Mr. DIONNE (Beauce):
Why then seek to cast odium on people whose sole ambition is to produce for the benefit of their country?
And those great reformers, who take up more than half the time of the house, why don't they go to the root of the evil?
W orking men appeared before the committee. Were they questioned about things they knew? Were they asked why building costs are so high nowadays, when obviously such eosts absorb most of the liquid assets of potential owners? Were they asked why they only lay 350 bricks a day at wages ranging from $1.20 to $1.50 an hour, as compared to
1,000 to 1,500 bricks a day at only 60 cents an hour a few years ago?
No such questions were puit to them.
It might be told that no building tradesmen appeared before the committee, but I can reply that the example I have just given with respect to bricklayers applies to every field of activity.
If the practised critics we have in the house had had the courage to put such questions, they would have made themselves unpopular, and of course that is what we seek above all to avoid in this house. Some party members in this house have no more concern for the public weal than for the first pair of shoes they ever wore in their native land, beyond the seas.
Does a member believe he is true to his mandate when he adopts such a course of action? Does he believe he is doing a service to the working class, in representing its members as wretched people who are shamefully exploited?
Is that conducive to the resoration of harmony among the Canadian people? Will it bring about the solving of the many problems we are facing in these troubled times, engendered by the most terrible war that has ever devastated the world?
We are often enough taken to task in this house for not reading the debates. I shall answer for the benefit of some among us: let us make the debates less dull if we want them to be read.