1917-05-11

VISIT AND RECEPTION OF M. VIVIANI.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
The Rt Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I think it
might be well to make a short statement as to the arrangements that have been made for to-morrow. The hour at which our guests will be here is not exactly known, but the House will go into session at twelve o'clock, and. I suppose they will be here at that hour. On the arrival of the train I should

like to have at the station the member? of the Cabinet, and members of the Privy Council who have been memibeTS of preceding Cabinets, to informally meet the guests. They might put on their top hats and look as well as they possibly can. I am making that intimation for members of the Privy Council who do not belong to the present Government. From the station the guests and others will come directly to the House of Commons. M. Viviani will be given a seat at the side of Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House and senators are requested to fill up the first seats and to raise no objection to those who are not members of Parliament occupying the remaining seats and the galleries. Admission will be by special card. All members of Parliament and their wives and-I was going to say daughters, but I hope not many daughters^-all members of Parliament with their wives and daughters will receive cards. The purpose is that we shall make ourselves the hosts of the distinguished guests and make it possible for as many representatives as possible to have an opportunity of being here and hearing the address that will be delivered. That will require a little - selfdenial on the part of members of Parliament, which I hope they will practise. After the speech, I propose to make a motion that the speech that is delivered by M. Vivian! be printed in our Hansard, to become a part of our permanent record. I shall astk my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) to second the motion in that respect. Whatever I may do myself, I shall hope that my right hon. friend will make some remarks appreciatory of the distinction conferred upon us by the visit of our distinguished guests. After that the members of Parliament and those who have admission to the House will be asked to file in at the right, and to file out at the left of Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker will present all to our guest. I omitted to state that Mr. Speaker, if he will be kind enough, will tender an address of welcome to M. Viviani.
The tickets will be delivered to the members and to the invited guests, and we will see that they are properly distributed. After that, I suppose I might say, the Governor General will have the visitors to luncheon, and if there is any time left we shall try to show them the beauties of Ottawa, both the beauties which at present exist and are visible, and as our guests are men of some imagination, we will try to stimulate that faculty to take a still greater and larger
84i
view of what the future possibilities of our capital are. I think that takes in the whole of the programme as arranged.


Mr. NESBITT:: Do the members require tickets?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: They will be
given tickets, as admission will be by card. We will send them cards.



THE BUDGET.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Rainville):: Just before the adjournment
of the last sitting of the House the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) moved a second amendment to the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means." A previous amendment having just been negatived, I find from a careful study of the authorities that this amendment was irregular and should have been declared out of order. The rule as laid down by Bonrinot and May makes this abundantly clear. I quote from Bourinot, pages 419-420:
"Only one amendment can be moved to the question, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair'. If that amendment is negatived, a discussion on other questions may he raised but no other motion can be proposed. If the amendment is withdrawn, however, another amendment can be at once submitted to the Hous?e."
And also from May, 11th Ed., page 610, as fallows:
"When an amendment to the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair has been negatived, as it has been decided that the words proposed to he left out shall stand part of the question, no further amendment can be moved thereto; though, general debate on the main question can he maintained by those members who have not moved or seconded an amendment thereto, or spoken on the main question before an amendment was moved; and if an amendment be withdrawn, members who have spoken to the amendment, may speak again after another amendment has been proposed."
Accordingly, the main motion is the only question now before the House and may be debated, but no further amendment may be moved.	[DOT]
I therefore declare the amendment of the hon. member for Huntingdon out of order.



SHORTAGE OF SALT FOR FISH CURING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester, N.B.): I wish to call the attention of the Acting
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Marine to' a serious condition which threatens the fishing industry in the county of Gloucester, owing to a salt famine. Until lately our fish dealers were under the impression that they could possibly secure contracts for vessels to bring salt across the ocean, but lately they have been advised of the impossibility of securing such contracts. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), a few days ago, called the attention of the House to the same subject with reference to the province of Nova Scotia. I wish to add that northern New Brunswick is practically in the same condition. As to the scarcity of tonnage, I might make the suggestion to the department that last fall the French Government had to allow a large cargo of lumber to remain in Bathurst, as they could not get the necessary steamer there in time, and I am under the impression that the cargo is still there. A vessel bringing salt from France to Garaquet could take back that cargo of lumber from Bathurst. An arrangement might be made between the two Governments so that when the transport for the French Government comes for that lumber it might bring a quantity of salt which would be sufficient for all Caraquet and northern New Brunswick.
George Eulas Foster: The matter has engaged the attention of the department for some months and the British Admiralty is quite willing that transports coming to Atlantic boards-if the loading point of the salt is reasonably near and the loading does not cause too much delay-should carry salt to the ports to which they come, charging for it a reasonable rate. I have no doubt that the French Government would be ready to do the same thing with its transports. But my hon. friend will see that the time of these transports cannot be taken up making long voyages in order to get some salt.	.


Mr. TURGEON:: So far as the Caraquet district is concerned, very little loss of time would be involved, as boats from Caraquet could go on to Bathurst for that cargo of salt.



COAL PRICES IN OTTAWA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: I have been requested by certain consumers in Ottawa to ask the Government if they are aware that coal is being sold to-day in Ottawa at between $9 and $10 a ton, whilst it has been established by the Federal
IMr. Turgeon.]
Trade Commission at Washington that coal at the mine is delivered at $3.60 and $4 a ton. It is true that transportation possibly might affect the price to some extent, but it seems to me that it should not to that degree. Would my right hon. friend inquire as to this, and ascertain if relief can be expected?
Sir- GEORGE FOSTER:	Yes, I shall
make a note of that.



THE SUBMARINE MENACE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Piotou) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the menace to the national interest by the submarine campaign and the necessity of meeting it, and what Canada should do to deal with the situation.
And leave having been granted.
Mr. MACDONALD:: I have no apology to make to the House for asking the members of this House to consider for a few moments the position which Canada should take with reference to this great national menace, a menace to the whole Empire and to all our Allies in the war. The situation on land has been of the most encouraging nature so far as our plans are concerned, and the brilliant results which have followed'the attacks under General Haig by our men in France have created a position there so menacing to the Germans that during the last few months they have decided to resort to the use of submarines in a ruthless manner in order to cut off food and other supplies, which would go to Great Britain and the Allies from the sister nations on this side of the water. This menace has reached a very serious stage. The development of the U boats by expert German scientists reached a point not thought of before the war, indeed hardly conceived of up to a very late period. A few years ago it was thought to be an impossibility that submarines competent to cross the Atlantic could be constructed; yet last year the Deutschland, a submarine built on commercial lines for the purpose of carrying *supplies, more than once reached the United States then a neutral nation. Last October, when the weather permitted these long voyages of submarines, we had news of their sinking various vessels including, *several British bottoms, off the American coast in the north Atlantic. In the seas surrounding Great Britain, the extent of

the baneful operations of the submarines during the past few months has been serious indeed. It has interfered with the avenues for the transport of men and supplies from Canada to the Motherland, and an addition it has created such a feeling of apprehension in Great Britain, that the Homeland has come to look with expectancy to the possibility of producing within her own borders the food and other supplies necessary to sustain her people should the blockade necessitate this- I have therefore no apology to make for calling the attention of the House to the situation, and to wihat Canada ought to do in the premises. Only this week, on Tuesday, the matter was discussed in the Imperial House of Commons, and the task which was laid upon the Lords of the Admiralty in dealing with this problem, together with aU the means that might be put into effect by the nation herself for the purpose of meeting this menace, were fully considered. When we realize the extent of the U boat depredations, as we can from looking at the latest figures, we begin to grasp the exceeding importance of the question. I have before me the latest report of the submarine situation which says:
The German submarines succeeded in destroying a larger number of fishing vessels last week than has been reported for several weeks past.
Vessels of nationalities:	Arrivals, 2,374;
sailings, 2,499.
British merchantmen over 1,600 tons sunk, including five not reported previously, 24 ; under 1,600 tons, 22.
British merchantmen unsuccessfully attacked, including six previously not reported, 34.
British fishers sunk, including one not previously reported and thirteen sailers, 16.
In addition to the British vessels reported by the Admiralty to have been sunk by submarines or mines, fifteen British ships had been reported overdue since January 1 and no information had been obtained in regard to them. It was impossible to say how many of these were marine casualties and how many represented losses inflicted by the enemy.
Further information as to the extent of the submarine menace comes from the United States. The attention of the Government of our great sister nation of the Anglo-Saxon race has been directed to this matter by the delegates from England and France, one of whom we are to have the honour and privilege of entertaining to-morrow. Mr. Denman, chairman of the Shipping Board of the United States, in announcing the Government's programme for exercising more direct control of shipping and shipbuilding facilities, said that estimates had reached the board showing that 300,000 tons
of shipping were sunk in one week. He goes on to say:
The present world's ship tonnage is estimated at less than 50,000,060 tons. In 1916 the entire loss in tonnage due to war causes was put at a little more than 2,00 0,0-00 tons, or some 162,000 tons a month. At present the Germans are sinking considerably more than that each week.
In other words, while 160,000 tons a month was the extent of the loss due to submarine depredations last year, that amount of tonnage is lost in one week under present conditions. Speaking in the British House of Commons the other day, when the matter was fully discussed, Mr. Macnamara, speaking for the Admiralty, said:
It was not in the public interest to disclose what proportion of vessels sunk had been armed. He said, however, that merchant vessels were being armed as rapidly as possible. All possible steps were being taken by the Admiralty, Mr. Macnamara continued, to accelerate the entry of the foodships into port. He regretted that the resources at the disposal of the navy did not permit of an individual escort for every vessel conveying foodstuffs, but said the Admiralty had done everything which was possible and practicable to protect them.
It will be noted from Mr. Macnamara's statement that additional injury is liable to be inflicted on Great Britain as a result of the submarine menace because of the withdrawal from the North Sea and the English Channel of vessels, for the purpose of protecting ships that are sailing on the North Atlantic with food and with men. The withdrawal of these vessels from the immediate scene of action, where their presence is required in order to keep the Germans confined within the Kiel canal, will impair the efficiency of the North Sea fleet, possibly give the Germans an advantage which they do not now possess, and, to some extent, release them from the blockade that is being maintained against them.
That this condition is of a most serious character is evidenced by the utterances of American public men, who are acting in consequence, no doubt, on information imparted by Mr. Balfour and M. Viviani. For instance, so conservative an American public man as Mr. Lansing, United States Secretary of State, made this statement as published in the press:
There is no use of our closing our eyes to the fact that the situation is very serious.
Secretary Lansing in a statement during the day declared that the seriousness of the submarine situation could not be exaggerated, and that it was time the country awoke to the facts. Reports to the State Department give

Indeed, it is a common belief that along the little frequented shores of Maryland, north of Norfolk and Newport news, during the past year there has been established a German base for submarines. If it is possible to conceive of such a thing being so along the coast of the United States as far south as eastern Maryland, When w'e come to think of the conditions that apply on the coast of Labrador or the coast of Newfoundland, any one who has had an opportunity of visiting those coasts will readily realise that there would be no difficulty whatever in establishing such a base unless the greatest possible precautions were taken against it.
It will be noted from the remarks which I have read and the statements which have been made, that the Germans look forward to summer weather conditions to render it more easy and possible for submarines to operate. We can therefore look forward to the possibility or probability of German submarines coming across; and if in addition to the menace to the transportation of men and supplies across to Great Britain, we have the possibility of an attack upon our own shores, the necessity of Canadians wakening up to the situation becomes all the more apparent. The very latest papers intimate that steamers arriving at New York report that a submarine has been sighted 300 miles west of that part of the ocean which is considered the danger zone on the other side, so that German submarines may be working towards this side already. What has been the condition of affairs in the past in regard to that? Some of our transports, in leaving our Canadian shores and going across to the other side, have relied upon their speed. The magnificent work done by the great steamer is a matter of common knowledge, and the tremendous service she has rendered in taking men across from this side to Great Britain has been largely due to her great speed, which has carried her from the coast of North America as far as the danger zone on the other side where an escort awaits her. There have been times since the war began when the chief vessels in control of our defences were the Australian ships the Sydney and the Australia. I think there is no manner of doubt that at this moment Canada's defence upon the sea is being carried on by American torpedo boat destroyers. Years ago we used to discuss here in an academic way the Monroe doctrine, but now without any talk about the Monroe doctrine our neighbours to the south [Mr. Macdonald. J
are giving us the protection of their cruisers.
What should we do in this regard? I have submitted questions to the Government with regard to the establishing of a naval aeroplane station on the Atlantic coast, and I gather from the answers that have been given that they have considered this proposal and turned it down. I submit that it is the imperative duty of the Government to proceed first to establish a naval aeroplane station in eastern Nova Scotia, with auxiliary stations in Newfoundland and in the province of Prince Edward Island. This is a matter about which there is no reason for secrecy; we should look the facts in the face and discuss them in the frankest possible way. The United States had no secrecy or misgivings when they were considering what ought to be done. It is all very well for us to have an aeroplane training school in Toronto and other places in Canada, but I submit that in view of the dangers that I have indicated as likely to come from the sea, and in view of the fact that a similar course of defence has been adopted by Great Britain and all the other nations, an aeroplane station should be established somewhere along our coast at a point to be decided upon by the proper investigating authorities, with auxiliary bases in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
If we had such a station the airships would be able to ascertain whether there was a possible base for German submarines along the Newfoundland coast or elsewhere, and would be able to supply very valuable information as to the approach of vessels of different kinds. They could also be used for the observation of submarines possibly in Cabot Strait and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and could work in conjunction with the vessels from Great Britain and the United States and other countries that are looking after our defence.
It may be that there are reasons that I cannot conceive of which have led the Government to believe it would not be prudent to establish such -an aeroplane station, but I submit that if there is to be any attempt whatever by Canada to look after her own defence this is a preliminary step which ought to be taken, and should not on any account be disregarded.
There is also the matter of ship construction. From the information I have been able to gather from answers to questions in the House and from statements that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, I understand that the Imperial Munitions

Board is making expenditures in this country for the building of vessels for the Imperial Government. I assume that these vessels are not for the Government of Canada, . because, as we have been reminded more than once in this House, the Imperial Munitions Board is not a Canadian institution per se, and owes no duty and is not responsible to the Canadian Government. If the Canadian Government are going to take any steps to laplace the tonnage that is being sunk day by day I assume they would do it through the regular and natural channel, and that they have not done this I gather from the fact that the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question from myself only a few days ago, said the matter of giving aid to shipbuilding was under consideration.
I could give the House statistics, if it were necessary, to show the absolute necessity of providing ships, firstly, for purposes of defence, and secondly, for the building up of a merchant marine in this country, and to replace the tonnage that is being destroyed in the fleets of our Allies who . have been doing our carrying trade during the last two or three years. I do not think any one will doubt the need for ships in view of the feverish energy with which Great Britain is turning out vessels from every possible shipyard; and then we have also the wonderful spectacle of the great American people being so impressed with the need for ships that three weeks after joining the Allies they are prepared to spend the enormous sum of one billion dollars to provide the ships so urgently required. Not only that, but President Wilson in his statement to Congress the other day announced that by agreement with the British Government they were taking over the contracts for the ships that were being built in the United States, and that whereas there had only been one shift of men per day, there would now be three, so that the work could proceed without a moment's ' delay. In addition to that, the President asked Congress for plenary powers to enable the Government to take over existing shipyards so that every nerve might be strained to attain the desired results. I submit that this is a matter that should not rest under the consideration of the Government for one moment longer. The question of what Canada should do in regard to shipbuilding has been discussed in this House several times both last session and this. Without any encouragement from the Government
we find that men have gone along by themselves and engaged in the building of ships in different parts of Canada, in Nova Scotia, for instance, and on the Great Lakes and in British Columbia. We have not been yet able to produce in Canada the steel plates that are required in the building of steel vessels, although in almost every other avenue of steel production Canada is on a par with any other nation. But we have not a mill in operation in this country capable of turning out the necessary steel plates for steel ships, and we have had to get them from the United States or anywhere else where they could be obtained. Vessels of three thousand and four thousand tons are now in course of construction in my own province; some of them will be launched in the next two months, some indeed have already been completed, and all this has been done by private enterprise without aid or encouragement of any kind from the Government. It seems to me that it is time for the Government to do something, and there are two classes of ships to which the Government should devote its attention. The first is made up of such ships as are necessary for the immediate defence of Canada working in conjunction with the Mother Country. We have two submarines on the Pacific coast. For the time being, the necessity for their operation has fortunately gone. Down in Montreal, in the Vickers-Maxim >
oncern, they are producing submarines. They produced some of them last year, and these were seen by those of ns who live at the gateway of the Dominion in the Maritime Provinces, making their way out as though to cross the ocean, and no doubt to-day they form part of the defences of the Mother Country. Why do. we not produce more submarines in the Vickers-Maxim works? Why did not the Government act long ago, when the subject was urged upon them, instead of sitting supinely? We can build destroyers. There is no .magic about the construction of a steel ship. Any hon- gentleman who has looked into this matter knows that we have the artisans here, and that the conditions exist in Canada under which these vessels can be constructed. We should be constructing them, so that we may provide for our own defence and also make ourselves real auxiliaries upon the seas to the Mother Country and the United States and all the Allies. This has been urged upon hon. gentlemen opposite, and I urge it now once moT6- in the strongest way I can.

It is said, we have no plate mills in Canada. Why, then, should not we provide conditions under which a plate mill might, ibe started? You may say, it will take six months before a pliate mill can be put into operation? Suppose that to be true, what then? The thoughtful man, he who has looked ahead in regard to the conditions under which Canada may help the .Mother Country in this great struggle, and may play her part for freedom and right, has found his every proposal since the war began met in this same way. And so, we have done nothing in these things. If we -had moved last year we could have had an ample supply of submarines for our protection, and we could have produced destroyers besides. Last year, there was no difficulty about getting plates from the United States. Even now it is open to hon- gentlemen opposite, if they worked in conjunction with the United States Government, to ask for a supply of plates from mills which are practically under their control. Bringing those plates to Canada an industry can be initiated which will assist us in the protection of our own country jand will enable us the better to play our part in the war.
Then, over and above this question of dedefence upon the sea are we not to use some part of the vast expenditure we are making in connection with this war for replacement of the vessels lost to out mer-
4 p.m. chant marine? Our merchant marine has not been so great that we can afford to lose any of its numbers; it is not greatly to our honour that the transportation of our products across the seas has been for years largely in the hands of Norwegians. We have in a most liberal manner provided for the transportation by land of the products of our country including those of our wonderful West. But a strange blindness seems to have fallen upon us in regard to future conditions. We have three transcontinental railways, over which we bring down our products to our ports on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and yet we are dependent upon, and seem content to be dependent for all time upon, other nations for the carrying of these products upon the sea. And, if the destruction of our merchant marine that goes on to-day is maintained for any considerable length of time, in addition to danger that we shall be unable to find means of transportation for the food supplies needed by those at the seat of war, there will be very serious effects in lowering the ex.por-

tation of the products which it is necessary that we .should dispose of in the world's markets in order to maintain the economic strength of the country which is essential in view of the great obligations we have assumed.
I would like the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell me why we cannot do that which Great Britain has done, is doing, and is going to do. I would like him to tell me why we cannot do what the United States has done, is doing, and is going to do. Has the genius of the people down by the sea from which my right hon. friend ('Sir George Foster) himself has sprung, completely gone so that the young men are no longer to look forward to a career upon the sea in vessels constructed upon Canadian soil? It seeihs to me that cannot be so. We should do what other nations are doing, having regard to our financial capacity having regard to the obligations we have assumed, and having regard to the duty that rests upon us to relieve Great Britain, as far .as we can of the necessity of the defence of Canada. Why should it be necessary for Great Britain to take from the North Sea a single destroyer or cruiser and send her to this side escorting the transports containing our men, or the supplies that we send across the Atlantic? We should have thought of this, we should have prepared for it. I engage in no recrimination as to the mistakes of the past; I do not wish to discuss the question from that standpoint, but only from the standpoint of the serious duty that is thrown upon us as Canadians to play our part now, even if we failed to play it before. Had we started a year ago, we should not now be worrying about the submarines being dangerous. We should not now, as a proud nation, be awaiting word of what course the United States intends to take in these matters. We are glad of their noble and generous assistance in this war; but the spirit of our people calls for leadership here, calls for a clear conception of our own duty, and demands that there should be no further delay in taking such action as will provide for our own defence, and will also supply the deficiencies in our merchant marine caused by the sinking every day of some of our ships. I submit that the great danger that threatens our nation, and through us the cause of the Allies, calls upon us imperatively to act now, if we have not acted before. It is not too late to begin. The Government should outline a programme of a generous char-

acter which would enable us, first, to produce steel plates in Canada. Pending their production, and so as to avoid even short delay, plates should be brought from the United States. We should proceed immediately with the construction of smaller vessels of the trawler type, which are said to be of the greatest possible assistance to the navy-"the eyes of the navy" they are called. We should build the submarines for the defence of Canada on the Atlantic coast. We should proceed with the construction of torpedo boat destroyers. We should provide for the manufacture on our eastern sea-coast of naval aeroplanes, which would enable us to use for our own protection that wonderful new discovery. We should have a comprehensive scheme to make up for losses in our merchant marine, and to lay the foundation of a merchant marine suitable for our future needs. These things seem to be lessons that one naturally and apparently draws from noting the conditions that exist in other parts of the Empire. Shall the Government act? The duty seems to me to be one which they cannot escape. I believe that they must have appreciated that they should have acted a year ago, or should have acted long before that. Notwithstanding that, let us act now; let us act boldly and promptly, let us act in such a way that it will be said of us that we have at last attempted to fulfil our duty to the great cause with which we are associated in the face of this menace which threatens us and all the allied nations.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E J.):: Mr. Speaker, a stranger listening to the remarks made by the hon. member for Piotou (Mr. Macdonald) would imagine that Canada has done nothing in this war. I believe the opinion of the thinking men of this country is that Canada has done everything within her means.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not discuss the question of our assistance to the cause of the Allies upon land at all. I confined myself to the question of what we should do with regard to the submarine menace.


Angus Alexander McLean: The accusation which the hon. gentleman has made is more injurious to the cause which he is attempting to forward than I thought at first. The submarine is a menace on the other side of the water, and, to a certain extent, a menace on this side, and I think the people of the Maritime Provinces should appreciate the fact that it may be a great menace to that
part of Canada. But it is not submarines that we want down there; it is boats to repel submarines. We want protection on land and we want protection on sea, but we do not want submarines. Take, for instance, the different ports in the Maritime Provinces. Some of the remarks which the hon. gentleman has made are very appropriate and proper and the Government should take heed of the warning so as to give protection to every great port in the Maritime Provinces at which large quantities of gasolene, kerosene and other materials are stored. Take, for instance, the ports of Charlottetown and Pietou. Charlottetown is a distributing centre for the^. Imperial Oil Company. We have guns there and we have gunners, but we have not the guns placed and it would be easy enough for a submarine to come into the city of Charlottetown and replenish her fuel. The same would apply to Souris, Georgetown, Pietou and many other ports in Nova Scotia and the lower Gulf of St. Lawrence. But I want to remind the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp) that plans were sent to him last year, accompanied by the suggestion that these guns should be mounted at different places along the coast in order that if any submarines should come they would be in a position to repel them. Supposing one of these submarines should come into the city of Charlottetown; we have no protection there whatever. We have seven or eight banks there in which large quantities of money are on deposit, and I think it would be an appalling disaster to the business interests of that part of the country if a submarine came there and attacked and looted these banks. I would therefore direct the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact that immediate steps should be taken to have the guns at the disposal of the department, and which are lying idle in the city of Charlottetown, placed in a position so that the attack of a submarine could be repelled. This is not a matter which should be left because we saw last year, as the hon. member for Pietou has stated, submarines coming to the city of New York, and vessels being sunk off the American coast. The same thing has happened this year and I think the Government should take timely warning and have men and guns placed at all the ports where the supplies of these submarines could be replenished. I have no further remarks to make on this subject because I think I have made a sufficient statement when I

say that the Government should take immediate steps to remedy the neglect, not only of this Government but of past Governments, in not manning and protecting the different ports of the Atlantic and lower gulf border.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. A. A. McLean) has evidently become converted to the views of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in regard to the necessity of a Canadian navy. If there is danger of the capital city of this province being attacked by submarines, I wish to tell him that the protection against submarines is destroyers, and if he and his party had voted, as they should have done in 1912, to adopt the policy of the late Government, he would be quite safe, in the city of Charlottetown and on the Atlantic coast in regard to this menace. I did not understand that my hon. friend from Pic-tou (Mr. Macdonald) was expecting to extract any promise from the other side of the House in regard to commencing the work of building up a Canadian navy. Instead he referred rather to the necessity of mercantile ships to meet the menace of the submarines and the destruction of tonnage at the present time. I think that was the main purpose of my hon. friend from Pictou in bringing this to the attention of the House. We all understand that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are pledged against doing anything in the way of a Canadian navy. As long as they maintain that position it would be idle for us to endeavour to persuade them that it would be a proper course to take. But, everybody admits that at the present time there is great danger in the scarcity of tonnage to carry the products of this country to the battlefields of Europe and to feed the millions of people over there who are unable to produce enough to feed themselves. If it is true that 300,000 tons of shipping is sunk in one week, that loss must be met or else the end must come and the jcon-sequences will be that the Germans must win. That is the last card that our enemies are playing and the last hope they have is that they will be able to destroy the mercantile tonnage of the Allies so that they will be able to starve out England and her Allies and the war will end in that way. That is the hope that they have, and that is what they are striving for at the present time. It is up to the Canadian people to do something to meet that difficulty. Are we content to allow the United States to do

everything? We are told that immediately after the United States threw in their lot with the Allies in this war, the Government of the United States made up their minds that they would build a thousand wooden ships of a standard pattern. The reason is plain why they have selected wood and why they have adopted the idea of a standard ship. A standard ship can be constructed much more rapidly and cheaply than a great variety of different kinds of ships.
Once a model is made that will toe satisfactory for all the ships of the series, the one model will do, the one specification for wood will serve, the one type of marine engine, the one type of boiler, and the yards and shops of the country could, by obtaining a blueprint get to work to produce that particular kind of ship. That appears to be the idea that is abroad in the United States, and it looks to me like a practical one. It is rapid production of ships that they are after there,, and the question for Canada is: Are we willing that the American flag shall alone be seen on the seas and that the Canadian flag shall disappear? Are we too proud, if I may put it that way, to allow all this, to be done by the United States? We are a maritime people in this country. We are accustomed to sea life. We, have succeeded, well in building wooden ships in the past, and if it is necessary to revive the construction of wooden'ships as a war emergency measure just now, why should not Canada take * a hand in it? That is the way it strikes me, and it is up to the Government of Canada to give us a lead in regard to this important matter. It wonld hardly be expected that private enterprise would embark on the construction of wooden ships. Everybody knows that wooden ships were discarded- a good many years ago, because it was found that the steel ship was more economical; in fact, there were many reasons why steel was adopted in place of wood, and in normal times a return will be made to steel construction. If we build wooden ships now it is only to meet the emergency before us-, and we can build them in Canada. I have no doubt that there is ample wood in Canada with which to construct wooden ships, and we can build them as quickly as they can be built in the United States, if we are assisted, as we ought to be assisted, by the Government. The question o.f financing the construction of those ships, I suppose, is the main question. That is a question that ought to be

dealt with by the Government. There are two ways of doing it. The Government could let the contracts, build the ships themselves, and own them, which would perhaps be the neatest and best way to deal with the question; or they could, under some system that might be worked out, guarantee private owners that they would not lose their capital if they embarked in the construction of wooden ships for the purpose of meeting the present emergency. If the ships are necessary as a war measure, the Government ought to build them. We are calling on the farmers of Canada to increase their production, and I have no doubt they will strain every nerve to meet the call made on them and that production will be largely increased. One of the main objects in increasing production is, not to feed ourselves, because we would have ample food for ourselves provided we went along as before; our main purpose is that we may be able to contribute something to the food supplies of our Allies across the water. It is of first importance that we should have tonnage to carry it over; to-day this question is more important even than the manufacture of munitions. The Allies have succeeded in reference to the big guns and ammunition. It is stated by authorities on the other side that we have now the absolute control in artillery at the front, that we have won so far as that is concerned; that is, we are better equipped than our opponents are. I have no doubt that on the question of munitions the difficulty has been solved, and that if Canada stopped her manufacture of munitions the war could still be carried on successfully. I suppose that is true. But this is a matter in which we can help. The construction of ships is right in our line, and it might be that the Government would not lose any money by undertaking the construction of these ships. The chances are that after the war is over there will be a great oall for tonnage for several years to come. Millions of tons have been sunk and likely much more will be sunk before the war is decided, and, if so, tonnage will be very scarce and very costly. It might be that the Government could embark in the construction of one hundred ships of a standard pattern and put them into trade, and that within a couple of years after the war they might get out without losing a dollar. I think it is possible that would be the case. It is a little courage and administrative ability that we want to deal with this question.
It is up to the Minister of Trade and Commerce to find a solution of this problem. I do not think our people will be satisfied that we should depend altogether on the United States in regard to this matter. The Canadian people will expect the Government to give a lead, and make it possible to use our own ship yards to produce a certain amount of. tonnage to help in the present crisis, and my opinion is that if we do less than that we shall not be doing our duty.


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, we all, I think, agree that Canada has done a good deal towards helping the Allies in the present world crisis, so far as sending our brave boys overseas is concerned; but I think it is quite apparent to us a'l that Canada and Canadians nave not done so much on the sea as we should have done, and not so much as is expected of what might be termed a semi-maritime nation. I do not think it was the purpose of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who introduced this resolution, that it should be any criticism on the Militia Department for the way in which they have carried on their work during the present war. The Militia Department does not enter into this at all. I think the thanks of this House are due to the hon. member for Pictou for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Personally I consider it an emergency matter, and a matter with which the Government should grapple immediately. Two years ago, about this time, I had the pleasure of saying a few words in the House on the same subject, introduced also on that occasion by the hon. member for Pictou. Almost every member in the House at that time took an active part in the debate, and all were inclined to the opinion that Canada should do something towards ship building, towards equipping the shipyards, and that the Canadian Government should, in a measure, finance some such project. The great emergency, as I understand it to-day, the great menace to the success of the Allies, is the work of the submarine as it has been carried on for the past three or four months; as a matter of fact, carried on for the past year or so. There is no doubt in the world that Great Britain with her navy is doing a wonderful work in combatting the destruction by the submarine, but it seems that since the month of January of this year the destruc-

tion wrought by the under-water craft is such as to more or less frustrate the measures which had hitherto been taken by the British navy. The British navy in this war has, of course, proved itself the wonder of the world, as was pointed out in a previous speech. The German navy is practically bottled up around the Kiel canal. The flag of Germany has been brushed off the seas. British commerce, apart from the submarine menace, is free to come and go, and all of this is due to the British navy. Personally I was never so proud of being a British citizen and a British subject as on the morning when we steamed into Liverpool harbour, surrounded by four submarine destroyers, which, like wasps, circulated around the bows of the ship in which were eight thousand Canadians. I never was so proud of being a British subject as I was on that morning. It was splendid to hear thousands of Canadian voices about 8 o'clock in the morning sing " Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves." Notwithstanding the fact that German commerce has been swept from the seas by the British navy and that the British navy and British genius has been most successful in combatting this menace, it is borne in upon the British people, as upon the rest of the world, that the menace has now reached such proportions that it cannot be successfully combatted by the ordinary means adopted by the British people and their Allies. Britain felt a month ago that there was a possibility of the submarine menace effecting the starvation of the British people. The shipbuilding interests of Great Britain were implored to rush the building of ships as they never did before, in order that vessels might be sent upon the seas to fake the place of the commerce carriers which had been destroyed. They were doing all this, but Lloyd George came to the conclusion that there was another, and, perhaps, a more effective remedy. He stated in the House of Commons that England would never be starved by German submarines, because England had the remedy in her own hands: that of growing sufficient food to maintain her own population. While that may be within the range of possibility, the Tesult might be an impairing of the efficiency of Great Britain's fighting forces. If Great Britain undertakes to feed her civilian and military population she will have to withdraw large numbers of soldiers and put them on the soil, thus rendering 	I j , f
less efficient the forces with which she is combatting the efforts of the Germans on the western front. I understand that there is in Canada a large amount of surplus grain which it is almost impossible to convey across the Atlantic under present conditions. I say, without any political prejudice, that the Government is deserving of criticism for not having tackled this problem two years ago. The matter was brought to their attention not only by members on this side of the House, but also by gentlemen of high standing in their own party. The matter was then argued not from a political standpoint, but from the standpoint of national interest. There was no political bitterness or prejudice in the discussion which took place in the House two years ago last March or April, and it looked then as if something would be done. The matter may have been under consideration by the Government, but so far as we can see, that is all. No doubt there are difficulties in the way of rendering effective assistance to shipbuilding in Canada in order to supply means of conveying our foodstuffs to the old land, but I have no doubt the bon. gentleman who leads the House will enlighten those who do not know the workings of the Government as to whether or not something will be done. I think it is fair to say that the Government is justly subject to at least a mild form of criticism, not only for not having taken this subject up two years ago, but also for not doing something substantial to turn out ships in Canada, which would be of immense importance to the Allies in the winning of the war. I do not believe that any of ns know exactly the extent of the destruction that has been wrought by the German submarines upon British, .allied and neutral commerce, but we do know enough to realize that the menace is a most dangerous one and to have a clear conception of what our duty is in the premises. Apparently there is only one way of overcoming the disadvantage incurred by the sinking of so many. vessels, and that is by furnishing a new vessel to take the place of every one that is destroyed. I am happy to say that while the discussion of this matter was proceeding, news was flashed across the wires to the effect that 13 Austrian submarines had been destroyed in the Mediterranean Sea. That is evidence of the fact that Britain and her allies are not asleep and that they are effecting by torpedo boats and other contrivances the destruction of many enemy submarines. Although up to>
January of the present year Britain had been comparatively successful in combatting the attempts of the submarines to starve her people, yet the danger of the menace now stares us in the face and one of the principal things (being discussed toy the allies to-day, including our new ally, the United States, is how further to overcome this difficulty-and the way seems to be by means of supplying a large number of vessels. The Government of this country should do something. Perhaps they are doing something; perhaps they are going to do something, but I do not think they will blame us if we urge them to quicker action. This danger mu6t have been foreseen, and steps should have been taken to subsidize, if you will, the building of ships in Canada. I feel that all Canadians are willing and anxious to assist the allies in every possible way, tout the question is, are we doing it? Are we rendering every possible assistance to Great Britain in the way of getting our surplus supplies of foodstuffs across the ocean? I think, Sir, that we are not, and I feel certain that the Canadian people generally are of the same opinion.
The hon. member for Pictou said that the securing of a supply of steel plate would be a difficulty in connection with the building of steel ships. I think that difficulty would continue only a short time. When steel shipbuilding is established in Canada and we have large steel works on the Atlantic seaboard, those steel works, if they see an opportunity of obtaining a market for their steel plate, will undoubtedly establish mills and put in apparatus to enable them to manufacture the necessary steel plate to fill the void which we feel at the present time. Of course, we can get steel plate from the United States, but the United States may have more demand for it than they can supply in the near future. If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Prime Minister will take the matter up with our steel works with a view to seeing that some tangible efforts shall be made with a view to pushing along the construction of ships, they will have a flood of steel plates in this country, and I have no doubt in the world that not only loyalty to the cause of the Allies, but the matter of business will force the manufacturers of steel in this country so to equip their factories that they will have no difficulty in manufacturing this particular article. In passing, I might say -and I have no doubt that this has come to the attention of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House at the present time (Sir George Foster)-that the Government of the province from which I come has taken up the question and has appointed a commission into whose hands it has given the sum of two or three million dollars to encourage and assist shipbuilding in the Maritime Provinces. If my recollection serves me aright, the provincial Government of Nova Scotia was going to give the privilege to the Dominion Government of naming one of the members of that commission. Although I am not quite sure, I think there was some talk of that a short time ago in the province of Nova Scotia, so that it might be worth while for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or whoever is looking after the Department of Marine and Fisheries at the present time, to take up this question with the Government of the province of Nova Scotia.
The matter was also taken up of an aeroplane station on the Atlantic seaboard. I understand that we have three aeroplane stations and perhaps three aeroplane schools in Canada, one of them on the Pacific coast and two in the province of Ontario. While that is all right and while we desire to congratulate the Government on their efforts in that regard, the province of Ontario and the rest of the centre of Canada are not in the same position to-day as regards the menace we are discussing as are the Pacific coast and the Altantic coast. There is an aeroplane station on the Pacific coast; there is none on the Atlantic. I did hear some rumblings and whisperings a few months ago to the effect that the British authorities were desirous of having this country establish and equip an aeroplane station on the Atlantic seaboard somewhere on the island of Cape Breton. I do not know whether or not that report is correct, and I do not know whether or not the matter has ever come to the attention of the Government, but the authority from which I got the information seemed to be fairly good and fairly truthful, and perhaps the matter is under the consideration of the Government at the present time. Outside of the Pacific coast and British Columbia, there is no place where an aeroplane station would do so much good and where the necessity - is so apparent as it is on the Atlantic seaboard. Let us take Sydney harbour and Louisburg. Louisburg harbour is the winter shipping port of the Dominion Steel 'Company and the Dominion Coal Company; it is an open port and is one of the best harbours in the world, notwithstanding the fact that it is not very well equipped for general commerce outside of the shipping of coal and steel. On the shores of Sydney

harbour are the steel works of the great steel corporation. These are two industries which are vital to the welfare of the country, and it is very necessary that they should be successful in their output both of coal and steel. I consider, therefore, that an aeroplane station and a few torpedo boats in that section of the country will be a wise precaution if we are going to have any maritime'defence in 'Canada, although let us hope that they may not be required either in this war or in any wars to come. As regards the equipping of an aeroplane station, this section of the country has many advantages. It has the advantage, fust of all, of being in a district where coal and steel are, comparatively speaking, cheap at the present time and where labour is not dear. There are also two Marconi stations near at hand, one at Louisiburg and the other in the town of Glace Bay, so that an aeroplane station there is very necessary. While it is quite right to have aeroplane schools and to construct aeroplanes in Ontario, the point which I wish to make is this: that the present submarine menace does not materially or directly affect the interior of the country; it is the seaboard we have to look after at present. If the Government give this question of an aeroplane station in Cape Breton their attention, they will certainly arrive at the same conclusion as the British authorities have arrived at, that is, that an aeroplane station there, if not actually necessary, would be a wise precaution. I am not arguing the point because of the fact that I happen for the moment to represent that particular district, and I hope my hon. friends will do me justice in accepting my statement. My position, of course, may lend a certain stimulus to me in arguing the matter; but I am arguing it purely from a national standpoint and I think I have in my possession sufficient knowledge and sufficient facts to warrant me in saying that the British authorities were of the opinion that it would be a great thing, not only for a national defence but for the defence of the Empire, if steps were taken to establish an aeroplane station somewhere in the island of Cape Breton.


George Eulas Foster: Is my hon. friend advocating an aeroplane station or a hydroplane station for Oape Breton island?


William F. Carroll: Probably a hydroplane station would be the better. That, of course, is a matter that experts would have

to decide. I am not an expert in either branch myself. We shall not, however, quarrel on that phase .of the subject.


George Eulas Foster: The distinction is a very important one.


William F. Carroll: Perhaps I have taken up more time than I intended when I started to speak on this very important subject. I feel that a fair discussion should take place on it and I feel that the Government will not be doing their duty unless they take the matter up in an energetic manner and do something tangible that will tend to offset the menace with whicn the cause of tiie Empire and of the Allies is threatened at the present time.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one remark on this subject. I have already expressed my opinion in this. House as to the construction of all possible ships, and at this late hour, Canada in conjunction with the United States can not build too many transports and commercial ships.
Every time I see a report that one of our ships has been sunk by a submarine I regret that the ship has gone to the bottom, but I still more deeply regret the food that has gone down with her. If the Germans increase their submarine activities it may be that after a certain length of time we shall be left without ships to transport our food. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down has drawn attention to the fact that during the last three weeks thirteen Austrian submarines have been sunk in the Mediterranean by the Italian navy. Great Britain and the United States are combatting the submarine not only by replacing the ships that are lost, but by directly destroying the submarines themselves by means of destroyers of all kinds. If the view of my right hon. leader in 1911, that small vessels and destroyers should be built in this country, had been acted upon, it would have been of immense value in meeting the attacks of the German submarines. Italy is the best equipped of all the Allied navies, in proportion to her total strength, in the matter of small destroyers of all kinds. The war has shown that vessels of this kind are most important. While I would urge the Canadian Government to do everything possible in the way of building merchant ships, both steel and wood, they should also build destroyers to attack the submarines. It is quite possible that more good would be done by sinking ten or twelve submarines

than by building an equal number of commercial vessels to replace the tonnage that has been sunk. My purpose in rising was to call the attention of the acting Prime Minister to this very important consideration.
Mr. D- D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):	The question that is before us
to-day is by no means a new one, and if it had been discussed this afternoon in an acrimonious partisan way, I do not think I should have taken part in the discussion, as I would regard the time as inopportune for discussing a question of this great importance from the standpoint of paTty politics. I am glad that every hon. gentleman who has spoken on the question this afternoon has avoided as much as possible the introduction of keen party spirit. I was pleased and proud to hear the very able speech of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). We have heard him often on various questions, but I do not know that I ever heard him to better advantage than this afternoon. It is true to say that I never before heard the question of naval affairs .so ably presented in this House except on one occasion, the speech on that particular occasion transcended everything that has ever been heard in this House or perhaps ever will be. The honour and glory of putting the case in that admirable way belongs to the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Government (Sir George Foster). On the 29th of March 1909 we heard him present this case in a way that could not be excelled, and this afternoon I wish to remind him-I say remind, because Paul when writing to some of his people was so delicate and careful in his language that he did not like to say they were bad, so he simply reminded them that there were certain things which they had acknowledged and of their duty in that regard-I simply wish to remind the right hon. gentleman of that celebrated and famous speech of his, perhaps the best in his career of many able speeches, in which he laid down the principles which actuated himself and which should actuate the Government in regard to naval affairs. If the Government of which he is a distinguished member would only carry out in a small way the principle.! which he then advocated my hon. friend from Pictou and the rest of us would be amply rewarded for any efforts we have made this afternoon. It is quite unnecessary for me to take up any time in pointing out the necessity for some action being taken. The 85
necessity lias been clearly demonstrated; indeed, it was not necessary for it to be demonstrated, fox we all knew it. The hon. member for Pictou did not bring this matter up to-day, and we are not making these speeches, because we think there is anybody in this country who does not fully realize the great necessity of taking steps to protect this country. Our object is simply to stir up the Government to speedy action.
It may be said, although I do not think it is strong ground to take now, that the Government might fear adverse criticism from this side of the House, but we are disarming ourselves by throwing everything into the pot, -so to speak, -and giving to the Government the full weight and authority of whatever arguments we put forward, and our sympathy and support of any action taken by them along this line. As I said before, this is not a new question. When the present Minister of Naval Affairs addressed this House for the first time as a member of the present Government he said, speaking on this very question (Hansard Nov. 22, 1911):
I think the people of this country will approve of the action of this Government in hesitating before rushing hastily into a policy which must involve an expenditure of so many million dollars every year. I think they will appreciate the course of this Government in doing what was stated by the Prime Minister in his admirable speech in reply to the right hon. leader of the Opposition, when he said it was the intention of the Government to consider with the English Admiralty this whole naval question -from first to last. When we have done that, I think we will be able to come before this House and this country with a policy that will appeal to all Canadians as a policy that will he the best for the people of Canada and the best in the interest of the Empire in which we live.
That is getting -to be quite a while ago now. That speech was delivered on the 22nd d-ay of November, 1911, when there was no war in sight. The Minister of Naval Affairs said that the matter was under consideration, that they were going to take it up with the British Admiralty, and that a policy would be evolved that would be satisfactory to the Canadian people. I am impelled to say that in at least on-e respect this Government bears a semblance of divine grace, for on-e day is to them as a thousand years, and a thousand years but as one day. They were going to start immediately. But now it i-s pretty well on to six years since this plan was made, and there is not a ripple upon the surface to indicate any action on their part. I hope this debate



will be the means of stirring them up. I realize that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is not here, that the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Hazen) is not here. Still, we have an Administration and "the King's business must go on." I trust that the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) and the Acting Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Reid), knowing that there will be no opposition to any proper action on their part, will take courage, will gird up their loins, and will do. something for the protection of the country and the advancement of our merchant marine.
How this shall be done is a matter for these hon. gentlemen to propose. I would suggest that we have in this country great concerns that, war or no war, will require many ships, and that it might be a good plan to associate these concerns with the Government in shipbuilding. Take, for instance, the Canadian Pacific Railway. The great transportation requirements of that concern make it necessary for them to use many ships. If they could be induced to undertake shipbuilding in this country, with the capital at their command, the facilities they enjoy and their great connections, their co-operation would be of the greatest advantage, and their interest in the matter would be a guarantee that, war or no war, the vessels would be used. There is in my own county and in that of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) a great concern, the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, Ltd. They require a great number of ships, and if the Government could enlist their co-operation in shipbuilding it would be a great advantage to the country. Another company which has its headquarters in Sydney Harbour is the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, which is much in the same position, and which is now actually engaged in building ships. It is not as large a concern as the others I have mentioned, but a large concern nevertheless, and the men connected with it are men of vision in the affairs of the country. But, even should these people refuse to engage in this business, we have money of our own, and this Parliament is ready to vote for these purposes any reasonable sum. We have plenty of talent in Canada to enable us to build these ships. I understand that in Montreal-there is already a shipyard which can turn out destroyers. The minister should take the full power of that concern for our own purposes, so far as the naval part of it is concerned.
As to wooden shipbuilding, every creek and cove along the Atlantic coast in New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia is a potential shipyard, and shipbuilding in these places can be encouraged. The Government of Nova Scotia is starting in that direction, and I hope that this Government will cooperate with them or any other provincial government that will move effectively along business lines in this important matter. I trust that the Government will be stimulated to such action as will result in the solution of this problem so far as our own interests are concerned and will enable ns to give assistance to the Empire which shall be a worthy expression of the ambition and pride of Canadians.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: It is universally admitted that we face a crisis in the history of the world and a crisis in the history of Canada because of the scarcity of ships. While present conditions exist our trans-Atlantic trade will be injured, and our interprovincial trade as well. One factor that has caused scarcity of Canadian shipping is the Norwegian-built and Norwegian-manned ship which for many years has received and is still receiving all the privileges of our coasting trade while not subject to restrictions put upon British and Canadian ships. For instance, British ships that are condemned can be purchased by Norwegians, they can be manned more cheaply, and outfitted more cheaply in Norway than in Britain or in Canada, and they are given all the coasting privileges of this country. The competition of these vessels has been so keen that the Canadian flag has been practically driven off the water. That should have been prevented, or at least considered. But now
5 p.m. we are confronted with a condition under which our transatlantic trade and our interprovincial trade will be handicapped unless the scarcity of ships is remedied. And it seems to me that this cannot be remedied under present circumstances unless the Government comes to the assistance either of corporations or private concerns which take up the building of ships. The Newfoundland Government has grappled with this question. There was a scarcity of shipping there such as in Canada. I understand that the Government there is giving a bonus of $20 a ton on wooden ships. And it is stated by those who have some knowledge of this subject that $20 a ton bonus would be sufficient to induce men with capital, men of experience, to undertake the building of wooden vessels in the Maritime Provinces. Years ago, the industry of building wooden

ships was a very important one in the Maritime Provinces, but owing to conditions which I need not mention, for they are known to everybody, wooden ships practically disappeared from the seas, except ships flying the Norwegian flag.
At present, and while the war is on, the Government, no doubt, has to consider carefully the ways and means. I have a suggestion to make on that point which may be worthy of consideration. The Government has now oh the Order Paper notice of a Bill standing in the name of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) "An Act to encourage and assist the improvement of highways." I understand that it is the intention of the Government to appropriate $10,000,000 for this purpose. That, I think, is a matter that is not nearly so pressing at this time as the construction of ships. I think it will be a contentious and controversial measure.
I doubt the propriety of the Government introducing highly controversial legislation at this time and under the prevailing circumstances. If the Government would devote to shipbuilding the $10,000,000 proposed to be spent under this Act, if it is passed, it would meet with the general approval of the House and the people of Canada. If $20 a ton is sufficient to attract capital, skill and labour, in the colony of Newfoundland, perhaps a similar amount would he sufficient to attract capital, labour and machinery for the construction of ships in this country. I say that $20 a ton would build 500,000 tons of shipping, a very considerable quantity, that would probably meet all the needs of Canada for some years to come. The question of building standardized ships for ocean transportation, of course, would have to be considered and would likely be considered in connection with this subject. But the question of building smaller ships that could take part in the inteTprovineial trade, which is just as important as the trans-Atlantic trade and should not be overlooked. The building of smaller ships would establish ian important industry and these ships would be useful as feeders to the trans-Atlantic trade. The industry would not only give employment to the mechanics who were building the ships, but employment to the carrying trade which at the present time is in a serious position in the Maritime Provinces. We have not the ships or the coasting schooners to-day to do the trade which is so essential in that part of the country. It is going to be a serious matter for the people living along the coast, where there is no railway
85j
communication, to carry on the ordinary business of the country. It is certainly a matter that the Government should take into consideration. The amount necessary to meet the conditions is well within the resources of Canada. I would again urge upon the Government the advisability of considering whether or not this more pressing need might not be taken in hand before they proceed with the Highways Bill which stands on the Order Paper. I wished to make these remarks on this question because it is the most pressing question which Canada has to face to-day, and a most important question to the whole of Canada, and particularly to the people who dwell upon the coast, of British Columbia and the Maritime Provinces. I hope the Government will make an announcement on this subject.


The Rt Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Piiotou (Mr. Macdonald) has certainly taken generous advantage of the provision, of the rules of the House under which he has made the motion. I do not think I would be travelling outside of the record if I stated that this particular rule wae framed for the purpose of giving facility for discussing on sudden emergencies very urgent questions, which the ordinary leisurely rules of the House would not permit. I do not think it was ewer meant that this rule was ito be used as a channel by which discussions were to be brought on without regular notice, upon subjects of general policy such as this, and which hare been before the House again and again and again. The statement of my hon. friend'-I aim just making this criticism by way of commencement-upon which; he gets his opportunity to address the House; and initiate this discussion is that he desires :
-to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the menace to national interests by the German submarine campaign and the necessity of meeting it, and what Canada should do to deal with the situation.
On any fair interpretation of the rule, that would mean that there had rapidly developed in the mind of my hon. friend such urgency in reference to submarine warfare that he could not wait on the general rule which allows debate in the ordinary parliamentary way. In so far as my hon. friend kept himself to the discussion of the submarine peril, and to what we should do to grapple with it and destroy it, he was entirely within intention of the rule he

invoked, and so far I have no objection to
find.
But this is really a very delicate question to launch into the House for general discussion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) says that such-and-such is in peril; that we are doing nothing to counteract it, or, he asks: What are you doing to counteract it? To defend ourselves against such an attack, I would have to detail to the House just exactly what has been and what is being done, which, of course, it is impossible to do if we are to exercise common-sense prudence in this war time. One hon. gentleman opposite detailed to the House that there were certain localities in the Maritime Provinces where there was absolutely no protection, and where there are banks filled with money. The Kaiser has long ears, as it has not taken the world three years to discover. He gets information, and so do his minions, all the world over. If you should make sufficient answer to the man who tells you that this is a peril and that you have done nothing against it, you would have to say just where the strong points are and what they are, and thus advertise to the German Government that these are the points that they have to avoid; or if one points out that there are defenceless places which could be easily attacked, the German Government would be very glad to know. Their submarines sail under the sea, they are hidden from human ken, and information of this kind would doubtless help them in the effectiveness of their operations.
So that it is a delicate matter to take into a legislature. Much criticism has been made in Britain-some of it perhaps fairly just, much of it certainly unjust-as to the amount of publicity which should be given to those matters, and there have been heated discussions on it in the Houses of Parliament and outside. But that there is danger in public revelations of what is being done, no member opposite will deny. If I understood my hon. friend, his plea was that the transports for troops and munitions and food provisions that went from Canada were in peril because there was not sufficient provision for defence against possible disaster from submarines; and if I caught one sentence of his aright, it was to the effect that these transports went over without being properly convoyed. Now, not a transport has left a Canadian port which has not been under the supervision, under the direction, under the ^guidance of the British Admiralty, from
I Sir George Foster.]
the time it started until it reached its destination, and the British Admiralty commands the greatest naval force and facilities of any country in the world, as great as almost all other countries combined. It is not fair to create the impression amongst the people of the country, a great many of whom naturally enough do not have the facilities for understanding these questions, that our troops and our supplies for the troops are really passing across the sea in peril and ungarded because the Canadian Government has not done thus and so. My hon. friend speaks about the Deutschland having come over to this side of the ocean. We all know that there are possibilities. The U boat of the present time is a wonderful ingenious machine of great power and of wide scope as to the zone of its operations. It is a peril, but nobody will, deny that the peril of the submarine has up to the present been and even at the present time is mainly on the other side of the Atlantic and not on this side, so that the defensive and offensive machinery against the submarine have been put into force where they are moist effective and are most largely called for. There is a peril on this side of the Atlantic, but if. is a possible peril rather than an extremely probable one, and it is one which, if probable, is not at all the serious peril that it is on the other side of the Atlantic. I can not go into detail because it would not be wise to do so, although I know that some will say: "Oh, that is a subterfuge." It is not meant as a subterfuge at all. I am absolutely honest in making that statement. It is impossible for me or for any member of the Government to go into the matter before the House and to show to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) and the other members of the House just what has been done and what is being done in order to protect our Atlantic coast from the peril of the submarine, probable only although it be.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does this statement relate to what is done by this Government or by the British Government?


George Eulas Foster: In this matter the Canadian Government does not feel that it is incumbent on it to look after the whole naval protection of this side of the Atlantic ocean any more than it feels that it is incumbent on it to look after all the land forces and power necessary to secure a successful conclusion of the war. It does not arrogate to itself that duty. It works in conjunction and complete and close



Jl, 1917

[Stage Direction]
unity with the Government of Great Britain, and the naval and military authorities of Great Britain; and every step that we have taken, and every step that we have avoided, has been taken or avoided after consultation with and on the advice of the British Government, through its admiralty and navy. My hon. friend need not be in too much trepidation as to what has been done and is now being done and will be done for the protection of these coasts. I can not go into particulars, but I may say to my hon. friend that to-day every ship-yard in the Dominion of Canada which is able to build ships and has an equipment therefor, has not only the opportunity but has the actual contract for building every craft that it can possibly build; that to-day the building of vessels in this country for the specific purpose of warding off and fighting against the submarine peril is engaging the activities, is employing the labour, and is being carried out by the supervision of the ship yards in this country. The statement I made a moment ago covers the whole ground.
As to wooden ships, an arrangement is now completed and is being carried out whereby anybody or any company that can undertake in 'a bona fide way to build wooden ships and tc deliver them within a certain time, will get the opportunity of building the ships ajid will be assured that the ship will pay for the cost of construction, with a reasonable profit. That is being done along the line of the co-operation that I have spoken of. We are working together, in and in with each other. These ships and vessels-let me be perfectly frank about it-are being financed in the main by British capital but they are being helped as well by the Dominion Government, and the operative work is being done by 'Canadian labour under Canadian supervision. So if the position is taken that the problem of meeting the submarine peril includes the finding of finished ships to fill the shortage of tonnage that has been caused by the submarine destruction, we can say that everything is being done that can be done in Canada to-day, taking into account possible labour, possible material, and ship building equipment. Every ship that can be made in Canada is being constructed as rapidly as possibly can be in order to help to fill the shortage of tonnage caused by the submarine destruction-If what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) is looking for in the first place is, that, the submarine peril shall 'be met and
grappled with, then it is being met and grappled with. If what the hon. gentleman has in his mind is that, if the submarine continues to put a large number of ships to the bottom, the shortage shall be made good as speedily as possible-that is being grappled with. It will be met by the construction of British ships with British money, many of which are being built to-day and will be built this year and next year in Canada.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are they to be Canadian registry ships, or are they not?


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend is acute and shrewd. There was no need for that question, because I said as ex-plicity as the King's English could put it that these ships were being built by British capital.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then you are not
doing anything in the matter of building: ships.


George Eulas Foster: Whom does the hon. gentleman mean by "you"?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Government.


George Eulas Foster: What is the
special anxiety o.f my hon. friend? Is it as to the work which he says he wants done, being done under British capital expenditure, and in British dominions, of which this country is one? Is that what he is after when he looks upon conditions resulting from the submarine war and expresses a desire that its ravages shall be repaired? If that isi what he is afteT, be has a sufficient answer-that is being done. Or does he want to launch the accusation against the Canadian Government that they aTe not putting their own money into this; that they are not doing it with theiT own particular means? Does he say: I acknowledge that that accusation, even if well founded, has been fully met by provision for reparation to the extent that we can make it with British capital in this country, but I want to make a case against the Government itself and so it does not satisfy me that the void is being filled; I want it filled by you, and because you do not fill it, I shall have a grievance. He asks for leadership. Is the member for Pictou a heaven-born leader? Is he erecting himself into a naval and military critic who knows more about what ought to be done on this coast with aeroplanes, with submarines, and with all the machinery for coast protection, than do the British Admiralty, with their brave and

skilful officers, and with their centuries of experience? My hon. friend may be justified from a party point of view, but hon. gentlemen will have observed that he told us he started out with the idea of saying nothing in a partisan spirit. It was his immense apprehension of the submarine peril and his immense desire that that peril should be met and that the vacuum of ravage should be filled up, which induced him to make the representations that he did. Now he is not satisfied; he wants to know why another fellow did not take the necessary steps rather than the fellow who is doing it.
I do not know that I ought to go any further, because this is not the time for a debate upon the commercial marine of Canada. I frankly acknowledge that it is a fair subject for discussion whether the building of ships should be done entirely by British capital in this country to the fullest extent of our capacity to assist in that building, or whether we ought as a Government to be building ourselves and consequently to be making up gradually a commercial marine for Canada, having regard to our future needs. That, I say, is a fair subject for discussion, and probably there would not be very much difference of opinion between us on the principle itself. But the member for Pictou acknowledged that there were some difficulties; that ways and means have an important bearing on the matter. The member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), however, was as light as air. I mean in this sense, that there did not seem to be any responsibility from above resting upon him when he stood up and said in a light and airy way that the Government ought to build 200 ships.
Well, Canada is doing a great deal. She is lavishing a vast amount of money, as well as her blood, upon the operations connected with this war. It is impossible for this country to do everything. Two hundred wooden ships of 4,000 tons each would cost from $60,000,000 to $70,000,000; and if they were steel ships they would cost nearly $150,000,000. It is a question whether the best thing is not being done-British capital building the ships for British commerce, and Canada devoting her energies to other kinds of work-costly enough, heaven knows, but borne cheerfully by the people.
I want to caution the House. Maybe hon. gentlemen do not need it; some of them are older than I am, and some are younger. But there is a disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen in this House to cite things that are not done as having been done, and
tSlr George Foster.!
things that are simply rumoured in the papers as being matured decisions of Governments. My hon. friend spoke of the United States having made up its mind to build 1,000 wooden ships. I am not aware that the United States has made up its mind to build 1,000 wooden ships. I know that reams of paper have been given to the dissemination of that idea in the American newspapers, but my latest information is that no decision has been arrived at as to the number of wooden ships that shall be built. My hon. friend thought that there would be no difficulty in our building steel ships. Let me tell him this: for the ships which are being built in Canada to be delivered in 1917, sufficient steel plate has been secured or is in store. For vessels which are to be delivered in 1918, most of the steel plate that is necessary is under contract, and, it is hoped, will be delivered. But you cannot go to the United States to-day -the only place where you can get plates for steel ship building-and make a contract for delivery within a year's time at even the enormous prices which they are charging. Steel plates for shipbuilding could be bought in normal times at 2| cents and 3 cents a pound, whereas to-day they cannot be got at less than 9 cents and even 10 cents a pound. But recollect this: whereas heretofore we have been able to place orders for steel plates in the United States and get deliveries gradually at the increased prices, to-day the United States is commencing to build up the machinery of a mighty offensive effort against the common enemy of us all, and her steel producing activities will be tried to their very utmost in order to meet the necessary demands. It is not and it will not be an easy thing to get steel plate for shipbuilding purposes.
I think one of the members of the House intimated that we might now divert our efforts from munition work to the building of ships. I would not endorse that idea at all. We are all thankful that British activity, organization, scientific skill, and method have increased the small proportions of explosives that were made and the small supplies of guns that were possibilities during the first period of the war, until to-day in explosives and in heavy guns Great Britain is well supplied. Great Britain, however, has Allies and these Allies must also be well supplied if the war is to be carried on to a successful conclusion. Guns wear out and explosives are shot away by the million dollars' worth every day that this war lasts, and the same gigantic, scientifically constructed organi-

zation "which, working with a will, has brought about the splendid condition -as regards explosives and heavy artillery that Great Britain, fortunately for herse'lf, is in to-day must keep vigorously at work on the same scale because of the wastage that takes place and the necessity of constantly implementing what is used. Therefore, I could not say that the war would go on just as well if Canada stopped the making of munitions and turned her attention to the building of wooden ships. The situation would be fraught with peril if we were to shut the doors of our munition factories and were to turn our attention instead to the construction of wooden ships which could be of little service for five, six, or even seven months. I do not think we could justify such a step for a single moment.
Let us not get into a panic in regard to the submarine menace. The submarine is an awful, piratical, destructive engine of war; it has done immense damage; it is doing immense damage now, and it will do immense damage during the whole course of the war, hut the British fleet, with the experience and devotion of its leaders and its personnel, in conjunction with that magnificent fishermen's fleet, 100,000 strong in men whose daily occupation before the waT was the sweeping of the seas for the harvest to lbe garnered therefrom, who have given their services to the Government with a courage, a discipline and a coolness unequalled by the trained men on the battleships, has swept those dangerous seas for the safety of the commerce of the whole world. That fishermen's fleet has swept those dangerous seas and is sweeping them every hour and every day with sometimes not a hair's breadth between those gallant fishermen and sudden and certain destruction. It is that less splendid but not less serviceable part of the British naval work- the fishermen's mine sweeping and trawling work-that, added to the British navy, and backed up and supported by newer methods of fighting submarines which are every day coming to the front has done and will continue to do that important work that make us feel that although there is tremendous peril and great destruction of life and of property still ahead of us, it is not sufficient to break the confidence of the Allies and of the British Empire, as a part of the Allies, in 'the coming final real victory for which we are all working.	[DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister to say that British capital is now available for the construction of Canadian ships in Canadian yards. This is news to some of us as it has not been made public before and it is very important news. Will the minister, therefore, be kind enough to tell us on what terms a builder can secure British capital?


George Eulas Foster: A builder does not personally secure British capital, but if he makes a bona fide offer and shows that he has the financial capacity, equipment, and the labour to build those vessels, he will be given a contract up to the extent of his capacity.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister to state further that a guarantee would be given that no loss would occur to the parties undertaking the building of ships.


George Eulas Foster: I stand by what I said. That will be the case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the Imperial Munitions Board give that guarantee?


George Eulas Foster: The Imperial
Munitions Board acting for the British Government.


John Howard Sinclair: It is curious that they did not give that information to the public.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, unless any other hon. gentleman desires to speak, I will now proceed to close the debate.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: If any other
hon. member wishes to speak on this subject, he must do so before the hon. member for Pictou speaks again.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, desiring to evade the question, has indulged in that warmth of speech of which he is such an admirable master. As my right hon. friend has reproached me for introducing this subject in the way in which I did, I may say that I was well within the rules and absolutely justified in bringing this question before the House; and if I were not justified, then no other matter can be conceived that can be brought before the House on the consideration of a motion that . the House do now adjourn. This is a most important question for the consideration of Parliament; it is one that was discussed in the Imperial Parliament on Tuesday of this week when there were none of these suggestions or whisperings or insinuations that you must not say this or that or the German Kaiser will hear what you say on the floor of the Imperial

Parliament. Instead of that, the members were told: You are the free representatives of Great Britain discussing this, the greatest menace of the war. Yet my right hon. friend suggests here to-day the bugaboo that we, the representatives of a free people in this country, must not look the situation in the face and must not ask this Government whether they are realizing the menace that the Imperial Government have realized; we are' told we must not speak except with bated breath. When my right hon. friend indulges in statements of that kind by way of pretext, I reject any such suggestion. This matter is one of the greatest importance before Great Britain or any of her Allies. It has been discussed in their Parliaments; it forms the common subject of discussion in-the press of the United States. The President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the Interior deal publicly with this question and the part they are going to play in order to meet and overcome this great menace; but when we come to this Canadian Government, >it clothes itself iwith holiness and declares that nobody must venture to suggest that with its omniscience it can do wrong, and that no one in this free country muet venture to suggest that it should do or not do anything. That is the atitude of my right hon. friend. If he fancies that the people of this free country, the red-blooded men of Canada, are going to submit to that kind of dictatorial Kaiser-ism, he is making a great mistake. Either there is a menace ox there is not one; and if there is, what is this Government doing to deal with it? I said nothing with regard to the situation in the Maritime Provinces or anything else that required any homilies from my right hon. friend. He has told us that the British Navy has been wonderfully successful in giving us protection and in transporting our men and supplies across the ocean; I cordially agree. But here was a new menace. The British Admiralty admitted in the House of Commons the gravity of the situation. Yet in the House of Commons here nobody must say anything about it. If we do, we are helping the Germans! Such ridiculous absurdities can hardly stand the light of day in this twentieth century in our free Parliament. What does my hon. friend say that he is doing about this menace? He wound up with a peroration paying a glowing tribute to the British Navy which we all admire; but although the United States are spending one billion dollars to build 
up a merchant marine the minister says that Canada should not do anything. He says that the Imperial Munition Board is building ships in this country with British money, to which the Canadian Government are contributing; everything that is proper to be done is being done; it is treasonable to ask any questions about it; that is what my hon. friend said.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the overseas Minister of Militia?
Mr- MACDONALD: Yes, the great overseas Minister of Militia, who is so much admired by the ex-Minister of Militia, the man on whom Canada pins her faith. But I will not turn aside to discuss that gentleman's capacity and Tecord, as we shall probably have an opportunity at some other time except to say that everybody who has been in England knows how little fit he is to guide the destinies of Canada's overseas forces- My hon. friend says that the Munitions Board are building wooden ships in Canada with British money, to which the Canadian Government is contributing, and that we must not ask anything more about the matter. We are not going to build ships. I asked the Minister of Finance the other day what this Government waS doing in the way of building ships, and he said: "The matter is under consideration." Now we have the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that even if the matter was under consideration, nothing is going to be done about it, because the Imperial Munitions Board are building wooden ships. My hon. friend from Guysborough tried to get some information, but he was no more successful than I. The minister tells us Canadian money is being given the Imperial Munitions Board, a body that is not responsible to the Canadian people, and that the Board is going to build ships for somebody. We cannot tell you anything more than that, he says. We must take it for granted that these things are being done. I say that we will have to have a full statement from my hon. friend at some later date as to just what the Imperial Munitions Board are undertaking to do, what ships they are building, and where they are being built. My hon. friend intimates to the House that the Government, as a government, do not propose to insist upon the construction of either steel or wooden ships in this country. The Government of the greatest overseas dominion of this Empire, living adjacent as we do to our great Anglo-Saxon neighbour, are going to do nothing as a government in the way

of building ships. The United States realized the necessity of filling up the gaps created in the merchant marine and in the navies by the German submarines, and that country is doing splendidly, but this Government does not propose to do anything. We ajre going to let the British Government do it all through the Imperial Munitions Board. We are not going to give one dollar, although vessels of Canadian registration, flying the Canadian flag, and transporting Canadian goods, are being sunk week after week. Our whole merchant marine may be obliterated before the war is over, and yet the Minister of Trade and Commerce of the greatest dominion in the Empire is responsible for the statement that Canada will not do a single thing or give a single dollar towards shipbuilding.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is not responsible for any such statement, for he never made any such statement, and he is not at all responsible for any inferences that my hon. friend chooses to draw.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the Government doing?


George Eulas Foster: Hansard will give you exactly what I said. I generally am able to make my meaning plain. If my hon. friend will see what I said in Hansard to-morrow, and will put that side by side with what he has just said, if he is fair, he will be crying " peccavi " to-morrow afternoon.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend has made any statement indicating that the Government are contributing a dollar by way of bonus, or subvention, or in any other way towards the construction of ships in this country then I am sorry, for I must have misunderstood him. If he has indicated that this Government, as a government, is providing for the construction of ships in Canada, I did not so understand him, and if he did make any statements of that kind I pause for a moment to see if he will repeat them.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether or not I can succeed in enlightening my hon. friend. I made a statement with regard to certain things that were being done. I did not make any statement as to what the Canadian Government proposes to do in the future with reference to shipbuilding. I am not called upon to make any such statement. There will be a time when the Government will make known what it proposes to do imthat regard. If I
did not say in my remarks that the Canadian Government was expending its own money in the construction of a number of these vessels, then I probably did not go as far as I should have done-but, that is the case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where are they being constructed?


George Eulas Foster: In Canada, at
different shipyards.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have contracts been let?


George Eulas Foster: Contracts have been given, and some of the vessels will be ready to take the water in June.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where are these vessels being built?


Mr. HANNA:: Is there anything else you want to know?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend
thinks that this free Parliament is run by the decrees of an internal body, well, he may be Tory enough to believe it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce knows that this Parliament has a right to know whether contracts have been let for these vessels. He is too old a parliamentarian not to know that.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly this
Parliament has a right to know, and if my hon. friend wishes to know he will get his information. I am not quite sure-and here again I shall offend the democratic susceptibilities of my hon. friend-when he will get exact information as to the number of patrol vessels and mine sweepers that are being constructed by the Dominion of Canada at the present time. I am not sure that he will get that information; I am not sure that it is wise that he should.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have succeeded in getting some information at all events, but I would say to my hon. friend, if it is possible for the British Government and the Government of the United States to give to the people who supply the funds to 'enable them to administer the affairs of the country, information such as has been given to them in this regard, I see no reason why my hon. friend should not give *similar information to this House.


George Eulas Foster: Let my hon.
friend be fair. Will he point out any particular time within the last two years when either in the United States or in Great Britain the men who have charge of this mat-

ter of 'building vessels for the purpose of meeting the enemy's warships, either under the sea or on the sea, have detailed the places at which they were -being built, the kind of vessels which were being built, or the number? I was in England last summer and by the courtesy of the British [DOT]Government I had the opportunity with others who were with me to see the inside of the building -and operating work which was going ,on there, to meet the German peril both undersea and overhead. I was shown these things under the seal of -secrecy, and not a note could I take, not a note did I take, during all that time. I want my hon. -friend to point out where, either -in the United States or in Great Britain, this particular information has been given.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My right hon. friend (Sir George Foster) knows very well that, while in the Government circles these things are regarded as matters of secrecy, in the shipyards of the country the number and character of vessels under construction is a matter of common knowledge, both in Great Britain and the United States. He knows that if he will turn to the English Hansard he will find there statements given in regard to the shipbuilding that is going on. He will find that, repeatedly, Lloyd George himself has made statements as to the number of vessels of various classes under construction and their tonnage. But all we have been able to extract from the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) is that some mine-sweepers are being built. But he will not permit me to say, and I hope he will take no exception to my way of saying it, that on the question of assisting toward making good the deficiencies in our merchant marine, caused by the action of the enemy, we are left to infer that the Government are doing nothing.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend will allow me to be definite. He has stated that both in the United States, in the Congress or outside of it, and in Great Britain, in their Parliament or outside of it, those in authority have repeatedly given information as to the. war vessels under construction, their kinds and dimension and where they were being built. Will he substantiate that by something more than a general statement? Will he show me his authority?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be glad to give it at the proper time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The right hon. gentleman comes to us-


George Eulas Foster: I will give my hon. friend any time he likes, if he will only do it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am glad the right hon. gentleman accepts the suggestion. I am sure he appreciates the fact that this Government, naturally and properly, should accept it under the circumstances. He has very promptly drawn the discussion away from the main subject to a side issue. He has evaded the substantial question, whether this Government proposes to do anything to assist in the construction of merchant vessels in this country to fly the Canadian flag and to fill the vacancies which take place in our merchant marine day by day. The policy of the Government under consideration a week ago is still under consideration, and nothing is done. He utterly misapprehends my motive in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I have urged, as it was my right to do, and as has been urged in England and elsewhere, the necessity of the Government dealing with these matters in some definite way. So far as our merchant marine is concerned, we are left to understand that nothing will be done. We are told that arrangements are being made in some other way. But so far as the great question which has been dealt with by both the British government and the United States government, where they faced' the issue openly and fairly, and made their announcement as to what they were going to do, the right hon. gentleman evades the question. We have no policy of this Government in regard to assisting the construction of merchant vessels in Canada, either by the Government themselves or by subvention or other assistance. We are not told that the Government is grappling with that phase of the question or undertaking to deal with it in any way.
As it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and as I cannot be here when the House resumes, I ask leave to withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. UNITED STATES TARIFF ON WHEAT.
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a little infor-

mation if possible, from my hon. friend who is leading the House (Sir George Foster). I have the following telegram from Winnipeg :
Try and get something definite on import duty on wheat and wheat products under new proposed tax in the United States. Great uneasiness here owing to large cargoes lying over there which were either released from bond or have been left over ever since supposedly free wheat.
I presume the information that is wanted is as to the position of wheat cargoes that were released from bond over there, but probably not disposed of. I am not sure of that but that is what it appears to be. In the meantime there is a duty of 10 per cent on wheat going into the United States as a war duty and I presume they desire to know if the Government has any information as to whether that duty would cover cargoes of wheat which have been released from bond and not disposed of.


George Eulas Foster: The Bill in reference to which my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) speaks is only at present a Bill which has been reported from the committee to the House. There has been as yet, in so far as I know, no discussion of it in the House and no one knows how that Bill will come out of the House. My hon. friend has just as much information as I have, or as can be got, until the Bill is acted upon and becomes law in one form or another.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is not law at the present time?


George Eulas Foster: No.



DR. BRUCE'S REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I deside to draw attention to a statement appearing in Hansard on February 7. Hansard says:
Sir ROBERT BORDEN laid on the table of the House a report by Colonel Bruce on the Canadian Army Medical Service.
He said: This is the only copy that is available on this side of the ocean at the present moment. I have, however, decided that it had better be laid on the table of the House, as further copies are coming in the immediate future. I should explain that it is marked "confidential, for official use only." Under ordinary conditions, I should think it ought not to be brought down ; but it would appear that it has been made public, wholly or partially, through the press, I do not know in what way. Further, it seems to me that to avoid any misconception and understanding which might arise, if it was not brought down and laid upon the table of the House, It is better to take that
course than to refuse to lay upon the Table a document which was intended only for confidential official use in the first instance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will it be printed during the recess ?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It is being printed now, I understand. Some forty copies, I think, are coming from England by mail. These will be available, and we will have further copies printed if necessary.
I am also laying upon the table of the House the report of the Board of Inquiry of whicli Sir William Babtie was chairman. This report deals with practically the same matter as the report I have already laid upon the table of the House, and it is proper that if the one report is placed before the House and the country, the other report should also be made public.
Understanding from the statement made to the House on February 7 that it was the intention of the Government that this report should be printed for the information of the public, I applied at the distribution office yesterday for copies of this report and was informed that they were not available for distribution and that the report was not being printed. I would like to ask the Government if that is the position of affairs?


George Eulas Foster: Whether the report is being printed here or not I do not know, but 'we have a number of copies which have come over, as intimated, from England, and my hon. friend can be served with a copy on application to the clerk.


John Gillanders Turriff: I may say in connection with this matter that when the report was first laid on the Table I got a copy from the clerk in charge and was getting some extracts from it for later use when the King's Printer was very anxious to get it and sent for it. He told me that there was quite a number being printed and that there would be no trouble in getting all the copies we wanted.


George Eulas Foster: I will make inquiry as to whether it is being printed and how far it has got on. There is no objection to its being printed, if it is necessary.


Frank Oliver: In this connection, I wish to draw attention to a statement which appeared in the press that Dr. Bruce made a defence, if I would understand it in that way, or a reply, to the Babtie report which was placed by him in the hands, of the Minister of Militia. I would ask if it is the intention of the Government to make public this reply or report of Dr. Bruce.
1.344


George Eulas Foster: I will make inquiry in reference to that and let my hon. friend know.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blain in the Chair.
Department of the Interior, Dominion Lands and Parks-Salaries of the outside service, $465,000.
['Mr. Viviani, in the person of her distinguished visitor, Canada today hails\n[Sir Wilfrid Laurier.i\nthe official representative of France, France at all times wonderful, but who during the last three years has held and is now holding ever increasingly the world in amazement; France, of whom you have spoken with such eloquence; France, united in a sacred union, which has put an end to all feuds, differences or shades of opinion, everything that disunited her sons; and which has placed her where she stands to-day, the champion,, not only of her own freedom, but of the liberties of the world.\nWe greet you as the representative of France, and that greeting \'it is particularly pleasing to me to express in the French language, of which you have just spoken with such eloquence, a language which has the limpidity of a stream and the resistance of metal, which our forefathers have \'brought with them from the country of your ancestors and kept as their most, sacred heritage.\nYou Visited the United States, accompanied by that illustrious general. . . .\n(Long applause).\nby that illustrious general who at the beginning of the war had been entrusted with the destinies of France, and who was successful in \'breaking the German offensive, and destroying for ever the enemy\'s plans for establishing German supremacy. You have visited all the great cities, and everywhere you have, been greeted with a spontaneity, an outburst, an enthusiasm that must have sometimes astonished you and always exceeded your hopes.\nYou now cross from one country to another, from the land of the United States to the land of Canada, a British soil. Many are the historic ties that bind you to the United States; but stronger are those that unite you to Canada\'s soil; because if you have met everywhere in the United States the feeling of admiration which the mere name of France evokes here, on this British soil, you will find not only admiration, but along with our sympathy you will find national pride; you will meet two million citizens of French descent who have kept alive the cult of France, a cult, that honours France, for inspiring it, Canada for fostering it, and England for respecting it.\nBut I hasten to add that, if we keep up the pride of our origin, we are equally proud of our allegiance. I say our allegiance; the word has somewhat fallen into disuse in France, but it was brought from France, into England by the Normans and brought from England into Canada. We are proud of our allegiance, because wherever rights exist duties are born. We enjoy the rights of our origin, we have the duties of our allegiance, and for both we have an equal respect.\n\nMr. Viviani, your stay amongst us is too brief; you will soon depart; let me tell you that you leave \'behind a souvenir never to be blotted out of our memory, and that whatever happens, we shall remain true to the cause we are fighting for. We shall persevere until final victory, be that victory at hand, as we hope, or be it distant, as may *be; we are in the struggle to the end. And we have no doubt of a victorious outcome, because we, in Canada, as you, in France, have the common resolve never to lay down arms until right and justice, have again taken their place under the sun.\nThe DEPUTY SPEAKER [DOT]: Sir George Foster moves, seconded by Sir Wilfrid Laurier:\nThat the admirable and eloquent speech just delivered by M. Viviani be inserted .in the Official Report of the Debates of this House, and that it form a part o-f the permanent record of this Parliament.\nMotion agreed to by a standing vote.\nHon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved the adjournment of the House.\nHe said: Before the adjournment, I beg to say that if the ladies and gentlemen present will be kind enough to walk in at the right of Mr. Speaker, and out at his left, M. Viviani will add to the gracious debt under which he has already placed us by giving them a personal greeting.\nThe audience then sang La Marseillaise and God Save the King, and in response to the call of the Deputy Speaker cheered " Vive la France."\nMotion agreed to and House adjourned at 1.20 p.m.\nMonday, May 14, 1917.']
Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the Interior) :: This is to pay the salaries of all the outside staff numbering 447, the same number as last year. This includes the salaries of the staffs of all our land agencies in the West, timber inspectors, homestead inspectors, inspectors of land agencies, ranches, and sub-agencies.


Frank Oliver: I wish to repeat the criticism I made last year that, in my humble judgment, the condition of the business of the department of the Interior in the West does not warrant a large expenditure of this kind. It is being urged upon the country that there should be saving in all lines on account of the heavy drain on the resources of the country because of the war.
I desire to take the responsibility of saying here and now that in my judgment-and I speak as one having some knowledge of the subject-this is an absolutely unwarrantedly large expenditure at this time and under these circumstances, and that this item should not be as large as it is.


William James Roche: My hon. friend's criticism, I presume, refers to the expenditures of the Interior Department generally. This particular item, of course, is for the Outside Service.


Frank Oliver: I refer particularly to this item.


William James Roche: That would mean that the hon. gentleman thinks that out staff is over manned?


Frank Oliver: Absolutely over manned.
Mr, ROCHE:	My information is quite
the contrary. We have 160 of those men who are doing duty at the front. The places of many of these we have not filled, in fact that has only been done where it was absolutely essential to do so. These men are drawing an average of about $1,000 apiece, which is a small salary, comparatively speaking, taking the whole outside service, in this period of 'high cost of living. Our land offices have been extremely busy in connection with the extra work entailed [Mr. Oliver.!
by the seed grain advancement. We have been using our land office staff, our homestead inspectors, etc., during the winter months, and they have been kept very busy. In fact in certain classes out there it is almost impossible to secure help at the present salaries, particularly in the case of clerical help and stenographers. Some of our staff are leaving because of the low salaries. I am inundated with applications for increased salaries from the outside staff, because they are underpaid. There are many in the Inside Service at Ottawa drawing $700 to $900 arid the hon. gentleman will realize, I am sure, as he is a western man, that the cost of living there is at least as high as it is in Ottawa. It is considered essential ,to introduce legislation at this .session to increase the salaries of the lower grades of the Inside Service, and I was seriously considering doing the same thing in connection with the outside service, applying the increase on the same basis to those getting $60, $65 and $75 per month. I do not think it is possible to cut down our staff at the present time. They have been very busy, and I disagree with the hon. gentleman in his statement that we should dispense with their services, in view of the fact that fully 160 of them have enlisted and gone to the front.


Frank Oliver: Does the minister mean to say that there are 160 of the employees of the Interior Department who are at the front and are drawing their salaries from the Interior Department as well as their military pay, and rendering no service to the Interior Department?


William James Roche: I do not say that. I say there are about 160 who have enlisted from the outside service. Many of those are overseas. Some of them enlisted prior to the Order in Council which provided for the pay of the civil salary less military salary. That is, they are drawing full salary. Those who enlisted prior to November 1, 1915, are drawing their full civil service salary, and those who enlisted since then have their military pay deducted from their civil pay. In some instances we have had to replace those men, but we have been trying to avoid filling their places unless'it was absolutely essential to do so.


Frank Oliver: 
William James Roche: There is a reduction of
some 530,000 here below the Estimates last year.
Surveys, $776,300.


William James Roche: There is a reduction of
$200,000 from the Estimate of last year.


Frank Oliver: Where are these surveys
being made principally?


William James Roche: Surveys of base lines and
initial meridians, three parties; sub-division surveys, sixteen parties; miscellaneous subdivision surveys in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, one party; sub-division surveys in the railway belt of British Columbia, five parties; inspection surveys, six inspectors and one party for general business; retracement surveys in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, two parties; retracement surveys of old initial meridians and base lines, one party; miscellaneous surveys 'by travelling parties, four parties; stadia surveys of lakes in western provinces, said to have dried up, eleven parties; survey of the Alberta and British Columbia boundary (one-third share), two parties; Yukon surveys. That is practically the subdivision of the work for the ensuing year.


Frank Oliver: In regard to this survey
Estimate, the minister did not say just in what part of the country these surveys were being made. I shall not press that point. I wish to point out that the men employed on these survey parties are of necessity of the identical quality of physique, age and other requirements that make for eligibility for military service, and I cannot think that the Government is well advised in pushing the surveys unless those surveys are urgently required at such a time w'hen it must Ibe done at such cost in the employment of men who, as I have said, by their age and physique, are the men who are most eligible for military service.
If we are looking for more men for military service, we might very well restrict our endeavours in the matter of pushing surveys, particularly at a time when there is no very great pressure of settlement in any direction. The need for men who are physically fit for military service is, of course, great, and the men who are employed on the surveys are necessarily of that class. They cannot be serving in France and working on the surveys at the same time, and, looking at it from that standpoint alone, I submit that the Government are not well advised in pressing the surveys as strongly as they are doing just now'.


William James Roche: I myself was of the opinion that it was not necessary to push the surveys as rapidly as heretofore, taking into consideration the war conditions. For that reason, during the past year, we cut down our expenditure by $200,000, and this year we are estimating an expenditure of $200,000 less than last year. There is, therefore, really a very great reduction in the expenditure. As for those who go out on the survey parties, instructions have been issued that whenever possible, returned soldiers be employed for that purpose. The Surveyor-General has pointed out to me the difficulty in getting many returned soldiers who are able to endure the hardships of the survey, but they are to be given the preference in every instance.


Frank Oliver: Is the amount that is being asked for equal to the amount expended last year?


William James Roche: Practically what was expended last year.


John Howard Sinclair: I have observed a good deal of discussion in the press about the amount of land available for returned soldiers; it has been questioned whether we have very much land suitable for that

purpose in the title of the country. I am quite sure that it would he interesting if the minister could tell us how many acres of arable land in the northwest and the prairie provinces are in the hands of the Government and available for homesteading.


William James Roche: Much the same information was asked for by the right hon. leader of the Opposition when I explained the soldiers' settlement plan as laid down in the resolution which I brought before the House, and I promised to have a map here when the resolution is again under consideration, showing the location of lands, within ten, fifteen or twenty miles of a railway, which are suitable for agriculture. A statement has been prepared as to the amount; I did not bring it with me to-night, but I promised to give the information as fully ias possible when the soldiers' settlement resolution is again before the House.


Frank Oliver: What parties will be working in the Peace River country, and in what localities?


William James Roche: I do not think I have the detailed information here.


Mr. CARVELL:: In a time like the present this seems to be an enormous sum of money to expend on the surveying of land which is not being settled. Putting it at $1,500 a man, which would probably be the maximum, you have 500 men employed in surveying western lands during the year. But during at least half the year these men could not be employed in surveying lands; therefore, you have an army of 1,000 men employed in surveying lands in western Canada during six months of the year. It seems a large amount of money to he expended-I was going to say thrown away, but I assume that these surveys may be of value some time in the future. To the man living in the eastern portion of Canada, however, the question arises why it should be necessary to expend this large amount of money when the public debt is mounting up by $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 a year. I think the minister ought to take us into his confidence and tell us how many parties and how many men are being employed and what they are doing.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman is rather extravagant in his assertions when he says that we have 1,000 men employed on this work during the year. He must remember that surveyors are technical men, and draw a fairly good salary, particularly when out in the field.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But many cooks and
labouring men are employed in this work who do not draw big salaries.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman knows, too, that aside from the expenditure for salaries, the outfit for work of this kind costs a considerable amount. There is a man in charge of each survey party; there is an assistant, and sometimes a second assistant. There are the chain men, so many in each party-ten men in one party, twelve in another. They have to go into the wilds; they have to be provisioned, and transportation costs something. We exercised due economy in cutting down the expenditure of last year by $200,000, and, as I have said, we mean to cut down the present appropriation by $200,000. It is essential that that part of the country particularly be opened up. The hon. member suggests that not many people are going in there. Well, I have word from the northern part of Alberta a short time ago that immigrants are going in there very rapidly from the United States. Some of them are going away disappointed because the lands are not at their disposal. I did not throw open any large blocks of land, pending the legislation with respect to land for returned soldiers, as it was my intention, wherever possible, to keep the lands that were close to transportation facilities for the returned soldiers. I have given information as to the number of parties that will be sent out, but I have not detailed information as to the parties going into any particular section.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many parties did the minister say were going out?


William James Roche: In the surveys of base lines and initial meridians, two parties. Some of these parties consist of 8, 10 or 12 men. On subdivision surveys, 16 parties. A lot of our survey work is subdivision surveys, that is subdividing the townships. There are five parties working in subdivision surveys in the railway belt. As the work of those parties that are out has to be inspected, we have inspection surveys, and there are six inspectors and one party for general business. We have two parties engaged in retracement surveys in the wsetem provinces, and one party doing retracement survey work of the old initial meridians and base lines. There are four parties for miscellaneous surveys and eleven parties for stadia surveys of lakes reported to have dried up in the western provinces. Many

of the homesteaders who, when they secured patents for their lands had a certain quantity of water on them, have since found that the water has dried up and they apply to have the dried-up area added to their homesteads. This requires surveying and we had eleven parties out for that purpose. Then there are two parties engaged in surveys of the British Columbia-Alberta boundary line. That is done by the Governments of the two provinces and the Dominion Government, each bearing their share of the expense. There are three parties engaged in levelling. There are other expenditures in connection with the manufacture and storage of iron posts and bench marks, printing and stationery, lithographers' and printers' wages, freight, express and telegraph charges, purchase of instruments and canvas boats foT use on the surveys. Then there are surveys unprovided for which may be urgently required during the season, carpenter for surveys laboratory and special surveys division. In the Outside service there are thirty-four office employees at $1.50 per day. All these expenses amount, in the aggregate, to a very large sum. I do not know exactly the number of those who will be engaged in survey work; I simply know the number of parties that will be engaged, and as the number of men employed on each party differs considerably, I cannot give the details.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has answered the whole criticism. I took down rough notes of what he said, and, as I figure it out, there are 24 or 25 parties who are going over old work, retracing old lines, seeing how much water has receded and how much land can he reclaimed. The minister has in his employ 250 men whose salaries probably amount to $250,000, which i3 an absolutely unnecessary expense. The people in the western provinces can do just as we do in the eastern portion of Canada, where if two neighbours cannot agree upon their lines, they fight the matter out in the courts; they look after their surveys and pay their own bills. It is just as I thought; the minister, in my judgment, has answered the whole criticism- Here we have half a million dollars being thrown away.


William James Roche: The hon. member is comparing the little province of New Brunswick with the western provinces where we own land.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The province of New
Brunswick will compare favourably with the western provinces, and if the minister
will follow out in the western country the conditions that prevail in New Brunswick, he will do a great deal better than he is doing. The province of New Brunswick has done well in many ways.


George Eulas Foster: That remark
holds for the late Government.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask the minister to revert to the first item, " Salaries of the Outside Service?" I wish to ask a question in regard to a gentleman whose name was mentioned here last year or the year before. I refer to the gentleman who holds the position, of superintendent of Jasper park and who, I believe, was appointed a colonel in the overseas forces. I wish to ask if this gentleman is still drawing salary as superintendent of Jasper park and if he is still drawing pay as a colonel in the overseas forces-


William James Roche: I can answer for my own department; I cannot answer for the Militia Department. He is not on the paylist of the Interior Department.


Frank Oliver: Since what time has he ceased to be on that .pay-list?


William James Roche: A short time-I do not
know just how long after he returned from across the ocean, he was struck off the list. I may say that the request did not have to come from the head of the department. He asked to have his name struck off.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Is that policy being
carried out generally throughout the department, of returned officers being struck off the Civil Service pay-list?


William James Roche: If they have a military duty assigned to them, of course they will be kept on the pay-list, but if they have nothing of a military character to do, they have either to return to their civil duties or be struck off the list.


James McCrie Douglas: In the case I had in view, the officer, on returning from the front, had military work assigned to him in the way of instructional work during the past summer; but under the present state of recruiting, there is not very much of that sort of work going on at the present time, and I understand he is still drawing military pay as well as civil Bay- I understand the minister made it a policy that if a man returned from the front he ceased to draw civil pay even if he was on military duty in his country.


William James Roche: If we receive word from the military authorities that a man's services are absolutely necessary for the Militia Department, we keep him on the pay list. We do not strike him off the pay list if we get that assurance from the military authorities; we treat him just as we treat a soldier in Canada who has not yet proceeded overseas.


James McCrie Douglas: The difference in the case of the soldier in Canada is that he is just drawing from his department the difference in pay between his civil and his military pay, whereas, all soldiers enlisted prior to the 1st of November, 1915, are drawing full civil pay as well as full military pay. Does the minister intend to carry out that policy in its entirety of paying in full a soldier who enlisted prior to the 1st of November, 1915, whether he requires the money or not?


Mr. EOCHE:: I am given to understand that we have very few in our department who are drawing full pay; that is, very few who have returned who had enlisted prior to the 1st of November, 1915, but in each instance we must get an assurance from the military authorities that a man's services are required by the Militia Department before we retain him on the pay roll of our department.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the late superintendent of Jasper park, has the minister not received an assurance from the military authorities that the gentleman is in military employment now? I understood the minister to say that he had no knowledge of the facts.	_


William James Roche: I did not say that I had no knowledge; I said that Colonel Maynard Rogers, who is the gentleman I presume the hon. member refers to-


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William James Roche: -was struck off the pay roll at his own request. My hon. friend would not ask me to keep that gentleman on the pay roll against his desire.


Frank Oliver: Certainly not. That much may be counted as merit to the Minister of the Interior, and if he would follow that policy from now on, he would acquire more merit in the eyes of the taxpayers of Canada. Has a permanent superintendent of Jasper park been appointed?


William James Roche: A temporary appointment has been made. The name of the appointee has escaped me for a moment, but the

gentleman whom the hon. member has in mind has been appointed temporarily during Colonel Maynard Rogers' absence. Just the same as in the case of all civil servants who enlist, we make temporary appointments to fill their places. We are merely making a temporary appointment.


Frank Oliver: As Colonel Maynard Rogers' connection with the department has ceased, it would be in order, I presume, for a permanent appointment to be made.


William James Roche: Colonel Rogers is still in the employ of the Militia Department.


Frank Oliver: I understood the minister to say that when he was satisfied the Militia Department were continuing in their employ an official of the Interior Department who, under the terms of enlistment, was entitled to full salary in both departments, he was continued in both services. In the case of the superintendent of Jasper Park, although he is in military employ, his civil service has ceased. What I am asking is whether a permanent appointment is to be made. I am not asking out of mere curiosity. Summer is now approaching, and I am sure the minister will agree that it is desirable that whoever is to be permanently in charge of the park should be appointed now. If the gentleman who has been in charge for the last two years is to be appointed permanently it would be entirely in order for the appointment to be mads now, and he would then be able to carry out his ideas in regard to the development of the park. I do not think it is well for the park, if the minister will pardon me for saying so, to be without a permanent superintendent.


William James Roche: When Colonel Rogers is released from his military duties he will be without a position, and it would appear to me to be a breach of faith to make a permanent appointment in his absence on military duty. He has been overseas and is now retained in the service of the Militia Department. He asked to be taken off the pqy-list of the Interior Department, and when he went away we appointed Mr. Driscoll temporarily. He is from the hon. gentleman's own city of Edmonton, and has been acting superintendent of the park for two or three years. Mr. Driscoll quite understands that he was appointed temporarily. I am informed that he has done excellent work, and there is no uncertainty about following out development work as my hon. friend seems to

think. Mr. Driscoll is an excellent officer, and i3 doing very good work, and I am snre he will continue to do so until the time comes when Colonel Rogers will be released from his military position and resume his duties.


Frank Oliver: I am very, very sorry that it is not possible to place the ip.ark under permanent administration. If it is the intention to reappoint Colonel Rogers I think he should resume his civil duties without delay. I do not wish to be understood as offering any objection to Colonel Rogers' resuming his duties as superintendent of Jasper Park, but I want to urge that there should not be the uncertainty that has prevailed in regard to the administration of the park during the last couple of years. It should be thoroughly understood who is to be permanently in charge, so that he may develop the park along his own lines. The present temporary superintendent is, I bekeve, entirely satisfactory, but he certainly is handicapped in not having the assurance of being able to carry out any policy he may undertake. I think, in fairness to the development of the park, the minister should decide who is to be permanently in charge, and get him established there now, so that he can proceed to develop the park along his own lines.
Protection of timber in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Aiberta, the N.W.T., and the Kailway Belt in B.C., tree culture in (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and inspection and management of forest reserves, $650,000.


Frank Oliver: I think this is another
case where the minister might have made a saving. I will not press the matter further than to emphasize what I have already said, that I consider this and other items in the Estimates entirely extravagant under present conditions. Would the minister tell me what is included under "tree culture in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta"! Is it tree culture on forest reserves or in connection with the Forestry Farm?


William James Roche: I have the following particulars :	i
Trees are supplied to farmers for planting on prairie farms In the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The species distributed are mainly Manitoba maple, elm, ash, cottonwood, Russian poplar and willow. Some spruce, tamarack and pine have also been distributed. The reports of the inspectors show that these plantations have a high average of success. There are two nurseries for this purpose. One was established at Indian Head in 1903, and one at Sutherland in 1912. The increased demand from farmers for trees made necessary the increase of accomodation for furnishing the supply. The new nursery is now supplying trees for distribution, and this supply will be largely increased in the next few years as this nursery develops. The number of trees distributed in the last two seasons is as follows:	3,861,000 trees were distributed in
1915 to 3,459 applicants, and 4,460,000 trees were distributed in 1916 to 5,072 applicants. The total number of trees distributed to date is 37,539,105. The number now ready for distribution in the spring of 1917 is 8,881,500.
Hon. gentlemen will see that the demand for the trees is increasing very largely, and I am sure we are all pleased to see that, because trees are beneficial in more ways than one in that prairie country. The new nursery at Sutherland is doing excellent work.


John Howard Sinclair: Are these trees for use on private lands?


William James Roche: They are distributed gratis to the farmers all through the western provinces, on demand.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister do
the same for the eastern provinces?


William James Roche: These are Dominion lands.


John Howard Sinclair: Not after they are homesteaded or purchased.


William James Roche: In the hon. gentleman's
province the lands and timber are owned by the provincial government, and I presume the provincial governments do similar work to what we are doing for the West.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister
should draw a distinction between land owned by the province and land owned by the individual. The arable lands will, all be under private ownership very soon. Why should not trees be given free to the other provinces?	.	-


George Eulas Foster: These provinces are " treeless."


William James Roche: And probably the supply of trees would not be suitable to the other provinces.


John Gillanders Turriff: What does this branch of the work cost?


William James Roche: The amount estimated for this year is $58,000, and the amount for last year was $67,030.


Frank Oliver: What proportion of the balance of this vote is required for the administration of the forest reserves as compared with the proportion for the protection of timber not included in forest reserves?


William James Roche: For forest reserves we have an item of $299,000, and for fire-ranging $193,000. The total for forest reserve, fireranging, and the forest products laboratory is $650,000.


Frank Oliver: My information is that there is an entirely unreasonable proportion of expenditure on the so-called forest reserves as compared with that for the protection of timbers not included in forest reserves. The Government has been very liberal in including large areas in forest reserves. These areas are forested to 'a certain extent, of course, but in a country that is all forested it seems to be hardly necessary that areas should be specially reserved, especially when they are made a preserve rather for the maintenance of friends of the Government in the guise of protectors of public property than to serve any particularly useful purpose. The forest reserves, in my humble judgment, are unnecessarily large, and there is excessive expenditure in the so-called protective service within those reserves.
' Mr. ROCHE: Of course, an area is first surveyed and temporarily set aside before being included in the forest reserve by legislation. The hon gentleman (Mr. Oliver) knows that there has been great destruction of timber in that country-as has been the case in the East also-by fire. Land that on inspection is ascertained to be not suitable for agriculture is included in the forest reserves and comes under the charge of the officials, part of whose duties is to protect the forest from fire. It would not be right to have homesteaders go upon land from which they could l.ot make a living. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver), as minister, had experience, as I have had, with so-called settlers who have no intention of living on the land after it is cleared, but who simply squat and, when the timber is gone, vacate the holding. Of course, there are some areas included In forest reserves that are timbered lightly or not at all, but these lands are suitable for reforestation and are not suitable for agriculture.


James McCrie Douglas: Who is in charge of the Cooking Lake forest reserve?


William James Roche: Mr. Bailey.


John Gillanders Turriff: How many officials are
employed in connection with the Moose Mountain reserve? I was there two months, ago and heard a good many complaints of the amount the officials were charging settlers for firewood.


William James Roche: The amount charged for
firewood is fixed by regulation, and I do not think more is charged on the Moose Mountain reserve than on any other.


John Gillanders Turriff: I heard of a couple of
cases in which men were charged $2.50 when they got their permits. I do not know whether this was for the permit alone, or whether it covered a certain amount of wood. How many officials are employed there?


William James Roche: Two permanaent and one
temporary. Mr. White is in charge.


John Howard Sinclair: How many officials are employed in the forest reserves altogether?


William James Roche: The number employed in
all reserves is 181.


John Gillanders Turriff: Does that include the
forest rangers and timber inspectors?


William James Roche: Yes.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. gentleman has not told me how much he paid the men on Moose Mountain reserve?


William James Roche: The man in charge gets
$100 a month, and the others $75 a month.


Frank Oliver: How many fire-rangers, inspectors and other protectors of timber are employed on the Swan Hills forest reserve, and how many on the Martin Mountain forest reserve?


William James Roche: These two are included in the reserve called the Lesser Slave lake reserve. There are two permanent and six temporaries.


John Gillanders Turriff: Would the minister say why the salaries for part of the outside service are put under the heading of "Salaries of the Outside Service $465,000 '' and a lot more of the salaries put in the item we are now discussing under " Protection of Timber in (Manitoba?" Why are they not altogether so that we would have some idea of what these salaries amount to?


William James Roche: The first item is for Dominion Lands, while the other is separate and has no connection with it.


John Gillanders Turriff: They are all under
Dominion Lands.


William James Roche: They are sub-divided. The timber inspectors are included in the Dominion Lands vote but the forestry officials are not.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would suggest that it would be better to put them all together

and then we would know what we are paying for salaries in connection with this branch.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a matter that the minister promised he would furnish information about some few days ago. When we were discussing some appointments made under section 21 of the Civil Service Act, by referring to the return which was laid on the Table of the House, it appeared that 82 civil servants were employed under the provisions of section 21 after competition and that 159 were employed under the provisions of that section by the present Administration without competition. In looking over the items I find that in the inside service, Department of the Interior, 15 civil servants have been employed by the present Administration after competitive examination and 11 without competitive examination. At the time this question was up and when the vote for the inside
service of the Department of the Interior was being passed, I asked the minister if he would furnish the House with the names, post office addresses, ages, and present duties and salaries of those civil servants who were employed in his department under the provisions of that section, and he was good enough to say that when his estimates were before the House again he would furnish the information.


William James Roche: I understood that these questions were asked by way of a return. The hon. gentleman moved for a return?


John Howard Sinclair: No.


William James Roche: I think I have the information with pretty nearly all the detail that the hon. gentleman asked for. I have the names of quite a large number of those who have been appointed to the inside service under section 21. The statement is as follows:



[Stage Direction]
Statement showing Officials appointed permanently to the inside Service under the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1008, as requested by Mr. J. H. Sinclair, when Civil Government Estimates were-discussed on April 20th, 1917.
Appointments by' Competition.
Name.
Date of Appointment.
Branch.
Former Employment or Qualifications.
Present
Duties.
Present
Salary.
Remarks.
Roe, Bertie James.. Howie, James	
Purdy, W. A	
Brigly, J. H	
Firth, W. G	
Jordan, E. E	
Smith, H. C	
Nevins, L. A_____ t
McDonnell, J	
Thomson, A. R	
Lemay, Arthur	
Petrie, John	
Sullivan, Arthur___
Collins, G. H. A	 Birchall, W. A	
Hull, C. W	
Hall, James	
Brace, Wm	
July	25,	1910Jan.	9,	1911"	16,	1911Feb.	13,	1911Aug.	31,	1911.Sept.	6,	1911.25,	1911.Oct.	1,	1911.Jan.	4,	1912.June	28,	1912.Oct.	24,	1912.Mar.	6,	1913.April	10,	1913.Mar.	20,	1914.April	1,	1914.«	1,	1914.July	1,	1914.April	1,	1914.
Topo. Surveys
Railway Lands
Observatory.. Topo. Surveys
Observatory.. Railway Lands
Topo.Surveys
Railway Lands
Passed special examination for clerkship in 2B.
Formerly with John Bartholomew, Edinburgh, Scot.
Formerly with E. Stanford, Ltd., London, Eng.
For ten years with War Office, England.
Draughtsman, six years with J. G. Bartholomew, Edinburgh.
M. A. Asst. Computer...
Map draughtsman.
Map draughtsman.
Map draughtsman.
B.A. Ottawa, University..
M.A. Asst. Computer....
Six years with J. G. Bartholomew, Edinburgh, Scot.
Accountant, Wholesale Store.
; [Eight years with W. & A K. Johnstone, Ltd. One year with Stone Ltd., Toronto.
Nine years with J. G. Bartholomew.
Draughtsman
Photo. Litho. draughtsman.
Topo. Surveys
Railway Lands Topo. Surveys
Land Patents.
Ltd.
Photographer	
With E. Stanford, London.
Civil Engineer	
With A. K. Johnstone, Ltd., Edinburgh.
Civil Engineer	
Photo. Litho draughtsman.
Photo. Litho. draughtsman.
Photographer.
Map draughtsman.
Draughtsman
$
1.300
1.300
1,750
1,450
1,350
1,400
1,400
1,350
1,050
1,350
1,250
1,300
1,250
Active Mil. Service.
Deceased, 12th Mar. 1914.
Resigned, 27th Aug., 1912.
Resigned, 26th Aug. 1912.
Resigned, 10th Aug., 1912.
Active Mil. Service.
Transferred to Inland Rev. Department.
Active Mil. Service.
[Stage Direction]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-Concluded.
Statement showing officials appointed permanently to the Inside Service under the provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Service Amendment Act 1908, &c.-Con Appointment by Competition-Con.
Name.
Field, R. H	
McKeever, Chas..
Lighfoot, D.C -
Allan, N.T	
Douglas, A. G -
Date of Appointment.
Oct. 1, 1914.
[Stage Direction]
Nov. 5, 1914.
Nov. 12, 1914. May 12, 1915.
Branch.
Topo. Surveys
Geographer's.
Geographer's.
Water Power . Water Power.
Former Employment or Qualifications.
First Class Cert, in Civil Engineering, University of Liverpool.
Six years Crown Litho. Co.' Eight years Federal Press.
11 years W. & A. K. Johnstone, Edinburgh, Scotland.
81 years J. Bartholomew Co.
years City Edingburgh, Scot. 3 years C.P.R.
Present
Duties.
Draughtsman
Draughtsman
Draughtsman
Draughtsman
Present
Salary.
$
1.300
1.300
1.300
1,400
1,350
Remarks.
Appointments by Nomination.
Her riot, G. H	fune 29, 1909..	Topo. Survey sCote, Aurele	«	"Chartrand, Emile...	*	"Dozois, L. O. R-	"	"Cousineau, Aime-	Aug. 10, 1909..	"Jones, G. S	April 14, 1910..	"Cagnat, Georges-	" ..	"Hoar, C. M	" ..	" ..Blanchard, J. F	" ..	Blanchet, Denis	Aug. 4, 1910..	Land Patents.Linnet 1, A	Nov. 19, 1910..	Geographer's.Parry, Harry	Feb. 11, 1911-	Topo Surveys.Watt, G. H	May 29, 1911	" .McDiarmid, R. J...	July 10, 1911..	Observatory..Smith, L. G	Oct. 14, 1911..	Topo. SurveysHubbell, Ernest W.	Oct. 3, 1911..	Arbogast, E. C	Sept. 27, 1912..	Observatory..Heney, A. E	Nov. 15, 1912..	Stationery-Daly, K. R	Nov. 2, 1912..	Asst. Law Clerk.Gooday, S. H	Mar. 1, 1913..	Geographer's.Lacroix, Alfred	«<	" .Fredette, J. F	April 26* 1913..	Topo. SurveysYoung, R. K	Aug. 1, 1913..	Observatory..Lawrence, John	Sept. 1, 1913..	Topo. SurveysOwen, E. R	Sept. 5, 1913..	- .Lawler, James	Jan. 7, 1915..	Forestry	Douglas, Robert....	Oct. 1, 1916.	Topo. SurveysWhite, M. S	11	Dom. Lands.
Lecturer.
ston.
[Stage Direction]
iraduate R.M.C. Kingston.
l.A.Sc., Ecole Polytech nique, Laval University, Montreal.
(Dominion
veyor).
Land Sur-
B. Sc. University of N.B,
3st. Engineer, Dept, ol Railways and Canals.
Secreatry Board of Ex.
Draughtsman
Quebec.
Province of
Liverpool University, rad. School Practical Science, Toronto & D.L. Surveyor.
B.A. Toronto University, M. Sc. Pittsburgh University.
Photographer, 6 yrs. with War Office, London Eng.
Inspector D.L. Surveys.
M. A. Toronto University.
Over 15 yrs. Corp. of City of Ottawa.
Lawyer	
Regr. N.W.T. Draughtsman
Technical
clerk.
Observer.
Chief Inspr.
Surveys. Observer	
7 yrs. with E. Stanford, London, England.
7 yrs. Mortimer Co., Ottawa.
Passed full Preliminary Dominion Land Surveyor.
B.A. Toronto University, Ph.D. California University.
B. Sc. Gladstone University.
Formerly with A. W. Penrose, & Co., London, England.
Seer. Can. For. Association.
M.A. Edinburgh University.
Expert at translation of foreign hnvuaaes.
Assistant Law Clerk.
Map draughtsman.
Map draughtsman.
Observer.
Photographer
Forestry
Clerk.
Sec. Geog'r Board.
Translator...
1,900
1,300
1,100
1,600
1,700
2,1 0
1,550
Resigned, 14th Oct. 1909.
Resigned, 2nd April, 1914. Resigned, 2nd June, 1913. Retired, 28th Oct., 1914.
Resigned, dismissed, 10th July, 1912.
Resigned, 1st June, 1911.
Deceased, 13th July, 1916.
2,800
1,350
2,200
1.400
1.400
1,450
1.300 1,800
1.300
Now in Militia Department.
Deceased, 20th April, 1915.
Resigned, 18th May, 1914.
Transferred to Department of Afri-culture, 10th July, 1914.
[Stage Direction]
Mr- SINCLAIR:	Will the minister say
why he resorted to the terms of section 21 in order to appoint men whose salaries were $1,000, $1,200 and $1,300 without competitive examination and why they were not appointed in the regular way under the Civil Service Act?
William James Roche: Some were above the age. As the hon. gentleman knows, section 14 of the Civil Service Act provides that a person to be appointed under the Act must be less than thirty-five years of age. If he is over thirty-five he cannot be appointed, but if he is a technical man the Civil Service Commission will issue a certificate in the case of a man who is over thirty-five. There is another provision of the Civil Service Act that a man should be in the country three years before appointment. Some of these men can\e from the old country. They were Edinburgh and Glasgow University men and they had not been in the country three years at the time of their appointment. That is the only way they could be appointed under section 21. All these are technical men although their salaries are not very large. They satisfied the Civil Service Commission that they were perfectly qualified and that was the only way in which they could be appointed to their respective positions.


John Gillanders Turriff: I should like to know from the minister the policy of the department. I am quite well aware that wThere an official joins the army he draws his civil salary and also his military salary in full if he enlisted prior to the 1st of November, 1915. I have no objection to make in the ease of a man who goes to the front and fights for his country, but I would like to know if it is the policy of the department to continue paying these civil servants who joined the army prior to the 1st of November, 1915, where they are simply appointed to clerkships in Ottawa or in England and do not go near the front, who take no more risk than they, did up in the civil service -offices on the hill?


William James Roche: It is not the policy of this department to have men . who joined prior to the 1st of November, 1915, but had not crossed the ocean, continue to receive their full salary. I do not think we have a single instance of that nature. We had one case of a man whose services were especially asked for by the Department of Militia. He was doing some particular work at Halifax, and we were asked to allow the Militia Department to retain him on their pay list.
We have since ascertained that his services were not as essential as they had been, so, at our request, he has returned to his civil duties.


John Gillanders Turriff: That answer is quite satisfactory. Is the same rule followed by all the departments of Government? Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who is leading the House, may be able to>
answer that question,


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry to say I was talking with my friend when the subject matter was brought up. I think my hon. friend knows pretty well what is done.


William James Roche: I have heard that this was the policy generally. Whether there are any exceptions to it or not, I do not know, but I think the policy I have adopted in my department is the policy that is universal throughout the service. There may be some individual cases that I am not aware of.


Frank Oliver: The minister told the committee just a few minutes ago the superintendent of Jasper park was drawing his salary from the department, although his military duties were entirely confined to this side of the water; and the minister gave us to understand that he would have continued to draw his salary as superintendent of Jasper park, and would, in fact, be drawing it to-day, although his military services are entirely on this side of the water, if he had not himself requested to be taken off the pay list. Therefore in that instance the minister's policy was to pay the full salary when the duties were on this side of the water and did not involve service at the front.


William James Roche: The difference is that
Colonel Maynard Rogers did go across the ocean; he did not remain in Canada. It was only after he returned to Canada that he was struck off the pay roll. He enlisted prior to November 1, 1915, and was in the enjoyment of his full salary. He went across the ocean and was paid full salary until after he came back, and he was still retained in the Militia Department; but he voluntarily came and asked to be stricken off the pay roll and we did not want to keep him on when he did not desire to be retained. We would not have kept him on the roll if we had not been especially informed by the Militia Department that his services were required.


Frank Oliver: That puts the thing differently. The minister gave us to understand

a few minutes ago that Colonel Rogers was removed from the pay roll at his own request, and not as a matter of policy of the Interior Department.


William James Roche: I did not say the latter, I said at his own request.


Frank Oliver: The minister gave the committee to understand that had he not requested to be taken off the pay Toll he would still have, been on the pay roll. That was the impression conveyed to my mind, and I think to the House. As to his having crossed the ocean, while he did cross the ocean, I am not aware that he ever rendered any active military service; but, in any case, the point is that he is not rendering any active military service now, and that is the condition mentioned by my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff).


John Gillanders Turriff: I think the minister put too limited an interpretation on my question. My question was with respect to civil servants who were working either on this side of the water or as clerks in the paymaster's and similar offices in England, the men who never went to the firing line, who took no more risk whether in England or in Canada than if they had remained in their offices on the hill. I shall not press for an answer to-night, but I should like to know if those men who enlisted prior to November 1, 1915, and have been employed in clerical positions in England or in Canada, are receiving two salaries. I think it is absurd that a man drawing a big, fat salary should serve in the Department of Militia or in England as a clerk and draw two large salaries at the expense of the people. I would like a clear, definite answer as to the policy of the Government in that matter.


George Eulas Foster: Before November 1, 1915, the man who enlisted did so on the understanding that he should enjoy both salaries. Would my hon. friend say that 'because when he went overseas he was found to be more useful or necessary in the clerical part of the militia work, we should violate the condition upon which he enlisted? To the man who enlisted after the date mentioned, that condition not being part of the contract, so to speak, the double pay would not be given. The question rests a good deal upon whether or not the man enlisted upon the condition that he should get both salaries.


John Gillanders Turriff: When the man enlisted he was supposed to go to the front and fight

for his country, hut in hundreds of casds, through influence and political pull, men have secured appointments to clerical positions, say, in England, and have been there ever since the war started. Those who do that are not carrying out' the agreement that was made, because they enlisted to go to the front and they have not done so. They are drawing two fat salaries, without taking any risk whatever, whereas the man who enlisted later, goes to the front and risks his life, gets only $1.10 a day.


William James Roche: In many cases we do not know what work these men are doing after they cross the ocean. We are not in a position to know who is and who is not doing clerical work in England. Besides, I believe that the policy over there is to appoint to such positions men who have been at the front and who have returned wounded or invalided, thus allowing men physically fit for military duty to go to the front. I agree with my hon. friend who is leading the House that we made an agreement with these men who enlisted prior to the date mentioned, and it would be rather a breach of contract were we now, simply because they were detained in London to perform certain work, to strike them off the list and not pay them according to the arrangement made.


John Gillanders Turriff: A man drawing $2,000
a. year in Canada gets a commission, goes to the old country and through influence secures a position there, where he is absolutely safe from any danger except mere chance of a bomb falling from a Zeppelin. He draws $3,000 or $4,000 for work that can be done just as well by the man getting $1.10 a day. I ask the minister if he thinks that is fair.


William James Roche: I do not think that there are such cases; I have not heard of any.


John Gillanders Turriff: I have heard of a great many.


John Howard Sinclair: The question is, is he on active service? If I understand the militia rule, he enlisted for active service, and if he is employed as a clerk in an office in London, I do not think it can be said that he is on active service.


George Eulas Foster: He enlisted for overseas service.


John Howard Sinclair: The evidence that there are a great many men in that position is found in the statement of the ex-Minister of Militia, who tells us that he was able

to ran the London office with 30 employees, bnt that since the matter was taken out of hi3 hands over 600 employees have been required, costing the country an enormous sum of money each year. I assume that most of those employees are soldiers of the kind mentioned-Canadian adventurers, who, professing to go to the front, found their way into the London office. If we can believe the statement made by the exMinister of Militia, this is a matter of great importance. The principle cannot be laid down that these men are employed on active service, when they are simply doing clerical work in a London office, .and a man doing that kind of work is not, under the contract that was made with him, entitled to two salaries.


George Eulas Foster: I had the idea, before I went to London, that our Records Office was costing us a very large amount of money, and I think I expressed that sentiment. When I w>as there I made it my business to go through those offices, and I do not care who states that the clerical work there can be done !by 30, 40 or 50 men, I say that it is absolutely impossible. A complete record has to be kept of the men that we have at the front and in different parts of England, of their pay and of all other details; their transfer from one regiment or from one division to another- everything has to be taken cognizance of and becomes a matter of record. I went through room after room; I examined their books and saw their methods of doing things, and I came away with the impression that these men were busily engaged at a necessary woTk. The army must be looked upon as a whole. You must have good subsidiary officers and workers as well as good fighters. The man Who enlists for overseas service enlists for whatever service the army officers and authorities consider that he is best fitted for. Men are brought back from the front 'because of their special ability to perform what we call clerical work, but what is so important and affects so vitally the well-being of the army that the very best men are required. I should be very sorry to have the impression going out that we are employing thousands of men over there where 30, 40 or 50 could do the work. I do not think that would be a right impression to go to the country. This much I do know: that of late the offices have been combed out over and over again in order that every man who can be spared from that absolutely necessary work may go to the front and take his part of the burden of active warfare,
in his place those that have had their turn at the front and have had the casualties, are brought in to do the work. The impression that exists now that there are so many able bodied men who have never gone to ,the front, who do not want to go to the front and yet who are able enough to go to the front, but that are kept in London through favour or anything else-that impression is a wrong one.


John Howard Sinclair: The impression did not originate on this side; it originated with my right hon. friend's colleague who made the positive statement. Perhaps if my right hon. friend knows that that statement is not true he will tell us just how many men be has employed in the London office and how many of those men are soldiers who have volunteered for active service at the front. We do not know; we are going only on the statement made by the ex-minister, a gentleman who had the information and who ought to know. If there is any man in Canada who ought to know these facts, it is the exJMinister of Militia.


George Eulas Foster: I have not seen that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister will look at the exjminister's statement, be will find that the ex-minister had made that statement.


George Eulas Foster: I would not be inclined to think that he had made that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: I have no doubt he made the statement that, in an office where there were formerly thirty men-and he gave the name of the man in charge of the office- now, under the influence of the Minister of Finance and the management of the Minister of Militia Overseas, the number had grown to over 600, costing the country $6,000,000 a year. That is nut my statement, it is the statement of the ex-minister. I do not know whether it is true or not.


George Eulas Foster: I have not seen that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: It has also been,stated publicly that no less than 45,000 or 50,000 men who have gone overseas, were not able to go to the front because they were medically unfit. If any of those men who were medically unfit have found their way into the offices in London, I think their doing so would disqualify them from getting the double pay. It is for the Government to clear up the statements of the ex-Minister

of Militia and not we on this side of the House.


Frank Oliver: The question is not how much work is required in the offices in London; it is whether the men whom we are paying here in this Dominion of Canada for the services they are rendering us, are drawing pay for other services that they are rendering and that are not the services we understood or expected they would render when we made the bargain with them. There is no question at all that this Government did not make a bargain with its officials that it would give them double pay for the purpose of enabling them to do clerical work in London. There is no doubt but what my -hon. friend from Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) has said is the absolute root and basis of the understanding that these men were going forward to risk their lives for the welfare of their country, and that it was because of that consideration alone that they were given this extra remuneration. If for any reason, whether on account of their own fault or that of anyone else, they have not fulfilled that condition, this country has no right- to give them double pay, and when we are giving them double pay, we are doing an injustice to ourselves and to those who are honestly trying to -serve their country. It may be true that these men are good men in the clerical .offices in London, but there are others just -as good men who are -able to do clerical work; and if they are able to do clerical work and not able to go to the front, then their place is here -and not in London, that is, if we have need of their services in our departments. They should be either here or at the front if they are drawing double pay. If they are not able to go to the front, then -they -should be drawing only single pay and they should be here if they are going to draw pay from us for the services they are rendering us. We cannot undertake to provide for the exigencies of our Civil Service here and also for the exigencies of a Civil Service over in England. The latter is a matter that can be attended to by itself. Our business here is -to see that the work of the Civil Service is attended to and to pay for that civil service, and if we have made extra bargains with some of our civil servants in regard to military services, when they fulfill the necessary conditions, they are entitled to the extra consideration we promise them, hut if they do not fulfill those conditions, they are not entitled to that extra consideration. I 
for one call upon this Government to take measures to see that only those men who fulfill the condition upon which they w'ere promised that extra pay, receive that extra pay, and to see that those who do not fulfill that condition do not get that extra pay. I have already mentioned here to-day the case of a gentleman drawing $2,400 a year as superintendent of Jasper Park, who takes a position as colonel in the overseas forces, goes to England and draws pay as an overseas colonel, but who never does a day's duty at the front, never renders any valuable service to the military authorities, and who comes back to Canada and still draws that double pay.
Mr. ROCHE-: Is the hon. gentleman quite right in stating that he did not render valuable military services?


Frank Oliver: I am quite right.


William James Roche: What work was he doing?
Mr. OLI^ ER: I do not care to bring it up here in the House, but he was like a great many more so-called military men, who went over to England, who had neither right nor reason to be called military men and who did not render good service. This man comes back to Canada and still draws double pay although on the evidence he was not considered fit for military service at the front., If such a prominent case can occur, we can easily believe that hundreds of such cases have occurred, and we call upon the Government not to defend that condition, but to take measures to see that that condition does not exist because it is absolutely a breach of faith with the people of this country.


William James Roche: It is only right that I
should make this statement in regard to the gentleman whom the -hon. member is criticising. I remember, after 'the hon. gentleman 'discussed this question last session, having taken, the matter up with the military authorities, and the information received was that Colonel Maynard Rogers had rendered very valuable -military service in England in that, as I understand, he was engaged in training troops in some of the large camps. The report from the Militia Department was that he had rendered splendid service. It is only right that I should make that statement in justice to the gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister would not expect any other kind of report from the Militia Department.


William James Roche: In regard to other men
going overseas and. doing clerical -work, I understand that the paymaster of a battalion does not go to the firing line, yet we .pay him double pay if he goes over with his battalion- Does the hon. gentleman think that because a paymaster is doing some clerical work or looking after the financing of bis battalion and not engaged in the firing line, he should not be paid his full civil pay if he enlisted prior to the first of November, 1915?


Frank Oliver: Is the paymaster of a battalion in France resident in England?


George Eulas Foster: Why does the
hon. member differentiate between England and France if soldiers are not engaged in the firing line?


Frank Oliver: A paymaster is with his
battalion; it does not matter whether he is at the firing line or not; he is on active service. I am very sorry to find that the leader of the House and the Minister of the Interior take the attitude to-day of defending a condition that is absolutely indefensible, defending an absolute breach of faith with the people of this country.
I am very much surprised that they should take that attitude.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend need not expend any of his sorrow on me with reference to that. The position I take is simply this: In respect to those men who under certain conditions enlisted to go overseas for such service as was required and who have fulfilled these conditions, there is an obligation upon us to fill our part of the bargain. The difference between my hon. friend and myself is, I suppose, this: he says that the condition of their enlistment before that date was that they should go to the firing line.


Frank Oliver: No, pardon me.


George Eulas Foster: That they should go into active service, then.


Frank Oliver: Our undertaking to continue their pay was on the understanding they were risking their lives in our behalf.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that they entered into a contract to risk their lives. They entered into a contract in this way: they enlisted for active service overseas, whatever that service might be. I do not think there was anything in the contract that they were to risk their lives in going over. Whatever was the duty which was assigned to the man who enlisted for
overseas, that was the duty he was to perform, and if he performed that duty under the conditions laid down before November 15, he was to receive his full pay. If we *were to set out anew and the question was brought up as to whether men should receive double pay who were simply doing clerical work in London, I would not hesitate for a single moment to say that it was the man who went right into the trenches that should get the double pay.
To pay expenses connected with Water Power investigation and reports in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Railway Belt in B.C., $159,000.


Frank Oliver: This is a time when there is certainly very little likelihood of important investments in the development of water power. It seems to me this is another item in the Estimates of the Interior Department that might very well be eliminated or very greatly reduced under present conditions. If we are pursuing a policy of saving with a view to meeting our enormous war obligations, I think it is only right that I should take the responsibility of pointing out all those instances where it seems to me the Government have fallen very far short of their full duty.
For surveys and works under the Irrigation Act, etc., including $400 for P. Marchand as auditor of disbursements made by companies acquiring lands under the Irrigation System, $174,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the nature of this expenditure?


William James Roche: The following are the particulars :	

For the fiscal year 1916-1917, the estimate was reduced by $68,350, or 25 per cent, while the estimate now submitted shows a further reduction of $26,000 or 13 per cent; the present estimate is thus 35 per cent less than the appropriation for the year 1915-16. The sum asked for will provide for carrying on only that work that is considered absolutely essential, including:
1.	The maintenance of the permanent office and field staff at Ottawa and Calgary. The reduction in appropriation will necessitate the discharge of several present members of the staff and the rearrangement of the work so as to provide for its efficient conduct with fewer men.
2.	The inspection of existing and proposed irrigation and water supply projects. Such inspections are required by law to determine the feasibility of proposed projects and to ascertain whether or not those who have been authorized to construct works are proceeding with due diligence and whether licenses are utilizing, or are in a position to utilize, the water to which they are entitled by license. A considerable saving will be effected by combining in certain districts the duties of

stream measurements and irrigation inspections. This is an innovation, but it is believed that these duties can be combined without loss of efficiency.
3.	The continuation of hydrometric or stream measurement work. The determination of the quantity of water available in the streams of the prairie provinces is the basis of all irrigation and water supply development and is absolutely essential to the proper administration of the Irrigation Act. Stream measurements must be carried on continuously for a long period of years in order to be of real value, and any interruption seriously affects the value of the records. This work has been carried on systematically since 190S and has been gradually extended so as to cover practically all streams in the southern part of the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the principal streams in the north. Regular measurements are made otf the flow of all streams during the summer, or open water period, and after the winter freeze-up the districts are re-arranged and the flow of the principal streams is measured under ice conditions throughout the winter months. The department has frequently been urged to extend the scope of this work and it is believed that the public interest warrants its continuation and expense in spite of the necessity for the strictest economy. The plans for the (coming year do not provide for any expansion of the work, but on the contrary some stations are to be temporarily abandoned and the work will be so arranged as to effect a considerable saving without materially affecting the efficiency of the service.
4.	The continuation of experimental work to' determine the proper "duty of water," and to demonstrate the benefits of irrigated farming. This experimental work has not yet been carried on for a long enough period to yield definite or reliable data upon which to base any revision of the "duty of water." The existing duty' is acknowledged to be too low and should be raised, but it is believed to be unwise to attempt revision without reliable data obtained under Canadian conditions of soil and climate. For this reason our experimental work should be continued.
5.	The continuation of the work of soil analysis in order to determine the suitability of certain soils for irrigated agriculture. This work has now been carried on for several years in collaboration with the Dominion chemist of the Department of Agriculture. It was begun, primarily for the purpose of excluding from irrigation projects areas so strongly impregnated with alkali as to render them unfit for cultivation, but it has been found necessary to extend the scope of the work to include a systematic study of the changes in soils due to the continued practice of irrigation, so as to determine what crops may be most profitably grown and how certain soils may be treated so as to preserve their fertility and prevent their becoming waterlogged and sour. In general, it may be said that no new work is being undertaken. The scope of permanent work is being somewhat restricted and so arranged as to effect a considerable saving. Very few salary increases have been provided for, and these only in exceptionally deserving cases (six in all). No general salary increases have been granted since the outbreak of the war.
fMr. Roche. ]


Frank Oliver: Are any of the private schemes mentioned in the memorandum under construction at the present time?


William James Roche: I have not that information, but I could get it for the next sitting.


Frank Oliver: As regards private applications for the use of water and the establishment of irrigation systems, I quite agree that the expenditure is necessary, whatever it may foe, but a great deal of the work mentioned in the memorandum is something that I think could be postponed for a time at any rate. That is something that can be postponed for a time at any rate. I wish to know what is the really necessary work of development in that country. I fancy it could be paid for with a small proportion of the vote.


William James Roche: We have a trained staff,
and it would not do to disband that staff. We must keep them at work. Last year the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) strongly urged us, notwithstanding our declaration for economy, to extend this work considerably in .connection with some projects for irrigation in his district.


Frank Oliver: I have nothing to say
against expenditure for actual irrigation work, but I wanted to know what amount was required for that.


John Gillanders Turriff: How much land was
granted last year under the Irrigation Act?


William James Roche: I think a return was asked ' for on that subject-, and that it was brought down. But I do not recollect the figures. Canadian National Parks. $300,000.


William James Roche: This is a reduction of
549,670 from last year.


Frank Oliver: About what amount is
appropriated for Jasper Park?


William James Roche: Fifty-four thousand dollars.


Frank Oliver: What are the items of
expenditure*?


William James Roche: Fire and game protection, fire-fighting, maintenance of roads and trails, new buildings-


Frank Oliver: What new buildings?


William Roche: This is not a large item,
it is for stables.


James McCrie Douglas: Are there any revenues from the park?


William James Roche: Of course the principal return from our national parks is the tourist

trade. I quoted figures last year showing, as I recollect them, that about 100,000 tourists had visited the national parks last year. This traffic, of course, brings in a great deal of money. Our parks are very attractive and advertise Canada everywhere. They are becoming very well known in the United States. Since the outbreak of the war in Europe many American tourists are coming to Canada.


Frank Oliver: Has the department considered what effect it will have on the tourist traffic to have the rails of the Grand Trunk Pacific to Jasper Park takeu up and shipped away?


William James Roche: I do not know from what portion of the road the rails have been taken. I understand that the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunlc Pacific run side by side for miles, two lines where one would serve all purposes.


Frank Oliver: The beautiful scenery of Jasper Park, of course, is a great attraction. But tourists do not live on scenery; they have to eat and they have to sleep. 'In order to have a successful tourist traffic there must be accommodation for the tourists, and up to the present time the hotel accommodation for tourists in Jasper Park has been very limited and inadequate. I am given to understand that one reason has been that the departmental
10 p.m. authorities set a standard of hotel buildings that the business does not warrant. I quite .agree that proper buildings should be erected in the park, but until business is established judgment must be exercised in imposing restrictions. You can only get such investment of money in buildings as the business is likely to give a return upon, and to impose too onerous restrictions is simply to prevent any accommodation being provided, and so to prevent the park from being used for the purpose for which it was intended.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman, I suppose, Tefers to a minimum value for the hotel buildings. I may say that no minimum value is fixed for hotel buildings in Jasper Park, but there is a minimum for private residences.


Frank Oliver: I am afraid the hon. minister is under the wrong impression. In any case, there is urgent need for tourist accommodation in Jasper Park. A moderate measure of accommodation would be a great advantage, but that moderate measure of accommodation cannot be secured if undue requirement is made in the matter of expenditure, and so the usefulness of the park is to a great extent lost.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is being done with the surplus of buffalo being raised in Buffalo Park?


William James Roche: There has been no disposition of the surplus as yet.


John Gillanders Turriff: Last year I asked the minister if he was going to fulfill the undertaking that was given some years ago about sending some buffalo down to the Moose Mountain reserve. The Government bought the land and paid for it and the reason given last year why the buffalo had not been removed to it was that some one had reported that the land was not suitable. There is no use of any person reporting that to me because I know all about the land; it is perfectly suitable. The Government bought and paid for the land some years ago, they advertised for tenders for putting up the fence, but it was never gone on with and the land is lying there idle. The department have more buffalo in Northern Alberta than they need and it would be a good work to send 20 or 30 of them down to the park. There are no buffalo in southern Saskatchewan at all. Formerly that was the home of the buffalo. When, on occasion, the minister is asked to do anything of this kind he pleads economy. I notice that he has reduced his estimates by quite a sum this year and I give him a considerable amount of credit for it although I think the reduction could have been carried very much further on several items. It seems to me that to ask for a vote of $2,879,000 under this head is not showing a great deal of economy. The putting of some buffalo in the park is a matter of a very few miles of fence, and it would not cost much money. The minister has three men now working on the reserve as forest inspectors and fire rangers where formerly one was considered sufficient when there was a great deal more timber than there is at the present time. It would not entail any additional cost to the Government to keep some buffalo there. I would like to ask the minister if he has forgotten his promise that he would take this into his very favourable consideration.


William James Roche: The reason I have not actively taken it into my consideration, that is acted upon it practically, is simply fire desire to economize. The hon. gentleman has given me credit for having reduced my estimates. So I have. I have reduced

them very materially on nearly every item. I have reduced my estimates for this coming year by not far from $1,000,000, or over $900,000. It would cost considerable money to move a portion of the herd of buffalo down to where the hon. gentleman wants them. It would involve the building of a fence, the employment of the necessary men and a superintendent and the providing of winter food, etc.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend has men there now with practically nothing to do.


William James Roche: There is nobody on salary.


John Gillanders Turriff: The minister told us half an hour ago when we were talking about timber reserves that he had three men there. They could look after the buffalo. Their principal job in connection with the timber is to draw their pay. While my hon. friend has done fairly well in cutting down his estimates by $400,000, he could very well have cut off an extra $800,000 and left his expenditure at $2,000,000 which would be ample in these times when we are supposed to have economy in every place but the Government departments.


William James Roche: But you are asking me to increase the expenditure.


James McCrie Douglas: 
William James Roche: Nearly 2,400 in Buffalo park.


James McCrie Douglas: How many in the other
one?


William James Roche: In Moose park 17. These are the figures: Rocky Mountain park, 13; Buffalo park 2,399; Elk Island park, 134, making a total of 2,546.


James McCrie Douglas: How many other animals are there?


William James Roche: Moose, 73; elk, 153, and mule deer, 180.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Moose Mountain reserve, which is in southern Saskatchewan, is the only place for some hundreds of miles in two or three directions where there is any considerable body of timber or water. It is a great resort for people in the southern portion of Saskatchewan. I have been at the reserve on a Sunday and I have seen 200 automobiles there in which people have come for a distance of 50, 75 and 100 miles to spend the day. I would be satisfied if my hon. friend would fence what was

necessary to take care of ten or fifteen buffalo. I dp not want my hon. friend to do much but surely he could spare ten head of buffalo out of the 2,000 he has. It would not cost very much.
Engraving, lithographing, printing and preparation of maps, plans and kindred publications of the Dominion, including necessary materials for same, $66,100.


William James Roche: There is a reduction of
$10,050.	'
Mr. OLIVER; Does this lithographing include the cost of making homestead maps?


William James Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: How soon may the edition of the homestead maps for this year be expected to be available and which .section is likely to be out first?


William James Roche: The edition is in course of preparation but I cannot exactly tell the date at which it will be available for distribution. It will be expedited as much as possible.


Frank Oliver: I have an inquiry from
the Alberta Association of Municipalities in regard to taxation on lands held in reservation for the Hudson Bay Company. The association protests against this reservation of lands to belong to the Hudson Bay Company inasmuch as that reservation prevents them levying taxation on those lands. I have addressed the resolution of the association to the minister, hut possibly he will be able - to make a statement to the House in regard to the situation as to this reservation otf the Hudson Bay lands ' and their freedom from taxation at the present time.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman wrote me and I am having the information prepared in the department -and will send it to the hon. member in a day or two. I understand that there is a considerable reservation from which the Hudson Bay Company is to select land. There have been a number of their lands in some of our forest reserves and we have been getting them to exchange those lands for other lands, and have placed a certain reservation on the lands from which they are to make selection. There has been a little hitch in this respect:	In the past it has
been their privilege to go and make their selection o<f other Dominion lands from reservations irrespective otf what their value might be. The members of the Council were of the opinion that there ought to he a little better investigation into She nature

of those lands and their value before having any exchange made and they ''suggested that we should take it up with the Hudson Bay Company to see if we could not get them to accept lands [DOT] of a similar v-alue. In the past it has been lands of similar area, but we might be receiving in exchange lands much inferior to those that they would select. For that reason we have taken the matter up recently with the Hudson Bay Company to see if they would not accept lands of similar value. The Hudson Bay Company are not anxious to do that. In the first place, they say it would be more expensive, having to value the lands; they would have to put on a valuator and so would we. They think that, inasmuch as the exchange is being made at our solici-ation, they ought to be free to select any available Dominion lands irrespective of value. The matter is being taken up now and will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.


Frank Oliver: From the same source
there is a resolution in reference to the accumulation of taxes against pre-emptions . or homesteads which have reverted to the Crown. As I remember the purport of the resolution, it asks that where local taxes have accrued against a pre-emption or homestead that has finally reverted to the Crown, those taxes be held as a lien against that land, to be met by the subsequent entrant. That is, in effect they ask that the local taxes be put in the same position as improvements made by the original entrant who forfeits his homestead.


William James Roche: That might result in leaving a Iqt of land on our hands.


Frank Oliver: The suggestion has been passed on by me to the minister, and I have asked him if he could make a statement upon it.


William James Roche: I have not given that point much consideration. I can see certain difficulties in connection with it, but I will give it consideration.
Progress reported.


George Eulas Foster: According to the arrangement we made last night it will be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House a recess until twelve o'clock to-morrow.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I suspend the sitting of this House until twelve o'clock to-morrow.
The sitting of the House was accordingly suspended at 10.25 p.m. Friday, until twelve o'clock to-morrow, Saturday, when Mr. Viviani, chief of the French War Mission to the United States, will be tendered a reception by the Parliament of Canada.
Saturday, May 12, 1917.
The sitting of the House of Friday, May 11, was resumed at twelve o'clock to-day, the Deputy Speaker, Mr. J. H. Rainville, in the Chair.


THE FRENCH WAR MISSION TO THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
M. Viviani, Chief of the Mission fropi France to the Government of the United States, and Minister of Justice in the French Government, entered the House at 12.15 o'clock, and was escorted to a seat ot honour beside Mr. Speaker's chair by the Right Hon. Sir George Foster, M.P., Acting Prime Minister of Canada. A reception was tendered to him by the Parliament of Canada.
M. Viviani was addressed by the Deputy Speaker (Mr. J. H. Rainville), first in English and then in French, the Senators and Members of the House of Commons standing during the address.
Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Monsieur Viviani:	1 am proud to be in
the position as Deputy Speaker of this House to express the welcome of the people of Canada to you on this happy occasion. We all appreciate the fact that you have not missed the opportunity afforded by your important mission in America of visiting Canada, now a great' democracy, thanks to the genius of Great Britain, and upon which a deep imprint has been left by the France of old days.
Allow me, in the absence of His Honour the Speaker of the House of Commons, who deeply regrets his inability to be present, to thank you and to say that your presence in our midst stimulates our desire to help in the war, whilst it also carries with it a' lesson of the highest significance. We cannot forget that love of freedom and the desire to promote all generous causes have ever been among the basic principles upon which your country has built its civilization. There are no people in the world who more than those of France love truth,

justice, equality, and have more strenuously fought for their triumph.
Your arrival in Ottawa has assumed the importance of a public festival. You will find here nine provinces federally united under the same flag, having three oceans for their boundaries and enjoying complete liberty under the segis of the British Crown and under the political institutions which have been established by the British constitution.
The admirable verse of your poet Henri de Bornier. "Every man has two countries his own and France," seems peculiarly to apply to us now that our sons have blended their blood in the struggles and successes of bitter warfare. Our eyes are turning more and more towards your country, where thousands of Canadian volunteers have made the supreme sacrifice on the altar of liberty and fraternity. One of our youngest colleagues, Colonel BakeT, member for Brome, has fallen on the field of honour. Another, Dr. Beland, who was'formerly a minister of the Crown, is now lingering in a German prison; twelve others are now at the front; the sons of about fifty senators and members have enlisted, and some of them will never return.
It is a long martyrdom that France 16 now suffering, but her energy, pertinacity and heroism will bring victory to her flag in this brutal war which has been cruelly thrust upon her. In the darkest days, your glorious nation has ever held the proud position which the genius and intellect of her sons have secured for her in the world's civilization. Their portion of the common sacrifice is indeed very large, hut we hope and know that it will result in a victory which shall not only be glorious but permanent.
You will in a few days leave the American continent and return to your partly devastated France, where Canadians of different origins aTe now fighting shoulder to shoulder with your fellow citizens. Kindly convey to France the testimony of the admiration and sympathy which this war has inspired in our hearts for her noble ideals; tell her that you have seen on this Canadian soil a young nation which has stayed its material development for the purpose of assisting the world to vanquish that militarism which has already produced terrible results in Europe and has so seriously threatened the freedom of mankind.
We welcome you most cordially among us and wish you personally happiness and prosperity, trusting that your visit to
[The Deputy Speaker.]
Canada may be one of the pleasant memories of your mission.
In this welcome I feel confident that I express the united sentiment of all the people of Canada.	.
(Translation into English.)


Mr.   VIVIANI@: As has been said by your Speaker, Mr. Eainville, in his eloquent address, we could not possibly have passed so close to your country without having an ardent wish to visit it and to pay our respects to its citizens, with whose history our own is so intimately connected.
Hardly had we reached Canada than we, the members of the French delegation, were the object of the most enthusiastic welcome. And as a crowning success, gentlemen. you were so kind as to confer on my fellow-citizens and myself the supreme honour of a reception within the precincts of this House, and there could be no greater boon, no higher honour, no greater joj, than this provisional adoption into your community.
You may rest assured that our fellow-citizens in far away France, when they are apprised to-morrow or the day after, of the honour which has been conferred upon us, will- have towards you a high feeling of gratitude.
You have just requested us, Mr. Speaker, ;iot to forget the reception now tendered to us, and through us, to France; allow me, Sir, to thank you. That debt of gratitude which we owe to your great country, and which the great historical events in which we have participated in common, can only have the effect of increasing-that debt impressed us particularly on that day when we saw passing through the streets of Paris your admirable Canadian soldiers proudly bearing on itiheir helmets the Maiple Leaf. (Cheering). At thait tragic hour we realized that your motto of former days-" I remember "-was no vain formula, no mere catchword.
Yes, you have remembered, and indeed it is something that strikes one with admiration to witness how this feeling of gratitude, as a rule a personal feeling lying in the depths of the human heart and conscience, diffuses itself throughout democracies and becomes a collective feeling which makes for the greatness of the nation as a whole. I remember, and we have proof that you have also remembered. First of all, your generosity towards France is unfathomable. Of course, I could not hut omit important facts and be perhaps unfair were I to attempt an enumeration of your generous

deeds, and of all that you have done for France: field hospitals without number; the hospital at St. Cloud, in which you have reserved 1,300 beds for French patients, and other hospitals everywhere established, with a staff of Canadian nurses and medical superintendents.
I need not point especially to the supreme sacrifice, to which you have just given a pious thought in recalling that some members of this House have fallen at the front in'this holy cause; that some are held prisoners in Germany, that you gentlemen of the Parliament of Canada have given fifty of your sons who, without hesitation have gone over to resist in the name of truth and -justice the most formidable avalanche which barbarity has ever let loose on the civilized world. (Applause.)
Yes, Sir, your Canadians have fought along with English and French troops, without paying any heed to racial differences. Under the flags of all the Allies they have all shown a similar courage. It must not be forgotten that in the month .of February of 1915, at Ypres, in the north of France) near the Belgian frontier, in a country devastated by floods, after the terrific assault of the German soldiers by means of asphyxiating gases-Germany, the country that has caused science to swerve from its true ends, and, instead of pouring its benefits upon mankind, has visited humanity with manifold evils and crimes-that same Germany has had to meet your Canadian soldiers. On that terrific day, your sons, rising in their might, saved the situation. (Cheering.)
And throughout many battles, throughout numerous and recent victories, the soldiers of Canada stood up heroically against the foe. Even at this moment, we have before our eyes your boys, so alert, so athletic, so brave, the first to storm, victoriously carrying their flag to that ridge of Vimy which was reputed to be dimpregnialble. (Cheering.)
Hail, to all these soldiers; let us bow our heads reverently before those who fight, those who suffer and those who have laid down their lives for their country. They had a clear perception of what their action meant; when they left this country they were well aware that it was not only Great Britain that they were called upon to defend, that it was not only France that they were going to protect against the attacks of invaders;-their clear vision upturned towards Heaven, detected the higher object; they were well aware that it was the sacred cause of humanity,
of democracy, and of justice that they were defending. (Cheering.)
Still labouring under the impression left by such glorious and recent events, we have come here to pay you a visit. Your enthusiastic welcome only serves to increase the bitterness of my regrets, as I reflect on its inevitable brevity; but I am confident that you will be at one with me when I state that depth of feeling should not be measured by the length of a visit, but rather by the persistence of the feelings which are thereby instilled in the heart and in the mind. Such assurances of our feelings which I bring to you, I would much have liked, after visiting your beautiful Capital, to carry to other cities; it 'would have afforded me great pleasure to have visited Toronto, Quebec, Montreal, but our time is limited, and I beg that you may excuse the shortness of our stay, thinking only of the sincerity of the feelings expressed in our message to you.
It would have been a great satisfaction to me to travel at leisure over this admirable country, thinking and dreaming over past events in your history which, at many points, is interlocked with our own national history.
In coming to this country I desire to pay a tribute to Great Britain, that land of freedom, whose sons, wherever they go, bring with them emancipation and liberty; under every sky her mission is not to reduce men to slavery, but to awaken consciences and arouse determinations. I should have assured Great Britain, our noble ally, of our gratitude for having rallied to a man to the rescue of France in this, her supreme hour, because forsooth British statesmen had been parties to a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality; because England's pledge was not to be denied; because a nation's honour has not two codes, nor a double morality, and because every country should take up arms and fight with all its might to redeem her promise.
I desire also, to recall the memory of our ancestors, those Frenchmen who came to this country in olden times and who seem to have brought to this soil all the eleganee of manners and the beauty of France and Normandie. I am happy to note in their scions the ancient and strong qualities which are the reputed and proud characteristics of our race. To them I owe my thanks for having maintained in all its purity and perfection that noble French, which language to-day resounds throughout

the universe, which you, Mr. Speaker, speak so admirably, and which you know in its absolute purity, partaking as it does of the limpidity of a stream and the resistance of a metal. (Applause).
It would have been a pleasure to me had I time to note on the bronzed faces of your country people the familiar traits of their brothers, our French peasants; and bow acknowledgment to the virtues which they share in common; thrift, assiduity to the daily task, steadfastness, and everything \yhieh contributes to the strength, the valour, and the fame of a nation.
My time is limited, and I must beg your p.ardon for abbreviating my remarks. However, 1 would not be doing justice to the utterances which fell a moment ago from the lips of your Speaker if, at this very moment, and from this time, from this high situation you have assigned to me, though a stranger among you, I did not, following in the footsteps of the speaker who preceded me, attempt through time and space to solve the serious problems brought on us by the war, including the very carrying out of that war.
In the first place, what was the origin of that war? Who is responsible for having started it? You mentioned it in your speech, Mr. Speaker, that bloody war was let loose on us by the whim of an absolute ruler, a ruler whose will is the only law, who governs heedless of parliament or ministerial responsibilities. It was let loose by the pride and madness of a whole people. It was let loose to destroy the free democracies and peace-loving peoples of the world.
Who among the peoples of the earth were more attached to universal peace than Great Britain and France? France had been vanquished in 1871-and it is no longer an humiliation to us to recall that defeat, since in the meantime we have retrieved ourselves and find ourselves once more in a position to face our enemies. (Prolonged applause). Such was our liking for peace that while with tearful eyes we looked over the war-ridden boundary, while -we peered over the border at our provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, and while we carried in our breast a bleeding wound which could not be healed, yet so as not to trouble the world's peace, though not forgetful of the past, we kept still. Such was our attitude.
Then, as regards Great Britain, which German slanders charged with having brought on the war, she had not even thought of establishing military conscription; she had not provided a fighting

machine, lacking which war becomes impossible; she was thinking of universal peace only, and of providing work for and insuring the freedom of nations.
Both these nations were attacked, France, Great Britain, and also Russia. It was a challenge sent out to the whole civilized world, and then it was a question, not as to whether we were going to fight for the acquisition of territory, not as to whether we should recover sections of provinces, but as to whether free men would be allowed to enjoy the warmth and light of liberty. (Applause).
Such is the great struggle that is going on between an arrogant autocracy, which already we have struck down on the battlefield; an autocracy, bent on ruling over the world, and democracy, whose sole aim is to regenerate it. Such is' the great struggle between absolute rulers, who consider as mere possessions the peoples over whom they hold sway, who aim at enslaving men's bodies, and democracy, whose object, is to uplift the mind, the conscience and the soul.
And notice what wonderful changes have taken place in Great Britain and France. Some time previous to the war those two nations had come closer to one another and had concluded, many years ago, the emitanite cor diale. This reference to the entente cordiale concluded between Frame and Great Britain reminds me necessarily of your former governor, Lord Lansdowne, whom I had the honour to meet in London some years ago, one of the keenest and most refined minds in Great Britain, and who, no doubt, because he had long lived an-jong you and because he had come to know France through knowing Canada, came back to Great Britain with a desire to establish l'entente cordiale and bring the two countries closer together.
Here I am bound to pay my respects to the memory of Edward VII who was the enthusiastic medium of bringing together those two great democratic and free nations, because his clear insight into conditions generally had satisfied him that such a result was possible and in order. Neither can I. proceed any further without paying homage to his successor on the throne who with a strong hand in that tragic moment of history brought about the practical results implied in the entente cordiale as formerly concluded.
What an admirable example was set to us by those two countries. Great Britain had remained aloof from conscription; she had applied her whole activity to forwarding in-

dustry, trade, and building up her navy. And when the hour of danger came, when she felt that a few thousand men would not be sufficient to resist the onslaught; when she realized that the war would be won not solely through the bravery of her children, through the courage of her soldiers, but that munitions, guns, and munition factories would be indispensable; then as by a miracle at the call of the Government, not only in Great Britain but in Ireland and throughout its possessions and colonies- for the British colonies to Germany's great -surprise rallied to their mother country in the hour of danger-not only munition factories and guns and projectiles, but thousands and thousands of men, five hundred thousand, one million, one million and a half British soldiers, including your own Canadian boys, stood up and entered the fray alongside their French comrades. Such is the admirable spectacle which Great Britain presents to the wondering eyes and consciences of the world.
1 am quite aware that German calumnies must have reached this country; it is even likely that they have found their way to your minds and hearts; we do not feel humiliated because before the war you may have thought, on the faith of what was so often repeated, that France was a lost country, corrupt, dissolute, frivolous, catering solely to its pleasures, and so much rent by political dissensions that when the great struggle would come, Germany would be facing not men but a divided army, easy to scatter. Well, you have been witnesses of what France can accomplish; that wonderful France, standing undefeated because her sons keep up both with the traditions of the past and the traditions of the Revolution. You have seen what her genius can effect, the same genius that has emancipated a large se'ction of humanity. We had arms; we had an army. But what could our army do, with only 40,000,000 of inhabitants to draw from, in a struggle against the Germans who for the last 45 years have been perfecting their war machine in order to hurl it against our country. We gave way at first, both British and French; we gave way before the storm; we were not in sufficient numbers but we righted ourselves after the battle of the Marne. (Long applause,).
How has that been possible? It is because the world's estimate of France was not true.
There are political parties in France; every free democracy is made up of parties who struggle for supremacy, who hold different views, who do not servilely copy each other's gestures and expressions. What counts, after all, is that at the supreme hour all citizens unite in a common sacrifice on the altar of their country; what counts 4s that every citizen should remember that before belonging to any political party he owes allegiance to his country; as the preservation of the country is essential to the very existence of any painty. (Applause.) -
Well, what country could have done better than France to bring about this great sacred alliance? Everlastingly shall I remember, as the greatest honour that was mine in all my career, that eventful 4th of August, when I entered into the French House of Representatives with the declaration of war that had been communicated to me, as President of the French Cabinet, by Mr. de Schoen on the previous day. My colleague, the Marquis de Chambrun, a member of the French Parliament, will also recall the occurrence. There were all the members standing, quivering with emotion, all the galleries filled with wives and mothers who were going to send to the front their husbands or their sons; everybody standing; no more political parties; no more groups; none but Frenchmen reconciled in their devotion to their country. And as days followed days, all parties rallied to the same flag and put on the same uniform. Catholics no more; free-thinkers no more; Socialists no more; Radicals no more; Conservatives no more, but all children of the one France. All Frenchmen, leaving aside their old disputes, came to the common conclusion that there was no necessity to arouse political differences; that before fighting between ourselves it was first of all necessary to keep under our feet a free soil, an undivided France. As one man, we shouldered our guns, and it is that wonderful unity, that sacred unity, that has given us and will give us victory.
I join with you, Mr. Speaker, in hailing this victory. It should by all means break forth to the full knowledge of humanity; indeed, if this great effort of ours should not be crowned by victory, then I must say there never was waged a war so disastrous to the nations of the world. In former days nations have suffered grievously through defeat; but such wars were struggles between armies, and differences were settled through a treaty of peace; while in this war we are the spectators of a struggle between conflicting types of minds and nations. At present, I, repeat, What is at stake is not territorial


The Rt Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making a motion-it may be allowable, although all persons sitting within this room are not members of Parliament-in order that each one who is here may give his vote thereon, silent or expressed. Would to heaven that the speech to which we have just listened, so full of heart and fire, so full of the loyal spirit that beats true to humanity's best aspirations, could have been heard by every man in our Dominion. I wish to move, Sir, that this speech, as taken down by our reporters, be inserted in the Official Report of the Debates of this Parliament, in order that it may become a part of the imperishable records of this country. Would that to those pages, which will record the words of our distinguished visitor, there could also 
be transferred the fire, the spirit, the human force and vitality which to-day have entered into those words and have given to them an import and a meaning that the printed page is all too weak to carry.
Sir, this is a most unique occasion. Have we quite an adequate sense of how unique an occasion it is? . Look at this bunting, which decorates the chamber. There are the flags of Britain, of France, of the United States of America-if we had had time, we should have had the flags of our other Allies as well. Looking at these flags on this historic occasion, what memories of the past do they invoke, what anticipations for the future! Our distinguished visitor of to-day, who has done us the extremely great honour of paying a visit to the Capital of our country, may have addressed far larger audiences and may have spoken to multitudes in comparison with which this assembly is but a smali number, but he has never had a truer response to his burning words than that which has been given him to-day by Close here assembled.
Not only have we with us to-day a man of marked personality and extreme brilliance and force of expression, but, in that chair to-day, in his personality, sits France-the France of many storied centuries, the France which, emerging from the 'dimness of past ages, has, by virile force, by artistic power, by the clear adaptation of great ideals, waged nobly and well her part of the -world's warfare and achieved her part of the world's progressive work. The representatives of that other flag have in the past fought on many a field against the representatives of the French flag. To-day those two flags are intertwined; to-day those two great nations represent one struggle, one contest for one great world-ideal of liberty and of equality. As we hear these burning words and realize that France sits there, we can see the heroic bravery of her peasant soldiery who for two years and ten months, in brown trenches and on bloody fields, have stood off the attacks of despotism, the might of German po wer and domination, and have saved not only France, but the world, and liberty, and freedom. We see, too, the unexampled heroism and the cheerful, self-denying suffering of the women of France, who, behind those trenches, have done the work formerly carried on by that soldiery, on farm, in field, and in all the avocations of life. The matchless soldiery and the devoted women of France are present with us to-day as the burning words which we have heard break upon our ears.

But, Sir, we see more than France sitting in that chair. This occasion is but the indication and registry of something wider far and deeper still which is finding birth and incarnation in the fierce struggle of to-day. Above us poises the spirit of the other mighty allied nations, whose hearts beat in unison with the heart of France and of Britain, who have caught the radiance of the same high ideal, and are pursuing it through blood and sacrifice to a victorious realization, fused together in the white heat of a fervour that burns away all previous misunderstandings, all old time feuds, all the misapprehension and ignorance of the past, and leaves the spirit of these nationalities free to knit itself together for the greater world-work which shall come after the war.
And that great work shall be the reconstruction of that which has been destroyed, the laying anew of the foundations of a world of liberty, freedom and justice; of a world which, bathed in these fires and purified in this great struggle by self-denial and sacrifice, shall be raised to higher planes, on which generations yet unborn shall flourish and flower.
And, if Canada can be allowed one small word, in that Chair we see the representative of one of the two parents of this country. Among these flags is one which is representative of Canada's other progenitor and parent. And they show you Canada, but a child, drawing its inspiration in part from France and in part from Britain, and true to the best traditions of both.
After this war, Canada can never be what she has been. The blood of her children mingles with the blood of Frenchmen and Englishmen on the soil of France. Her sympathies have been drawn towards the same ideals, comradeship has been welded in the fierce heat of battle, and a fusion of thought and sympathy and love has come which will bind this country to France and to the Allies as it never could have been bound but for the uniting power of death faced in a common cause.
It is not for me to prolong my words. Not for an instant would I attempt to set an estimation on the oration which has been delivered to us. I called it a speech* at first, but that was a feeble word by which to describe it. It was an exhibition of thought, of feeling, of fire, of high ideal and strong purpose; it was not only an exhibition of the spirit of our distinguished guest himself, but it was a translation of what his country means and is. In the
87 J
years that lie before us the memories of a great and glorious past will intertwine and play their inevitable and inexorable part, and that part can only be one of united forces making for progress and of betterment in all the long ages of the future. The old misapprehension and prejudices of the past will have passed away in the cleansing fires of war, washed away in common blood shed for a common cause, apd the spirit of our countries will emerge united for a higher ideal, and a stronger civilization.	'
In the name, Sir, of the Parliament of Canada and of the people of this country, I tender to you, Mr. Viviani, our sincere thanks for your visit to us, and for the admirable words you have spoken. This audience is small but your words, Sir, will go to the very confines of our country; they will be read by millions of people, and they will accomplish a great and beneficent work.


The Rt Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, -and may I add, though it is hardly parliamentary but justified by the occasion: Ladies and Gentlemen-a very happy thought is embodied in the motion which has just been placed in your hands by the leader of the Government. It is my honour, and still more my pleasure, to second that motion, and to that motion not only the members of Parliament here assembled but all within sound of my voice will, I am sure, be only too glad to give an unanimous assent. It was a very happy thought, indeed, that we should crystallize the events of this day in some undying manner, and what manner could be more appropriate than to incorporate in the official records of our House the message which M. Viviani has brought from the French people to the people of Canada-a message which has been expressed with eloquence unsurpassed, and in words of fire which have burned to the very core of our hearts. M. Viviani has been kind enough to say in his speech that he was bringing to us the thanks and gratitude of the French people for what we have' done for France in the present struggle. I am sure that I am voicing the feeling of every Canadian when I say that, we ask for no thanks and no gratitude. What we have done, we have done for the cause of freedom, that cause for which France has already borne such a heavy burden and made such heavy sacrifices. I am proud to say to M. Viviani that what we have done we have done willingly, freely, voluntarily,

and through no sense of compulsion. It was, indeed, the belief in many parts of the old world where the virtue of British institutions was not understood, that as soon as England became engaged in a war the result would be very different from what actually happened when this war broke out. It was the calculation of the German Emperor, of the German militarists, and of the German people, that if England became engaged in a war there would forthwith be civil war in Ireland, insurrection in India, and the British colonies would seize the opportunity to sever their connection with the Mother Country. Sir, we are not surprised that those views were entertained in Germany, because the German people have never understood the spirit of liberty. Contrary to all their calculations this paradox of an empire of free peoples has become a living thing under British institutions.
M. Viviani has also expressed to us the thanks and gratitude of the French people for the part borne by our soldiers on the battlefield. That testimony of gratitude we accept; we accept it for our noble boys who have done their part in a manner to do credit to themselves and bring glory to their country. When we faced the thought of war, there may have been those amongst us who were apprehensive as to what might be the conduct of our young soldiers, soldiers not enured to war, not previously trained for military life, and for whom the first shock of battle might be a severe ordeal. Thank the Lord, we know to-day, and it is our pride to know, that they have borne themselves in a manner which proves that the blood in their veins has not degenerated. Not only that, but more. Many of these young soldiers, our boys, who crossed the ocean, never shall re-cross it. They have shed their blood on the fields of France, their bodies lie for ever in that sacred soil. We mourn their loss. But even those who have lost them will find consolation in the thought that under the mighty scourge of war will come a union between England and France of perpetual peace and amity. These countries linked together in mutual regard are an example to the world; and, now that they have been joined by the United States, we may see in this alliance the dawn of the day long hoped for, long prayed for, but long despaired of: the realization of glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will among men.


The Rt Hon.   S@: Mr. Viviani, in the person of her distinguished visitor, Canada today hails
[Sir Wilfrid Laurier.i
the official representative of France, France at all times wonderful, but who during the last three years has held and is now holding ever increasingly the world in amazement; France, of whom you have spoken with such eloquence; France, united in a sacred union, which has put an end to all feuds, differences or shades of opinion, everything that disunited her sons; and which has placed her where she stands to-day, the champion,, not only of her own freedom, but of the liberties of the world.
We greet you as the representative of France, and that greeting 'it is particularly pleasing to me to express in the French language, of which you have just spoken with such eloquence, a language which has the limpidity of a stream and the resistance of metal, which our forefathers have 'brought with them from the country of your ancestors and kept as their most, sacred heritage.
You Visited the United States, accompanied by that illustrious general. . . .
(Long applause).
by that illustrious general who at the beginning of the war had been entrusted with the destinies of France, and who was successful in 'breaking the German offensive, and destroying for ever the enemy's plans for establishing German supremacy. You have visited all the great cities, and everywhere you have, been greeted with a spontaneity, an outburst, an enthusiasm that must have sometimes astonished you and always exceeded your hopes.
You now cross from one country to another, from the land of the United States to the land of Canada, a British soil. Many are the historic ties that bind you to the United States; but stronger are those that unite you to Canada's soil; because if you have met everywhere in the United States the feeling of admiration which the mere name of France evokes here, on this British soil, you will find not only admiration, but along with our sympathy you will find national pride; you will meet two million citizens of French descent who have kept alive the cult of France, a cult, that honours France, for inspiring it, Canada for fostering it, and England for respecting it.
But I hasten to add that, if we keep up the pride of our origin, we are equally proud of our allegiance. I say our allegiance; the word has somewhat fallen into disuse in France, but it was brought from France, into England by the Normans and brought from England into Canada. We are proud of our allegiance, because wherever rights exist duties are born. We enjoy the rights of our origin, we have the duties of our allegiance, and for both we have an equal respect.

Mr. Viviani, your stay amongst us is too brief; you will soon depart; let me tell you that you leave 'behind a souvenir never to be blotted out of our memory, and that whatever happens, we shall remain true to the cause we are fighting for. We shall persevere until final victory, be that victory at hand, as we hope, or be it distant, as may *be; we are in the struggle to the end. And we have no doubt of a victorious outcome, because we, in Canada, as you, in France, have the common resolve never to lay down arms until right and justice, have again taken their place under the sun.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER [DOT]: Sir George Foster moves, seconded by Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
That the admirable and eloquent speech just delivered by M. Viviani be inserted .in the Official Report of the Debates of this House, and that it form a part o-f the permanent record of this Parliament.
Motion agreed to by a standing vote.
Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved the adjournment of the House.
He said: Before the adjournment, I beg to say that if the ladies and gentlemen present will be kind enough to walk in at the right of Mr. Speaker, and out at his left, M. Viviani will add to the gracious debt under which he has already placed us by giving them a personal greeting.
The audience then sang La Marseillaise and God Save the King, and in response to the call of the Deputy Speaker cheered " Vive la France."
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 1.20 p.m.
Monday, May 14, 1917.