of valuation the aid given through cash and otherwise to the building of railways in Canada is in excess of a billion dollars, and yet at the end of this period we are confronted with a grave railway problem.

Mr. O’Leary makes several specific remedial suggestions. First, he suggests a reduction in indemnity to members. If Canada consisted of Ontario and Quebec, there would be an excellent point to his suggestion, but it must be borne in mind that the members from the western provinces and from the maritime provinces lose complete touch with their business when they go to Ottawa. The sessions last from four to six months.

I would say that there are very few indeed of the type of man we want to see in Parliament from these two parts of the Dominion who does not attend the session without a considerable loss to himself, even at the present indemnity. I would rather see the result Mr. O’Leary aims at secured through a reduction of the number of members in the House and as well in the Senate.

The reduction in the number of cabinet ministers from fourteen to nine suggested in Mr. O’Leary’s second point is too sweeping. Here again the geographical conditions of Canada must be taken into account. If Canada were composed of Ontario and Quebec, there is no reason why a Cabinet of nine could not handle the government business, but recognition must be given, in some degree, to sectional considerations. There is much to say, however, for reducing the cabinet to twelve, and the representation could be worked out upon a fair basis of representation to each portion of the Dominion.

The amendments to the Civil Service Act suggested in the third point are certainly in the right direction.

The Commission at present has too much power after employees are in the service, and this tends to destroy the discipline that is essential to success.

Continued on page 50

Continued from page 19

The suggestion in the fourth point, that a Board, similar to the British Treasury Board, be set up to keep down staffs and prevent over-manning, has something to commend it. This at any rate should help in keeping government policy right in the matter.

Regarding the fifth point—longer hours for C.S. employees—everyone will agree with this who knows anything about the situation.

In respect to six, Mr. O’Leary’s criticism undoubtedly holds true. Nothing could be more costly in administration than the manner in which several of the departments are obliged to carry on their work. What is needed is a few good departmental buildings, and a drastic reorganization of the administrative services with a view to rigid cutting out of overlapping and duplication of work.

Regarding the seventh suggestion, while the War Purchasing Commission did good work during the war, it seems scarcely necessary to set up all the machinery that is involved for the purpose of making government purchases, If a government rigidly laid down the policy that all purchases, excepting minor ones, were to be on tender, proper economy would be practised in the buying of supplies.

Touching the eighth point, Mr. O’Leary’s suggestion goes too far. Of course, the natural tendency in any branch of any department of government is to get out monuments to its excellence in the way of reports dealing with its work. This could be immensely cut down. I am inclined to think, however, that the matter could better be dealt with by a Committee of the House.

Personally I am not partial to the idea of setting up Commissions to do the work that Ministers of the Crown should see to.

With the ninth suggestion, that there should be a Committee of the House to deal with the estimates, I quite agree. Such a Committee could make a fuller examination of the need of any particular work than is possible on the floor of the House, and if wisely directed should lead to a clearer appreciation on the part of the public for the need of economy. This would get away, too, from the practice of voting large sums of money in the dying days of the session. It has been notorious in the past that estimates which the Government of the day wanted to have passed, and yet felt Parliament might be critical towards, have been brought down in the closing hours of the session, and often railroaded through with the speed of an express train. A committee on estimates would largely make this impossible.

The function of Government has largely changed in the last forty years here, as in every other country. To-day governments are actively concerned with matters that forty years ago were considered entirely out of their province. This has brought new responsibilities, and parliament needs sane and strong guidance in all the matters referred to in Mr. O’Leary’s articles. The matter of government to-day is a business proposition more than it has ever been. There is no duty more incumbent to-day on the public men of the Dominion than to give a clear definite lead to the Canadian people, not only in vital matters of expenditure and taxation, but as well to a more elevated tone and standard in the public life of the country.

See list of members on page 52

DELOW, there is given the complete list of Federal Government members. You will find the name of the man you voted for here. Write him to-day, addressing him at the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, and demand that all It is the only way you can hope to get action—and prompt action is imperative.

British Columbia

Constituencies Your Member

Burrard.........J. A. Clark

Cariboo.........T. G. McBride

Commox-Alberni A. W. Neill

Fraser Valley. . . .Elgin A. Munro Kootenay East.. .Hon. J. H. King Kootenay West . . L. W. Humphrey

Nanaimo........C. H. Dickie

New Westminster W. G. McQuarrie

Skeena..........A. Stork

Vancouver Centre Hon. H.H.Stevens

Vancouver, S.....L. J. Ladner

Victoria City.....Hon. S. F. Tolmie

Yale............J. A. MacKelvie


Battle River.....H. E. Spencer

Bow River.......E. J. Garland

Calgary, East. . . . W. Irvine Calgary, West . . .Joseph T. Shaw Edmonton, East..D. F. Kellner Edmonton, West D. M. Kennedy

Lethbridge.......L. H. Jelliff \

Macleod.........G. G. Coote

Medicine Hat. . . . R. Gardiner

Red Deer........A. Speakman -

Strathcona.......D. W. Warner

Victoria.........W. T. Lucas


Assiniboia.......O. R. Gould

Battleford.......T. H. McConica

Humboldt.......C. W. Stewart

Kindersley.......A. M. Carmichael

Last Mountain. . . J. F. Johnston

Mackenzie.......M. N. Campbell

Maple Greek.....N. H. McTaggart

Moose Jaw......E. N. Hopkins

North Battleford C. C. Davies Prince Albert.... A. Knox

Qu’Appelle......J. Millar



Saltcoats........T. Sales

Saskatoon.......J. Evans

Swift Current.... A. J. Lewis Weyburn........J. Morrison


Brandon........R. Forke

Dauphin........W. J. Ward

Lisgar..........J. L. Brown

Macdonald......W. J. Lovie

Marquette.......Hon. T. A. Crerar

Neepawa........R. Milne

Nelson..........T. W. Bird

Portage la Prairie H. Leader

Provencher......A. L. Beaubien

Selkirk..........L. P. Bancroft


Springfield.......R. A. Hoey

Winnipeg Centre J. S. Woodsworth Winnipeg, North E. J. McMurray Winnipeg, South .A. B. Hudson


Algoma, E. R’d’g J. Carruthers Algoma, W. R’d’g T. E. Simpson

Brant...........W. C. Good

Brantford.......W. G. Raymond

Bruce, N. R’d’g .J. Malcolm Bruce, S. R’d’g . J. W. Findlay

Carleton........W. F. Garland

Dufferin.........R. J. Woods

Dundas.........P. Elliott

Durham.........F. W. Bowen

Elgin, E. R’d’g. . . J. L. Stansell Elgin, W. R’d’g H. C. McKillop Essex, N. R’d’g . A. F. Healy Essex, S. R’d’g. . .Hon.G.P.Graham Fort William and

Rainy River Hon. R. J. Manion

Frontenac ......W. S. Reed

Glengarry and

Stormont. . . J. W. Kennedy

Grenville........Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, N. R’d’g.. . M. R. Duncan Grey, S.E.R’d’g. A. C. Macphail

Haldimand......M. C. Senn

Halton..........R. K. Anderson

Hamilton, E. R’g. Hon. S. C. Mewburn

Hamilton, W. R’g T. J. Stewart


Constituencies Your Member Hastings, E. R’g .T. H. Thompson Hastings, W. R’g.E. G. Porter Huron, N. R’d’g .J. W. King Huron, S. R’d’g .W. Black

Kent............Hon. J. Murdock

Kingston........A. E. Ross

Lambton, E. R’g B. W. Fansher Lambton, W. R’g R. V. LeSueur

Lanark..........R. F. Preston

Leeds...........H. A. Stewart

Lennox and Addington.......E. J. Sexsmith

Lincoln..........J. D. Chaplin

London.........J. F. White

Middlesex, E.R’g.A. L. Hodgins Middlesex, W.R’g J.D.F.Drummond

Muskoka........W. J. Hammell

Nipissing........E. A. Lapierre

Norfolk.........J. A. Wallace

Northumberland .M. E. Maybee Ontario, N. R’d’g R. H. Halbert Ontario, S. R’d’g L. 0. Clifford. .

Ottawa..........E. R. E. Chevrier

H. B. McGiverin Oxford, N. R’d’g D. J. Sinclair Oxford, S. R’d’g. .D. Sutherland

Parkdale........D. Spence

Parry Sound.....James Arthurs

Peel............S. Charters

Perth, N. R’d’g J. P. Rankin Perth, S. R’d’g. . . W. Forrester Peterboro, E. R’g G. A. Brethen Peterboro, W. R’gG. N. Gordon Port Arthur and

Kenora......D. Kennedy

Prescott.........J. Binette

Prince Edward. . . J. Hubbs Renfrew, N. R’g .M. McKay Renfrew, S. R’g. .Hon. T. A. Low.

Russell..........Hon. C. Murphy

Simcoe, E. R’d’g M. Chew Simcoe, N. R’d’g T. E. Ross Simcoe, S. R’d’g.. W. A. Boys

Timiskaming.....A. McDonald

Toronto, Centre. .Hon. E. Bristol Toronto, East. .. . E. B. Ryckman Toronto, North . . T. L. Church Toronto, South.. .C. Sheard Toronto, West. . .H. C. Hocken

Victoria.........J. J. Thurston

Waterloo, N. R’g.W. D. Euler. . Waterloo, S. R’g .W. Elliott

Welland.........W. M. German


N. Riding. . J. Pritchard Wellington,S.R’g Hon. H. Guthrie

Wentworth......G. C. Wilson

Westmoreland... .Hon. A. B. Copp York, E. R’d’g. . . J. H. Harris York, N. R’d’g. . .Hon.W.L.M.King York, S. R’d’g .. . W. F. Maclean York, W. R’d’g . .Hon. Sir H. L.

Drayton K.C.M.G.


Argenteuil.......Hon. C. A. Stewart

Bagot...........J. E. Marcile

Beauce..........Hon. H. S. Beland

Beauharnois.....L. J. Papineau

Bellechasse......C. A. Fournier

Berthier.........T. Gervais

Bonaventure. . . . Hon. C. Mardi

Brome..........A. R. McMaster

Chambly and

Vercheres.. . .'J. Archambault

Champlain.......A. L. Desaulniers


Montmorency. .P. F. Casgrain Chateauguay-

Huntingdon Hon. J. A. Robb. Chicoutimi-

Saguenay...,E. Savard

Compton........A. B. Hunt

Dorchester.......L. Cannon

Drummond and

Arthabaska. .J.N.K. LaFlamme George Etienne

Cartier......S. W. Jacobs

Gaspe...........Hon. R. Lemieux

Hochelaga.......E. C. St. Pere

Hull............J. E. Fontaine

Jacques Cartier . .J. T. Rbéaume

Joliette.........Jean J. Denis

Kamouraska.....Georges Bouchard

Labelle..........H. A. Fortier

Quebec—Continued Constituencies Your Member Laprairie and

Napierville . . R. Lanctot L’Assomption-

Montcalm. . . P. A. Seguin Laval-Two

Mountains.. J. A. C. Ethier LaurierHon. Sir L.

Outremont . . Gouin, K.C.M.G.

Levis...........J. B. Bourassa

L’Islet. . ........J. F. Fafard

Lotbiniere.......T. Vien

Maisonneuve.....C. Robitaille

Maskimonge.....E. Desrochers

M atañe.........F. J. Pelletièr. .

Megantic........Eusébe Roberge

Missisquoi.......W. F. Kay

Montmagny.....A. M. Dechene

Nicolet..........Jos. F. Descoteaux

Pontiac.........F. S. Cahill

Portneuf........M. S. Delisle

Quebec County.. ,H. E. Lavigueur

Quebec, East.....Hon. E. Lapointe

Quebec, South.. . C. G. Power Quebec, West. . . . G. Parent

Richelieu........P. J. A. Cardin

Richmond&Wolfe.E. W. Tobin

Rimouski........J. E. S. E. D’Anjou

St. Ann.........J. C. Walsh

St. Antoine......W. G. Mitchell

St. Denis........J. A. Denis

St. Hyacinthe-

Rouville.....L. S. R. Morin

St. James.......F. Rinfret

St. Johns and

Iberville.....Alderic J. Benoit

St. Lawrence and

St. George.. . H. Marier

St. Mary........H. Deslauriers

Shefford........ G. H. Boivin

Sherbrooke......F. N. McCrea

Stanstead.......W. K. Baldwin

Temiscouata.....C. A. Gauvreau

Terrebonne......J. E. Prévost

Three Rivers and

St. Maurice. .Hon. J. Bureau Vaudreuil-

Soulanges... . J. R. Ouimet Westmount-

St. Henry.... P. Merder

Wright..........R. M. Gendron

Yamaska........A. Boucher

Nova Scotia

Antigonish and

Guysborough.C. F. Mclsaac Cape Breton N.

& Victoria.. .F. L. Kelly Cape Breton S.

& Richmond.W. F. Carroll G. W. Kyte

Colchester.......H. Putnam

Cumberland .... JBL J. Logan Digby and

Annapolis... .L. J. Lovett

Halifax..........Hon.Robt. E. Finn

W. A. Black

Hants...........L. H. Martell

Inverness........A. W. Chisholm

King’s..........E. R. Robinson

Lunenburg.......W. Duff

Pictou...........E. M. Macdonald

Shelburne and Hon. W. S. Field-

Queens ...... ing

Yarmouth and

Clare.......P. La C. Hatfield

New Brunswick

Charlotte........RW. Grimmer

Gloucester.......Jno. G. Robichaud

Kent............A. J. Doucet

Northumberland. J. Morrissy

Restigouche and

Madawaska..P. Michaud

Royal...........G. B. Jones

St. John City and-Hon. J. B. M. Counties of St.Baxter John & Albert-M. MacLaren Victoria and

Carleton.....T. W. Caldwell

York-Sunbury... R. B. Hanson

Prince Edward Island

King’s..........J. J. Hughes

Prince...........A. E. MacLean

Queen’s.........Hon. J. E. Sinclair

D. A. Mackinnon