1922-05-09

COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRANK S. CAHILL (Pontiac) moved:
That the fees and charges paid on Bill No. 22, and act respecting Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company, be refunded, less the cost of printing and translating the same, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.
Mr. STEVENS:: Would it be possible to amend that motion to include a similar ease, that of the hill respecting the Fraser Valley and Southern Railway Company, which was thrown out by the committee? I think the same treatment should be extended in this case, but I am not a member of the Railway Committee, and even as the one in whose name the bill rested, I have not the privilege of so moving in committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In that case a recommendation would be necessary in the form of a report from the committee, and if the hon. gentleman will take the necessary steps to have that recommendation made, the fees will be refunded in accordance with the usual practice. As it is, there is only one recommendation from the committee and it is with respect to the Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company. Of course, it is only a matter of procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Militia

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a certain proposed resolution in favour of amending Part XII of the Canada Shipping Act, relating to Harbours and Harbour Masters.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. W. FINDLAY (South Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to call the attention of the Government to a matter which, I feel, requires some explanation. On Wednesday, May 3, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), in reply to a series of questions placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), gave certain information. Question No. 6 reads as follows:
Are there at the present time twenty-three Indians serving jail terms for having taken -part in potlatches?
The reply to that by the minister is:
No; four are serving sentence, the parole of three of whom is under consideration by the Department of Justice.
I hold in my hand a telegram from a resident of Vancouver dated May 8, which reads as follows:
Stewart stated last week in reply to Ladner's question that all Indians except four had been released. All are yet in jail. Demand explanation on floor of House immediately.
That message is signed by a gentleman in whose honesty, veracity, and caution in making statements of this kind I have the greatest confidence. I would like the minister to make some explanation.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am sorry to say that I was not able to hear more than half a dozen words of what my hon. friend said. However, I gathered that it related to some matter affecting a reply made by the Minister of the Interior with regard to Indians. If so I will confer with the minister and with my hon. friend and will try to let him have an answer from the minister before the day's proceedings are over.



MILITIA AND DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
[Mr Speaker.]
Militia and Defence-annual drill, $1,400,000.
The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Power had moved by way of amendment that item No. 90 be reduced by the sum of $1,100,000. Shall the amendment carry?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) : I do not see the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment, but he probably will be here. The only way we can proceed, I suppose, would be either to declare the amendment lost or carried, or to move a further amendment.
I wish to make a short statement to the House before proceeding with this item. It is the desire of the Government, of course, to meet the wishes of Parliament, for Parliament is supreme. After hearing the discussion the other day I conferred with my officers again, and while they maintain that the original estimates are the proper ones, and the ones that should have been put through the House for the efficient carrying on of the work, they have given me a schedule of proposed reductions, and they tell me that if these reductions are made, the balance will provide for the training of a proportionate part of the force. The training last year was not complete, but it was approximately so. This year, I am informed, if the reduction which I am gqing to suggest is made, the artillery can be trained, city corps, and possibly a portion of the country units, for it must be remembered that a number of the city corps go into camp. The amount remaining after the reduction is made will provide for this drill as usual, the number of days being nine. It will, of course, reduce the percentage of strength of the various units, but my officers assure me that it will not altogether destroy the training or drill. I wished to make this statement before we proceed, because if the amendment be adhered to, I shall move a sub-amendment.
The reductions proposed by the officers of the department are as follows: Annual drill $400,000; cadet services $100,000; clothing and necessaries $21,000; Dominion arsenals $50,000; engineers' services and works $50,000; ordnance arms, lands, etc. $9,000; pay of staff $10,000; schools of instruction $50,000; and Royal Military College $10,000; making a total reduction of $700,000. That is a pretty drastic cut, when it is remembered that there was a marked reduction already in the estimates as compared with last year. I might add, however, that last year there was about $1,000,000 that was not expended. I now

Supply-Militia
beg to move in amendment to the amendment that the figures $1,100,000 be stricken out and the figures $400,000 be substituted therefor.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I would call the attention of the Chairman to a point of order. The minister is the mover of the original resolution.


Mr. GRAHAM:: No, the Minister of
Finance.


Arthur Meighen: Is the Minister of Finance the mover of all these resolutions in Supply?


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not a resolution that he moved. The committee went into Supply on the calling of the Orders of the Day.	*


Arthur Meighen: Is it your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Finance is the mover of all motions in Supply? The resolution is undoubtedly a resolution moved by some member of the Committee of Supply. Who is the mover?


George Newcombe Gordon: As the particular
resolution before the committee was moved by the Minister of Militia the amendment to the amendment should, in my opinion, be moved by a member other than him.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am willing to move the amendment to the amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is that the figures $1,100,000 contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) be stricken out and the figures $400,000 be substituted therefor. That represents a reduction, I understand, of $400,000.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to raise a further point of order. Can there he an amendment to an amendment to a resolution in Supply?


George Newcombe Gordon: In my opinion there can be. The question is upon the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. MEWBURN:: I should like to say a word or two before the motion is put. When we reported progress on these estimates the other night, we were dealing with an item of $1,400,000 for annual drill, and we had a most extraordinary spectacle in this House on that occasion. After the minister of a department, who had prepared his estimates after consultation with
his technical officers, and had had those estimates considered by the Privy Council and approved by them, presented them to the House and moved their adoption, we witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the estimates being attacked by one of the minister's own supporters, and being supported by the Opposition. In my judgment -the support of the Opposition was justified, because in the view of this side of the House to which I now have the honour to belong, the matter that is involved here is a question of principle, a matter of national importance, and not merely a political question. I very much regret that after the mangnificent statement made by the Minister of Militia when these estimates were last before the House, on the 25th of April, these estimates did not go through as presented. I thought that the statement he made could not but meet with the heartfelt approval of every hon. member. I am just as anxious as any hon. member to see economy in every department of the Government, but I think in this department we can go a step too far and cut down the estimates to a point that we shall regret sooner or later. If I may offer a suggestion to the minister- it is probably a dangerous thing for anybody to give advice, particularly to a minister of the Crown; when I was a lawyer I always felt that it was inadvisable to give advice unless, first, you were paid for it, and secondly, unless you thought it would be accepted; but I am going to risk making this suggestion; I have every confidence in the desire and ability of the minister to effect economy in the departments over which he now presides. Some weeks ago he brought down a bill for the purpose of bringing together under one head the Militia Department, Naval Service, and Air Board. I do not know what he is going to do about the estimates of the other two departments, but I have every confidence that had the estimates before us carried, the minister during the course of his administration might have found ways and means of not expending the total amount voted for the year, but would probably have been able to come to Parliament next year and show that he had saved some money.
But I regret exceedingly to see that the minister has taken anything off the item of "training," for the reason that I suggested in the House the other day. I draw his attention to one item wherein I think he could possibly effect economy, and that
Supply-Militia

is regarding the permanent force vote of some $5,500,000. In Canada we have not got what is known as a standing army. The permanent force was organized many years ago for a particular object-for instructional purposes for the militia of Canada. During the war a great deal of criticism was levelled against the permanent force, I think unjustly because they have justified their existence. Nevertheless I believe the permanent force could be utilized to greater advantage, and in certain military districts in Canada a very considerable saving could be made. We have to-day in Canada the following military districts: No. 1, London; No. 2, Toronto; No. 3, Kingston; No. 4, Montreal; No. 5, Quebec; No. 6, Halifax; No. 7, New Brunswick; No. 10, Manitoba; No. 11, Victoria, B.C.; No. 12, Regina; and No. 13, Alberta. It seems to me that great economy could be effected in Connection with these districts. I know this will not be popular, but I believe the minister is anxious first of all to decide, if we are going to have any militia in Canada, that it should be as efficient as possible, commensurate with the expenditure we are going to make on it. Now, I believe that great economy could be made by wiping out district No. 1, at London, and putting it under the command of Toronto. Years ago it was under what was known as the Western Ontario command with headquarters at Toronto. I am not quite sure, but I am inclined to think that great economy could also be effected in military district No. 3, in Kingston. A good deal of the administrative work there could go under the headquarters at Ottawa, leaving an officer at Kingston in charge of the artillery there who could carry on the staff work in that district. In portions of district No. 5, Quebec, there is evidently no desire to do any training. I would advocate doing away with military district No. 5 and putting that under Montreal. Doing away with military district No. 7 in New Brunswick would not, I know, be popular. Years ago that was under the Halifax district. At Halifax was centred the administration of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and I believe that could be done again. No. 12 district, Saskatchewan, I think, could be eliminated. Thus you would save a large amount of money in connection with the administration of these various districts.
I would strongly urge that the permanent corps should be concentrated, at least once a year, in camp for training purposes, preferably in one of the best camps on the

North American continent, Petawawa. You could bring the permanent corps there for two months' training, and also bring here during the summer months your technical militia units which dd require, it must be admitted by any military officer, training in camp. When I speak of technical units I refer to the artillery, the machine gunners, the signallers, and the engineers. They could be brought into camp and could take their instruction while the permanent force is assembled there. After the camp is over-I would strongly urge the minister to consider this suggestion-the permanent force, instead of going back to the various military districts where they are not very actively employed, should be continued in a more efficient state for instructional purposes for which they were originally organized. Without any extra expense, and to relieve many of the city corps of the 'burden they are under in paying out of their own pockets for sergeant-major instructors and others, you could very easily detail an officer and non-commissioned officer from the permanent corps to the city units for instructional purposes. The condition to which I have referred has existed for years and it could be met in the way I have indicated.
Then comes the question of barracks. We have hardly any permanent barracks in this country. Some people may say we do not need them, but I do not agree with that view. In Halifax there is practically nothing of the kind to-day. After the catastrophe which occurred there, the old barracks was practically destroyed; and, may I say in passing for the minister's information regarding Halifax, that all that military property there was taken over by the Dominion government from the Imperial government on the understanding that that property would be maintained for military purposes. The arrangement, as I understand it, was in the nature of a trust deed-that the property, or a portion of it, could only be sold with the consent of the War office and in the event of any sale the profits resulting therefrom should be returned to the War office. That matter came up during my administration of the Militia department, and after the Halifax catastrophe we took the matter up with the British War office in 1918, when I was privileged to be over there, to see if we could not get the arrangement modified. I contend that in view of Canada's effort in the war, the Bfritish government could

Supply-Militia
very well hand over the whole of the Halifax property to us to do as we saw fit with, because it was admitted that it would be useless to spend money in trying to rebuild any of these fortifications in Halifax. An officer was sent out from the War office, General Jackson, who took up the whole question of the defence of Halifax, and also the fortifications in British Columbia, because the Esquimalt property also owned by the Imperial government was in the same position. After many negotiations the idea I had proposed was carried into effect. But what I am getting at is this: The Militia Department, or the government acting through the department, could very well sell a large portion of that property in Halifax, which was valued by the Imperial government at $5,000,000, and that money should not go back into the general coffers of the Government, because it was handed over to Canada with the idea that it would be used for military purposes. My contention is that that money could be utilized for building permanent barracks in Halifax, in Montreal, in Toronto and if necessary in Winnipeg. We have other property in the Dominion belonging to the Militia Department that could very well be sold. We have a large amount of militia property in the city of Quebec which is absolutely useless for militia purposes. True it is now being rented at a nominal rental; but why should not the Militia Department sell that proproperty? The proceeds thereof could go to build proper permanent barracks, to properly house the permanent force of Canada and make it, if we are going to have any force at all, the proper official corps for instructional purposes and available in the event of any trouble arising. Some provision of this kind should be made, because we have given away a lot of the property in which the permanent corps were formerly housed. In Toronto we gave Stanley barracks to the city, and in Winnipeg we gave Osborne barracks to the province of Manitoba. We have practically no barracks in Canada for the permanent corps. My contention is that if the department would energetically go into these matters, enough money could be raised to properly house the small permanent force without causing, I think, one dollar of expense to the taxpayers of this country.
Now as to the question of cutting down the militia: I spoke the other day in regard to the city corps. Since the war the city corps throughout Canada have done
tremendous work. I think it is admitted by everybody that their maintenance prior to the war was justified. During the recent great struggle in Europe they gave the best in them. I made the statement in the House that I thought the first Canadian contingent consisted to the extent of 98 per cent of trained militia men. The minister brought down a return to the House in which the number is stated to be over 92 per cent; but they could not figure on the balance on account of the state of the record, I do not think I was far wrong when I said that 98 per cent of the first Canadian contingent consisted of men who passed through the Canadian militia in some capacity or other. Also the officers who went overseas-not only in the first contingent but in subsequent contingents- who rose to high command in the army, were officers who derived their training in the militia in the early days. My contention is, Sir, that to-day you should not cut down this vote for training purposes. As I said before, bring your permanent corps into camp; train your technical units in camp; let your city units train at local headquarters giving them an instructional officer, and a non-commissioned officer who can act as sergeant major for the purpose of carrying on courses of instruction in training throughout the year. The officers composing the city corps to-day, and I think the large bulk of the non-commissioned officers, who served with distinction overseas and are heartily sick and tired of war, have linked up with the city battalions, and batteries, machine gunners, signal corps, and other units, for the purpose of spending one, two or three years to give the new men that are within these units the benefit of their experience. As I said the other night in the House, I do not think there is a city corps in Canada, in which there is an officer, non-commissioned officer or man, who draws one cent of pay that goes towards his annual drill at local headquarters. That money is all funded back for the purposes of the unit. The peace establishment of an infantry battalion is something like 460. Nearly all the city battalions are raised up to something like five or six hundred men. The extra uniform and equipment is paid for out of the fund that goes back to the regiment from the pay and not by the government. When a man applies for a commission he has to qualify in the school of instruction. When qualified he gets his commission, and has to supply his

Supply-Militia
uniform and equipment out of his own pocket, and it costs the government nothing. The various units of the militia corps-bands, sergeant-majors and so on -are paid for out of the moneys of that unit. I think, therefore, the money that is expended in training the city corps at militia headquarters is money well spent, and a great assurance for the country in time of need. We do not have to go far across the borders to find what they are doing. They have a standing army in the United States. True they are paring it down, but they are building up in a tremendous way throughout every state what is known as their national guards, similar to our militia. Every national guard unit throughout the United States to-day is being built up stronger than before the war. The war proved to them how weak they were, and they will take no chances again, and I venture to say you hardly ever pick up a paper from some parts of the United States where you do not find an item that the local guard has been equipped to preserve law and order. Thank goodness, we do not require that in this country, but we do not know when the day will come when we may require trained men within our borders for our own purposes, as well as for defence. Therefore, I think this Parliament would be criminally neglectful if it decided to pare this militia to a point where its usefulness would be absolutely nullified. Let us take advantage of the fact that we have the splendid men who served overseas with credit to Canada, and who would be prepared to serve in the future. Surely the inculcation of patriotism and the spirit of comradeship is worth while. I would like to see some of the estimates referred to a committee of the House-I do not suppose it will be done-especially the militia estimates where the technical officers could come before the committee and justify the expenditure brought in by the minister. In that way we would get technical knowledge which, probably, some of us do not possess at the present time. I am in favour of the proper training of the militia.


Mr. MURPHY:: The hon. member has proposed that, instead of the present estimate, extensive reductions should be made in the vote for the permanent force. He has referred to districts 1, 3, 5, 7 and 12. Can he tell the committee what these reductions would amount to in money?
I Mr. Mewburn.]


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I am afraid I cannot tell the reduction in money, but I think in military district No. 5 they have had a general officer commanding, general staff officer, district intelligence officer, district signal officer, and assistant adjutant general in charge of administration, deputy assistant adjutant and quartermaster general, and technical departments and services, transport, medical service, pay services, and so on. My contention is that in that district the administrative staff should be cut down, and the administration could be performed under the supervision of the general officer commanding. And the same is true of Toronto and London. We have officers in command of the permanent force stationed in Quebec. There is a garrison there, and a senior officer in charge. All that could be done by the O. C. in the district with headquarters in Montreal.


Charles Murphy: You have read the list of officers relating to district 5.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: They are all the same.


Charles Murphy: I understood the original suggestion was that No. 5 might be wiped out, also district No. 1, and possibly one or two others. It would be of value to the committee if my hon. friend, with the extensive experience he has had, could tell the committee what the saving would be in money.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I think the minister has his deputy there and the deputy could tell; I could not tell in dollars and cents. I suggest that No. 1, London, should be merged into Toronto. You would have an officer there. I do not know how far the minister could cut down, but I have absolute confidence in the minister, and I think that in his reorganization he could take those matters into consideration, and the whole of this vote ought to stand. He would have two or three months to work it out. I do not think he could tell now, but in a year he would be able to ascertain. I honestly feel that the mfembers of this House have enough confidence in the minister to feel that he will do his best, in justice to the militia. I think he could do it within the year, but not offhand just now.


Mr. WOODS:: I listened with interest to the discussion in connection with the military estimates. As has been stated by hon. gentlemen, we believe that the people of this country are tired of war, and we also believe that it is absolutely necessary to cut down the expenditure of this country to a

Supply-Militia
minimum. We believe there is no expenditure of government that a great many hon. members of this House, as well as the people in the country, would rather see cut down to a minimum than the military expenditure. Reference has been made by hon. gentlemen to the fact of men giving their services without remuneration, or very little remuneration. That is one of the common things that go with war. We know that the boys who went to France enlisted in the service, went over, and went into the trenches, suffered hardships and privations, and many of them laid down their lives. They went over there without the promise of any remuneration which would have any tendency to draw them in that direction. They received $1.10 per day, while foreigners in this country were making as high as eight and ten and twelve dollars a day working here. So that, so far as the remuneration of the officers and men was concerned, there is very little argument on that side of the question. As I view it, the annual drill is one item that the department might pare down as readily as any other, and yet practically lose nothing from a military point of view. I am not familiar with the annual drill, particularly of late years, but when I was a young man, many years ago, I took some part in the annual drill as a volunteer in the service, and I know that many of us young men went to annual drill to the camp at London. We rather took it as a little outing and a good time. We did not go for the money that was in it by any means, but we went there and rather enjoyed a little outing for a time. In my experience, and in the locality in which I live, the young men who enlisted and signed up for three years' annual drill, usually dropped out at the expiration of their three years' service. I do not know whether that was a general thing or not; but in my locality it was quite common and it was the case with myself. At that time the period of annual drill was two weeks, although at present I believe it is nine days in each of three years, and, so far as my experience went, the drill amounted to practically nothing as regards training for active service.
Another feature that I should like to mention in this connection is that, un-' doubtedly, quite a .percentage of those men who enlist as volunteers would, if they were called on active service, be found to be physically unfit, because there are boys who look fairly well, who will enlist for annual drill without undergoing medical examination, but who would be physically unfit to go on active service. Let me illustrate that in this way. I have two boys who both look equally vigorous and strong and who are apparently equally capable of becoming soldiers. One, who enlisted as a flier, passed his examination and went through his training, physically strong and all right. The other one, who appeared to me, his father, to be equally strong and to look just as well as a soldier, was turned down as physically unfit when he offered himself for military service and was put under medical examination. The boy who was turned down as being physically unfit would have made .an ideal volunteer to go out for annual drill. I am, therefore, convinced that a great number of the boys who sign up for annual drill would be found to be physically unfit to go on active service, and that the time and money spent in drilling them would be wasted.


Mr. VIEN:: Does my hon. friend know
that the regulation which is in force to determine who shall attend a camp of instruction is absolutely the same, as respects fitness, as the one in regard to who should enter the Canadian Expeditionary Force?


Robert John Woods: I beg the hon. member's
pardon. I did not know that; but I know that years ago, when I enlisted as a volunteer, I was put under no medical examination whatever, nor were any of the boys in the locality in which I lived.


Thomas Vien: There has been a change
since then.


Robert John Woods: We were asked to enlist
as volunteers, and we were enlisted whether we were physically fit or not. If we looked fairly well, we were enlisted and we served our three years as volunteers.


George Perry Graham: That is not the case
now.


Robert John Woods: Another feature that I
should like to mention is this. When the great war was in progress and everything looked as though we were up against it very hard, a draft was called up, I think in 1917, of boys from 19 to 23 years of age. Had the age limit of that draft been extended to 35, possibly some of them might have had former training as volunteers; but I cannot imagine that many boys between 19 and 23 years of age could have had any such previous military training.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing this question, but I should like to bring this further matter to the attention of hon. members. It was
Supply-M ilitia

stated by hon. gentlemen the other evening that the military spirit of the young men of this country would be smothered out or killed on account of lack of annual drill. What was it that plunged this country and Europe into that terrible war, one of the worst, if not the worst, war that ever took place in modern history? Was it not that very thing, namely, the military spirit that was built up in Germany by training the boys and young men of that country to be soldiers? That military spirit, which existed in Germany, got such a grip on the people of that nation that they plunged the world into the great European war.
In my opinion, we want to build up good, straight, honest, citizens in this country, to train them on Christian principles and not to instill in them the spirit of militarism in order that great armies may be established to go out and fight people of other countries. If the purpose of this appropriation is to build up a military spirit amongst the boys and young men of this country, I would oppose annual drill for that if for no other reason. That is all I am going to say on this question, but I am glad the minister has seen fit to cut down his estimates, especially as regards annual drill.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Has the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) any fear, or does he anticipate, that by this annual drill a militaristic spirit shall be produced in Canada equal to that which existed in Germany? Does he think there is any danger of that?


Robert John Woods: Military drill was never carried on to the same extent in Canada as in Germany; but, possibly, if it was carried on to the same extent in Canada, it might have exactly the same result.


Mr. RINFRET:: When these estimates were last considered by the committee, I congratulated the minister on having offered, in the general estimates of his department, a reduction amounting to over $1,000,000 for this year, and I also took consideration of the fact that he had to meet, in some branch of his department, an additional amount of some $500,000 on account of statutory increases in salaries, which increases were not actually shown in the estimates before the committee. I also took the stand that in no other department of the public service could economy be practised to the better liking of the Canadian people than in the Department of Militia or the Department of the Naval Service, and

I asked the Government to consider if it were not possible to grant a further reduction in the item that was before the committee. A similar demand has been made by other members of the committee either on this side or in the Progressive wing, but it has been very strongly opposed by members of the official Opposition. May I admit frankly that the fact of that opposition only strengthened my purpose in asking that the reduction be granted? I may be permitted, perhaps, to take exception to some of the comments that were offered in the press of the country on that demand for a reduction which was made by certain members of the Liberal and Progressive wings in this House; and as there is an amendment to the amendment, I shall possibly be pardoned if I also devote a few moments to the consideration of those comments that have appeared in the newspapers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is a remarkable fact that the newspapers that assert that Parliament lacks independence are the very newspapers that always fail to pay tribute to independence when it is shown in Parliament, and, instead, always look for some ulterior motive that may prompt the action of those who take an independent stand on these occasions. The day after that suggestion was made in the House we were astonished to read in the Montreal Star that a real revolution had taken place in this country. On April 26 the Parliamentary letter published in that newspaper bore this caption:
Radicals Make Attack On Canada's Defenders In Debate On Militia
The letter recalled the fact that some five years ago the Canadian army had recaptured Messines Ridge in Flanders, and had performed other military achievements around the channel ports; and the writer went on to draw the parallel between those glorious achievements,-to which undoubtedly we were all happy to pay tribute

and the attitude which some hon. members had taken in this House. There was also an editorial published on the same day entitled: "Have We Forgotten Our Dead in Four Years?" That is a very serious question; and the editorial, occupying two full colums, concluded:
The country might learn from the present exhibition of levity or ignorance that it is exceedingly dangerous to send to Parliament men of such limited knowledge of world affairs as those who have known no better than to

Supply-Militia
imagine the (present time to be a fitting moment in which to slander our soldiers and seek to strike from their hands such arms as they bear.
If I were disposed to seek an answer to that editorial, which ascribes levity and ignorance to some of us on this side, as well as to hon. members across the way, who must share with us the imputation conveyed, I should need but turn to the same newspaper of the very next day, April 27, in which there was published another editorial under the heading: "We had a War". When I read that title, I must confess that I was under the impression that it would introduce me to another column or so of comments similar to those that had been published in the previous day's issue. But not at all. Only the day following the publication of that editorial that implied that we were forgetting our dead, the Star wanted to convey-you can hardly imagine it-that the people of this country were overlooking the
4 p.m. fact that we had had a war as a result of which we had a national debt of $2,384,996,391; an interest obligation for last year of $130,912,905: and a railway burden which was running the country behind annually to the tune of $100,000,000. These are the things which, says the Star, the people of Canada are forgetting. It says:
Somebody should take certain selected leaders-
Selected leaders, which, of course, cannot mean men who display levity and ignorance.
'Somebody should take certain selected-and largely self-appointed-leaders of opinion in this country to one side, and whisper quietly but distinctly in their ears a piece of news which they do not seem to have heard, viz: "There has been a war''.
Further on there is the following:
We are living off the money-lenders. We have just borrowed a hundred million in New York at a cost to this country of two and a half millions commission .... In the meantime, the Canadians who are here must pay, pay, pay; and yet run deeper into debt every day.
That is what the Star had to say in regard to the national debt of the country and the necessity for retrenchment, taking their argument from the very war and the burdens which it had imposed upon the people. The very next day after they had charged certain hon. members of this House with having shown levity and ignorance, because we had asked that there should be a little more economy in militia estimates, this journal could turn round and point out the enormous responsibility
which the war has placed upon us. Another newspaper, the Ottawa Journal, took another stand. It said that the members who urged economy were not anxious at all to have the militia estimates reduced; they only wanted to get back their patronage-they did not care about the militia estimates if the Government would properly deal with the Civil Service Commission or otherwise satisfy them. If that were done they would let the estimates through. Let me quote from that newspaper :
It is understood that this is offered to pacify the Quebec members who are opposing the militia estimates, in the hope that it will result in a saw-off-the militia estimates being allowed to go through, and Quebec members being given freedom in the matter of patronage.
As the only Quebec members who took a stand on the question are my hon. friend from Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanc-tot), the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), and myself, I think I should attribute to myself, at least, one-third of the comments that are offered by this newspaper. Personally, not referring to the other two hon. gentlemen in the matter, I believe that to the extent that we are free from patronage we can give to the consideration of matters of legislation or of estimates in this House the better care and attention. But as it seems that the saw-off has gone the other way; since the minister has decided, together with the Government, further to reduce the militia estimates, I presume that my hon. friends will have to abandon their patronage hopes, if the Journal is correct.
There were other comments by other newspapers. I take it that they must have been Toronto papers. They said that our only object in the matter was to raise prejudice-the old prejudice in Quebec in regard to militia and naval affairs. Let me say frankly that I believe it to be the duty of every member in this House to express as sincerely and as clearly as he can the feelings of the people whom he represents. I do know that the people who elected me are in favour of a reduction in militia estimates; and I know, as well, that they are not prejudiced, I can say that they are quite willing to yield to the sentiment of the majority. But what makes our claim very strong to-day is the feeling that not only in a certain part of the country, but throughout the Dominion, there is a steady and increasing demand for a reduction in militia expenditures. If a vote were taken a few hours nence and it showed that the representa-
Supply-Militia

tives of the people, by a majority, reflected the desire of their constituents that there should be no decrease in the estimates, then I would trust myself to go before my people and tell them that the majority in this country stood for those expenditures. But I do not believe that such is the general desire; and so far as I am personally concerned, I conceive it to be my clear and bounden duty, apart altogether from any question of prejudice, of which I hold none, to state on the floor of the House, with frankness and sincerity, the wish of the people whom I represent.
In expressing that wish I am by no means voicing any want of confidence in the Government; certainly not in the minister. I may say without the slightest fear of contradiction that there is no member on this side of the House who has not the utmost confidence in the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham). And may I be permitted to add that in so far as the minister, in dealing with the matters of his department, is inspired by his personal recollections and associations in the war, which were of the loftiest and noblest character, there is not a member who would not admit that any statement he might make would command at once the respect and confidence of all. But I repeat, Mr. Chairman, this is not a matter of want of confidence. We are sitting in committee on these estimates. We have had during this very session the rejection by the House of a report from the Committee on Agriculture; yet the Government did not feel that the House had lost confidence in its policy. We have seen a bill recommended to the House by the Railway Committee meet with an adverse vote on the part of the Prime Minister as well as on the part of the chairman of that committee; yet it was not pretended that the House had lost confidence in the Government so far as that committee was concerned. The other day the Prime Minister made it very clear that the Government did not wish to impose its policy on Parliament, but rather was coming to Parliament to consult it and to be advised as to what its policy should be. I quote the words of the Prime Minister as found on page 1490 of unrevised Hansard of this year:
Now, I desire to say, and to say more particularly to my western friends,-who have been saying a good deal in their public speeches, that in my view of responsible government, the House of Commons, the rights of members of Parliament and the rights of the people should be regarded as all-important, and that the 
Cabinet should consider itself as a committee of Parliament and not as a body of supermen- I have taken the position that this Government would so regard itself, and that on these controversial questions, so far as it was possible to do so, the Government would seek to ascertain the will and wish of Parliament in a reasonable way and give expression to it in legislation.
If that does apply, Mr. Chairman, to legislation, certainly it applies to the estimates. I will take no notice of comments such as appeared in the Montreal Gazette, for instance, of April 27, which ventured the kind opinion that " the member for St. James should have been disciplined .. . ." or the comment of the Star of a later date, April 29, recommending
-the rule with an iron hand and more or less of the big stick. If Mr. King were able to hand a few wallops to the refractory. . . . his position and that of the Government would be stronger.
Let me say that the "wallop" and the "big stick" have never been part of the Liberal programme, and that they are not to-day. I am only too glad that, not by way of reply to these suggestions, but rather as a general declaration of policy, the Prime Minister has enunciated the principle that we are not sent here as mere mannikins to lift our hands when required to do so, but we are sent here to discuss the estimates which are put before the House and to offer suggestions on our earnest conviction and that of our constituents. The Government is moving over three hundred items of estimates this year in the departments; will any one take the position that because we sit on ministerial benches we may not even be allowed to stand up and say what we think of them? I am pleased to say that while the Liberal papers-and they felt very sensitive on the matter-while some Liberal papers actually approved of our conduct, it was the good old Tory papers like the Gazette and the Star which suggested the "wallop" and the "big stick." If you are looking for the wallop or the big stick you are always sure to find it where a Tory paper is printed. It may be objected that it is not according to tradition or to parliamentary authorities that we should discuss the estimates, and that in placing an amendment before the committee we are actually expressing want of confidence in the Government. If that has been the rule in the past, I do suggest that it is time to change it. I know that we must, in a way, be guided by tradition, but I do not think that tradition should become a chain to impede our least action.

Supply-Militia
We revere the memory of Bourinot and all those parliamentary authors who died a long time ago, but representing, as I do, twenty thousand living people, I shall never allow myself to be governed in this House by the spirit of a dead book.
No, Mr. Chairman; none of the motives that have been imputed to us have any existence. Only one reason moved us in the action we took, and it is a most logical and simple one: we asked for a reduction in the militia estimates because we wanted a reduction in the militia estimates. That is very plain and understandable. I have figures before me, but I do not think I need place them on Hansard-'they have been placed there before

showing that the militia expenditure was at a certain figure in 1911; that it increased wonderfully in the days of the "big stick" and "walloping" under Tory rule, and that it had been practically abandoned after the war when we were busy with demobilization. The question confronting the country now is whether we should revert to Tory rule in the matter of militia expenditure and spend some $11,000,000 or $12,000,000 a year, or whether we should go back to Liberal tradition and cut down those estimates. I give to the minister and to the Government credit for reducing these estimates by a large amount, particularly in view of the fact that they found an established state of affairs existing when they came into power and had only a few months to work on the estimates. I feel very grateful indeed, and most of the members behind me- certainly a great number of those facing me, and, what is more important, the country at large,-feel grateful to hear that the minister, broad-minded as he is, is able to tell the committee to-day that he will pledge himself further to reduce the estimates; in fact, he proposes to reduce this item by $400,000 and the rest of the items by an additional $300,000. It may be a little less than what was asked, though personally I never committed myself to an amount. I did, however, commit myself to the principle that we could discuss the estimates in this committee, and I held the view that they should be further reduced. As they have been reduced by this further amount I think that we should feel gratified; it is ample proof that the Government are in favour of the principle of decreasing these estimates. As a matter of fact, they are decreasing them in the whole Department of Militia and Defence by nearly $4,000,000, in round figures, this year. I will not commit myself for next year-I
will again come and represent the same twenty thousand living people who think that we should not spend too much on militia. But it is only fair to acknowledge that the Government has done its very best to meet that desire this year, and I will certainly support the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, during this session I have enjoyed myself chiefly in listening to the debates going on in the House. I have been rather interested in these estimates because some days ago we were informd that they had been whittled down to the finest possible point and that any further reductions would interfere with training throughout the country. Now, I am not going to criticise any portion of the people, but I will endeavour to show that military training is, to a certain extent, necessary and that militarism is not part of our ordinary military training. In the first place, history shows that since 1759, which is not a very long period1 of history, this country has on nine occasions stood shoulder to shoulder with the troops of the Motherland in the defence of this and other parts of the British Empire. That is an average interval of only eighteen years between the periods of calling out the militia for service.
Following the advice of the minister the other night, that we should take our place in the Empire and comparing our expenditure with that of other parts of the British Empire, I find the facts obtainable very interesting. Australia and Canada are two of the strongest links in the Empire, and in looking over the debates in Australia I was struck with their similarity to the debates in this House. There was one member, Mr. Blackeby, calling out "Brass [DOT]hats, brass hats." Another member derided "Form fours," and said the soldiers had never formed fours in the trenches. Another hon. member said that the boys had gone into training on the old white mare that had been in camp for years. All these things are very interesting and show how similar is the discussion over there to that which takes place in this country. As one who each year since 1889 has been in one camp or another in this country, I may say that I never saw a brass hat at any of these camps. I may have seen boys riding on "the old white mare," but I knew these horses would never go into active service. I knew that that boy was simply being trained to handle a horse and to move in unison with the rest of the unit. I
Supply-Militia

the North. In our own country you have had the example of achievements of small bodies of men trained locally-the men under Sir Isaac Brock at Niagara, and the men who fought at Chateauguay in Quebec. These were small bodies of trained men. They did their work and they did it nobly, and they showed the result of military training.
Look at the map of the world to-day and we shall see no sign of peace. The nations of Europe are broken up into small states, offering rich possibilities to amalgamations and combinations which must lead to jealousies and, I fear, to war. We had a discussion in this House only yesterday showing the menace to our white population from the yellow races. Asia to-day is overpopulated and the tide is Bursting through in some places. Although the dykes are up against the inundation they are not efficient and they are not unbreakable. These are facts pointing to the conclusion that peace is not at all as assured as some people believe it is. There is also a report which has just lately been published in regard to an agreement between Germany and Russia. Perhaps very few have thought of it, but yet it is a fact. The report stated that a Russian-German military agreement had been signed at Berlin recently which provided that the Soviet government should give Germany 20 warships and maintain a certain number of troops opposite the Polish frontier. Germany was to deliver to Russia arms, munitions, equipment, aeroplanes, wireless equipment, and so on. In addition to that there was another report side by side with it, which stated that it had been learned from reliable sources that France was preparing for the immediate mobilization of the 1918 army, and reserves, numbering about 150,000 men, and this was with a view of enforcing payment of the reparations. These are two very important statements which have appeared in your press and they should cause us to think. I have pointed out to you, Mr. Chairman, the benefit of training. Wipe out military training, cadet training and training of all kinds, and what will be the effect on our boys? We will produce a class of sissy boys. We will produce a class of fanatics and dancers, and will not produce the good old athletic boys who have made this British Empire what it is.


Mr. SHAW:: I say at the outset that I yield to no man in my pride in the achievements of the Canadian corps overseas. I

also say to my fellow members from Quebec that, of all the units in that grand army which represented Canada overseas, in my humble judgment there was none which surpassed in its record of achievement that famous regiment from Quebec, the 22nd battalion. May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that I yield to no man in what I conceive to be my patriotic duty to the country of my birth. But I think that, forgetting these considerations, and looking at this question in the light of real facts, and in the light of reason, we can determine for ourselves whether or not in this particular vote the recommendation proposed by the minister shall be given effect to by this committee. According to my way of thinking, the militia has two services to perform. First, it may be called upon to preserve order in this country, a function which, I am happy to say-and I think most hon. members will agree with me-the militia has seldom been called upon to perform; in fact, I know of very few instances indeed in which it has performed that duty. And, second, it may serve as a training preparation for war. There are, of course, two varieties of training the militia may furnish for war purposes, and I would like to examine just momentarily these two varieties, in order that we may ascertain whether or not the militia functions for either purpose. There is, first, the physical training, which it is suggested one gets from the militia training and, second, what one might call the training in the tactics of war. I accept without reservation the statement made by the former Minister of Militia that it took six months, to train a man for overseas service in France. I accept without reservation his statement that over 90 per cent of the men of the first division were members of the militia units prior to their enlistment. I take it-and it cannot be questioned-that a very large percentage of the men who served in the subsequent units which went overseas were not previously members of the militia at all. Let us deal with that. The first Canadian division landed in France on the 15th day of February, 1915, substantially six months from the time that unit was enlisted in this country. With a possible exception of the Princess Patricia Light Infantry, which, I believe, went into the trenches on Christmas day, 1914, not a single unit in the first Canadian division was even in a position to perform active service within a period of six months. That, to my mind, indicates very clearly that, perhaps, the militia

Supply-Militia
training did not serve effectually and effectively for the purposes which it is alleged here to-day it did serve, because, as a matter of fact, the men in the first Canadian division did not see active service in a shorter period from the time of their enlistment than did the men who had no militia experience at all. One must realize that the primal necessity in training is the physical training in order to prepare the man to withstand the hardships and privations incident to war service. Surely no man is going to suggest that by yearly mili-tia training of, at most, sixteen days a man can be fitted for war services. The situation is simply this: that the six months' experience is largely, if not entirely, needed for putting a man into physical condition, in order that he may endure the conditions he will have to undergo. As a matter of fact, in addition, the training - in tacties may be done in a comparatively short period of time. I saw the statement-and I think perhaps there may be considerable of truth in it-that three weeks of intensive training will train a man sufficiently to enable him to take his place in the ranks. I do not know whether that is absolutely correct or not, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that so far as training in tactics is concerned, a period of much less than six months is required.
It is frequently urged, and has been urged, that we should support and develop the militia in preparedness for possible war service. I am frank to say that I, for one, feel greatly disappointed in the view which has been taken in connection with that matter. We all realize, we know now, if we never knew before, that the theory about preserving peace by preparing for war is one of the most fallacious arguments which has ever been presented. All I have to suggest to this committee is that no nation was more prepared for war than Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire, and yet to-day Germany and Austro-Hungary are in ruins, as a result of their preparations for war; and not only that, but they lost the war despite their previous preparations. I say to you, without the slightest hesitation, that history has proven that war is a gigantic and dismal failure, and that the Armageddon of the nations which, happily is now past, has simply had the result of leaving the world in ruin, and in despair. I will quote from an article which appeared in the Free Press of Winnipeg a short time ago-and
I think this House can endorse every word it uttered:
There is no profit in war ; the loser loses, the victor loses, the neutral loses, everybody loses. The last war exposed and exploded all the arguments urged on behalf of war-they were all seen to be false. Nobody gained, everybody suffered, vast numbers are suffering still; war was failure, total and ghastly; it was left without argument or apology, something which was demonstrably a total loss to the human species.
With every word of that statement I agree. There is only one other thought that I have to utter. I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made the other day by the hon. member for Bur-rard (Mr. Clark), a gentleman who, I am told, served his country faithfully overseas. I quote a portion of his remarks on that occasion. He said:
The People who talk most to-day about being sick of war are those who are sick of their shame at not having done their duty in the past.
I confess that I for one am heartily sick of war, and if the rest necessarily follows, then I must plead guilty to the indictment of the hon. member for Bur-rard. But I want to suggest to that hon. member that, while it is true that a comparatively large number of men served their country overseas faithfully and well, and nobody gives them credit more than I do, we must not forget that, on this side of the Atlantic, there were thousands, yea, there were hundreds of thousands who served their country just as faithfully and well. Perhaps they did not endure the physical suffering and agony which may be incident to active service; but they endured what, to my mind, in many instances at least, was a far greater and more difficult trial and sacrifice. During the last campaign, although it was my fortune to be opposed by a gentleman representing the Liberal side of this House, I had occasion, in answer to a criticism made by a representative of hon. gentlemen to my right in connection with the war service of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of this country, to say that, in my humble opinion, the present Prime Minister of this country had served1 Canada faithfully and well during the war period, and not only that, but that he had served Canada more faithfully and more effectively than he possibly could have served her if he had gone overseas in any capacity whatsoever. I have no hesitation in stating also that I am convinced that it would have been nothing short of a public calamity if the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) had, at that time, thrown
Supply-Militia

down the reins of office and gone over to Prance to serve in any capacity whatsoever. Furthermore, what is true of those distinguished gentlemen is true of the men who worked in every capacity, the workers, the people engaged in transportation service, and the men engaged in working in the mines or in the forests. All these men contributed in great measure to the victory which could not have been achieved except for their splendid service. And I for one, having served overseas, am prepared to pay tribute to the people who stayed in Canada and did their duty here so faithfully and so well.
Canada is a young country, and so far as we know, we have no fear for either the immediate or the distant future. We are very fortunate, situated as we are on the northern half of this continent, in having, as our only immediate neighbour, a country with which we have lived in peace for a hundred years. I think it would be a very becoming and splendid thing if this young country, inspired by new ideals and a desire to set a standard to the rest of the world, could say that we, at least, are prepared to disarm to the uttermost. If we did1 that, I am satisfied that our action would constitute not only a challenge but an inspiration to peoples in other parts of the world, less fortunately situated than ourselves.
I do not propose to say anything further than this, that I had hoped that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) would, have reduced his estimates considerably more than he has. I have every confidence in the minister; I am satisfied that he is not a militarist and never can be one, because he is not constitutionally made that way. While I regret that he has not seen fit to reduce his estimates more, I desire to say that, in view of the fact that he had hut slight opportunity to go into the matter, I shall not object to the reduction which he proposed this year. But, unless some more substantial reduction is made next year, I shall certainly feel then that it is my duty, not only to my constituents and to the country generally, but to myself, to submit to this tribunal of the people that he has failed to measure up to the responsibility which is his.


Mr. CLARK:: Did the hon. member
actually attend any of the training camps prior to the outbreak of war, and if so, in what years?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am frank to tell the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) that I am proud to call myself one of the citizen soldiers. I never had any service in any camp prior to the outbreak of war, and, prior to that time I had no connection with the militia.


John Arthur Clark: Or since the war? 1 quite understand the hon. member was overseas and that he has a very good record.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I understand the hon. member to ask whether or not I have any connection at this time with the militia. I am frank to tell the hon. member that I really do not know. I do not know whether an officer or a person who has been discharged as an officer has severed his connection completely with the militia. I understand there is some system by which he is retained on the force, somehow or another.


George Perry Graham: The ihon. member is on my reserve of officers, I think.


John Arthur Clark: In what capacity did the hon. member serve when overseas?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Arthur Clark: I know I am out of order, but I wish to put myself in a position to be able to deal with the arguments which have been advanced.


Mr. SPENCE:: I did not intend to take any active part in this debate, but I cannot let this opportunity go without saying a word or two. It is regrettable that so much time has been taken up in this House in criticising a body of men who have rendered so much service to this country before war, during war and since war. It is regrettable also that some hon. gentlemen see fit to criticise such a body and to forget it so soon after the war. I had hoped that the estimates of the minister would go through when the committee sat on the 25th of last month, without any criticism. I was so pleased with the minister's presentation of his estimates that I felt it incumbent upon me to congratulate him. I am sorry he has come back now, evidently because of having pledged himself to a compromise to appease a certain element in his own party or possibly in the Progressive body. I have no wish to be over-critical, but I feel that the militia has not in the past been given the consideration which it ought to have had; and with the present cheeseparing policy it certainly cannot hope to be efficient. The minister the other night

Supply-Militia
was asked whether, with the reduction of $100,000 or, for that matter, of less, there could be efficiency, and he answered positively, no. I regret that he has seen fit to change his mind. If he was right then, he must be wrong now.
I want to correct some statements made by my hon. friend. I am interested in militia matters myself, and I do not want any misapprehension to exist in any respect regarding the militia. The hon. member made the statement that very few men were available for overseas service out of the old militia. Let me tell him that in the city of Toronto 75 per cent of the militia composed a force of 36,000 that went overseas, and those who were unable to go overseas were prepared to take their share of responsibility in training the younger element. It was because of the existence of the militia that the first contingent was able to go overseas so expeditiously.- Many hon. gentlemen talk of the badges and frills in connection with the militia. Well, to any extent that there are badges and frills, the cost is borne by the officers and not by the country. Many thousands of dollars have been contributed by the officers, in the city of Toronto and throughout the country, towards the upkeep of the militia, and it is not for anybody to criticise any of the red tape or "brass hats" or anything else of that kind, because the only thing that the Government pays for is the pure khaki. I noticed that when a few badges and frills were introduced into the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture the other evening, when there was an increase of $45,000 made for the purpose of killing pests and bugs, there was not an hon. member opposed to the expenditure. But anything appertaining to the militia and law and order finds opposition. I am sorry that conditions are as they exist today in connection with the militia, and I hope that the minister will see to it that he gets every dollar he asks for, and that he will give to the militia the fair consideration and treatment which it has not had and which, I fear, if one is to judge by the expressions of opinion that have fallen from hon. members, it will not be given at the present time.


Mr. CRERAR:: Notwithstanding the
rather warlike speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Spence), I rise to support the reduction made by the minister in the item under consideration. I have no hesitation in saying that I should have been gratified if the reduction were greater than it is. If
we compare the amount we are spending on military training in Canada to-day with what it was ten years ago, we find that there has been a very great increase indeed. I rather object to the criticism that is indulged in by some hon. gentlemen in this House, of those who wish to reduce expenses, that they are animated solely by antagonism to the militia and have no respect whatever for it. That is not the case. We can surely consider the estimates and discuss the question of reducing them without having levelled at us these suggestions in the way of criticism. So far as this particular item is concerned, let me repeat, I support very heartily the suggestion made by the minister to reduce the amount by $400,000, and my only regret is that he was unable to go a little further. Before I resume my seat I want to say a word in respect to the remark offered by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) with reference to my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw). My hon. friend from West Calgary made, I think, a very excellent speech this afternoon. He is a modest gentleman, and in order to remove any wrong impression that may exist in the mind of my hon. friend from Burrard, who also saw distinguished service overseas, let me tell the committee that the hon. member for West Calgary served for over two years in France with such distinction that he was awarded the military cross.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Translation) : Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a few words before these estimates are voted, so as to properly explain my position. Ever since I have had the honour to occupy a seat in this House, I have at each session joined with the members of the Opposition of the time in requesting that the Government reduce the militia estimates as much as possible. I have not changed my views, neither have I altered my principles, because of the fact that I now occupy a seat on the government side of the House; yet, I must say that I am pleased with the decision taken by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) to further reduce his appropriations this year. At the beginning of the session, when I spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I congratulated the Government on having decided to make a considerable reduction in the militia estimates. I would surely like this reduction to be greater still, and I hope that next year when my hon. friend the minister comes again before this Parliament, we shall have a far more substantial redue-

S upp ly-M ilitia

tion. As I stated, this is for me a question of principle, not a question of figures. I may state that I am entirely satisfied with the reduction now made by the hon. minister. If we add the reductions which he intends to make, we find that the militia estimates alone are less by about two million dollars, and we are also aware that the Government intends to reduce the estimates of the "fighting navy" if I may use that expression, by more than a million dollars which brings the total reduction close to three million dollars divided between the Militia and Naval Service Departments. I sincerely congratulate the Government and I express the hope that if they do not decide to sink the five old tubs, a gift of the British Government, they will at least decide to put them up for auction within the shortest delay possible.
Both in and out of this House, I have always proclaimed myself energetically an anti-militarist and against this imperialistic policy, and I have not changed my views on the subject. The more we reduce these militia estimates, the sooner we sink the navy, the less we become imperialists and militarists.
I am aware of the difficulty that the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) may have had this year in further reducing these estimates. The Government which at present directs the affairs of this country has hardly been in office four months. It stands to reason that all the ministers have not had time to become well acquainted with their departments and master all the details. Consequently, it seems to me that one may be an anti-imperialist, stick to his principles and support the Government in such circumstances. As it was said during the course of this debate, not only a part but the whole country is tired of militarism, tired of listening to war talk. Everywhere disarmament is advocated, considerable expenditure is incurred for that purpose, our own Government has been called upon to expend quite large amounts to take part in these conferences on disarmament. Certainly it would not be putting into practice what has been decided in these conferences if we were bent on increasing the militia estimates in Canada.
The Government has done the proper thing, it has taken the right means and I trust that it will continue doing so. The late war was sent to abolish militarism in this world, to destroy this infernal German machine, and it strikes me that it is time we should return to common sense. A
I.Mr. d'Anjou.]
wave of unrest overran this country during the war; it is time that people should understand that we must come back to peace conditions, if we wish our country to returii to its past prosperity. In the course of the present session, when the estimates on agriculture came up, we spoke of reducing the grants to agricultural fairs. I believe that the reductions which we are making to the militia estimates should go to increase the agricultural budget, or else, for instance, to endow with pensions the widows and children of those who were killed overseas.
Mr. Chairman, we have in this House listened to members advocating militarism; they would like to see the whole of Canada turned into a military camp. Most of these gentlemen are so-called drawing room officers, peacocks that have paraded here during the war, paraded1 the streets of Montreal, Ottawa and elsewhere, while the sons of farmers and workmen were being killed in Flanders. We are not to be lectured by them. I represent a county which is absolutely against militarism and I hold the same views, even though I now sit on the Government benches.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The item under discussion is the item for annual drill which was presented by the Minister of Militia and by the Government to the House and which stood at the figure of $1,400,000 when the item was under discussion just about two weeks ago to-day. The proposal of the minister or of his colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), now is that the amount of $1,400,000 for annual drill shall be reduced by $400,000. Some wonderful transformation has taken place in the intervening two weeks. As I recall the scene in this House about ten o'clock on the evening of the 25th of April, the minister was in a fairly safe as well as triumphant position. It is true that one of the supporters of the Government had moved to reduce the item by some $1,100,000, but the minister certainly rose to the occasion. In answer to the motion of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) for a substantial reduction in this vote, the minister demonstrated to the intelligence of the House that he was on solid ground. He had the support of the vast majority pn one side of the House; he had the unanimous support of the fifty members sitting in the group of Oppositionists in chis corner of the House. That, surely, was his moment for action; that was the moment he should not have let pass. That

S upp ly-M i lit ia
is when he should have tested the feeling of the House. He was on firm ground. He and his Government had considered the matter carefully before submitting it to the House; they believed they were right, and the majority of the House of Commons believed it also. But for some reason best known to himself, he let the moment pass, and then some of his own supporters began the process of belabouring and using the big stick. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) complains that the newspapers in some parts of Canada have expressed the view that his leader should belabour them and use the big stick on them. But he has no reason to complain; why, he and his friends have used the big stick on the minister in the interval. They have taken him by the throat, practically; they have dragged him into the caucus; they have told him that he either had to cut down, to trim, or they would put him out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: And to-day, in spite of the laughter that comes from the other side, we have evidence of the truth of what I state when the minister comes to Parliament and puts himself in the humiliating position of saying: My own followers will not support me; I will have to ask the House to reduce our appropriation for annual drill by $400,000.


Mr. CARROLL:: That is democracy.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend says that is democracy; I say it is the result of the use of the big stick, of the belabouring methods which have been employed by certain hon. members from the Quebec section of this House. That is the result; it is humiliating; it cannot be a pleasant thing for the minister himself. How are estimates laid before this House? The minister is advised by his staif as to the requirements of the department. Very capable men surround him for that purpose; he himself has paid high and well deserved tribute to these men during the present session. They are competent men to advise him, men of very great experience. On the basis of this information he prepares his statement and presents it to his colleagues in council as the requirements for annual drill for this year. He has to convince his colleagues that he is right. They agree. The matter then goes before His Excellency the Governor General. He, in turn, agrees. Then, it is brought before ParlOli
liament as the considered opinion of the Government and of the minister. In introducing the militia estimates, the minister said, page 1177 of unrevised Hansard:
The militia estimates, I might say, have been pared down to a point as low as is compatible with national safety.
That is a very strong declaration; a very significant statement. The estimates were not brought together in haphazard fashion. They are not ill-considered. They were gone over carefully. And they were, according to the minister's statement, pared down to the lowest point consistent with safety. The House, of course, took the minister at his word when he made that statement, and a great many hon. members of the House knew to be absolutely correct. The minister meant it; this Government meant it; it was based upon fact and founded on the advice of the men whom this country pays to advise him. But, alas, the debate had not proceeded very far when certain elements among his own supporters 'began to show what they could do with estimates and proposals by the Government. My hon. friend from St. James seems to overlook this in his argument. Under the parliamentary practice of this country and of the Motherland, under the constitution of this country, no private member can come here and propose a money vote. All financial proposals must be made by the government itself and must first be submitted to and have the approval of His Excellency the Governor General. It is the government that is specially charged with financial administration; no matter how brilliant may be the private member of this House, he cannot introduce a money bill. Consequently, it has always been considered good parliamentary practice-


Ernest Lapointe: Cannot he propose a reduction?


Hugh Guthrie: A reduction can be
proposed.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what we did.


Hugh Guthrie: I am talking of the
original proposal. It has always been considered good parliamentary practice that when a government solemnly brings forward a financial proposal-and it is the only party that can bring it forward-it stands or falls by the fate of that proposal. I do not know that there is any positive written law to say that a government must fall if its proposal falls. I know there have been instances in history where governments have withdrawn fin-
Supply-Militia

ancial proposals after they have been fully considered in the House, but I do not think there has been a single case where a government has been belaboured by its own followers into the reduction of a proposal, to its own humiliation, and has still said: We will retain office and accept the belabouring which our supporters have given us. That is the position of the minister to-day. Upon the original estimate the minister was on sound ground, as I said, but he is not on as sound ground today as he was two weeks ago.
I listened with the greatest interest and attention to the remarks of the hon. member for West Calgary, He has a very clear and convincing way of presenting a matter to this House. I listened with the greatest respect to what he had to say to-day, but I noticed at the end of his remarks he said: I am prepared to support this reduction, but I will not be satisfied with this item next year; I shall want a bigger reduction than $400,000 in this vote then.	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: "Hear, hear," resounds from a large portion of the Government benches. If it is the attitude of hon. gentlemen, that more should be cut from this vote next year, why not make a job of it to-day? There is no question as to what hon. members want who shouted "Hear, hear," just now. They want to cut annual drill to the vanishing point. In my humble judgment, Mr. Chairman, we have it practically to the vanishing point now, if we mean annual drill that is to be of any real service, and I know that is the opinion of the minister himself. You can cut down your vote for annual drill to a certain point, but there comes a point to go below which is a pure waste of money. Have we reached that point now?
I fear we have. The vote was for only $1,400,000 in the first place. It is now proposed to reduce it by $400,000, about thirty per cent of the whole. It could only have provided for partial training of a number of the units for a limited number of days in any event; it is now to be cut down by thirty per cent. It is a serious question whether the training that can be given on the balance will be of any practical advantage to the Dominion. My hon. friend from West Calgary has warned the minister that the vote must be cut still further next year, and his warning was heartily applauded by hon. members from the province of Quebec sitting opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should my hon. friend always refer to the members from the province of Quebec? There are members from other provinces on this side of the House.


Hugh Guthrie: I referred to hon. members whom I saw applauding.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: You have not very good eyesight.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is fairly good. I made my remark in consequence of what I saw-


Ernest Lapointe: I am sick of that.


Hugh Guthrie: -whether my hon. friend is sick of it or not. I notice he was the minister selected to move this reduction of $400,000.


George Perry Graham: I tried to do it myself.


Hugh Guthrie: If the matter were to stop here, although the vote as it is proposed to reduce it is far too low, it might go through, but when warning is served from an important section of this House this this reduction is only a makeshift for the present year and that next year the vote must be still further reduced, it becomes a question whether you should not do it this year rather than waste the money in the interval. What I propose to do, and what I believe a considerable portion of this House is going to do, is to stand by the position which the minister took two weeks ago. He Was right then, and the Government knows he was right, and a majority of the members of this House know he was right, and I believe they will stand by him. This is a case where we are going to save the minister from himself, or, rather, I should have said, save him from his friends, and not permit him to be humiliated or "belaboured," or " big-sticked," or whatever you like to call it. When you know you are on solid ground, when you know the proposal is right, when you know the expenditure is warranted and cannot safely be reduced, when the Government has Committed itself upon the question, my judgment is that you should support the proposal made by the minister at first, and I certainly intend in my hubible way }to support it.
My hon. friend and colleague, the member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), a member who has very much greater experience in military matters than almost any man in this House, in his speech this afternoon pointed out certain ways in which

Supply-Militia
money could be saved, not in actual training, but in administration, and it is possible there was a great deal in what he had to say. He based his argument upon this: Go ahead with your proposal as it stood two weeks ago; do not reduce it; persevere; go ahead; we will support you; you will find places in these estimates this year where, by reorganization and a change in administration, you can save large amounts of money, which you now propose to save 'by reducing the estimates before us by $700,000. In my humble judgment, and I speak only from what I have learned after two years in the department, it is far more important to pass this vote for annual training and annual drill than it is to maintain the Dominion arsenals at this particular moment. Looking over the estimates I find that the Government is practically closing up the Ontario arsenal this year, asking for only $25,000, which practically means only looking after the material and keeping the staff there; but $425,000 is being appropriated for the Quebec arsenal. Here is a suggestion for the minister:	Close the Quebec arsenal;
reduce the vote to $25,000, the same as for	the	Ontario	arsenal,	andthereby	save	$400,000. Then	you
would be able to have your annual training, which is a matter of the utmost consequence, and we would take a chance on the arsenal supplies for the future. I know the supply at Lindsay arsenal is away below the required reserve. Still, the minister does not hesitate to close that arsenal. I believe the arsenal at Quebec could be closed just as well, and $400,000 saved this year, provided1 the minister will apply that saving to the annual drill and training. Then the saving sought by the minister in moving to reduce this item for annual drill will be achieved, and if war does not take place 1 suppose no great injury will be done. We will have carried at least this point, that the men will receive the normal amount of training this present summer.


Mr. HALBERT:: I had not intended
speaking on this question to-day, as I spoke when these estimates were up a week or so ago. I think I had better tell the committee at once that I am from Ontario, not from Quebec. I congratulate the minister upon his proposed reduction of these estimates, and I want to tell him that I believe ninety per cent of the people of Ontario will be pleased with his reduction. The people of Quebec are not alone in demanding that these estimates be reduced; I think the rank and file of, the people of the Dominion are looking for a reduction in the militia estimates. The military sentiment is still alive in this country. I well remember-and other members who were here last session or the session before will recall-that Mr. Mowat of Toronto, a supporter of the late government, introduced a resolution here asking practically for the compulsory military training of all young men in Canada bet-tween the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. They were all to be compelled to devote four weeks a year, for seven years, to military or physical training, the latter to all intents and purposes being the same as military drill. Now, military training did not raise the standard of morality in Europe, and it will not do so in Canada. A stream will rise no higher than its source, a nation is no stronger than its national homes; and one of the greatest assets in Canada to-day is the free and loyal patriotism to be found in every Canadian home. That was demonstrated during the war. A great deal has been said, and rightly said, in the way of compliment to the men of the militia who went overseas; but I want to assert that a great deal of commendation is due to those men who went overseas who never were in the militia at all. The long military training did not make the Germans more efficient on the battlefield. Our boys with their short military training proved themselves to be more than the equal of the Germans, and I am absolutely within the mark when I say this.
Now it has been insinuated that we who are in favour of this reduction of the estimates are not loyal people, that we want to do away with the militia. So far as I am concerned-and I think I can speak also for most of those who sit around me in this group-I assert that we are just as loyal as any other members in the House. But I have this to say further: We have more than the trained military men to be loyal to. We have a body of men who went overseas, did their bit in the trenches, came back home and went back to the farm and into other occupations. They require to be considered to-day. We must not forget also the women who sat up at night and worked just as loyally and faithfully in the interest of winning the war as the men who went overseas. These classes, whose interest I am afraid we are forgetting at the present
Supply-Militia

time, need to have their interests looked after just as much as the men who served in the militia.
It has been said that the arsenal at Lindsay has been closed. I am informed, and I think the statement is right, that no munitions were ever shipped from that institution although we have always voted money for it as long as I have been sitting here. I think therefore it is right to get rid of this building and not incur the expense of paying somebody to take care of it. I rose simply to endorse the action of. the minister and to tell him that he has my hearty support in reducing this estimate. I also believe he will have the support of the loyal people of Ontario and as well, perhaps, the support of the people of Quebec.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Did my hon. friend use
a big stick on the minister?


Robert Henry Halbert: There must have been
a lot of big sticks left on that side when the Government moved over this way. I did not see any big sticks, and I did not use any-I am not that type of man.


Mr. MANION:: I regret that in the discussion of this question-in which I have taken no part previously-there has been too much of a tendency, as there usually is when we differ from the government, to cry from the ministerial side "Tory, tory," and from the Progressive side-as my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) has just illustrated-to shout "Militarism, militarism." M'atters seem to have reached the stage in this House that if any hon. gentlemen sitting in this corner differ with either of the other parties they are denounced as a "Tory group" and in cases like the present as "a group of militarists."


Ernest Lapointe: And on this side from Quebec.


Robert James Manion: Well my hon. friend will not accuse me of ever saying anything against Quebec-


Ernest Lapointe: No, I admit that.


Robert James Manion: -but as a matter of fact my hon. friend will admit that on this occasion it was the members from Quebec, sitting opposite, who opposed this vote.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; members from all the provinces spoke.


Robert James Manion: I admit that, but it was the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. [Mr. Halbert. 1
Po-wer) who moved to cut down the vote and he was supported by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), the member for Laprairie, and various others; and to mention that the hon. members from Quebec are opposing this vote is not necessarily to be regarded as saying anything derogatory towards the people of Quebec.


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend object to calling the members sitting around him Tories?


Robert James Manion: Well, personally I object to being called a Tory-


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Why do you remain there then?


Robert James Manion: Because, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a Tory party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: That is why I remain here. I do not wish to go off into history but there was a time, a hundred years ago, when there were Tories; there are very few members of this House who accuse themselves of being Tories to-day. And if there are a few who do so that is their privilege; I do not say that myself; I repeat, I am not a Tory. And I say further, as regards the hon. members sitting around me, I do not consider that very many, if any, of them are Tories.


Joseph Archambault: Name them.


Robert James Manion: To get back to the question I was discussing, which was militarism and the item before the committee. Because some of us in this corner have taken the position that this vote should go through, we are accused of being militarists by my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat and of being Tories by my hon. friend from St. James and his colleagues. Well, we are in the same position as the Minister of Militia who brought in these estimates, and he as my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said, made a very fine speech in defence of his estimates the other night. I can say very frankly that it is the best speech by long odds that I have heard him make in this House.
But when my hon. friend from St. James makes the statement that he is voicing the views of the whole of Canada I think he is making rather a large statement; and when my hon. friend from North Ontario states that he is speaking for ninety per cent of the people of this country I think he is making a statement at least eighty

Supply-Militia
per cent too large. He was elected to represent one constituency and probably has a perfect right to speak for himself and for the people of that constituency; but I doubt whether he has any right to speak for my constituents on a question such as this. Now I arm not a militarist and I never have been one. In many ways I agree with the people who do not wish to spend too much money on militarism in this country, and personally I have always taken that attitude. However, in looking up the estimates which are before the committee I find in reply to a question by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Church) that the expenditures in 1912-13 reached practically the same amount as the estimates which the Minister of Militia brought in for this year. Therefore if you consider that the value of a dollar to-day is worth perhaps sixty per cent of what it was in 1912, the estimates of the Minister of Militia to-day are really about forty per cent less in total than the estimates of the Militia Department in 1912.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: But is the financial condition of the country to-day the same as it was in 1912?


Robert James Manion: No, I will admit the financial position of the country to-day is not the same as it was in 1912-13. But I would like to ask my hon. friend if the peace conditions of the world to-day are the same as they were in 1912-13. I have recently read-and I am sure my hon. friend has read it also-the statement made by Mr. J. H. Thomas, the Labour leader in England whom we all know, in which he says tha't we are as much upon the verge of war to-day in Europe as we were in the early days of 1914.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does he not say in that statement that if there were a war England should not participate?


Robert James Manion: Yes, he does, but a
labour leader, John Burns, resigned from the cabinet in England in 1914, on the ground that England should not participate in the war, but she did participate; and I venture to say that the hon. gentleman from St. James (Mr. Rinfret), who is a very intelligent member of this House, will agree with me when I say that, in a war to-day, carried on in any part of this world, no one knows who will or will not participate until the war is over. The world is so close together, the transportation systems of the world are so well developed, the several nationalities of the world are so
highly developed to-day and so closely associated, that no one can tell who is going to take part in any war, and certainly the position of the Mother Country, and of the ancestors of my hon. friend in France, the mother country of most of the members from Quebec-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Every one of them.


Robert James Manion: No, the Minister of
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) would hardly say that. It is true that France has taken a militaristic attitude, and I am not criticizing her for so doing, because she suffered severely in this war. In this 'country we do not know what is going to happen, if a war occurs. I sincerely hope, as everybody in this House hopes, that we will not have a war in the near future in which Canada will have to take part, but, while I deny absolutely the cry of militarism as applied to any of the members in this corner of the Chamber-and I deny it as regards myself because I am opposed to militarism-yet I do not believe in being so much of a peace-lover that I turn the other cheek to everybody who chooses to assail me. In the world to-day we do not know when we may require men who are trained in military affairs. It has been mentioned by lion, members on both sides of the House that many good soldiers who went overseas and made good records, including my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), were not in the militia. That is true, but I desire to point out to hon. gentlemen opposite that the thing which saved Paris from German invasion in 1914, and the thing which saved the alnea ports about that time, was the fact that there was in England a certain standing army, and because there was in France a very large standing army of trained men. If England and France had taken the attitude which is being taken to-day by a large number of members of this House, that we should have practically no military training at all in this country-because that is the attitude most of them take, judging by their applause to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-if they had taken that attitude back in 1912 and 1913, and thereabouts, there would have been nothing In the world to prevent Germany capturing Paris and conquering the world. 1 do not agree with the peace at any price attitude which our friend the former President of the United States assumed, which was a very noble idea, but he was not supported in his own country at the next elec-
Supply-Militia

tion, and he was not able to live up to that ideal throughout the war, because the United States found ultimately they had to take part in the war to help save civilization against the Germans.
I rose to make a few remarks against the cry of Toryism and militarism by men who happen to differ with other hon. members in this House. I am not a militarist, and yet when the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) brought in his original estimates, we agreed with him, and I think he should have stood by them. I do not like to tell an old trained politician what he should do, but it seems to me, if I were a minister, and brought in my estimates and made a strong speech, as the hon. gentleman did, in favour of them, and then was turned down by my own party I should feel it my duty to resign.


Mr. FOURNIER:: He did not have to
resign.


Robert James Manion: No, he retired. There are trained men in the leadership of the militia of every country who come to the front when war calls them to the front to fight; and, while it is true that a large proportion of the men who went from Canada were untrained men, the men who led them, in the large proportion of cases, were in the militia of Canada previously. I say that, although I served in France, and was never in the militia of Canada. The men who led the Canadian army, from Sir Arthur Currie down, were men who had served in the militia of Canada and had taken part in these camps. And my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross), who made such an eloquent speech this afternoon, was one of them. I have no reason for quarreling witih the Minister of Militia for retiring from his position, but I think he took the proper position the other day, and I should have had a strong admiration for him if he had stood by his guns, instead of making a noble retreat as one of my hon. friends on the other side termed it.


Mr. GOULD:: I do not think it is necessary to take up much of the time of the House in arguing in favour of the amendment to the amendment, simply because it seems to me the consensus of opinion of the House at the present time is very nearly unanimous in favour of it. I desire to make one or two comments on the statements made by the two hon. gentlemen who spoke this afternoon, and particularly on the statement made by the hon.
[Mr. Manion.}
gentleman from Fort William (Mr. Manion). It seems to me that the hon. gentleman can scarcely define what the name of his party should be, or at least, he objects to the party being termed Tory. The thought occurs to me that we might term it the prehistoric party of Canada. That might apply to it all right. Of course, if that is not acceptable, they do not have to accept it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The antediluvian party.


Oliver Robert Gould: I will refer to a few of the remarks made by the hon. ex-minister [DOT] of militia (Mr. Guthrie). It seems to me, in watching the debates in this House, that when the question of the militia estimates comes up, the real solid support for the retention of the maximum vote that can be put through this House comes from the party down in the corner. The hon. ex-minister of militia last year, and the year before, made positive assertion that the minimum amount of expenditure had been reached in the estimates that he had submitted to this House. To-day again he stresses the point that, if these material reductions have been made by the present Minister of Militia and Defence, we have now reached the danger point and dare not go lower. I have tried to make myself give credit to the hon. ex-minister of militia, while he was Minister of Militia and Defence, in that he did and should know more of the circumstances attending the militia of Canada than I could possibly know, but when I see him, as an individual, waver, as is shown by the recital I have given the House, likewise my faith in him must waver. It seems to me we have to form our own conclusions, and, in doing so, to bear in mind that we are here to do the will and the bidding of the people who sent us here. It seems to me that the militarist, if there be such a thing in Canada today-and I do not wish to make a specific charge that there are such people, although evidence has been submitted as to their existence in Canada-the militarist, as such, has had his day. Surely in the last five or six years his appetite for militarism should be satiated, and at the present time the lovers of peace throughout the country should have a little to say. The peace-loving people of Canada have not had an opportunity of expressing their opinion; they have not had an opportunity of showing to Canada and to the rest of the world what peace can do in the world, and I honestly believe the time has arrived when

Supply-Militia
they, at least, should he heard in the councils of the nation, and an attempt be made to give effect to the wishes of those people back home who find the sinews of war, the money with which to keep the machine going.
We will all admit the need of militia from time to time. For the benefit of the newspapers of Canada which have repeatedly attacked and denounced hon. members of the Progressive group who, conscientiously and with honest intent, have asked for reductions in these estimates, we should explain to this House and to the press of the country that, during the last three years< not one sentiment has been expressed from this Progressive group that gives them cause to believe that we do not approve of militia. We have repeatedly stated throughout Canada that we do not believe in extravagant expenditures, and during the past three years that I have been in this House positive proof has, on many occasions, been given in this Chamber of instances in which moneys have not been dispensed equitably, justly or for the purpose of militia and defence. One of the great factors that remain in the minds of the people is that moneys that we are supposed to be voting for militia and defence are being used, not for militia and defence, but just to maintain an aristocracy in this country.
As the House seems to be in favour of the proposed reduction, it is unnecessary to place upon Hansard the figures which I have compiled; but I desire to refer to a statement made by the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) with regard to the course that the minister takes before he presents his estimates to the House. He said that the minister's advisers will come and tell him what amount of money is required; that his advisers are capable men. We admit that they are capable men; but again I ask this pertinent question: Have the advisers to the minister, not alone in the Department of Militia, but in every other department, had an eye single as well to the individual who finds the money, who has to pay these obligations, as to the ways of expending that money? Are they as scientific in the matter of finding the money as they are in the methods of expending it? That is a thought that should remain in the minds of all ministers of the Crown. The exminister stated that the minister will be advised by his officials; that then he will submit his estimates to the Governor General, and that he will come back to this
House with the figures. When the exminister was making that statement, the thought occurred to me that, right at the moment when the minister presented his estimates to this House, somebody should rise and speak on behalf of the people because, in no instance in the remarks made by the ex-Minister of Militia, did he mention the cause of the people back home who provide the money. I am speaking for the people, and I am prepared to support the sentiment, as expressed by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) , that ninety per cent of the people of Canada disapprove the huge expenditures that have taken place in Canada in the Department of Militia and Defence.
I have compiled a list of figures which shows that the officers in certain districts are in the proportion of one officer for every 2.3 men. I have talked with officers right in the city of Ottawa; I have met them in this very Chamber, and I have been told by honourable and gallant members of this House that they are supporting this reduction in the estimates; likewise, by gallant men in the city of Ottawa and throughout Canada that they approve our request_for a reduction, as they say at once that the money is not being equitably expended; that it is being used to pay officers' salaries; that we are over-staffed and under-manned; that in these vast areas it will take three days to bring the men in and to give them their equipment so that they may undergo training, and it takes the same time to take them home again. Is that militia? No, it is not militia, and I can show where, in a certain district of Canada, the officers themselves received between $6,000 and $7,000 more in salaries and allowances than the total expenditure on men, equipment, travelling expenses and everything else. It is that to which the people of Canada object and not to the false interpretation that is placed on our attitude here that we object to militia.
When the sentiment is expressed that we object to militia, attached to that is the sentiment that we are unpatriotic. That is not the case; but we have been taught to know the value of 100 cents, and that is what we have come here to plead for. We want those who receive the money to understand the value of 100 cents to-day. That is what I am pleading for, and that is why I ask for equitable treatment and equitable expenditure, not to cultivate any spirit of antagonism to national defence or to create the impression that we want to
Supply-Militia

defeat any defence party in Canada. When we have, in any district, officers in the ratio of one officer to 2.3 men whom the officers are supposed to train, we are not getting what we are supposed to have appropriated this money for. I ask some hon. members if the same thing was true in other districts and I was given to understand that the same condition obtained. I have another little complaint to make. I wish to state that the militaristic spirit seems to actuate the minds of some of those who get into authority. They have the conception that military law over-rides civil law, and it is the spirit of the Hun that prompts them to think and to speak in these terms and in this manner. It is only a matter of about two weeks ago that we had such an occurrence in Ontario. Liquor was supposed to be seized in a canteen and one of the excuses offered was that military law over-rides civil law. Let us come down to plain facts and be men, side by side, and I am sure the people of Canada will approve whatever we do in equity.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to some matters in connection with Military District No. 12, in which we have a certain condition that apparently does not obtain in any other military district in Canada.


George Perry Graham: What is the headquarters?


Oliver Robert Gould: Regina. I notice, in the
Auditor General's report, an item in connection with Military District No. 12, which, in my humble opinion, indicates that those who participate in these things seem to have very little regard for the people generally. I see an item here called "staff rides", and it is only in Military District No. 12 that this seems to be provided for. I notice that they have rented a hall at $5, and that they charge the Government up with $32 worth of theatre tickets. That is another conception of mind of the militarist, and I cannot understand why these people in that young military district should conceive the idea that they have a right to charge this country up with theatre tickets, while they are racing around the country. If one considers the amount of money that is set opposite each individual name, surely they can afford to purchase their theatre tickets. And the poor individual who has provided a hall receives a paltry $5 for his investment. As I think it is in the interests of a proper consideration of the estimates. I shall read these items

in order to place them on Hansard. They are:
Staff Rides: Prince Albert, Sept. 10, auto hire, $90, hotel expenses, $4.50; Saskatoon, Sept. 22-23, auto hire, $29 ; hotel expenses, $85.10 ; theatre tickets, $32; Regina, Sept. 29-30, auto hire, $119.50 ; hotel expenses, $79.15 ; rent of hall $5; North Battleford, Oct. 13-14, auto hire, $34.60; hotel expenses $27.75 ; Estevan, Oct. 26, hotel expenses, $13.40; auto hire, $3.50.
And by the way, $17 or $18 is the only money that has been spent in Assinihoia, although we furnished the money and in all ways taxed them. That is all the return we have for the huge amount of money taken from us in the way of appropriation. To proceed:
Moosomin, Oct'. 28, hotel expenses, $20, auto hire, $42 ; blue prints, etc., for rides, $24.69.
These are items which, I think, cannot be justified at all, and as I pointed out before, it appears that we have generals and staffs going around the country with presumption enough to charge these things against the country, when, from the sums of money placed opposite their names, we have at least the right to think they have been lavishly provided with funds of the people.	[DOT]
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 6, respecting the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Company.- (Mr. Tolmie)-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
George Newcombe Gordon: An amendment has been moved by Mr. Neill, that clause 1 of the said bill be amended by striking out all the words after the word "railway" in line 17 thereof. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. NEILL:: I may remind the committee that the explanation of this amendment is that it brings this bill under the operation of the Railway Act of Canada. That is the whole sum and substance of it. An hon. member said the other night it was hardly necessary to do this because the company was on a different footing from that of any other company. But that is not so; this company is to be treated by this legislature, I hope, as any other railway

Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railway
company would be treated, and I have a precedent for that. In 1914 this charter was renewed for, I think, the fourth time; this is the seventh time renewal has been sought. But in the act of 1914 this sentence occurs:
-and shall within the two years expend thereof an amount equal to fifteen per cent of the capital stock.
That is precisely the clause that will operate under the Railway Act if my amendment passes; so that we have actually a precedent, not only as regards other railways, but as regards this railway, for the insertion of such a clause. All I am asking is that now, eight years after that was put in, the clause be once more inserted.


Mr. DICKIE:: I come from the country affected by this railway. I have my good neighbour from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) on the north and the member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) on the south, and naturally I wish to remain on good terms with both. However, as we look down towards the south, following the laws of gravity, I naturally incline towards the hon. member for Victoria City on this subject. I know the country very well indeed through which this railway goes. Now, my good friend from Comox-Alberni has a faculty for painting word pictures which appeal to people-pictures to suit his own imagination, to a great extent. In this instance he is painting what to me is a cubist picture which I cannot understand. He has told the House at length that even if this bill is passed the Canadian Pacific will not build this line-even if they have one year or two years within which to commence. I quite agree that such may be the case. My hon. friend has told us of immense water-powers.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is out of order. We are not discussing the length of time, or the building or the not building; we are discussing an amendment which provides that the company shall spend fifteen per cent of the cost of construction within the time authorized.


Charles Herbert Dickie: If I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, I will bow to your decision. I have not taken up much time with respect to this matter. I am dealing with the principle of the bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is discussing the first clause of the bill. In my opinion he is in order.


Charles Herbert Dickie: As I say, I know this country, and to show you that my hon. friend is painting a cubist picture I would point out that he said the other night that this question had a bearing upon the immigration problem of Canada. The district through which this road will eventually go is a small valley and we have plenty of people in our country to occupy that valley should we desire to do so. The valley has been logged over and agricultural possibilities are not quite as we would wish them, but there will be settlement in that district. To-day it would not pay the Canadian Pacific to build a road in there; it would not pay any company to do it. If that were not the case I would quite understand the reasonableness of bringing some pressure to bear on the Canadian Pacific to build the line.
Now, although we on this side have little reason for having any great affection for the Canadian Pacific, I do think that when it can be shown that the building of this road will be a profitable undertaking the Canadian Pacific will extend a line into that country.
The member for Comox-Alberni has said that there are radium mines in there. We all know what radium is; there are about eight ounces of it in the world, so that it would not furnish much tonnage. I have made some investigations on an island known as Valley island looking for other minerals, and I know it is claimed by prospectors to contain rock which shows radioactivity, which means that there is some radium in it. The member for Comox-Alberni told us the other night that this was the only radium mine in America. I may say that Gilpin County, Colorado, has contributed very materially towards the radium product of the world to-day, the ore being in the form of pitchblende or carnotite which furnishes the radium. The radium field, if there is one there, would not be affected in any way by this railroad. There is a first class road on Vancouver island which is traversed by hundreds in automobiles, a method of travelling much more pleasant than by train. This highway goes to a point just south of the mouth of the Campbell river, and this railway would pretty well parallel it. At present there is no great demand for a railway there to take timber from that country; the road so nearly conforms to the contour of the coast line that the timber naturally goes down into the salt water. Duncan's bay, to which this road is going to run, is just at the end of this magnificent automobile road on Vancouver island.

Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railivay
There are some settlers, very good men, engaged on little farms, 'but we all know that it takes more than a few scattered settlers to justify the building of a railway. 'If any other railway company in Canada was prepared to build in that territory, or if the road could be hastened in any way, I would not 'be on my feet to-night, but such is not the case. There are immense water-powers there. It is estimated in official reports that 200,000 horse power could be developed. There is also in that country a large iron deposit, which I have visited. It is a very promising deposit, but it requires considerably more work to demonstrate whether it is commercially valuable or not. When they start to develop these water-powers and this large iron deposit, we may expect this road to be extended, but at present, as an hon. gentleman said earlier in the session, it seems to me that the hon. member for Comox-Albemi is making "much ado about nothing."


Mr. TOLMIE:: The amendment which is proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) will, as he has stated, have the effect of bringing this railway under the Railway Act, clause 161. Now the intention of that particular clause was to prevent charter-mongering by irresponsible railway companies. I think that neither the Canadian Pacific nor the Canadian National roads can be included in that category, and therefore these restrictions are not necessary under the circumstances.
In the act passed in 1919, I think, incorporating the Canadian National Railways, a provision was inserted extending the charter powers of a number of railways included in that. system, Which had been previously authorized both by the federal government and provincial legislatures. In this connection certain privileges were granted to these roads. The provision in the act was as follows:
The times for the commencement and completion of the construction of the lines of railway specified in the second schedule to this act, which certain of the companies comprised in the Canadian Northern system were authorized to construct, are hereby extended for two years and five years after the passing of this act.
In the following year the Canadian Pacific Railway introduced a number of bills covering new branches and extensions of its lines, and the question was raised in the Railway Committee as to whether clause 161 of the Railway Act should be applied to these roads. It was pointed out to the committee, however, that the Canadian Pacific was entitled to the same treatment in this matter as the Canadian National Rail-
ways had received the year before. The committee agreed with this view and granted the request of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Strange to say, included amongst these bills was one relating to this very line of railway under discussion to-night. There was no difficulty over the acts passed in reference to the Canadian Pacific in the following year, 1921. The same privilege's were extended. In this particular case I can see no reason why an exception should be made, particularly as this bill has been submitted to the Railway Committee and has been accepted by them.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni the other evening referred to the Canadian Pacific securing an extension of their charter, and thereby possibly preventing other railways from constructing in that territory. I think that can hardly be the case because from 1916 down to 1920 the Canadian Pacific allowed their charter for this particular road to lapse and not a single railway company applied' to build (that piece of railway. In fact, located as it is, it is simply an extension of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway, and with no other railway on that end of Vancouver island no other company would build in that territory because they would have no road to link up with.
When the extension was applied for before the Railway Committee in 1920, Mr. McLeod, who is connected with the Canadian National Railways, was in attendance in connection with some Canadian National business, and he was asked by the committee if he had any desire to 'build a line of railway on the route laid out by the Canadian Pacific to Duncan's bay, and he informed the committee that he had no desire to build any railway or extend the Canadian National railway system to that section of British Columbia.
It has also been stated that it would be a great hardship to settlers if this railway was not built. As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, this railway runs almost parallel to the east coast of Vancouver island, and is located at no great distance from that coast, which is well supplied with a good steamer service. Moreover, the roads in that section, and in fact all over Vancouver island, are a very high class, so the farmer will suffer very little interference by deferring the construction of this railway.
I have pointed out already that to have the time for commencement and completion cut down to one year and three years, instead of two years and five years res-

Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railway
pectively, would be out of harmony with the rule adopted for the Canadian National Railways. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, it will require a good deal of time to make arrangements to get the road under way, and if only one year was granted within which to commence construction, practically the whole of that year would be taken up in getting ready, and the railway company would probably have to apply for an extension of their charter inside of twelve months.
Under the present uncertain financial conditions, new railways can only be built after a very careful survey of the situation has been made, and there is reason to expect good results from the money expended. It is the hope and desire of this company to extend this road just as soon as their financial experts think there is a possibility of getting a reasonable return. Surveys have been already made and plans prepared.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred the other evening to the building of logging roads in that section of British Columbia. That was hardly a fair .comparison, because it is well known that these logging railways are not built in such a way that they would be accepted by the Railway Commission for either passenger or freight service.
In connection with the failure to renew bonding privileges, I may say that the committee's attention was called to the fact by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that this course was adopted for the reason that the railway company had no intention of building the road. In the 1920 act, this privilege was secured to the company, and therefore it is unnecessary to renew bonding privileges. It is quite true that the Canadian Pacific Bill No. 5, which is also before the committee at the present time, does make provision for bonding powers, but I am informed that the reason for that is that for one of these lines the charter has lapsed, and it became necessary on that ground to renew the bonding privilege. Railway construction costs at the present time are about fifty per cent higher than in 1913. Many of the materials entering into railway construction are about double in price or a little higher; rails are double what they were in 1913, ties are thirty to forty per cent higher. Taking materials generally, they cost much more than in 1913, and most likely very much higher than they will in a short time. I think that under these conditions, taking into consideration the fact that this is the largest railway corporation in the world and one that has done a great deal for the development of this country, it is only fair to grant to that company the same privilege that has been granted to other railways in Canada and trust in the bona fides of the company to build this road as soon as conditions justify them in doing so. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the bill should be allowed to pass the committee; I do not see that the objections raised to it are of a very serious nature.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for
Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) was entirely out of order throughout his remarks and therefore I need not waste much time in dealing with them. The amendment before the committee is one relating to bringing this railway under the Railway Act, so that the company will have to spend fifteen per cent of the cost of construction. Has that anything whatever to do with the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo which dealt with the merits of the question of building or not building the railway? He drew attention to some of the remarks that I had made in that connection on a previous occasion and endeavoured to dissipate the effect of them. But I notice that in spite of all his attempts to do so he admitted the following facts: First, that there was a radium mine in the vicinity of the proposed railway; secondly, that there was water-power capable of producing 200,000 horse-power and, third, that there was a large iron deposit in the neighbourhood. Did I mention the iron deposit? No, I did not. But the hon. member has reminded me of it. So that the facts are that there is a water-power capable of producing 200,000 horse-power which can be easily harnesse'd; there is an iron deposit of the magnitude that he has indicated; and radium is present in the vicinity.
I think these are good enough reasons to require the completion of the railway; but as I do not want to be out of order, and as we are not dealing with these questions at the present time, I shall not refer further to the hon. member's remarks but go on and deal with the observations of the member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). The latter dealt with the subject of the amendment in the early part of his remarks but wandered off the subject like my hon. friend from Nanaiimo later on. He said that the construction referred to in the Railway Act as regards the expenditure of fifteen per cent was not intended to
1606	COMMONS
Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railway
apply to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If that is the case why was it not so stated in the Railway Act, and then there would have been no trouble at all? If it was not intended to make the Railway Act apply to one railway in particular, it should have been so stated in the act and then there would have been no confusion.
My hon. friend had to fall back on time honoured precedent and say that it had been done before. Well, one precedent is as good as another. I have quoted to you one precedent of the year 1914 when that identical clause was put into the Canadian Pacific Railway Bill. My hon. friend cited a case later on when it was not put in. We therefore have a choice between a precedent in one way, and another precedent in the other direction. But in view of the conflicting precedents let us go back again to the Railway Act of Canada which says this provision shall be observed. As regards the logging road he talked about, while I am out of order in referring to it I think I should he allowed the same latitude that was allowed my hon. friend. I have travelled over the logging road in question. It is forty miles long, is well ballasted, and the curves are good. The company who built it did not receive a subsidy of $6,000 a mile to construct it, nor did they hold the project back for twenty-two years by means of extensions of the charter.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived; Yeas 39, Nays 76.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: There is another
amendment of* which Mr. Neill has given notice.


Alan Webster Neill: That amendment would have no force seeing that the previous one has been lost. I would therefore ask leave to withdraw it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Dropped.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 5, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Knox.
On section 1-Extension of time for construction :
TMr. Neill. 1
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I served notice of an amendment to this bill.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved in amendment by Mr. Carmichael to strike out in clause 1 all the words after the word "railway" in line 22, page 2, of the said bill.


Archibald M. Carmichael: It looks almost
futile to say anything in regard to this amendment, after the decision of the House on the amendment proposed to Bill No. 6, because this amendment is similar. It appears to me that this is a matter between a wealthy corporation and the supporters which it has, and the common people of Canada and the supporters which they have. I have no antagonism against the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it is not with any feeling of hostility that I move this amendment. I have every respect for that great corporation that, 37 years ago, commenced operations in Canada and to-day holds the position it does financially and as a service to the public. But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to making a choice between a wealthy corporation and the common people of Canada, I am on the side of the common people of Canada.
I am particularly interested in subsections (c) and (d) of this clause, because the extensions proposed in those two subsections run through the constituency which I represent. Some time ago the Canadian Pacific Railway got a charter to build two extensions through this portion of the constituency. It may be in the minds of some hon. gentlemen that my constituency is in very bad shape, and has not any need of any railway extension, but'I wish to remind the House that the constituency is a very large one. It extends about 150 miles east and west, and between 75 and 80 miles north and south. While the southern portion of the constituency is hard hit financially, the northern portion is in good shape. The farmers are doing fairly well, the district is well settled, and the settlers have been in there for some 15 years. The land is productive, and has been producing for a number of years large quantities of grain. This district which is supposed _ to be served by these railway extensions is about 50 miles east and west, by about 35 miles north and south. You will readily understand that some of these settlers are from 20 to 25 miles from a railway point, and any person who has been raised on a farm can understand what that means in the

Canadian Pacific
hauling of grain. The large quantities of grain produced in this district have to be hauled a great distance, which goes a long way in reducing the profits which should go to the farmers. I have not proposed any amendment in regard to the time for building these extensions. This bill provides two years for commencing and five years for completing the work. I do not propose to make any change in the time. The amendment provides for the deletion of the words in the latter part of clause 1, which reads:
And if within the said periods respectively the said lines are not commenced, or are not completed, and put into operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line as shall then remain uncompleted.
On a cursory examination it would appear that it did not make much difference whether these words 'were in the bill or out of it, hut, while I am not a lawyer, and never expect to be one, yet in my opinion the fact of these words being ip the bill makes a great difference in the operation of it, because when these words are in the bill, construction on these branch lines comes under the provision of this bill and is outside the provisions of the Railway Act of Canada, but when these words are eliminated from the bill, the construction of these branch lines comes under the provisions of the Railway Act of Canada. In section 3 of the Railway Act I find subsection (b), which reads:
*Where the provisions of this act and of any special act passed by the parliament of Canada relate to the same subject matter the provisions of the special act shall, in so far as is necessary to give effect to such special act, be taken to over-ride the provisions of this act.
That is exactly the provision which the Canadian Pacific Railway gets the advantage of if these words are included in this special act. The object of the amendment is to delete these words and bring the construction under the Railway Act of Canada.
Section 161 of the Railway Act reads:
If the construction of the railway is not commenced and fifteen per centum of the amount of the capital stock is not expended thereon in survey, purchase of right of way, and actual construction work, or, in the case of a branch or extension of the railway, if fifteen per centum of the bond issue authorized therefor is not expended thereon in actual construction work, within two years after the passing of the act authorizing the construction of such railway, branch, or extension, as the case may be, or, where the Parliament of Canada grants an extension of the time for commencing such
construction, within the time so granted; or, if the railway or branch, or extension, as the case may be, is not completed and put in operation within five years from the passing of such act, or, where the Parliament of Canada grants an extension of time for completion, within the time so granted; then the powers granted by suoh act or by this act shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the railway or branch or extension, as the case may be, as then remains uncompleted.
You will notice section 161 makes special provision for the expenditure of 15 per cent of the bond issue within the first two years, in order to enable the railway company to say they have commenced construction. That means something in Bill No. 5, because it is intended to build those two lines. The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), in speaking to Bill No. 6, stated that it was not necessary to have restriction for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, because jthey did not_intend to Build the Tine" anyway, and he further stated that there was no provision for bonds in Bill No. 6. In Bill No. 5 provision is made for the issue of bonds or debentures to the extent of $40,000 per mile. If the construction of these branch lines is brought under the Railway Act of Canada, the railway company is compelled to expend 15 per cent of their $40,000 per mile within the first two years, in order to show that they intend to build these lines. That is just a mere matter of $6,000 per mile to be expended within the first two years, to show their good faith. Otherwise, if this provision of the Railway Act is not adhered to, the railway company might send a man out with a spade and throw up a little mound of earth within the first two years, and they would be clear, under the provisions of their own bill. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I submit that this amendment is a very vital one and deeply concerns the people whom I represent.
With regard to a company which is able to make such immense earnings, as the Canadian Pacific Railway has done in spite of hard times, financial distress amongst the farmers and business depression amongst our companies, a company that is able to pile up the large profits that the Canadian Pacific has done, that has been able in the past year to declare a 10 per cent dividend, and the hulk of whose stock is held outside Canada, so that the large proportion of its earnings is going outside of Canada, it seems to me it is not unrea

sonable to ask that such a corporation shall expend at least some of that money amongst the people who have helped to
Canadian Pacific

contribute towards those dividends which the Canadian Pacific has declared. Therefore, I have pleasure in moving this amendment.


Mr. EVANS:: I have pleasure in seconding the amendment; and while I am particularly interested in sub-clause (b), I should like to bring to the attention of the committee the wishes of the people of my part of the country for a railroad. This railroad was first proposed some years ago, and it should have been built, perhaps, before the war. The first survey through this part of the country was run by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, and the bonds were at that time guaranteed by the Saskatchewan government. Through stress of the times, however, the charter was allowed to lapse until about two years ago when the Canadian Pacific obtained a charter for this road. No work has ever been done on it; and although people went into that part of the country from twelve to thirteen years ago with the expectation that the railroad would be built immediately, they are in dire need now for transportation facilities in order to market their produce.
This is not at all a line to be built with the prospect of the country being settled in the near or distant future; the country is settled all the way through from one end to the other. I know for a fact that, as regards some of the townships in that district, three-quarters of them are under cultivation, and the farms are as well established as in any other part of the country. The settlers who went in there first were mostly Ontario men and women, and besides raising grain, they have now herds of cattle. The position of the settlers in this district, although they are not as far from a railway as some people throughout the West are to-day, is a very difficult one. To the south of them it is impossible to reach the present Canadian Pacific line, the Pheasant hills branch, owing to the crossing of the Eagle hills. They are compelled to go north to the main line of the Canadian National Railways in order to market their crops. To do this they have to cross the river, and this is where the great problem comes in. When I was crossing there myself two years ago with a light rig, we first of all got on to one of the ferries which took us out into the middle of the bed of the river, and there we landed on a sand bank. After shifting up and down on that sand bank and getting into line with the cables, we got upon another ferry which landed us further out on an-

other sand bank, from which we had to make the best of our way to the shore. That day I met men with teams drawing about thirty bushels of wheat, and I wondered why they did not load their wagons. But the fact of the matter was that, if they could keep going over the bed of the river on these sand banks, they might get through; but if they once got down there was nothing for them to do but to unload. In the winter time it is impossible to go south owing to the Eagle hills which extend over a great deal of that country. Then to go north, several of them have to go together and put all the teams possible on to one load in order to get up out of the river bed. The shifting sand bars in the river, in the summer time or in the early fall, make ferry service very difficult, and sometimes these people have been even a whole month at a time without getting their mail from the post offices.
The marketing of their produce is the great handicap. When I went through there during the campaign of last fall, I found that most of these people were living in log houses; they were all postponing the building of better houses until the railway was in sight. They informed me that if the railway were at all in sight during the next year or so, they would settle down and make permanent homes; otherwise they would go back to where they came from and abandon the country. This is a well-settled district which is calculated to pay dividends on any railway that may be built at any time, and the Canadian Pacific is quite able at the present time to build this line. The Canadian Pacific has had for some years now a short spur out from Asquith to what is known as the gravel pit. If another twenty-five miles were constructed from the end of that line, such a railway would serve that country, and perhaps, it would relieve those settlers of many of the difficulties they are now under. The country is settled all the way through from Saskatoon to Cloan, and I think this Parliament should give these settlers, isolated as they are, the greatest consideration.


Mr. SPENCER:: I wish to speak for a few minutes in support of the amendment. This suggested railway runs through a part of my constituency, and the people living along the route that the rails will follow have sent quantities of letters to me asking me to work against any further postponement of the building of this railway. Hundreds of these people are hauling their grain from twenty to twenty-five

Canadian Pacific
miles, and no one who has not hauled produce for twenty to twenty-five miles over a rough trail can have any appreciation of what sort of a task that is. It means not only a great waste of time in the summer when farmers should be spending all the time they have on field work, but a great hardship, particularly so in the winter time when most of their grain is hauled. These people have been in that part of the country for a good many years; they went there on the promise of the railway being built, and if that promise had not been made, the country would not have been settled. It is because promises have been made that railways would be built in so many parts of western Canada that we have to-day settlers living such distances from present-day railways, and this is unfair to these people.
We have heard a great deal about the necessity for bringing a large number of immigrants into the country, but I for one think it would pay us more to emphasize the need of providing the means by which to keep the present settlers that we already have. Because of promises that have been made in the past and not fulfilled, because of assurances in years gone by that railways would be built in this place and the other, while no attempt was made to carry out these undertakings, we are now losing our population. It does not matter how many settlers we bring into the country, or where they come from, when they live fifteen, twenty, twenty-five and thirty miles from a railway, they will not remain on the land. If settlers come into the country with the idea of building homes and being successful within a short number of years, we cannot hope at all to keep them if we do not carry out the promises we make. It is well known that in Alberta, where they do not get a crop every year, it requires on an average one crop in every three to pay for landing the produce at the seaboard. So that if you do not provide transportation facilities to farmers who are now living between twenty and thirty miles from a railway, you are only adding to the expense of growing grain; and besides that you are increasing the discontent of those who are already dissatisfied. No matter how much advertising you may do through Government agencies, so long as we have dissatisfied people at home who cannot make a success of their business because of the lack of transportation facilities, we cannot hope to secure new settlers, because those who are already 102
on the land here will do their level best to keep their friends, their relations and their acquaintances in different parts of the world from coming and settling in this country.
A questionnaire is in circulation in the neighbourhood through which this railway is supposed to be built, and in it questions are asked as to how many years ago a railway was promised, what was the amount of produce and stock raised in that part of the country, the number of miles people have to travel to get to the railway, and the cost per bushel for hauling produce that distance. And one rather interesting question is as to the number of. people who have left in the last ten years because the railway had not been built through this part of the country. I would call that last question particularly to the attention of hon. members, because it is one that should be seriously considered. If we are going to give the railway company the right to postpone indefinitely the building of this railway, then we are simply deferring the time when we shall be able to induce present settlers to stay on their farms. If we do not guarantee them transportation, and that within a reasonable time, we can expect to see settlers in the next ten years leaving in greater numbers than they have left in the past decade.


Mr. McCONICA:: The amendment pending affects the extension of the charters of two roads in the constituency I have the honour to represent-charters that have been in existence for some time. A considerable portion of one of these roads has been constructed, and beyond the construction in both cases there are people who have long been in need of a railway for which they are still anxiously waiting. I have much sympathy with some things that have been said about the railway situation in Canada; but I am of those who are convinced that the railways in this country are worth to-day far more than they cost. These railways have served the country in time of great need and have vindicated themselves, and they are well worth a place in the history of the country. They did much during the Great War to carry to the front those things without which we could not have accomplished what we did; and I for one do not think that Canada has come to the time when we should quit and declare that we are bankrupt and shall go no further. I do not think it is time yet for us to say that we are "broke", and that we are going to lie down and wait for the sheriff.

Supply-Militia

This is going to be a great country, and the sooner we realize that and begin to get busy and start the wheels of industry the sooner we shall accomplish something. We need branch lines in order that we may feed and bring tonnage to the trunk lines that we have constructed. When we get those branch lines we shall increase business and population as well, and take care of those immigrants whom we
9 p.m. say we ought to secure. Now here is a proposition to extend certain charters. Under the terms of the proposal that is presented to us we say we will extend them for five years if these people throw a shovelful or two of dirt on each road within two years. I think that the amendment proposed is a reasonable one. It requires that within two years substantial progress shall be made and within five years these lines shall be completed. I hope hon. gentlemen will see the reasonableness of that proposition. The railways should mean something when they ask for an extension for five years; otherwise-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I must direct the hon. member's attention to the fact that it is nine o'clock.
Progress reported.

The House again in Committee of Supply-Mr. GordoiP in the Chair.
MILITIA AND DEFENCE	.
Militia and Defence-annual drill, $1,400,000.


George Newcombe Gordon: When the committee rose this item was under consideration, with an amendment by Mr. Power and an amendment to the amendment by Mr. Lapointe.


Oliver Robert Gould: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was pointing out that we of the Progressive party were not opposed to a militia in Canada, though that erroneous impression had been sent broadcast throughout the country. We feel, however, that we are justified in the attitude we have taken, not only this year but in past years; and that the persistent fight which is being carried on in support of that attitude will ultimately result in some recognition of it. We believe we are fighting the battle of the plain people. Perhaps we may all take that credit to ourselves, each from a different point of view, but it seems to me that some hon. members who have been in this House have not always had a single eve for the interests of the plain people.
iMr. MeConica. ]
I was also endeavouring to show that the spending of money is not a necessary condition of loyalty; that a large vote for militia and defence does not in itself constitute loyalty to our country,-does not mean that those who propose it are any more loyal than those who seek to have it reduced. If we have established that-and I believe we have; if not in the minds of all members of the House, at any rate in the minds of the people who read the press-then I think we have performed a great mission here. We believe in the equitable spending of money, but evidence enough has been produced on the floor of the House to prove that a portion of the moneys voted in the past-and this may apply to some of the moneys now asked to be voted- have not been spent as they should have been. That is the sore spot in the minds of the people of Canada. It is not that they object to a militia or that they object to defence; it is that under the guise of defence we have been paying for some things we have not been receiving.
A few nights ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) pointed out that 56,000,000 pounds of butter had been sent to Belgium, a large exporting country of butter and dairy products. It was stated that Belgium was to have twenty years within which to pay for this 56,000,000 pounds of butter which it became necessary for her to import as the result of the ravages of war. Can you wonder, therefore, that agriculture throughout Canada and other countries protests so strongly against all the things which lead to war? In that respect we are not alone; other parliaments and other governments are taking the same attitude. I have before me a clipping with reference to the Diet of Japan which I will read for the benefit of the committee. It says:
As Prince Yamagata lay dying, the elected house of the Imperial Diet was the scene of an agitation for the reduction by 50 per cent of the army which gave Yamagata his career and which his powerful leadership made the most masterful element in the Japanese state. The contrast is symbolical, for though the Diet agitation will fail, it is the sign of a movement which has time on its side. The old age is dying and the new is knocking at the door.
I think there is a lesson in that last sentence for hon. members of this House: "The old age is dying, and the new is knocking at the door." It is demanding admission and an opportunity of demonstrating whether the theories advocated with sincerity now as in years past are not better than those followed by adminis-

Supply-M ilitia
trators more or less up to the present time.
I have on former occasions in this House directed the attention of hon. members to these circumstances: Should a war again occur-and that is problematical, of course; we all admit that-your trained militia would not be effective. The next war will be fought in the air. The next war will be fought in such a way that the civilian will be in the heart of the warfare. It is my prediction, and it is the prediction of " men and women who are paying attention to this question, that the civilian thousands of miles from the scene of action will be the recipient of blows and subjected to the dangers incidental to warfare. Science will make such progress that even crops far from the theatre of war will be destroyed and civilians will suffer as many hardships as the men who fight at the front. In view of these facts, therefore, it is all folly for us at the present time to proceed on the basis of a poor, narrow conception that the militia is the defence to which we shall resort in the case of war occurring again. It is a conception of the past; he is a reactionary who thinks that this will be our chief method of defending ourselves in future warfare.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to pay a compliment to the Minister of Militia. I have more than ordinary respect for his attitude. I appreciate the high altitude to which he rose when the estimates were last before the House. As to the strong plea he made on that occasion with respect to the estimates brought down, no one would on that account accuse the minister of being militaristic in his views. Our endorsing his proposals would not have been an intimation on our part that we considered him militaristic while we were not. But the minister will appreciate that in the course which we have taken in all sincerity we are trying to carry out the wishes of the people who sent us here; and as I have said many times before, that is something which many hon. members forget to do when they reach this Chamber.


Mr. POWER:: Since this discussion began some two weeks ago I submit we have wandered far from the original subject. This afternoon we heard from all sides of the House accusations that one party was militaristic and that another was Tory; we have heard it stated that still another was the party of the plain people. Some hon. members expressed themselves as willing to cut out 1021
the arsenals; others wished to abolish the staff; some wished to cut the militia estimates as a whole, and throughout the whole discussion we wandered from the subject generally. But the question before the committee is simply this: the estimate brought down originally by the Government was for $1,400,000 for annual drill. A certain number on this side favoured the elimination altogether of the annual training and with the idea of bringing this about it was moved that thei item be reduced by $1,100,000. Now, I understand -I was not in the House at the time- that it has been moved by a member of the Government that the item be reduced by $400,000 only. The minister has declared, in effect, that if we reduce his estimate by $400,000 we are doing away with annual camps. Because $1,400,000 is too much, he asks that we cut out $400,000 from the annual training and cut out certain other items. The argument, then, is that annual drill is not as good as it was two weeks ago, but it will be quite good if we cut off a million from something else. The point before the House is whether or not annual training is what we wish to have in this country at the present time. To reduce this vote by $400,000 simply means this, that we lose a great part of the efficiency of these camps, if they even were efficient, and we do not help in any way the militia of Canada.
Since this question was brought before the House those of us who do not agree with the minister have had attributed to us various motives. Some of our friends, and some of those who are not our friends, have suggested that certain members on this side of the House were actuated by ambition, others that we were prompted by jealousy, and still others that we were moving for reductions purely for the sake of petulant criticism. May I say that so far as I am concerned, and I think so far as the few on this side of the House who will vote with me are concerned, we have no other motive except that of attempting to be consistent with ourselves on matters of public policy. Last year the Liberal opposition moved that the annual training vote be reduced by $750,000. May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that this year when we have a Liberal party in power, a party elected in a large measure on an anti-militarist platform, and pledged to retrenchment and reform, they move to reduce the vote by only $400,000. I think we ought at least
Supply-Militia

to be consistent with ourselves and move for a reduction of this vote by $750,000. My idea two weeks ago was that annual training was the easiest thing for us to do away with at this stage of our country's finances. I have not changed since then. I believe still that we can easily do away with annual training, that it is not necessary, and that it is costly.
I have listened to hon. members giving us in a more or less amiable tone of voice their reasons in favour of annual training, or rather, in favour of this estimate. We have been told that if we were to take a military holiday and do away with annual training camps this year, it would be disastrous to the country generally, and that it would be no longer possible to have any such camps for the rest of the Dominion's existence. I submit that a great many of us believe that perhaps these camps never were any good, and never will be any good. More of us are of the opinion that if for this year the troops do not go to these country camps, no great harm could come to the country. Others have stated that if we do not have these annual training camps we shall cease to develop a military spirit in this country. I do not know whether this military spirit will cease to exist, but should that be so, I for one would be delighted and think that this country had made a long step towards progress and prosperity.
It has been stated by hon. members who are opposed to this estimate that it was unnecessary because we had in Canada at the present moment 400,000 of the best trained troops in any country in the world, that these troops would be prepared at any time to join the colours and to go through the same four years of hell, as was adequately said by one hon. gentleman opposite, that they have already been through. To that argument let me answer this: I am firmly convinced that if war should break out, these same men will be willing at any moment to rejoin the colours. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that we should not ask them to rejoin the colours, but whether we like it or not, the first to join the colours in the event of war would be those who have already served. You would find it easier for them to join the colours if the governments both past and present had treated them as they should have been treated in the past, and treat them as they should be treated now. If you treat the returned soldiers decently and properly, vou will find them the most reputable and

hard-working citizens of this country. They, I think, feel that before you start preparing for another war you should repair the wounds of the last war. I am speaking only for myself when I make this statement.
I have within the last few days consulted some men whom I respect highly, two of them Tories and one a Liberal. All three served with great distinction during the war, and all three became generals. I would be only too glad to give* their names in confidence to any member of the House, but for reasons which all will respect I think it is perhaps better to withhold their names at the present moment. These three, all of whom had served in the militia and had served with distinction overseas, stated that a reduction in the vote for annual training at this time would be just what was needed in this country, that it would save the country considerable money where it could be saved most easily, and would in no way impair the efficiency of the Canadian forces.
I had intended-perhaps I may as well say it-to criticise the attitude of some hon. gentlemen who stated that at Valcar-tier, ninety per cent of the troops were old militia men. That may be true, but I would like to know where they got their figures, and would like to be allowed to criticise them. I do know this, that in 1918 when the troops were coming back from the front, we repeatedly asked questions from the Minister of Militia, now the hon. member for East Hamilton, as to what was the war service of every member of the militia headquarters' staffs in Canada. In so far as one staff was concerned, seventy-five per cent of the pay was being given to troops who had served in the militia with high rank, but had never served overseas, whilst at the very same time a large number of returned soldiers were walking the streets looking for a job.
Before concluding, may I say this? It is with very deep regret that owing to force of circumstances I shall to-night be in the unfortunate position of voting with the Tory party-if the hon. gentleman who spoke about the Tory party this afternoon will pardon my calling him a Tory. I have been a Liberal all my life, a Liberal by birth, education, and conviction, and I still intend to remain a Liberal. Owing to circumstances here to-night, owing to the fact that a certain number of hon. gentlemen opposite oppose the Government for reasons widely different from ours, I shall probably be in the most embarrassing position of

Supply-Militia
having to vote with them. Nevertheless, I intend to remain true to the principles I have advocated, and I intend not to withdraw my motion. It is with great regret that I do so. I have every respect for the Minister of Militia and for the leaders of the Liberal party, but respect must end when we come to conviction.


Mr. CHURCH:: I am sorry I cannot
agree with my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), who is a good soldier and a good citizen. Since these estimates were last before the House I have had the opportunity of consulting many leading military men in Ontario. I saw a number of the most eminent Canadian generals during the last week, and some of the ablest non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent force and militia of Ontario and they did not agree with the views expressed by my hon. friend from Quebec. I conferred with these officers and men during the last week end in the city of Toronto which sent 60,000 men to the war. Other parts of Canada, of course, did equally well in that regard; I am not speaking about what Toronto did because all parts of Canada did well in the furnishing of troops. But I assert here to-night that we always had a militia in Canada from the days of General Wolfe. As the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) said to-day, we have had to engage in war almost every eighteen years since Wolfe conquered Quebec. At frequent intervals during that period we have participated in wars of one kind or another, and our militia have constantly been called upon to defend our land in many quarters of Canada.
I say God forbid that the time should ever come in Canada when we shall not have a militia, because not only in the late war, but also in the days of General Brock, if we had not had a militia the British flag would not be flying over this country today. In the war of 1812 General Brock had to face the same criticism by the legislature sitting in the town of Newark, now Niagara. The legislature in 1810-11 would not give him the money needed to maintain the necessary defence force. There were many farmers and others, many prominent men, who said "We will not give you the money, we cannot afford it; there is no emergency." That was the attitude adopted by a great many men in the legislature in 1810 and 1811, and General Brock was greatly disturbed in consequence. He almost asked to be recalled; but he decided to stay and the war
was won, and Canada was saved by the successful battle waged in the Niagara district as a result of having a brave militia force. Under General Brock were the York volunteers from the constituency of the Prime Minister, and other noble regiments. These men saved the province of Ontario from invasion at Niagara and at other points.
The same thing occurred in the Rebellion of 1837, in the Fenian Raid of 1867, in the Northwest rebellion of 1885, also in the South African war, and in the recent great struggle. Does anyone contend for a moment that if the militia of Canada had not had training this Dominion would have been able in the great war to make the showing it did?
My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) spoke the other day about a "belted aristocracy." I was sorry to hear such a term applied to our officers. I do not believe that our military officers can be so characterized. I also heard the same hon. member express his belief that the men who composed the Canadian contingents despatched overseas did not have military training. Well, I asked for a return showing the composition of the first Canadian contingent the other day and this return when brought down by the Minister of Militia disclosed that of the 30,000 troops who composed that force, ninety-two per cent had military training. Take the 6,000 men of the first Canadian contingent who went from the city of Toronto; I refer to the third battalion, the 15th battalion, the engineers, the medical corps, and the rest of the units. Ninety-nine per cent of these men had received military training in the militia. I think the same thing is true of the men in the rest of the contingents. I contend that if it had not been for their military training the men from Canada would not have been able to make the showing they did overseas.
My hon. friends opposite were wont to boast in olden days-I refer to the period from 1896 to 1911-that their party had made Canada a nation. I am not going to express any opinion on that point further than to say that Canada had in striking manner demonstrated its virility and its military prowess long before that. If we are a nation why not have a militia and a proper one and not go back 150 years to become a Crown colony and depend on the army of the Mother Country to defend Canada?
Supply-M ilitia

take some form of physical exercise and drill and before long it will be the law of all the large universities.
The Government is responsible for the defence of Canada. If this reduction is made, on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and the Government will lie the responsibility to see that nothing shall be done to injure the defence forces of Canada. I say it is a responsibility and the responsibility is theirs as long as they are there.
It is all very well to talk about the League of Nations. In the United States President Harding was opposed to the League of Nations. He did not believe in it, and he and the Republican party fought against it, but when he came into office public opinion forced him to call a meeting, and the meeting was called. The Washington Conference did their work, but I have my doubts as to the results of their work, in view of the conference which is being held in Europe at Genoa at the present time. There will be wars as long as the world lasts.
I heard some criticism in this House, and I read some criticism in Hansard today of the militia. Away back in 1910 there was some carping criticism about the summer camps and drill and many other items on the programme of the Militia Department. I looked over the 1913 Hansard, and I found some members in the House said there was no emergency, that there was not going to be a war, and they raised similar objections to those which my hon. friends opposite have raised to-night.
This motion strikes at the very back bone and root of the militia. If this amendment carries, it is going to be "good-day" to the militia of Canada, and the Militia Department might as well put up the shutters. I have consulted men who have been in charge of Niagara and other camps, and I say advisedly that when you cut down the items in this way you cannot have efficiency, and the balance of the money might as well be thrown into the Ottawa river. You cannot obtain efficiency with the amount of money which will be left, and you are going to tie the hands of the department forever.
I was talking to a recruiting officer of the old 12th York battalion and he told me he found a great deal of difficulty in getting men and in training his battalion, and why? The Government would not give them a permanent home. They have no drill hall in Toronto for this unit. The city of Toronto had to come along and give them as-

sistance and an armoury free. He said he was not allowed enough money to provide for recruiting, stores and equipment. It was necessary to employ stenographers and send out letters, and he had to pay for it out of his own pocket. Every unit has to pass around the hat to-day. I was asked about it, and we had to try and get the city to help them out. Then in the case of the 36th battalion in Peel county, the city had to come along and give them armoury accommodation and a grant also. They are without a home, and the city gave this unit an armounry in the Junction, and another unit, the 110th, in St. Lawrence market. These armouries are now heated, lighted and a caretaker provided by the city. If the Government are so hard up that they cannot assist these battalions, they should abolish the Militia Department altogether. They should have a proper official militia, or we do not want a militia department at all.
If the same state of affairs had existed in Canada in 1912 and 1913, we would not have been able to take the part in the Great War which we did. What are these experts in the Department of Militia for? They mobilized the first contingent at Val-cartier, and the various other contingents. We took their advice during the war, so why should we not do so now? They say that if this appropriation is reduced, it will sound the death knell of the militia, and I believe General MacBrien is speaking the truth when he makes that statement.
I do not wish to detain the House very much longer. You have the experience of Australia, and the experience of South Africa. General Smuts, who is not a militarist iby any means, said the other day:
Warfare has become so horrible because of the advance in chemical science-that this very advance will bring it to an end. All long for the day that nations and men achieve a standard of reason and common sense that war shall be no more

but it is a long way off yet I fear.
That is all very well in its way, but people had the same ideas in the days of our Lord and in the days of the Romans end Persians. They had a league of nations then; we have a league of nations now; but the only league of nations that I have ever known that has protected civilization is the British fleet. If the British fleet is dismantled, good-bye to the League of Nations. If there is ever formed a league of nations that can make as good a showing during the next four centuries on the land as the British fleet has made on the seas in the last four centuries dur-

Supply-Militia
ing the days of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon and the Kaiser, it will be doing a good work for civilization and there will be some need of a league of nations.
This proposed reduction in the militia estimates is false economy; I do not believe it is economy at all. As General Mac-Brien has said, "Later on you will suffer for it." We have a pretty state of affairs in this country. We should have responsible government, but I am beginning to doubt whether we have that or not. This is the first time that we have had the group system in this House, and I do not believe it is responsible government for a government to submit, to a party caucus, the country's estimates of expenditure, a matter which should be run on a business basis. This is a national matter, a defence matter, a patriotic matter for the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) and it is one in regard to which the people in all the provinces will stand by the minister. If the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert) would resign his seat and appeal to his constituents on the speech which he made in this House this afternoon, I believe he would be defeated.
I do not believe any one wants war again, but it is a pretty hard thing to prevent war. I have consulted many people about this question; I have consulted many financial men, men who have great stakes in the country, men who pay heavy taxes; I have consulted labour men, military men, municipal officers, and they all believe that no reduction should be made in these estimates. In conclusion, therefore, I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.


Robert Henry Halbert: I should just like to answer the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church). I used those words on almost every platform in the riding which I represent.


Mr. IRVINE:: We have an amendment, and an amendment to the amendment, both providing for substantial reductions in the estimates. The amendment, if I am correct, calls for a reduction of $1,100,000. The amendment to the amendment calls for a reduction of $400,000 on one item, and $700,000 on the estimate as a whole. Inasmuch as they both call for a reduction, it is necessary for me to explain that I shall vote against the smaller reduction in order to have an opportunity of voting for the larger reduction.
This discussion has disclosed a rather singular situation. We have witnessed the Opposition not only defending the estimates of the Government, but pleading that their estimates might be increased. That is not, I believe, the ordinary practice; they usually criticise because the estimates are supposed to be too high. I do not know, however, if this situation is a dangerous one, or if it augurs badly for the future. Perhaps it is an evidence of that democracy which we have heard talked about so much of late.
It has been suggested, however, in connection with this estimate that simply because the Minister of Militia saw fit to change his mind with regard to his original estimate, he should resign. As a matter of fact, I think it will be proved from any angle whatsoever that the fact of his change of mind on this item will simply establish his fitness for the position. It has made clear this point at least, that some measure of parliamentary power is being allowed by the Government, instead of our having the old machine government which we have known so much about in Canada. I believe the spirit of the Prime Minister's campaign during the recent election was to let the people rule, to give Parliament back the power which it originally had, and I am rather surprised that the Opposition, which sought a vote of censure a short time ago because this Government had forgotten about its promises, should be so anxious to criticise that Government now for having carried out the spirit of its promises in consulting Parliament as well as its own supporters before passing estimates.
It has been shown, I think, conclusively by those who have already spoken on this issue, that the reduction of the estimates proposed, or, better still, the reduction that is moved in the amendment, is warranted, first because of the urgent necessity for financial retrenchment. That has been sufficiently dealt with during the debate, and I merely refer to it in recapitulating the outstanding points which have been made in the discussion. Second, it has been shown that training, in the manner in which it is provided under our militia regulations, is futile. I refer you, in connection with that point, to the excellent argument put forward by the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) this afternoon, and it would be presumptuous for me to attempt to improve upon that.
I want, however, to mention one or two other matters, in order to express the point of view of the Labour group which I have the honour to represent. We need this money urgently, to re-establish our soldiers
Supply-Militia

who have already done some fighting. We have widespread demands throughout Canada to-day for some measure of a soldier's bonus. Some of our returned men are asking to be better re-established on the land, while others who have no intention of going on the land want to have some aid in being re-established in other walks of life. While the $11,000,000, if we should give the whole of it to the re-establishment of our returned soldiers, would not be sufficient, yet that would be a better investment of the money than that in which we are going to invest it. Not only so, but we would discover that an investment along that line, if it is going to be necessary to continue war, would be of greater value than an investment in the kind of training in which we are going to invest our money.
The spirit of an army is equal at least to the training of that army; and when we look around us and see how the men who have fought have been treated for their fighting, there is no great incentive for men to join the army if we were to have a war immediately. In fact, the treatment of the men would discourage very materially any re-enlisting; whereas, if we had treated the soldiers better, the rising generation would be more ready to shoulder arms, if we were thrown into another war. As it is, under present circumstances, even if young men could feel assured that they were not going to give up their lives on the battlefield, they would hesitate before going into the army in view of our poor treatment of those who have already been there.
I	should like to spend the entire estimate for the next ten years in the re-establishment of returned soldiers. But that, perhaps, might be considered a little too drastic, and so I shall not move an amendment to the amendment to the amendment. I shall rather speak on the amendment. I am not so particular about the actual amount of the reduction as I am about the principle involved. We are really making a choice- of principle that will shape the national character of this country for the future.
Two tendencies have been evident since the Great War. One of these is the tendency towards the re-birth of German militarism in the countries that have been called victors; the second is the tendency to challenge the whole barbaric system of human murder which has been adopted even by civilisation as a means of settling international disputes. I should like to see

manifested, even in the discussion of these estimates and in the decision thereon, Canada's attitude towards the future in this regard; and I should like to see her take a position strongly upon the latter principle, that she is going to discard the military means of settling disputes between nations and find some other method more satisfactory and more in keeping with the intelligence of the times in which we are living.
This is indeed Canada's opportunity; Canada can do it perhaps better than any other nation. First of all, as has already been pointed out in the debate, Canada is a young nation which has not yet been bound by the military fetters that bind other countries. She has no military traditions to live down; she is practically starting afresh. Moreover, her population is drawn from many nations; and she has succeeded so far, and I trust that in the future she will be even more successful, in welding these peoples from many nations into one national unity. If therefore she has succeeded in forming a unity out of these various elements, it is only natural that she should take the leadership in seeking to weld together, at least in the principle of co-operation, these nations from which her own population has been derived. So that we are looking to Canada to take the initiative on this new principle. We expect her to lead the way from militarism towards justice and humanity.
The desire to seek safety in military preparation is a static desire; that is, it deals only with effects. It makes no attempt whatever to deal with the causes of war, and we cannot expect to have anything else but war if we permit the causes to run rampant. Now I admit that we should still be dealing with the effects merely if we attempted to stop entirely at disarmament. We ought to be able to give some real constructive, dynamic lead and follow that lead, with our own confidence, by disarming. Wars have economic causes, that is the philosophy of the labor movement; and if wars are caused chiefly by economic conditions, they can be stopped only by economic solutions. And so, if we are really desirous of promoting the safety of Canada, against the attack of nations, [DOT] we would be much more to the point in spending $11,000,000 in trying to set before the world a better method of economics than in merely training a few men or giving them a holiday for a couple of weeks every year and spending money on rifles, and so forth.

S upply-M ilit ia
Moreover, it has been well established that the great war from which we have just emerged, as well as other great wars in history, have been caused largely through the competition of the nations of the world for the limited markets at their disposal in which to sell their supposed surplus goods; and if we are anxious to remove ourselves from the danger of conflict with other nations we should begin by adopting a sane system within our own country, so that we might be able to develop our own home markets, and not scramble with other people for a market that does not belong to us. I do not mean at all that we should isolate ourselves in the fair and necessary exchange of trade, but I do mean to say, as I pointed out before, that as we are now producing more than we are allowed to consume, if we can find some means of permitting our people to consume what they produce, it is possible we shall not want to fight with any foreigners for markets for our goods.
War is the world's most dismal failure. Politics may be a failure, if you like; and party government has no doubt dismally failed, at least in the past few years. But I do not know of any more dismal failure in the world's history than war, the very thing we are going to spend over $10,000,000 of Canada's money at this time to keep alive. If war, then, is the greatest failure, would it not be well to look for some other way of settling international disputes? The last war was the greatest of all failures; it proved, more conclusively than any other war has done, that resort to arms is an utter futility as a means of settling anything. Its greatest demonstration of this truth lies in the fact that the victor has become the vanquished. We have not been able to defeat the German sentiment for we see it bubbling around us every day. The sentiment of military preparedness, as I said at the outset, has been re-born in many great nations, and we have had this sentiment echoed on the floor of this House to-day. We have not therefore killed the sentiment nor the philosophy of war. Nor have we been able to conquer Germany in the sense of having made her pay for the war . If we made her pay for the war, even supposing that she were financially able to do so, we would ruin the industrial institutions of Great Britain, France and the United States. So that having won the war, and having attained the position of being able to compel Germany to pay for it, we dare not exercise that compulsion because we would destroy our own country thereby.
That is the fiasco of the Great War. War is a complete failure from the point of view of a settlement of disputes as
10 p.m. between different nations. It is philosophically false; it is inhuman; it is un-economic; and worse than all, the peace based on that colossal failure is going to be the basis of subsequent wars.
I presume that is why some of our people are so anxious to have more preparation.
Carrying out this tendency to get away from war as a colossal failure in settling human affairs, we have had such things as the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference. In view therefore of the fact that war is indeed a dismal failure and that it is necessary that there should be some better method of settling disputes; and in view of our hope that Canada will take the lead in finding that better method I think it will be agreed that we cannot afford to spend this money at this time on further preparation for war. Even if we could afford to spend this amount it could be better devoted to rehabilitating returned men and also taking care of many of our unemployed and trying to find better means of employing those who are unemployed, as well as in building better homes in Canada in order to make the country a better place to live in. This kind of military training is futile, not onl-because of its inefficiency, but because of the fact that war is just as progressive as human ingenuity is: when you have trained your men in what are supposed to be modern tactics of warfare, you very soon find out they are not modern at all; you have to train your men on the spot in order to keep pace with the development of modern warfare.
For these reasons, and also for the reason that economics are at the base of world politics and that if we are to tackle this problem seriously we must tackle it on the economic ground, I am opposed to this estimate. I am in sympathy with the expressed opinion of organized labour, not only in this country, but in the United Kingdom, when I say that we look forward to complete disarmament and will take every step possible to achieve that end. Whenever I have an opportunity as a representative of labour to vote for the reduction of armaments, I must vote for the largest possible reduction; therefore I shall vote for the amendment in this case. I am glad, however, to notice that the present Government has made some reduction; I hope it will be greater next year. I am glad for that larger measure of
1C20
Supply-Militia

democracy which the Government has exhibited, and I am only sorry that I have to vote against the reduction which it proposes in order that I may be able to vote for the amendment which would reduce the estimate by the larger amount.
I conclude with the hope, Mr. Chairman, that our action on this issue will be Canada's first step toward a great, new social order that is approaching; that Canada's action will be a first example and a lead to the nations of the world in the discovery of a new method and a new principle of settling national disputes; that we will thus give out to the world the intimation that in spirit and in sentiment we stand for the enthronement of human rights as the dominating principle in world politics.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I am not able to give the committee any opinion of real value as to what is the best military organization or how best to spend a given amount of money for the maximum military effect. Nor can I say anything as to how future wars are to be fought- nothing, at least, that the committee would be justified in listening to. I have not had the actual war experience of other hon. members in this House, including the hon. member from Quebec (Mr. Power), sufficient to enable me to measure just what is the value of annual military training for purposes of war. And I have no vision of the future, no such prophetic power as, evidently, is possessed by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) and some others to enable me to define just in what portion of the great universe on earth in air or sea the future conflicts of mankind are to take place. I would like to say something, though, as to what appear from the story of the past, from the ordinary layman's reading of history, as being sound principles that a country like this should follow in determining what should be the measure, of its military organization.
If I held to the principles just enunciated by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) and, indeed, also by the member for Assiniboia, if the line of argument followed by the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) appealed to me in the least degree-that is to say, if I felt it good as demanding the reduction by a single dollar of these estimates-I would consider it absolutely good, and, indeed, inescapable, for the wiping out of the whole appropriation. If we are going to march toward what my hon. friend calls a " great, new social 
order " merely by cutting out our defence; if we are going, as he says, to put Canada in the lead at this great climacteric in our history-put Canada in the lead in ushering in a new and better order in this world by the easy process of dropping the military estimates-why, then, I would want to drop them all; I would not tolerate a dollar. But I have not observed that, in the past or to-day, nations that did not gird on their armour and play the part of men in the world, but rather lolled back in self-indulgence, have been leaders either toward a new social order or toward any other order.
I do not know in what sense the word "militarist" has been used so often in the course of this debate. I would say that a militarist nation is a nation that hopes to gain iby conquest, either for purposes of revenge or for mere purposes of acquisition; and that a citizen of a nation who believes in that course would be a militarist. But surely it is an abuse of words to say that a citizen of a nation whose purpose is only to be in a position to defend itself, to get reasonably ready for defence in case some militarist nation takes it into its head to act aggressively toward it, is a militarist. If that is the case, the whole world has been militaristic since the birth of creation; and though I do not like to speak of the future, I am afraid it is going to be militaristic forever. A nation, if it is to be a nation at all, must just the same as an individual be in a position to take care of itself-both internally against disorder and revolutionary insolence and externally against aggression. I do not say that it can insure itself against all possibility of harm, but, that it should under all circumstances that surround it, become reasonably ready to guard against being wiped out of existence or losing its hold on its own properties before the assistance of an awakened and enlightened world can come to its defence. Now, if by having a military organization we are only getting ready for war; if we are only taking a step to precipitate another conflict such as the war from which we have emerged, then let us stand for none at all; let us hav.e nothing whatsoever. But while every one hopes -at least every one would like, though he may not dare to hope-that there would be no more great wars, I do not think the sensible people of the world are of opinion that the British Empire and other nations of like character are going to hasten that time merely by themselves disarming, throwing away all means of self-defence.

Supply-Militia
Surely it has been made manifest in recent years that some at least of the greater nations of the world, and undoubtedly the leading statesmen of those nations, have exerted-yes, exhausted-every imaginable effort to ensure, so far as they can ensure, that great conflicts are past. I do not know anything that Great Britain has failed to do that could have been done. I believe that the United States, using its best judgment, though we may differ from that judgment, has exerted itself to the same end.
If we are to get past the time of war, to my mind there is only one path we can tread that is likely to get us there. It is for those nations that undoubtedly have no militaristic purposes, that undoubtedly are not animated by sentiments of revenge or by ambitions of conquest, to stand together, stand together in a world policy, endeavour to bring other nations into line with themselves, and all as one group be in a position to make their policy and their pacific purposes reign. That is what they are trying to do now. I do not need to name the nations that are of that temperament, that call themselves peace-loving people, that undoubtedly are peace-loving people, but I have not the least hesitation in naming two, and I name the United States of America, and the British Empire, inclusive of all its dominions. Those are to the extent they are able to hold together -*and I would not for one minute exclude others, but I am undoubtedly within the unanimous opinion of this assembly when I bring those two into that category- to the extent they are able to stand together, to the extent they are able to support their opinion by that reserve of force which alone in world politics creates influence and supports opinions, they are the real contributors to the peace of nations.
There is nobody in the British Empire, there is nobody in the United States, there is no considerable, respectable body of opinion in either of these great countries which believes for one minute that even though they stand together, they can get anywhere unless they have very considerable forces behind their opinion. The British Empire has to have such force. Who is there who has any feeling for that Empire at all who would dare to suggest at this hour that Great Britain throw down her arms and place herself in the position where her word in the councils of Europe and in the councils of the world would mean nothing at all? Who is there who would
suggest that the United States do the same thing? We know they cannot do it. Much as they love peace, however devotedly, however unitedly all their efforts are concentrated to secure peace, we know they cannot adopt such a policy as that. Such being the case surely it follows that we, as an integral part of the British Empire, must maintain a fair share and proportion of that means of defence which all the Empire must sustain. Surely that follows. Sui'ely that is incumbent upon us out of regard for our self respect, out of regard for the very manhood of our people.
Then the question is, how far can you go? Where should you stop and be sure that you have not gone too far, but that you have reached, the right line? Well, it is a difficult matter; it is a very difficult matter to decide. Opinions differ as to the state of the world; opinions differ as to the share incumbent on the different peace-seeking countries of the world; opinions differ as to the share of the various nations of the Empire. Some say that the late war so exhausted humanity that even if it would, through the perversity of human nature, it cannot wage a conflict for many years to come. I fear, though, that the state of the nations to-day affords not quite so good ground for the optimism of that class of people as it did even a few months ago. I do not think we can look to the horizon in the direction of Europe and be quite so sanguine, so certain, that the world is very far from war. I am not an alarmist by any means. I am sure that recent events have taughf us this, that though the heart of one great nation, is doubtless more determinedly bent on peace, more poignantly so than it ever was, that great nation is certainly not more hopeful than it was two years ago. In Europe at this hour there is strain and stress, there is cloud and sign of storm in every direction. One nation struggles to have its way; another battles for a more excellent way-antagonism and schism result. One seems animated by revenge. Another seems to harbour perilous hopes but to cry for help against revenge. Another appears to have no purpose save to make it impossible for those nations that it describes as of the old order to live in peace at all. In a word, there is just about the antithesis of harmony in the whole European atmosphere at this hour. Very well, that is the condition, deplore it as we will, struggle against it as we will-and I am sure the Empire of
S u pply-M ilitia

which we are part does not despair- struggle against it as we will, nevertheless, that is the condition that confronts us.
There are those who say-or think if they do not say: " Ah, we are here on the North American continent; we are far from any eastern menace, we are far from any western menace, if menace there is east or west; we are along the boundary of the great United States; the Monroe doctrine has sheltered this continent for nigh a hundred years." Let me express my sentiments:-In the fold of this Empire we have more safety than in any shelter of geography or in any doctrine of a foreign land. But let us never forget that if any portion of the Empire of which we are part is in peril, it cannot be long before that peril is equally real right here in Canada. Surely the Great War, if it taught us anything, taught us this, that any considerable war of the future will be such that no nation knows whether it will be possible for it to withhold its hand and its part in that war. Surely it taught us, if it taught us anything, that the British Empire can be maintained only to the extent it stands united, and that we are secure here as a part of that Empire only to the extent that the whole Empire is secure. If any one doubts that, let him get up and say so. For myself, my reason cannot bring me to the conviction that there is any security at all for us save in the security of the Empire of Britain.
We are asked, where is the foe? Where is the enemy that is going to attack us? Let me put the answer this way. Was there ever a time, no matter how close war actually turned out to be, when any government of a civilized country if asked across the floor of its parliament where the enemy was that was going to attack, would be in a position to rise and point out the enemy? That cannot be done. First, we dc not know; next, if we did know, it would be impossible public policy, unspeakable public policy, to make the declaration. We are told we have no foe. Had Canada any foe in 1913? But foes came. The world is smaller to-day than it was two or three hundred years ago, and as time goes on the relations of continents and nations become closer, the dependence becomes closer, and the security of the one depends more and more on the security of the other; the peace of each depends more and more upon the peace of all.
We are told: We are here on the North American continent; the United States of America is a great and powerful republic,
[Mr. Meighen.l
and any attack on our shores would be resisted by them. Well, if we really rest in that belief, if we really lull ourselves into a measure of indulgence because of that consideration surely it behooves us to take the same part of the burden of such security proportionate to our numbers, proportionate to our wealth and resources, that the United States takes. But we are not taking that part to-day. The United States of America to-day is devoting 19.1 per cent of its entire expenditure to the purposes	of'	defence;	we arespending	about 31 per cent	of oursfor the	purpose	of	defence.	Theirsamounts to about $13.13 per head of their people. Ours amounts to about $1.69 per head of our people. I could compare similarly with Australia, with New Zealand, with Great Britain, with other parts of our Empire. Relatively to them all we are by far the lowest, and relatively to every other nation in the world we are the	lowest.	So	from the argument of comparison it cannot be said that we have been led by militarists and by brass caps in this country. Our governments have rather sought to keep our expenditure on defence as low as it could be kept, consistent with national self respect and a reasonable degree of security.
Now the question comes: These estimates that are brought down, do they do more than meet that requirement? For myself, no one is more anxious, I think, than I am to hold expenditure on defence down to the lowest point consistent with national selfrespect, consistent with reasonable security. We are told the militia is a non-productive body and that we have a large debt to-day; that we have a tremendous interest burden to carry year after year, and that consequently we should cut down the militia. That argument proceeds upon the hypothesis that the militia, the defence force, is a mere luxury-that the reason it is maintained by a nation is because that nation has some money to throw away. The militia organization is maintained not for luxury, not in any sense merely to appease the parading ambitions of any class of people. It is maintained by a nation first to preserve law and order within the country; and second, to be a nucleus around which the national forces can gather if danger comes from without. Those who preach that we ought to cut down because our debt has grown have a wrong conception of what the militia is for. We ought to maintain-and I admit it is very difficult to tell just Where the line should be

Supply-Militia
drawn-we ought to maintain a militia not proportionate inversely to our debt, but proportionate directly to the need for the militia itself, proportionate to the size of the purposes the militia is to meet.
Now1, then, I come to inquire whether or not the estimates that are before us in the form presented are more than sufficient for that need. First, I find that these estimates, as originally presented, are about $1,100,000 less than last year's estimates. Last year's estimates were designed and prepared to meet the requirements that I defined a few minutes ago, the purposes the Minister of Militia defined in his address of April 25, and to do no more than meet those purposes. The present estimates were designed to the same ends and to no other; and the minister's statement to this House was such as to show thatrin his judgment, they were no more than sufficient to meet the needs of law and order, to meet any contingency that might arise out of a breaking of law and order at home, and also to be the nucleus of an organization of trained men who, at least, could offer some show of resistance at first in the event of war, and who would constitute the personnel to train in time of peril the other young men of our country. They would be the advance guard that the others could follow and thereby, if trouble comes, make some sort of a showing on behalf of this nation. Are they more than sufficient for that purpose? They are $1,100,000 less than last year. I do not think this is any more than could reasonably be expected to be saved because of reductions of costs. I do not think it is claimed by the minister that it is more than that. Certainly in respect of this item the minister made no other claim than that the amount taken off was about sufficient to take care of reductions of costs of supplies and the like that could be made this year as against last year. Very well then, the minister's duty was to ascertain whether or not last year we went too far. After investigation the minister Came to the conclusion we did not; that we only apportioned such an amount as was required for the purpose of this military training.
There are those who say "Yes, we should have a military organization"-I am referring particularly to the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)-"but we do not need any military training." My hon. friend ought to be a better judge of that than I am, but may I appeal to the hon. member-


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. member will
pardon me I said "yes, we should have militia but we should not have annual training for a militia camp". We should have permanent militia and in that I agree with the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I intended to represent my hon. friend as saying: We should have militia but we do not require this annual training.


Charles Gavan Power: We should have a permanent militia.


Arthur Meighen: A permanent militia
but no annual camp training. If it was merely a case of deciding between my opinion on this subject and that of the hon. member for Quebec South his opinion would certainly be better than mine-he has had something to do with the militia, I have not. But I am here representing the people of Canada, representing a constituency of this country. Am I to take the judgment of the hon. member for Quebec South? If so what reason should I have for not taking it as against his judgment, the judgment of the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) that of the. hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), that of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) or of others over here who have had equal military experience with my hon. friend's. The / one and all are opposed to the view of my friend from Quebec. Then, what is the course I should pursue? First of all I look to other countries; I look to the Mother Country, I look to the other Dominions. If to do so does not suit the hon. member-I am not at all intimating that it would not-then I look to France, I look to the United States of America. I find that in all these countries they consider annual military training of this character to be essential for the upkeep and for the continuance of the organization and the spirit of their militias. That appears to me to be a stronger reason than the mere opinion of any hon. member however respectable that opinion is. But furthermore I come to our own country and I find that there has grown up here within this Dominion a militia organization composed of men who are chosen because of their capacity to advise Parliament and to advise the minister in this matter, who have shown their capacity under the severest tests, whose methods have been shown to stand the strain of the severest trials the world has ever witnessed, and we have their unanimous opinion that annual military
Supply-Militia

training is essential. I find that he especially upon whom the minister most relies for advice, considers that to abandon such training would be disastrous to the militia of this country. In the face of that judgment -that united judgment supported by the judgment of the minister, supported by the judgment of every previous minister who ever sat in office in Canada-supported by the experience of centuries and the universal practice of to-day-I feel that I cannot give reliance to the opinion of the hon. member for Quebec South. Consequently I come to the conclusion that annual military training is an essential part of our militia organization. Very well, if it is, the sum of $1,400,000 is required and the hon. member for Quebec South agrees. In the face of that opinion of the hon. member that if we have annual drill this money is required, it seems to me it is the duty of hon. members to support the vote as it stood-that vote which in the opinion of my hon. friend himself is essential if annual training is to be continued and to he of any use at all. But, I have a better opinion-I should not say better,-I have another opinion besides that of the hon. gentleman from Quebec South (Mr. Power), besides that of the officers of this Government, besides that of previous ministers of militia and the officers of previous governments, I have the opinion of the hon. Minister of Militia who sits in this House, expressed in the most unequivocal terms. Upon such opinion I relied two weeks ago. Upon such opinion I rely to-night. We want reductions of estimates wherever reductions can be made compatibly with the purpose for which the estimates are introduced; wherever we can see that some money can be taken off without the sacrifice of efficiency for essential purposes, let us do it. But we do not on this side of the House at all events, and I do not think anywhere, at least openly, stand up and say that we want estimates cut down at the expense of efficiency and of essential services. In approaching this matter let me say that there is a very great distinction between a mere reduction in a matter of administration, the lopping off of officials whose duties in the course of time, prove unnecessary, reductions by virtue of an improved organization such as suggested by the hon. gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), there is a very great difference between reductions of that kind and reductions that go to the root of policy, reductions that go to the root of es-
sential purposes for which the expenditure is undertaken. A government usually considers its estimates, finds out if there cannot be betterments in organization and in administration, and brings into Parliament what it believes is the minimum. This Government it is true has not done so this session. On numerous occasions it has admitted that it could get on with less. That may be evidence of some neglect. I do not say it is a very serious matter-not at all. That, however, is one thing, but for a government to determine that a certain scale of organization and expenditure is and that certain services are essential for the vital purposes for which the department exists, and then to recede from the inevitable consequences of that decision, is another thing, and that is what we have witnessed in this House tonight. What have we witnessed? In order to make myself clear, let me quote from the address delivered by the Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Graham) on the 25th April last, when these estimates were brought down by the Government, and sponsored by himself. At page 1178 of Hansard he says:
But at the present time our permanent force is not of sufficient strength to preserve internal order. That is an absolute fact.
Again he says:
Could we, Mr. Chairman, let it be known throughout the entire world that Canada is a country where the militia is ineffective, where the mounted police is to be reduced almost to the vanishing point, where the naval service is to be of little account, and where the flying force is not to function? We would become the mecca of a class of people that would not be desirable in the best interests of the country. It is our duty, even though the militia be not productive, to maintain it at sufficient strength to preserve order and good government within the Dominion.
Further on he says:
We have not only a tradition to carry on, we have a duty to ourselves to perform, and the militia must be maintained at a point where it will be able to protect us from internal disorder, as well as from external aggression.
And again he drew attention to the comparison between the estimates of to-day and the estimates of years ago, and I quote his words in two or three places on that subject. At page 1179 he compared our estimates with the estimates of 1911-1912. I submit in all respect to the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) whose righteous wrath at the newspapers of Montreal got sufficient vent I hope this afternoon, that these estimates the minister was comparing with the present esti-

Supply-Militia
mates were not that awful thing-so hideous to him-Tory estimates. They were estimates of a Liberal government-of a Liberal government that was declaring in the same breath that there was not a cloud in the sky, nothing but peace ahead, that the talk of an emergency was all moonshine, the vapourings of March hares and April fools. The minister said this:
If you take into account the present purchasing power of the dollar as compared with 1911-1912 I submit the estimates presented today are less than they were that year.
Was Toryism in the saddle then under the guise of Liberalism? Is that the opinion of the hon. gentleman from St. James (Mr. Rinfret) ? But that was not all he said on this subject. He said later on, at page 1193 on question by the hon. gentleman from Laprairie (Mr. Lanctot) -
What were the estimates in 1910, when there was a Liberal party in power with a good government?
The hon. minister answered:
The last I have are the estimates for 1910-11, but I may point out that, although brought down by the succeeding government, they were the estimates of their predecessors.
The minister was wrong there. They were both the estimates of the predecessor and brought down by the predecessor, the estimates of 1910-11.


George Perry Graham: The estimates I referred to are those of 1912-13.


Arthur Meighen: But the hon minister referred to the estimates of 1910-11, which were the estimates of the previous government.


George Perry Graham: I must have mis-spoken myself or been mis-reported.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister was thinking of the estimates of 1912-13, but he was talking of the estimates of 1910-11. He said:
The expenditure of 1910-11 was $7,067,000.
That is the expenditure. The estimate was more. He continues:
That was practically equal to the estimates of to-day,-
The expenditure of 1910-11 was practically equal to the estimates of to-day. He continues:
-if indeed It was not more, considering what the dollar could buy then as compared with now. Clothing for the troops now costs 50 per cent, 75 per cent and sometimes 100 per cent more, and so does maintenance. The salaries paid to all officers since the war have been higher because of the increase in cost of living as recognized by every business man in the country.
Then he goes on to explain the higher salaries, stating definitely to the House that the estimate for the year was less or at least no more than equal to the actual expenditure for the year 1910-11. In the year 1910-11 we had a population of less than seven and a quarter million. To-day we have a population of more than eight and three quarter millions. The government that brought down the estimates in that year brought them down on the avowed principle that they expressed the minimum necessary to maintain that force, essential to the preservation of law and order at home and to form the nucleus of defence, the advance guard of defence, and all at a time when, in the undoubted opinion of that government, there was no visible danger from without, no cloud in the sky, no sign of aggression, no special cause of alarm. Such was the attitude the minister took. But that was not all. The minister said more; he said at page 1221:
I venture the assertion that there has been more economy in the cutting of these estimates than has been exercised by any business man in the House in connection with his annual expenditure during tihe past year.
And on the next page he said:
Other countries are disarming-
I ask the committee to give particular attention to this quotation:
Other countries are disarming to a certain extent, but not any more in proportion than we in Canada are, not any more than we are doing in these estimates.
Other countries are disarming, but not any more proportionately than we are doing in respect of the estimates that the minister then brought down. We in Canada, before he brought down those estimates, had by far the smallest military organization per capita of any country in the world, and there was then he said a reduction as much as or more in proportion than that of any other country in the world. In this connection, though the reference is not just appropriate, let it be recalled that, although the influence of many great men and great nations was centred in the recent Disarmament Conference to secure a reduction of armaments by land and sea, they were able, by the greatest effort, only to effect an arrangement for a reduction on sea; they were not able to make any arrangement whatever for reduction on land. I am going to quote just one sentence more from the minister's address. At page 1177, he used this language, evidently language deliberated long, because it was the language with which he opened his address:

Supply-Militia

The Militia Estimates, I might say, have been pared down to a point as low as is compatible w )th national safety.
There could not be a more unequivocal, nor a more relevant sentence, a sentence more directly bearing upon the very heart of the issue that is before the committee in this discussion. In the judgment of the minister, the militia estimates had been pared down to a point as low as was compatible with national safety. This was the judgment of the minister after taking the advice of the trained and experienced men of his department. And let it be remembered, this was not the judgment of a minister who came into his department anxious to maintain the militia estimates on the level they had been on before or on anything like that level, but anxious if he dared, to go below those estimates, the judgment of a government and of a minister who believed that they had political advantage to gain, by slashing the estimates for defence, by bringing those estimates down to the point of peril itself, to the point of demoralization and disorganization of the militia. That was the tendency of ministers, I affirm, when they came into office. In the face of that and resisting that, and rightly so, they came to this parliament and said "Thus far can we go and no farther, compatibly with the safety of this nation."
But where are we to-night? We are now asked to take $400,000 off the appropriation for annual drill, to reduce it by 30 per cent and to take corresponding amounts off various other essential services, services deemed essential, not only by the expert advisers of this country, but by the Minister of Militia, by the Government itself. We are asked to take $400,000 off a vote which the minister declared was indispensable to the safety of this country, which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), seated at the council table, agreed was the very lowest that the Government could reach compatibly with the safety of our people, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed was the lowest that they could justify the presentation of to Parliament.. Remember this is not a matter merely of organization, nor a matter merely of saving a few dollars in administration; this is a matter of the fundamental defence services of this country, services which, the minister declared and believes to-day vital to the security of the nation of which he and the Government are trustees. They are cutting those services down to 66 or 70 per cent of the figure which they rMr. Meighen.]
asserted was the point of safety. That is the position which the Government has taken to-night. Why has it taken that position? Because there was disagreement behind; partly that, partly because there was agreement here. I wonder which it really was. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) says that he is all the more determined to cut these estimates down because we support them. Fine public spirit! He attacks us as Tories trying to hold to the old Tory policy. A bitter, long deliberated virulent attack he made on us this afternoon, and all for what? Pray, what was our offence? Our offence was supporting the minister whom he was elected to support. And as usual he feels that he has clinched his argument when he denominates us Tories. That appellation ends the discussion in the mind of the hon. member. I never put very much store by names; I put far more store by deeds and records, and I would rather belong to a party under any name on earth, a party that stands to its principles through storm and through sunshine, through adversity and through prosperity, in power and out of power, and that applies those principles in progressive legislation to meet the needs of the hour as the hours advance, than belong to a party which, though called in honour of the angels of heaven, cannot describe its principles for the life of it, can only sermonize in language of evasion and of mystery and cannot adhere to any policy for a single session or even from week to week.
The minister advised us that these were the minimum estimates that he could get on with, consistent with the public safety. What has transpired? There was a threat from the hon. member for St. James; there was rebellion in the heart and on the lips of the hon. member for South Quebec (Mr. Power), supported by the determined and dogmatic pacifism of the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) - and now he nods assent. Apparently there is mutiny still in his heart to-night. Consequently, these estimates were postponed in order to give the Government sufficient time to change its policy and its principles. They did not need to be postponed very long. All were gathered into the composing room and the operation proceeded. The hon. member for South Quebec, and the hon. members for St. James and for Laprairie and Napierville came out more than conquerors, because they forced and coerced the Government into reducing the estimates below the line that it had

Supply-Militia
declared to this House to be the line of safety for the country. We have heard of government by conviction; we ought really to have government by conviction; but what have we now? We have government by listening. The Prime Minister bereft of opinions himself listens sometimes at an angle of 45 degrees, sometimes at an angle of 90 degrees, listens for the whispers of the corridor, listens for the threats and the growls around, and then ajl these noises are gathered together, fused into one and the conglomerate emission becomes the tune that he calls the Government policy. Why did the minister not come back with his estimates intact? He might have reduced where it was merely a matter of administration; but he has reduced them at what he himself has declared to be the very root and heart of policy. If there is one function of a government that is primary, that is major, that is first and above all others, it is to take care properly of the national defence. The similar obligation is the first duty of an individual. It is the first law of nature; it is the first trust of government. How has this Government discharged that trust? It has done so by coming to Parliament and saying: "So much is necessary for self-preservation; so much is necessary for national defence; so much is necessary for the general safety: but we ask you to vote a great deal less because of the importunities of our followers". Such is the administration that is in office now; and that sort of conduct forsooth, is described as "democracy". Some hon. member-I forget who he was, but I believe he was an hon. gentleman to the left-gave the Government credit for living true to one of its preachings in the late campaign, -namely that the Government was going to be a committee of Parliament; the Government was going to find out the will of Parliament and then put it into effect. Well, if the Government is merely going to come to Parliament and ask Parliament what shall be the policy of Canada, if Parliament is to take the initiative and dictate a programme item by item to the Government, then in all respect, I do suggest, to hon. ministers, that they might reduce their salaries. What is there for them to do? The deputies gathered together could do their work. We could get men off the street at $1,000 a year, and perhaps a little war bonus occasionally, to go to the deputies and carry the instructions of Parliament and ask them to imple-103i
ment the policies initiated here. Is that responsible government? Is that the character of government that commands the respect of this country? Is that the sort of government that they have or have ever had in Great Britain? Is that traditional British government? If it is, then I do not know what British government is. It is not "democracy", surely not, to come here with a policy and, upon hearing someone rebuke from behind, get up and say, "very well, this is the course we decided on, but if you don't like it we will go back and fix up something else". This is a guess-work government. They canvass how many votes they can get by one line of action, and if they find by a counting process that they are wrong, they go back and guess again; and if they discover that they are still wrong they withdraw for cogitation and for caucus and then make another attempt.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: Some hon. member says that is out of order. Well, it is certainly out of order in other British countries. No! wobbling of that kind is not "democracy," Do not let us besmirch the name of "democracy" by describing that sort of thing as democracy. It is impotency; it is helplessness; it is drift, sterility and inefficiency.
How should hon. members vote? The minister comes before Parliament now, and no one can doubt what was really in his mind and heart when he introduced these new estimates this afternoon. It was written all over his countenance, sounded in every word he uttered, that he himself did not believe that these figures were the proper estimates that should be submitted to this committee. He said: "I am told that this cut can be made and not destroy the whole militia." Those, in effect, were his words. And consequently, because this reduction can be made and not utterly destroy the militia, he comes to Parliament and commends it. I think the minister really believes at this moment that he would be doing better by the country as Minister of Militia to stand by the estimates he first proposed. I believe he wants to do right by the country-if he had the strength essential to his office. But he should have courage as strong as his desire is pure. Instead, he now returns coerced by his followers, driven and bludgeoned by them; for nothing else can explain his course. For my part I prefer to take the judgment of the minister, pronounced in the clear light

S up ply-M ili tia
of his conscience and of his knowledge of the actual necessities as revealed to him in office, I prefer to rest on his opinion, uncoerced, unbelaboured, unbludgeoned as expressed to us only a fortnight ago-I prefer that course to accepting as the basis of my conduct a line of action forced on the Government by the exigencies, of politics and the mutinous threats of caucus. I stand by the estimates as they are.


Mr. McMASTER:: The leader of the
official Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has had bestowed on him by nature a fine vituperative style. Art has developed it, and constant practice brought it to a high state of perfection. He is the master of flouts and jeers and gibes. If flouts could have settled our tariff question it would long since have been settled; had jeers been able to settle our immigration policy that too would have been settled to the satisfaction of all; and his gibes would no doubt have settled our transportation problems and cheap freight rates would now be enjoyed by all.
I might divide his remarks into two parts: First, the observations of a statesman; and the last the nightly exercise of one who cannot seek well-merited repose without having endeavoured to hold this Government up to ridicule. Why is the Government held up to ridicule? Because forsooth it has listened to the voice of the people's representatives. Because counsel has been given to the minister from his own aide, those who gave that counsel are qualified as rebels. Why, the Liberal party, when they have stood for the rights of the people for the last hundred years, have always been denounced as rebels, from the time of Louis Joseph Papineau and his colleagues in Ontario until now. The right hon. gentleman has told us that this is a listening government, because they have listened to those situated at an angle of 45 degrees opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: Better than zero.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Personally, I have no objection if the Government listen often to advice from that direction; but I will protest if they bend forward both ears in a direction exactly opposite. Now, the first part of the address of my hon. friend was that of a statesman. He approached in a serious mood the fundamentals that lie at the basis of this great question. The question of military expenditures is one of the most difficult with which civilized nations are faced. Civilized nations do not wish [Mr. Meighen. J
to bank too much on the millenium. But then, if they develop military and naval forces they find, alas! that those very forces created to preserve peace are so often the real provocators of war. That is the difficulty of the question. Now let me just briefly endeavour to answer some of the arguments and the assertions made by the leader of the Opposition.
First of all, he tries to define militarism; Bernard Shaw, I think, has given us the best definition of a militarist that we can find in modern literature. He says: "A militarist is one that believes that the only force is military force and that God is always with the big battalions." It is the Napoleonic idea; it is the idea which has been responsible for more tears and more blood and more suffering on the part of humanity than possibly any other idea that mankind ever cherished. The hon, gentleman says that world peace depends upon those nations which are not militaristic gathering themselves together. Well, what nations ever admitted that they were militaristic? Why, the whole claim of those who have been responsible for military expenditure in all countries has been this: military forces are merely preservers of peace, a sort of insurance "Give us," said the German generals to the German people, before the great war; "give us another army corps and the Fatherland will be safe." "Give us eight dreadnoughts," said the British naval people, "and the seas will be free from all danger." But was the result of that policy peace, or was it war?
I know how difficult it is, when one nation sets the pace, for other nations not to keep more or less in step. But thank God, that nation that did set the pace toward military expenditure is in the dust and those nations who said that they fought the great war to end war are the victors. Let not the victors lose the result of victory by adopting the sentiments and the policies of the vanquished.
My right hon. friend says that peace or war depends on a defensive alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States. These are not his exact words, but that I think, was the thought that underlay them. But he goes on to say that these two great nations must have very considerable forces behind this policy if it is to be of any avail. Now, it does strike me, Mr. Chairman, that if Great Britain and the United States, more especially the former, would abandon militaristic adventures here and there and everywhere all over the world, the amount of force which they

Supply-Militia
would be obliged to maintain would be very much less than it is now. I was profoundly saddened by the statement made by the leader of the Opposition that in Europe things looked as if they were not very far from war; that war was not as far away as we would like. I give him full credit for desiring peace as I desire it myself. But he painted a gloomy picture of Europe. He said the outlook was not as hopeful as it was two years ago. Now,
I disagree with him. His knowledge of European politics may be much greater than mine, but I say that there is one great outstanding feature in the present European situation which bids us hope, and that is, that those two great nations which have been ostracised from European society ever since the war now have their representatives at the council table at Genoa, because there could be no real European accommodation and, therefore, no real world accommodation as long as Germany and Russia were kept out of the society of nations. They have returned, and we watch the conference at Genoa with hope. Let us hope and trust that Providence will look down on the suffering children of men and that good will come out of this conference.
Then, the world situation is better than it was two years ago, because at that time there was a danger of naval competition between the United States and Great Britain. That is a thing of the past, and I wish to give full meed of credit to the leader of the Opposition for the part he played in bringing about the understanding which was arrived at between Great Britain and the United States. That, I believe, we have the right to hope.
Now, the late Prime Minister-I should say the former Prime Minister, because "late" should only be used in referring to those who have ceased to live, and I know that the leader of the Opposition is fully alive yet and will be for many years to come-he says that Canada is in a happy position. So we are: geographically we are in a happy position. We fear no enemy from the north; we fear no enemy from the south, because by prudence and wisdom we and the inhabitants of the great republic have organized what is really the first international court which has been functioning for years to the satisfaction of the litigants before it, that is, the International Joint Commission. That body has the right to decide not only all questions pertaining to international boundary waters on its own motion, but has the right to sit as a court to. consider all questions
which may arise between the United States and ourselves. We have the right, I say, to take full advantage of our geographical position and our happy political position. It is due to Providence to a certain extent but also to the wisdom of ourselves and our forefathers.
But, says the leader of the Opposition, some other part of the Empire may get into trouble and that may bring trouble home to us. Now, I disagree most heartily with that interpretation of the responsibilities of Canada. The leader of the Opposition at the conference in London apparently committed this country, to a certain extent at least, to a different attitude, but so far as he did so he departed from the traditional attitude which Sir Wilfrid Laurier led this country to adopt, namely, that as long as we fly the flag we are liable to attack, but that so far as participation in war is concerned, that is a matter for the Canadian people to decide through their elected representatives.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman will permit me I must ask him when he attributes to me any stand at the Imperial Conference, to support it by quotation from the document filed. So far as I am concerned, any other document relating to that conference can be filed, but while this is the only one on file it is a duty of hon. members to confine themselves to it and it alone.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Here is a resolution which was passed at the Imperial Conference of 1921:
Having regard to the constitutional development since 1917, no advantage is to be gained by holding a constitutional conference;
Mr. Lloyd George, in the course of his speech in the House of Commons on the 14th of December, 1921, referring to the dominions, spoke as follows-


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, my
suggestion to the hon. member was this, and I appeal to his fairness. In attributing to me anything, he has no right to quote from what any member of the Conference said elsewhere. If it is not embodied in the report filed in this House and the British House, the hon. member has no right to quote it. If there is any fuller report, then so far as I am concerned I would like to see it tabled. If Mr. Lloyd George is to make reports of his own, a similar right pertains to all concerned to make reports of their own, and the whole confidential character of the Conference is gone.

Supply-Militia


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think my hon. friend will admit I would have no desire to be unfair to him in any way, but-


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the hon.
gentleman reading from?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am reading from the report of a speech delivered by Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons of Great Britain on the 14th of December, 1921.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it a newspaper
report of his speech?


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is a report of his speech which I think is to be found in the printed memorandum which was circulated among members of this House.


Arthur Meighen: From the way it started, I think it is not. If the hon. member will read from that printed memorandum, I will make no complaint at all. Read from the memorandum.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am in the hands of the Chair. I do not wish to be unfair in any way to my hon. friend, but I would submit to all hon. members here that after an Imperial conference sits and the Prime Minister of Great Britain gives in a speech in the House of Commons at Westminster an account of what happened at that Imperial conference and the results of its deliberations, surely no one should object unless he is prepared to take the ground t Hat the words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain incorrectly represent what happened there. Under these circumstances, I trust that my right hon. friend will allow me to continue to read what Mr. Lloyd George said as to what was the result of the Conference in which my right hon. friend took a leading part.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest just one thing to my hon. friend. I cannot, of course, hinder him reading anything he likes from Mr. Lloyd George; I do not suggest I can. I have only suggested to him that it is unfair to attribute to me something not contained in the official report which Mr. Lloyd George filed and which has been laid on the Table of this House. That is the only report that any member of the Conference had the right to make with the consent of the Conference.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think I will proceed In this fashion, which will be eminently fair to my hon. friend. I will read what Mr. Lloyd George says, and then if it is not a correct representation of the facts, my hon. friend will say that it is not. The point I wish to make is that according to

what Mr. Lloyd George says, there grew out of this Imperial Conference a solidarity of responsibility which before that time had not been admitted. Let me read the report, and I think hon. members will agree with me after they have listened tc it, that my interpretation is correct. Referring to the Dominions he spoke as follows :
They sa'id: "You are putting us in this position-either we have to support you in a policy which we might or might not approve, or we have to desert the old country in the time or trouble. That is a dilemma in which you ought never to put us. Therefore in future you must consult us before the event." That was right; that was just. That was advantageous to both parties. We acceded to it gladly.
The machinery is the machinery of the British Government-the Foreign Office, the Ambassadors. The machinery must remain here. It is impossible that it could be otherwise, unless you had a Council of Empire, with representatives elected for the purpose. Apart from that, you must act through one instrument. The instrument of the foreign policy of the Empire is the British Foreign Office. That has been accepted by all the Dominions as inevitable. But they Claim a voice in determining the lines of our future policy. At the last Imperial Conference they were there discussing our policy in Germany, our policy in Egypt, our policy in America, our policy all over the world, and we are now acting upon the mature, general decisions arrived at with the common consent of the whole Empire. The sole control of Britain over foreign policy is now vested in the Empire as a whole. That is a new fact, and I would point out what bearing it has upon the Irish controversy.
The advantage to us is that joint control means joint responsibility, when the burden of Empire has become so vast it is well that we should have the shoulders of these young giants under the burden to help'us along.
Now is there anything unfair in my deduction from that, that if a part of the Empire would get into war, under this joint responsibility the other parts would have to come to their assistance. I think that is a fair deduction, and I think it is a very unwise and dangerous policy for Canada to follow.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member suggest that at previous conferences, under Liberal governments, there were no joint councils and discussions on matters of foreign pplicy of the Empire?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I say there was not. I say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier took the position that he would not be informed as to the foreign policy of Great Britain, because if he was given information there might be an implication of honour that having received the information, and not having protested, he would be liable to

Supply-Militia
support the foreign policy which' might eventuate from those facts.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member suggest that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not take part in the discusions leading to the Anglo-Japanese alliance and actually agreed to the alliance?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am not prepared to say that. I am not denying that specific fact, but I believe I am perfectly right when I state that the general policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was to decline consultation lest consultation involve responsibility.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member would have a hard time supporting that.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is the policy
which I believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier followed, and may I say this, that if premiers of this country present and to come will follow in the footsteps of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, they will follow a safe course for this beloved country of ours.
I am not going to attack the estimates as grossly swollen. I admit frankly that in this country we have been as free as most countries, and freer than some, from swollen military and naval estimates, but what I say is that we are particularly fortunate in our situation and we should take full advantage of our good fortune and set an example of reduction in expenditures wherever possible.
I am going to support the amendment moved by the Minister of Militia, not because I am altogether out of sympathy with what has been said by those who wish to go further, but because I believe that the direction in which a party is going is a matter of principle, but the speed with which, the party goes in a given direction is a matter of expediency, and I am prepared to take the attitude assumed by the Minister of Militia, who says that he believes he can make substantial reductions in his estimates. I prefer to see the pruning knife used all along the line more or less, rather than to have one slash at a particular item. There is no question about it: I believe we can effect very substantial reductions in the militia estimates without impairing the service. To give just one instance, there are 4,125 men in our permanent force, and of these 1,406, if I mistake not, are non-combatants. I think we have 105 doctors, and knowing the health of the young Canadian manhood who form our militia I believe some of these doctors
must be holding sinecures. The estimates must be cut down. We cannot get on in this country, we cannot have efficiency in government anywhere along the line, unless we come down to the old fashioned adage of making both ends meet, and we have got to cut our coat according to our cloth.


Mr. MILLAR:: I had wished to speak
on this matter but considering that we were up last night until such a late hour this discussion now ought to come to a close. If we can do that and take an immediate vote, I am willing to refrain from speaking; if we are to continue I have some observations to make.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is the committee
ready for the question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Vote.


George Newcombe Gordon: The vote is on the
amendment to the amendment moved by Mr. Lapointe.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.


George Newcombe Gordon: The vote now is on
the amendment of Mr. Power as amended.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I am not in favour
of the motion as amended, or the amendment as amended.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is not debatable.
The amendment of Mr. Power has been amended upon the motion of Mr. Lapointe which was carried. That amendment provides for the reduction of the annual drill item of $1,400,000 by the sum of $400,000.
Amendment as amended agreed to.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the motion as
amended carry?
Motion as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Wednsday, May 10, 1922