1922-05-12

RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) presented the second report of the Special Committee appointed to consider Railway transportation, as follows:
Your Committee recommend that the discussion, as well as evidence being taken by the Special Committee considering Railway Transportation Costs, be stenographically reported and printed as part of the record.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Frederick Naylor.-Mr Duff.
Bill No. 82 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Yallowley Jones Con-alty.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), for the relief of Telesphore Joseph Morin.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 84 (from the Senate), for the relief of Daisy Mary Nicholson.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH T. SHAW (West Calgary) : Mr. Speaker-
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask:


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) caught my eye first.


Mr. SHAW:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to recommend, and the House if it would be prepared to concur in, the recommendation that the resolution regarding redistribution, of which I gave notice, should be considered at some time fixed conveniently to suit the Prime Minister.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: There is no objection to having
Redistribution

any matter considered, but the Government would like to select its own time for its consideration.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Could the Prime Minister now indicate what time would be satisfactory to him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it would not be possible to do so at the moment. I might mention that my hon. friend's resolution is one of a large number that appear on the Order Paper, and I think it would only be fair to hon. members that these resolutions should be taken up in the order in which they appear. There appears to have been some misunderstanding as to when private members' day would end. I said to the House-and I think it was generally so understood when I spoke the other day-that Monday and Wednesday of the present week would be the last days on which private members' business would have precedence. I should now like to say that there is the motion relating to the subject of oleomargarine, No. 23, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that in the best interests of the Dairy Industry and of the public generally, the manufacture and importation of oleomargarine should be discontinued in Canada after September first next.
The Government would like to have the views of hon. members of the House on that subject, and I would be agreeable to promising consideration of this resolution on Monday next, if members of the House wish to have it taken up at that time. In regard to the other motion, I think I will have to ask my hon friends to allow the Government opportunity to consider what would be the best time to consider it.


Mr. GOOD:: I have read the resolution which was submitted by the Government, and it distinctly states that next Monday will be available for private members' resolutions. I had previously understood the Prime Minister as he now expresses himself, but the resolution distinctly permitted members, resolutions on Monday next. I hope that is generally understood.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend has raised the point. Of course, I shall have to place myself in the hands of the House in this matter. I noticed in looking over the records that the resolution did appear as my hon. friend ha3 said, but I immediately drew the attention of the Clerk to the circumstance that the amendment that I had proposed was in-

tended to mean on and after Monday. The words "on and" were omitted in the printing. I think every hon. member who heard me speak here-and I think Hansard will bear it out-understood that the Government would desire to take Monday next* for its business. The Government would like to hold to this, but we are agreeable to making an exception with respect to the one motion I have spoken of. If hon. gentlemen did not so understand me, I am prepared to consider the matter further, but I think it is desirable to get on with the main business of the House as rapidly as possible.


Mr. CRERAR:: My understanding of the matter was precisely as the Prime Minister stated, that after this week the Government would take all days for their business. It is true, the motion as it appears in the records bears a dilferent construction. I would suggest to the Government however that, perhaps, under the circumstances it would be advisable to leave Monday for private members, if the Government can see its way to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to meet my hon. friends opposite so far as possible. Might I suggest-if this is agreeable to the House-that the Government undertake bo ask that resolution No. 23, that is the one respecting oleomargarine, be considered first thing on Mondlay next, and then when that resolution has been disposed of, we take u>p the other notices of motions in the order in which they appear? If that is agreeable to hon. members, I will undertake to follow that procedure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Right Hon. ARTHUR METGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: As resolutions passed by the House govern their wording, and not speeches-I am not at all contradicting what the Prime Minister says-we have Monday next as private members' day unless some action is taken in the meantime; and it is only by appropriate action to the contrary that that could be changed.



DATE OF THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I think I will anticipate the question of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton). I almost imagined that he had some reference to the possibility of the Budget. I had the hope

Potlatch Institution
and plan, indeed, that I might fix a date towards the end of the coming week, but to be on the safe side, I propose to fix Tuesday, the 23rd, as the date of the Budget.



PRIVILEGE-MR. COPP CORRECTION OF REPORT CONCERNING REPARATION CLAIMS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: I desire to take this opportunity, as a matter of privilege, of correcting a statement attributed to me in a report appearing in the Montreal Gazette, and possibly in other newspapers throughout the country:
Mr. Copp stated that reparation claims amounting to $22,000,000 had been filed. Some of these claims had already been satisfied.
I desire to state most explicitly that I made no such statement as that, and if hon. members will refer to unrevised Hansard, page 1735, they will see exactly what I did say. I do not, for a moment, suggest that the reporter wilfully made this statement; but I do not want the statement spread broadcast throughout the country, because there have been filed in the department a large number of these claims, none of which has been paid. Those who have filed reparation claims, if some had been paid, would naturally be surprised that all the claims had not been considered at one and the same time. I want to make it clear that no claims have been considered or paid by the department.



POTLATCH INSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. W. FINDLAY (South Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government if they have any further statement to make with regard to the matter, to which I referred a few days ago, of those in British Columbia who are at present taking part in the Indian celebration commonly known as the Potlatch. It will be remembered that, when I brought this matter up the other day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that he was unable to hear sufficiently what I said to conclude what I was talking about. He suggested that he would confer with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and myself, and let me know what the situation was. I have had, I may say, one or two private conferences with the Minister of 109
the Interior, and it will be remembered that, when I first introduced this question, the reason was that the minister had made a statement in reply to a question placed upon the Order Paper by the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Ladner), and-


Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman intends to put a question?


John Walter Findlay: Yes, for information.


Hewitt Bostock: No debate is permissible on questions on the Orders of the Day.


John Walter Findlay: I merely want to know if the Government intend to give me any information as to the situation with regard to those Indians.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I owe my hon. friend an apology for not having given him this information sooner. It was at hand yesterday; the Minister of the Interior had it, and he intended to give the reply in the House yesterday; but he was obliged to leave in the afternoon, and he left the answer with me. I have it here. The position is as follows, according to this statement by the acting deputy Superintendent General:
The reply as prepared for the House contained the particulars with respect to the number of convictions for potlatching and the number of those serving terms of imprisonment as ascertained from Mounted Police reports up to the date of the question as it appeared in the Order Paper. We have just now received-
This is dated May 10:
-from our agent for the Kwawkewlth agency, where these prosecutions have taken place, a report which contains the following paragraph and which I presume is an exact statement of the facts and is somewhat different from the particulars that we have gleaned from the Mounted Police reports:	;
"The principal item of interest during the month of April was the completion of the potlatch prosecutions., Fifty-eight informations had been laid which after being heard resulted in nine dismissals, twenty-three were given suspended sentence, twenty-two were sentenced to two months' imprisonment and four six months' imprisonment. In the case of three of the latter the stay of execution was suspended and an application made for parole.''
Those, I think, are the true facts of the case.


John Walter Findlay: Do I understand that, at the present time, they are all released except four?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apparently not. The hon. gentleman will be able to refer to the statement I have read.



Supply-Air Board



AIR BOARD

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee ply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:	of Sup-
The Air Board-	
Salaries	$	75,000Contingencies	
Canadian Air Force and Civil	17,500Aviation	907,500
Mr. PARENT:: What does the Civil Aviation consist of?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) : The Civil Aviation consists almost altogether of work done for the other departments, such as fire ranging, work done for other provinces, and survey work.


Mr. JACOBS:: How much for other provinces?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The province of Quebec last year erected buildings worth, if I remember aright, $20,000 at Roberval, and the department went fifty-fifty They took the buildings as the province's share, and they did the fire ranging for the province. Ontario paid $50,000 for her share, and British Columbia $20,000.


Samuel William Jacobs: If this was worked up by the provinces, why do the Dominion authorities contribute anything to it? The provinces in some cases, are much better off than the Dominion authorities.


George Perry Graham: It is one of these
peculiar situations where the federal Government participates, as it does sometimes in the matter of education. It is an experiment in collaboration with the provinces. The imperial authorities presented by the federal Government $5,000,000 worth of aviation equipment, and the work could not very well be undertaken by all the provinces unless they purchased their own equipment, so we gave it to them. The federal government undertook for a time to do this work. This year we have informed the provinces as well as the other departments of the Dominion government that if they want work done we shall be glad to undertake it, provided they pay the cost of doing it.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is this reduction in connection with civil aviation, or with what might be described as the military branch?


George Perry Graham: Both. There is a misconception as to what the department really

intends to do with the Air Force. It was divided into civil and military. As a matter of fact, if Canada were in a position to enter largely into a field of this kind I should be rather inclined to leave the service as it was, under an air board attached to the department. But the force is comparatively small, and, in my opinion, must for a few years at least be in a merely experimental state. Consequently it and the Militia Department are being brought under the Department of National Defence. The Militia Department Is not absorbing any of these entities; the idea is simply to amalgamate the three services so as, if possible, to reduce executive expenses. There has been a considerable difference of opinion, and not without reason, as to whether it was better to keep the Air Force outside the military branch than to bring it into the Department of National Defence. If we had a large organization and anticipated a large expenditure and a great development in the Air Force, it might be as well to leave it by itself. But I take it for granted that we are not in a position to develop any considerable organization just now in Canada. Furthermore, when civil aviation has reached a certain point in its development, private companies will largely undertake this work. I may not be in accord with hon. members, but I do believe that the Dominion is not prepared to enter upon any large scheme of government-owned and operated civil aviation service. I think that we should rather, for a time, act as instructors, allowing private companies and the provinces to get into the business themselves and look after their own affairs. That part of the work will be carried on under the new arrangement precisely as was done previously, and we hope this year to carry on all the civil aviation work we did last year. We are asking, however, that the provinces and the other departments of the Government pay the costs of operation, and we can assure them that the work will be done just as thoroughly as heretofore.


Arthur Meighen: There are two changes, I understand. The minister purposes to ask for larger contributions from the provinces for the services they get, and' he also intends to assess the other departments for the benefits they derive from the organization. That accounts, I presume, for the substantial diminution in the estimates?


George Perry Graham: It will account for some of it; the amounts are not overly large.

Supply-Air Board


Arthur Meighen: I hope the minister will not feel discouraged when I say that I concur in the attitude that he has taken towards this estimate, and I sincerely hope that my fidelity to the estimate will not alter his, and that we shall not find him coming back with another one later on. Very manifestly it would not be the part of economy, and consequently not the part of wisdom-because it would not carry with it efficiency-if all the provinces should commence individually air force organizations, at least while the science is in the experimental stage. You could scarcely conceive a greater waste of effort and money than would eventuate from such a course as that. The Dominion is the possessor of the equipment for this work. The work is almost wholly experimental, and undoubtedly can be done better by the Dominion Government in co-operation with the provinces than it ever could be done by the provinces themselves, each acting on its own initiative and separately. For myself, I have the utmost confidence-well, I will not say that, but at any rate I have some confidence-that very considerable results will be achieved, and that ere long, in the matter of forest fire protection. I may be wrong, but I think that in discussion of the estimates of the Interior Department this session the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) explained how a very considerable saving had been effected already on the timber areas in British Columbia by the adoption of this method of preservation. The department is therefore well advised as respects that matter, if there were nothing else to influence them, not to abandon the Air Force work. In regard to survey work for the Interior and other departments, although I am not sure that it has yet reached the point where it might be described as being a success, nevertheless it has not been brought to the point where failure is evident. There is in this connection also an opening for real service and real economy. For these reasons I ,'up-port the attitude of the minister and hope he will not abandon it.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
(Mr. Meighen) is right. I imagine it will not be very long before a good deal of the work on the ground in the matter of fire protection is done away with. Most of the work is done in the air; in the Winnipeg district that is the case at the present time. The department received a letter the other day from the engineers, who are preparing their report on the deep waterways, informing us that the air service had been of inestimable value to them in donig their work.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I understand that the High River station has rendered a great service in saving the Dominion forest reserve in that district, or at least in the vicinity, from destruction by fire during the past year. Is it the intention of the department to do away with this station at that point?


George Perry Graham: We hope to bo able to do the work, to put it mildly, as thoroughly as it was done last year, and if possible to do more work.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like a more definite statement from the minister. I have had letters from the boards of trade, not only in my own constituency but in the constituency of my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote), protesting against any diminution on the part of the federal government of its activities in this matter. They are opposed to such a course for more reasons than just the preservation of the forest as such. The preservation of the forest is absolutely essential to the irrigation projects now under way in southern Alberta, and we protest most earnestly against any diminution on the part of the Dominion government of the good work that has been done in the past. I should be glad if the minister would state definitely whether or not that station is to be maintained.


George Perry Graham: I cannot for the life of me see how the report got out that the air station at High River was to be abolished. I received a great many communications myself, and delved all around the department, but without avail, to find any one who knew how the suggestion had got out. The station will be maintained, as I said before, and possibly more work will be done than was done last year.


Mr. KELLNER:: Did the minister say it was the intention to have the provincial governments pay for this work in the different provinces?


George Perry Graham: We are asking the provincial governments to pay the cost of operation in connection with any work we do for them. They were informed last August of this decision on the part of the department.
Supply-Air Board


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It would not seem right that the provinces which have not got their natural resources should have to pay those expenses in the same proportion as the provinces which have.


George Perry Graham: Three provinces have
asked us to perform the work-Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and I am afraid the question of natural resources does not come up in connection with these provinces.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: How much of this work was done in each of the provinces last year, and at what cost?


George Perry Graham: The cost of the operations at Vancouver was $63,958.


John Frederick Johnston: That would be for the province of British Columbia?


George Perry Graham: No, some of that was for the Dominion. About $20,000 was paid by the British Columbia government. At High river the cost was $120,669. Quite a large proportion of that was for construction of the wireless station there and other work in connection with it.


John Frederick Johnston: Would that $120,000 be charged wholly against the province, or would part of it be borne by the Dominion?


George Perry Graham: All by the Dominion, I think. At Victoria. Beach, Man., the expenditure was $66,870; at Sioux Lookout, $35,574; the Ontario government reimbursed the federal government $15,000 of that expenditure; Roberval, Quebec, $31,099; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, $43,322; Ottawa, $59,512; Haileybury, $1,049.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton) :: Is the
High river station the only one in Alberta? I think most of the timber is in the northern part of the province.


George Perry Graham: This is the only station in Alberta. Last year a machine was sent to Jasper for a short time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it the intention of the department to extend the work into northern Alberta in view of the fact that this method is more efficient than the other?


George Perry Graham: I am afraid we cannot promise much extension of the work with the estimate where it is.


Mr. DUFF:: What work was done at
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia?


George Perry Graham: That is a station which was used largely for sea-planes. It was in use during the war. The work performed at that station was not very extensive last year, most of the expenditure representing maintenance.


William Duff: Does not the minister think that that station should be closed?


George Perry Graham: We will consult with the provincial government.


Mr. GOULD:: I did not catch from the minister his report for the province of Saskatchewan.


George Perry Graham: It would be hard to
catch. There was no request from Saskatchewan, and no work was done.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am pleased to hear the minister state that fire prevention work over our timber areas would be done by aeroplane, and I merely wish to add that that is the thought which was in the mind3 of our people here when we were talking about the militia estimates, that the air service will do the work in future instead of the militia.


Arthur Meighen: I think the plan is
right of assessing against the provinces the services performed for them, as certain provinces will require more service than others and they should pay proportionately. But what is the value of collecting from the various departments for any services rendered in regard to work formerly done by those departments? It will entail all sorts of bookkeeping and an additional cumbersome organization.


George Perry Graham: It is a matter of arrangement between the departments. As Minister of Railways my experience was that whenever anything was to be carried some members of the government got it into their heads that my railways ought to carry it for nothing, and my department was made the goat, and at the end of the year the real showing of the railways was not evidenced in the report. So far as the Dominion treasury is concerned it does not make any difference. But for years past the militia estimates have been severely criticised and economy has been urged. What I had in my mind was this. For example, if the Interior Department wanted to appropriate $50,000 for fire rangers, and this Air Force were not in existence, the Department of the Interior would have to pay for the men engaged in the work. If we do the work for the Interior Depart-

Supply-Air Board
ment, then the Department of National Defence should not he charged with an expenditure, that ought to be made by the Department of the Interior. I wanted to show the actual expenditure of my department.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has been
pretty frank. The only object he has in mind is to keep the defence estimates down, and thereby be able to show that the Government has kept its pledge.


George Perry Graham: If the other men do the same thing it will be all right.


Arthur Meighen: I know he is all right. The Intercolonial Railway when it was operated by the Department of Railways was made the goat-it was supposed to carry everything free. That was all remedied by the late government, so this government will not have to face that condition again.


George Perry Graham: I do not see any evidence of that anywhere. I will bring that up on the Orders of the Day.


Arthur Meighen: That has all been cured. This is a case of the government service. You might just as well take any other department and where it does anything that was formerly done by another department charge it up to that other department. That would apply to the Departments of the Interior, Militia,-to every department of the Government. You would have a sort of interchange bookkeeping system that would be the most cumbersome and unmanageable in the world. If the Department of Militia and Defence is performing certain services, those services are not performed for particular individuals, as was the case with the railway service in former years; those services are performed for the whole nation. I see the object the minister has in view, but that is no good reason for adopting this course as relating to the Air Force. I submit the same plan should be followed as in all other departments of the government.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to block
these estimates, Mr. Chairman, but I submit that the man who is put at the head of a department should run it on business principles, and if some other department wants his department to spend $50,000, that other department ought to ask for the appropriation and make the necessary transfer. In a large departmental store every branch is on its own footing, and if it
lends anything to another branch it gets credit and the other branch is debited with it. That is the only way in which the head of such an institution can tell which branch is doing business properly and which is not. Now, if one branch of the government service is to be charged with work done for three or four other branches, it may look like a very extravagant branch when it is perhaps the most economical of the lot. I had my difficulties with the Department of Militia and Defence when I was Minister of Railways with reference to the transport of troops and so forth. I insisted that they should use their own railway and that they should pay for it when they did. Why should the Department of Railways carry troops for the Department of Militia, run up its deficit and keep down the expenditures of the Department of Militia?-I am referring to it, of course, from the point of view of the presentation of the results of the work of each department to the House and to the public.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What the public want to know is what the Air Force is costing. The minister proposes to charge each department for any special work he does for it, and there will be no way of ascertaining what the Air Board costs. That is a way of camouflaging it, of disguising it, by making it appear, if only the total is looked at and no examination is made beneath the surface, that the expenditure has been reduced. If I understand the minister's statement aright, the whole operations of the Air Board are to be continued. I have not heard that any are to be cut off, unless it be that work heretofore done for the provinces on the principle of fifty-fifty is now to be done entirely at provincial expense. That would involve a reduction, but only a very slight one, because the amount contributed by the provinces was very small indeed. But the whole work is evidently to go on and the whole expense will probably be there. All the salaries are continued-$75,000 for this year just the same as last year. What I object to in the system is this: certain newspapers in this country when these estimates were published proclaimed that the minister had performed a wonderful service; that he had cut down the Air Board estimates by some $600,000 or $700,000. But it is evident that the whole work is to be continued; there is no real cut in the estimate, no real reduction in the expense. A good many promises of reduction were made, but according to the
Supply-Air Board

statement given this afternoon by the minister the work is to be carried on as formerly, though instead of charging it to the Air Board, where it should be charged, it is to be spread out over various departments, with the result that the public will not know what the Air Force is costing. Now, last year the Air Board performed services for the Department of Marine and Fisheries; coastal patrols to prevent poaching and fishing out of season; transportation of spawn; rapid transportation to inaccessible points in British Columbia. That is all charged against the Air Board; we know what the Air Board is costing. Last year certain work was performed by the Air Board for the Department of Agriculture: securing vertical and oblique photographs of mosquito-infested areas in proximity to Vancouver. That was charged to the Air Board. If that work is continued it will be charged to the Department of Agriculture and we shall not know what the Air Board is costing. Last year the Air Board did work for the Department of the Interior; oblique photography of deltas, lakes, etc., for map purposes; also forest fire protection work, forest reconnaissance, and inspection of burnt areas from the air All that work was charged to the Air Board, so that the people know what the cost is. Now, the minister proposes to charge it to the Department of Interior, and no one will know what the Air Board costs. Last year the Air Board did work for the Department of Customs-here is a new avenue of work for it: patrols to prevent smuggling of drugs from the East into Canada. I think it was brought out in a debate we had in the House a few days ago that a good many of these drugs gain access to Canada by being thrown overboard in casks and barrels and picked up by fishing boats near the coast and brought ashore. That has been very largely stopped through the efforts of the Air Board. The activities of the board in this respect are now to be charged to the Department of Customs. I submit that the proposal is wrong. The air service is now a very important item in the budget of every country. Last year the vote for this purpose in the United States was $95,000,000; I think it is about the same this year, or perhaps larger. In Great Britain the amount spent is tremendous. Australia and New Zealand have made their first expenditure in air service, and I think every civilized nation has done likewise. The work is experi-
mental as yet and the people are curious to know just what it costs. It is an expensive service, there is no doubt about that. Machines are costly; repairs run into large sums; high-class men have to be well paid-flying operations from the beginning to end are vastly expensive. I submit that the estimates last year and the year before were pared down to a very . modest and reasonable amount, one quite in keeping with our general expenditure and our general requirements. This year there is a change in method, but there is going to be no change in result; in fact, any change made under the proposal of the minister will be detrimental. We know to-day just what the Air Board costs, what officials will be retained, and what salaries are to be paid. By the way, I understand that the resignation of the only official who acted in a purely honorary capacity and who gave wonderful service has been accepted since the new Government took office. I refer to Colonel O. M. Biggar, who since the Air Board was constituted had been its deputy chairman and gave his services without remuneration. About a year ago he tendered his resignation to me when I was acting as chairman of the board, but I did not accept it; he was too valuable a man. But I believe that the new administration has accepted his resignation, although he was the only unpaid official in the air service, and his work was extremely important and exceedingly well done, as is everything which Colonel Biggar does. On the whole I cannot take exception to the amount which the Government proposes to expend, but I do think it should be put just as plainly as it was last year; the House and the country should know what we propose to spend. It should all be in the estimates; let us know what the Air Board is costing Canada.


George Perry Graham: That is so easy that I am surprised that my hon. friend should bring it up. If he had kept in mind what I said about the departmental store he would know and the country would know exactly what the air service costs. If there are to be credits from other departments they will appear as well.


Hugh Guthrie: Why not put them all in one?


George Perry Graham: They will be in one, but if there are any receipts from provinces or from other departments, they will be shown. The estimates will not be changed. Last year there were receipts from provinces.

Supply-Air Board


Hugh Guthrie: Then the information the minister gave the committee a few moments ago was very misleading, or I am very dense. I understood, because he put it in very plain language, that all that was done for the various departments was to be paid for by them. Now he leads me to believe that his present estimate is the whole expenditure on the air service. I do not know which is right. If the amount stated in this estimate, $1,000,000, is to be the total expenditure, reduced by $625,000 from last year, the minister should not maintain his whole staff as he is doing. He has cut down 33 per cent of his expenditure. I assume, then, that he will cut down at least one-third of his air operations. One may reasonably suppose that a third of his staff would likewise be cut down. But the first information which he gave to the leader of the Opposition was the correct information, that he proposed to continue the operations. He is now trying to camouflage it by letting each department charge itself with the amount which the service performed for that department represents. What the committee want to know, and what the people of this country want to know, is what the whole cost of the air service is going to be; if $1,000,000 is going to be the expenditure, let us know it, and if every department is going to add to that amount, let us know that also.


Arthur Meighen: I will remind the minister, before he rises, that I pointed out the difference between the $1,000,000 and the $1,625,000, and after he told me there were to be charges against departments and against governments, I said "That accounts for this difference," to which he replied that it accounted in part.


George Perry Graham: To a very small extent, I think I said.


Arthur Meighen: To any extent at all, it contradicts what the minister said, because if all the charges are in the $1,000,000 and the credits come in from the departments, they would not account for one dollar of the difference.


George Perry Graham: Hon. gentlemen seem to object to the way in which I have brought this estimate down, and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) talks of "camouflage." There is no camouflage about it at all. He talks of not reducing the staff, but I am inclined to think he knows better. He knows because there have been many people to see him about
it. Practically all the temporary staff of the Air Force, or at all events the great majority, have gone now and $35,000 will be saved in temporary employees who were paid out of the Air Board vote. There is $35,000 saved before we begin to reorganize.


Hugh Guthrie: First, that is not a correct statement; secondly, it is an unfair statement.


George Perry Graham: Absolutely correct and perfectly fair.


Hugh Guthrie: No one has seen me on this subject, not a single individual from the minister down to the lowest official, and there has not been one letter-not a word.


George Perry Graham: They have been to see me.


Hugh Guthrie: What I state is absolutely correct. Here is the estimate, $75,000, for this year just the same as last year. If you have cut down your operations this year one-third, why do you need the same vote as last year? I maintain that you are not cutting it down except on paper. You are really going to continue the same operations. I hope you will, but I say that you are trying to camouflge the expenditure. What about the resignation of Colonel Biggar, may I ask?


George Perry Graham: I think this matter was explained by myself in the House on a former occasion, but when the militia estimates come up my hon. friend always takes great pains to make it embarrassing for the gentlemen themselves as well as for the minister, when any person retires of his own accord or is retired. The hon. member for South Wellington is no better friend of Colonel Biggar than I am. As I said in this House some weeks ago, Colonel Biggar worked for this
4 p.m. department gratis as vice-president and as soon as I came into the department he told me that he had offered his resignation some time before, and he offered it again. I asked him to retain his position for a while until we discovered what we were going to do. Then, when the time came to discuss the question of amalgamation, Colonel Biggar again offered his resignation, and I accepted it.


Hugh Guthrie: Has his place been
filled?


George Perry Graham: His place has not been filled.
Supply-Air Board


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister propose to fill his place?


George Perry Graham: If we have the reorganization, there will be no place to fill.


Hugh Guthrie: Is the Air Board as now constituted to be continued?


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend has probably not read over the bill. The Air Board is not to be continued.


Hugh Guthrie: How is it to be
operated-as a branch of the Defence Department? Is it to be a separate branch, and if so, who is to be the presiding genius, and what assistants will he have?


George Perry Graham: It is very difficult to
give these details before the reorganization is at least partially completed. The bill for bringing about the reorganization has not yet become law. As I explained some time ago, the Air Board will be an integral part of the Department of Defence: it will not be absorbed by the Department of Militia and Defence. I think I can say to the House that practically all the technical officers and most of the staff will be taken into the new Department of Defence. We shall have a Director of Aviation, and perhaps one or two assistants. The technical officers we have now will be part of the Department of Defence, and not on the outside but on the inside.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see that
the sum voted for salaries last year was $75,000. The minister says that he is getting rid of temporary employees to the amount of $35,000, but there is no corresponding reduction in this item. Why is that?


George Perry Graham: That was not under this item. That was not my explanation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Out of what vote were the temporary help paid last year?


George Perry Graham: Out of the general vote
for the Air Force.


Arthur Meighen: What were these people doing who were in temporary service?


George Perry Graham: I am informed they were doing technical and equipment service.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know just
what that means. What is it? Repairing machines?


George Perry Graham: Aeronautical engineering staff, and stores. In addition, there were a lot of temporary clerks, as there are in every department. They were carried in the main bulk vote to the amount of $35,000.


Arthur Meighen: Why was that service
necessary last year and not this year? The officer of the department will know.


George Perry Graham: Because the staff does
not need to be so large. In the first place, we are amalgamating, and we expect to get along with fewer quarter-masters and accountants, for instance. We expect to save something there. Then we have not so much money to spend. Some of the details of operation will be cut out, although the main work will be carried on.


Arthur Meighen: I do not just get my
mind around that. The bill is not through yet for the amalgamation. I have always contended the minister did not need the bill, but he says he does. The bill is not yet through, and if these temporary employees are all being let out in anticipation of the bill going through, if they are away from the service now, they are not needed there, of course. There must be something that was done last year that is not being done this year, and I am anxious to find out what service that is. What would the amalgamation have to do with the aeronautical engineering service, for instance? Nothing in the world. The men repairing aeroplanes are not going to be any different whether the department is called National Defence, or Air Board.


George Perry Graham: We will be doing less
flying; there will be less of this kind of work.


Arthur Meighen: What flying service is
being cut down or eliminated?


George Perry Graham: At the present time
there is little or no training being done at Camp Borden. The camp will be opened up a little later on, but not to the extent it has been, probably.


Arthur Meighen: But what service is
going to be reduced? There would not be any training at Camp Borden last year more than this year. What service is being cut down or taken away?


George Perry Graham: My information is that
flying is being cut down proportionately. All I have stated in the House here is in

Supply-Air Board
reference to the main work of civil aviation in the department. We hope to carry on the work that is being done for the provinces this year, but the other work is being cut in every particular, or we could not make this reduction.


Arthur Meighen: That is to say, there
is going to be less aeroplane service for the protection of our own forests?


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister said that outside of what we were doing for the provinces all the rest was cut proportionately. Now, we are not protecting our own forests for the provinces, we are protecting them for ourselves. It follows, therefore, that that is being cut, or else the minister was not accurate. The minister's reply from his seat would indicate that he is not cutting that service. Then what is it? Is it the survey service for the Interior Department or for the Customs Department? What is it that is being reduced?


George Perry Graham: I merely gave my hon. friend one item. We are not building any stations this year. We built quite a number last year.


Arthur Meighen: I presume when stations are built they are built, and it would hardly be economy to tear them down. That accounts for some. Can the minister account for anything else?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is very technical.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


George Perry Graham: I am not in the witness box. I am giving the House all the information I can give. We are doing this thing at Camp Borden, and cutting the expense in every quarter, without interfering with the special service of the organization.


Arthur Meighen: I asked him if he was cutting at one quarter and he indignantly denied it.


George Perry Graham: The right hon. member must not put words in my mouth. He is not catechising a witness in the witness box, and I am not going to permit him, even if he has been Prime Minister, to put words in my mouth which I have not used. I have answered the question fairly and thoroughly, and if talking and manufacturing in his own mind questions that he did not put, and answers that he did not receive, amuses him, let him go on.


Arthur Meighen: The minister may not be a witness in the witness box; I did not say he was. But he is a minister of the Crown in Canada, subject to inquiry in the House as to his estimates.


George Perry Graham: Surely.


Arthur Meighen: I asked him was what being reduced; I desire specific answers, and I am entitled to them. I am not demanding any answer because I was Prime Minister or anything on account of myself, other than that I am a member of Parliament, with the rights of a member of Parliament. The minister wants to get away by simply saying "Oh, I am reducing, I am cutting down expense," with the hope that the committee will get the impression that this is a great matter of economy on his part without reduction of service. Then I asked him what service he was reducing, and his reply was that he was reducing all-round proportionately. Then he said that he was not reducing the service to the provinces, but was reducing the rest. I am not putting words in his mouth. These are his own words. I said he must be reducing the service for the protection of our forests. From his seat he disputed that. Where have I put words in his mouth? Not at all. He is not reducing that service. He has so answered. I hope that answer is right and that he is not reducing the service. What service is he reducing? He said "we built some stations last year, and did not need to build them this year." That accounts for some reduction, but it is not a reduction of service.


George Perry Graham: It is a reduction iq money.


Arthur Meighen: Very good. I have accepted that. That is quite clear. We understand that. If that accounts for the whole reduction, all right, I am satisfied, but if it is something else I want to know specifically what it is, and I would like the minister to explain on what ground I am not entitled to an answer. I would like to know specifically what is being reduced, what has enabled him to do it, and where is the service that is going to be left, and why?


George Perry Graham: I have answered these questions several times. The right hon. gentleman does not expect to get answers in dollars and cents in every detail. He knows that is impossible. We do be-
Supply-Air Board

lieve that when we get the department properly organized, if we are allowed to do it, we can perform the essential service that we did last year at a much less expense than last year. We are cutting out at the present time training at Camp Borden. We will have the instruction school at Camp Borden later on I hope, and without giving the details in every particular, as no person can know at the present time just what they will be, we are undertaking to carry on the work with the reduction of $625,000, and I hope we will be able to do it; I believe we will. The work to be done by the different departments of the Government will depend on the requisitions of those departments of Government. Just at the moment I cannot tell in what I am going to reduce the work done for the different departments of government. I may reduce some and increase others; that will depend on the requisitions the different departments make. But we do believe we can carry on the service and give satisfaction to the provinces for $1,000,000. When the department is fully reorganized, and we get it in working shape, we will be able to give details, but at present it is impossible to give them, because we have not our organization perfect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to ask one or two specific questions. Is it the intention of the department to maintain the same forest patrol in the railway belt in British Columbia, and in what is known as the Peace River block? Take the railway belt-


George Perry Graham: Yes, in the railway belt.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it intended to maintain the same patrol service at Vancouver in connection with the Customs Department and the other miscellaneous services rendered by the board and the department last year?


George Perry Graham: The Customs Department have already asked that the patrols be maintained, and we believe we can maintain them.


Arthur Meighen: The minister resists
giving us the details. He says "I am cutting down the amount, and you must leave it to me to make the saving where I can." I submit, the minister is not treating the committee properly. He can give many more details than he has given. Here is an estimate of $1,525,000 Canadian Air

Force and Civil Aviation. His officers cut it down to $907,500. Note the "$500." They have it down to a matter of a hundred dollars. It is not as if it were reduced to a round $1,000,000, but it is reduced to $907,500. The officers of this department have the details making up that $907,500. They have the corresponding details making up the $1,525,000 of last year, and those details will show where the reductions are in each case, and the minister or his officers can tell this committee just how the reductions are made, whether by reduction of service, or how and just how much of that is due to the fact that the stations have been built, and how much is due to something else, and what the other things are.


Hugh Guthrie: Furthering what my right hon. friend has just said, the item of $907,500 has not been put there by chance or guess. It represents something. Last year the same item was $1,525,000, and we know what it represented. It was stated in the estimates last year that $700,000 of it was for civil aviation; $825,000 of it was for the Air Board for the military end of the service.
Of the $700,000 the items were as follows:
Flying for other Government Departments	 $365,000
They charged it all up to the Air Board last year.
Experimental Flying Research..	..	$ 50,000
Upkeep of equipment	 80,000
Acquisition and equipment of civil
air stations	 220,000
Total	  $715,000
Less amounts for operation on account of Ontario and Quebec	..	35,000
Total sum required	 $680,000
In addition, there is an item of $20,000 for licensing, inquiry into accidents, survey of air routes, etc. This makes a total of $700,000. When we come to the military side of the Air Board work, we have a total of $825,000, according to the following details:
28-day refresher course for 190 flying
officers	 $380,000
28-day refresher course for 50 ground
officers	 22,000
3 months' course for 400 mechanics..	240,000
Spare parts	 100,000
Seaplane training	 60,000
Provincial executives		23,000
Total	 $825,000
That is what Parliament voted last year.

Supply-Air Board


William Duff: The hon. member has given us the full details of the expenditure of 1921-22. Would he be good enough to keep right on and give us the details for this year?


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I am trying to find out.


William Duff: Has the hon. member the details?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I have not.


William Duff: The hon. member has those of last year, wherever he got them. Will he tell us where he got those details from?


Hugh Guthrie: I had them in the
House last year. I was questioned on them.


William Duff: Not those details.


Hugh Guthrie: If I was asked questions on them, I certainly had them before me, because this is the memorandum that I presented to the House last year when my estimates were before the House.


William Duff: Does it not belong to the department, and not to the hon. member? What right has the hon. member to that memorandum? It belongs to the department.


Hugh Guthrie: I have a right to it, and there is the duplicate of it in the department. I think there is a duplicate of it at this moment in the desk of the minister. If there is not, there should be. I want to know what is going to be done with the money for the current year. There is a lump item of $900,000, and not a single detail of what they are going to do with it. The least the minister could do would be to give to the committee some idea of what the expenditure is going to be. He must know how that item of $900,000 is made up. It will not take more than a minute or two to give it to the committee, and the committee is entitled to the information.


George Perry Graham: I made the explanation a moment ago. It was all very well for my hon. friend last year to have the estimate of what he was going to do, because he was carrying on the Air Board just as it was before. All he had to do was to sit down and make out the estimates in detail. He knows, and the committee, knows that, on account of our reorganization, which I hoped would have taken place some weeks ago, but which has been delayed, it is impossible to sit down and make
out those details, because we have not got into our new organization, we have not our departments together. The Air Board itself is not in a position to sit down and make out all those details, because it does not know whether it will be operated. Let me point this out to my hon. friend. I could give him some figures in connection with stations, not details, because, under present conditions, it is impossible to make out the details for the coming year under present conditions. We propose to keep the estimates within $1,000,000 and to give the essential services.


Hugh Guthrie: Will that include the work which the Air Board is going to do for other departments?


George Perry Graham: That will depend whether I can get any money out of the other departments or not. The figures to which I referred are; in round numbers:
Headquarters	 $32,440
Vancouver air station	 81,560
High river air station	 82,000
Victoria beach air station	 90,000
Parry Sound and Whitney unit..	..	31,810
Ottawa air station	 49,000
Ottawa photographic section	 21,000
Aeroplane and engine repair depot..	38,000
Roberva.1 air station	 35,000
Dartmouth air station.. ..'	 9,000


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: The minister has let us have some light on some things that have been a mystery to us for some time as regards the merging of the three departments of Militia, Naval Service and the Air Force. He intimates to the committee now that, as regards the Air Force, the essential features are to 'be retained, which I assume to be the commercial or civil aviation features. As regards national defence, the Air Force is going to cease to exist entirely. The training at Camp Borden, the minister has informed the committee, is to be discontinued.


George Perry Graham: No, I did not.


Donald Sutherland: Or, that he hoped to have it reinstated at a later date.


George Perry Graham: I did not say it was to be discontinued.


Donald Sutherland: Then I misunderstood the minister. The Air Service is one that, I am afraid, the majority of people are inclined to underestimate. At the conference which took place at Washington some time ago between the great powers, one might have observed how readily the disarmament proposals which were made were being accepted by some of those countries, and at the same time the information
Supply-Air Board

came out-and it is undoubtedly the view of many of those countries-that the air force was going to be a much more prominent feature of warfare in the future than it had ever been in the past, and that possibly some of those nava'l armaments would not be so invulnerable as they had been in the past, and might possibly be a handicap. As far as I can understand from the minister's explanation, the Air Force, as a [DOT] defensive force, is practically going to cease to exist; the civil aviation is going to be continued if some arrangement can be made with the provinces to employ these people, who will be under the Department of National Defence, purely as a civil force, and the services of those men who attained1 such wonderful experience and training during the war will be dispensed with. The minister is apparently unable to give the committee the information which has been repeatedly asked for, because he does not know what arrangement he may be able to make with the different provinces in utilizing the force which would be under his control. I hope I have not misstated what the minister has said. The Departments of Naval Service, Militia and the Air Force are not being amalgamated into Department of National Defence; and so far as I can gather, the only body of, I will not say men, but of anything savouring of military training in this country, which body is going to be maintained and for which the estimate has been kept up, is that of the Boy Scout movement in Canada. Is it possible that the people of this country are going to depend on our boy scouts as a body of national defence in the future? The minister may smile, but this is a serious1 matter. While peace may prevail in this country at the present time, who knows how long peace may continue and how soon we may require the services of those men whom the minister is pacifically ignoring to-day and allowing to go back into civil life again? It is most important and essential that a number of these highly trained experts should be retained, so that this country might benefit from the valuable experiences which they have gained from the services iwhich they rendered to Canada, instead of allowing this to become purely a civil force.


George Perry Graham: I am glad to have my hon. friend speak in that way, because my great trouble during the past two weeks was in the opposite direction. The majority of people complained that I was making this all military and not leaving any civil force. As a matter of fact, praetfi-
[Mr. Sutherland.
cally all the aviators engaged in forest protection work are members of the Canadian Air Force, of the Defence force. This work which they do in doing civil aviation is for civil purposes, but it gives them possibly the best training they can get. They are really training for defence purposes in the work that they are carrying on. For instance, flying over the forests, photographing the ground Ibeneath, is just the work they would be doing on the battlefield. While civil aviation is to be carried on, the bulk of it will be carried on by members of the Civil Aviation Force who will get the best training in air work in that way.


Donald Sutherland: I quite understand that the only men who are really competent to operate these flying machines are the men who have seen military service. But the minister has not denied the fact that it is becoming a civil force and is no longer a part of the national defence force at all. Why should men who are acting as fire rangers throughout the country be listed as part of the defence forces of the country? Yet that is what the minister is doing.


Mr. MANION:: There is a very strong
opinion on the part of authorities throughout the country that there is a great deal of destruction going on in our forests, and I understand that part of this force is used for the purpose of protecting these forests. Possibly the minister at an earlier stage may have explained this matter thoroughly, but if he did I was not present. I should like him to give to the committee more in detail some of the work which is being done by the air force in the protection of forests. He might tell us how much work is being done in sections of the country where the natural resources belong to the Dominion, and in other parts where the provinces own their own resources, such as Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. Thb is an important question which is engaging the attention of the people of the country to-day.


George Perry Graham: We discussed that matter at great length. We have been doing work for the province of Ontario, for example, in the protection of forests, and also for Quebec and British Columbia. The activities of the force have been engaged in the Forestry branch, the Geodetic Survey branch, the Topographical Survey branch, the Dominion Water Power branch, the Parks branch, the Reclamation Service

Supply-Air Board
department, the International Boundary Commission and Town Planning branch, and the Geological Survey branch; and also in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Customs, the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Trade and Commerce. The force did some work for the Ontario government in forest protection, and, as well, for the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec.


Robert James Manion: What arrangement is
made, in regard to this work, between the Dominion government, and, say, the province of Ontario, which owns its own lands? Is there some arrangement by which the work is carried on partly by the Dominion government and partly by the province?


George Perry Graham: We are running two
stations in Ontario, at Whitney and Parry Sound. The province pays the cost. Last year they paid $15,000. British Columbia last year paid $20,000. In Quebec there is a station built at Robprval. We took their construction of the station as their share of the work; but this year we propose to do the work on a return payment basis.


Robert James Manion: That is, they pay the
expenses.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The minister has given some stations where the cost is to be so much, totalling a very small sum, and he evidently desires to leave the impression that he is to have $625,000 saved by economies pending some bill which is to pass the Senate. Now, in the first place, the minister has been in departments long enough to know that all the amalgamation in the world will amount to a comparatively small matter compared to the cost of the services themselves. In fact, I doubt myself if it will amount to anything at all; I think it is mostly talk. For that matter, the minister could bring about the amalgamation under the law as it is to-day. The Air Board, under the statute passed a few years ago, could be moved into his department at any time; he does not need any bill for the purpose. But to say that he cannot tell what is to be applied to certain services, that is, how his officers estimate the application of this money, because he is awaiting the results of reorganization, is really to make a statement that cannot be accepted by any one who has had anything to do with departments. The minister
knows what services were rendered before by the departments under every head; and when he comes to this committee and says that he does not know what he intends to do as respects any service that last year cost so much money, but wants the committee to vote him the money and let him do what he likes, he is simply asking for a blank cheque. Details have been given in previous years, and reorganization-a matter of an accountant or a supervisor here or there-has nothing at all to do with the question of services rendered in these various fields, so that there is no reason why the information cannot be given. If I am wrong the minister will correct me, but it seems to me that he told his department to cut the vote to a million dollars. They saw they would have to have $75,000 for salaries, and in order to make up the reduction they have cut the second vote to $17,500, and the estimate for Canadian Air Force and Civil Aviation to $907,500. If they have not made up their minds as to how they intend to apply the money in the particular fields of service, as was done last year, then they are not prepared to come and ask for a vote. They should wait until they are ready to submit the figures to Parliament; but they need not wait for reorganization. They cannot cover such a multitude of sins with the pretext of waiting for the bill to pass the Senate. They should know, if they do not, what it is intended to apply in the various fields designated by the ex-Minister of Air Service. I really think they must have that information here. If they cannot give it with absolute accuracy, they could be accurate enough for all the purposes of the committee.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: I represent a section of the country covering some
10,000	square miles, where forest fires are an annual occurrence. Tremendous losses are sustained in both Gaspe and Bonaventure as a result of these fires, and I am glad to know that an arrangement is being made with the provinces by which protection is to be given to the forests. I think that is the phase of the aviation service that will appeal to the people generally, because our forests are one of the most valuable assets of the country. Do I understand from the minister that this service is provided on application from the provinces, and that the arrangements rest with the provincial governments? Is there a patrol kept up regularly in the Gaspe peninsula?
Supply-Air Board


George Perry Graham: Where the Dominion has no lands the province itself is responsible for the protection of forests. They call on the department to provide the service, for which they pay. We are now in correspondence with the Quebec government.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not intend to detain the committee, but I want to point out as a final protest that while we, as the people's representatives are deliberating on an item involving a million dollars, there is not one man in the committee, save the minister himself, who knows what is to be done with that money. Now, is that right? If we vote this money, every dollar of it can be spent for the militia of Canada, and there is nothing before the committee to limit the minister in any way in the expenditure of the money. We are asked to vote it blindly without any particulars except as regards two or three stations mentioned by the minister a few moments ago, which account for a small portion of the vote, and the general statement that work is to be done at High River and one or two other points. If we are to vote a million dollars without inquiry and without any definite information except the general statement that it is to be applied to the air service, I do not know why we cannot vote millions and millions of dollars without any details. I never saw a more blank vote asked for, and, if this committee passes it, I never saw a more blank vote given. I make my protest; I am not going to do anything more about it.


Mr. JELLIFF:: I am not sure that I fully understood some of the figures given by the hon. minister. I understood him to say that the expense of the High River patrol last year was $120,000, and that this year it was to be $82,000, and that he expected to be able to give the same patrol service as was given last year in that part of the country. It is almost impossible for me to conceive how he can do that unless there was much extravagance and waste in the expenditure last year. We are very insistent in our part of the country that the patrol system be maintained to the fullest extent possible, and even extended. I do not know how far the patrol extends, but I live pretty well south in the province, in the Lethbridge district, and I know we have had a number of very serious forest fires to the west of us in the Waterton Parks region. My recollection is that we have had such forest fires nearly every year. I do not think that the High

River patrol as at present constituted reaches that far, although I may be mistaken. If it does not, I deem it essential that, instead of being restricted, the High River patrol should be extended so as to cover the Dominion forests and parks clear to the international boundary line. That is essential not only to preserve the forests for their timber, but to ensure the success of our irrigation projects there, as the snow on the forest clad hills is the source of moisture upon which that part of the country depends in a large degree. I hope the minister will look into this matter again and see that at least there is no cut in the amount allocated to keep the patrol at High River in a state of the highest efficiency.


George Perry Graham: The difference is largely due to the fact that we spent approximately $30,000 last year in construction.


Donald Sutherland: I would suggest
to the minister the advisability of letting this vote stand over until we have some definition of what " National Defence " really is. In the bill for the consolidation of the three old branches of the service I do not see any definition. If national defence in the future is to consist of an air force for forest ranging and the detection of smugglers, I think the House should know it, and that the Upper Chamber should also be so advised before the bill becomes law. To my mind national defence has an entirely different meaning from that of civil aviation for the purposes which have been outlined here. An air force undoubtedly is going to be a tremendously important factor in the defence of all countries in the future, much more so, I believe, than the average person realizes to-day, and it seems to me that you are dragging the service into the mire when you utilize it to detect smugglers and forest fires. The prevention of smuggling is essentially a work for the naval service-for the ships that are to be returned to the Motherland with the compliments of the Government of Canada. I quite agree with the late Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) that we should have something more than this information so far given to this committee. If this money is to be expended on civil aviation, and the training at Camp Borden and elsewhere is to be abandoned, I think it is a very, very important matter and should be treated a little more seriously by the Minister of Militia and Defence.

Supply-Naval Service


George Perry Graham: I will try to explain the matter to my hon. friend again. This civil aviation in no way interferes with the practical work of the members of the Canadian Air Force, which is a defence force. As I said before, Camp Borden is closed at the present time, but it will be reopened and instruction will be given there as heretofore, but whether on as extensive a scale I do not know.


Donald Sutherland: During the present year?


George Perry Graham: 
Henry Lumley Drayton: You made a better job then.


George Perry Graham: I had better raw material to work on, perhaps. When we get the staff reorganized and working together we will have a plan in detail of just how much work will be performed with the balance of this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cannot the
minister at least tell us how much of this $907,000 we are asked to vote is for the Canadian Air Force and how much is for civil aviation? Surely a rough division is possible.


George Perry Graham: I have given that two or three times already.


Henry Lumley Drayton: May we have it again? I have not got it right.


George Perry Graham: The amount for civil aviation will be approximately $473,000 odd. As I have just explained, the balance will be for military training at Camp Borden by our instructors and the replacement and procuring of material and equipment.


Arthur Meighen: 
George Perry Graham: Last year we spent on the construction of civil aviation stations, about $60,000.


Arthur Meighen: And equipment?


George Perry Graham: Equipping the stations, of course.


Arthur Meighen: That is all the information we are going to get.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Naval service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $1,500,000.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, in askin ; for the supply for the Naval Department for the ensuing year I think it is but fair
Supply-Naval Service

to the committee that I should explain that the money chargeable to the Naval Department is not expended entirely on the naval service proper. I will place on Hansard the names of the various branches of the department so that in discussing the estimates hon. members will understand that under certain headings we are asking for supply for services which have nothing to do with the Royal Canadian Navy.
We have what is known as the Royal Naval Service itself. Then we have the Fisheries Protection Service, which is composed of ten vessels,, two on the Atlantic, two on the Pacific, two on the Great Lakes, and four not in use at the present time. These patrol the coasts of Canada and are charged with the regulation of fisheries. The duties of that branch I will explain under the estimates relating particularly to it. Then we have the survey of tides and currents, a service that is highly technical, involving the preparations of tables, etc., for the use of navigation. Then we have the branch called the Hydrographic Survey, composed of four main parties and five ships. These operate on the lower St. Lawrence, gulf of St. Lawrence, southern coast of Nova Scotia, and coast of British Columbia. The duties of this service are the preparations of charts of the coasts of Canada, such charts being guides for mariners; the fixing of relative levels of the St. Lawrence system as a basis for the study of international relations on the river by means of chain of automatic gauges. Then we have what is protbably the most wonderfully developed branch, the Radiotelegraph Service. There are 43 radio stations owned by the Canadian government. On the eastern coast these are operated by the Marconi Company, who are subsidized by the Government; on the Pacific Coast they are operated by the Government. They have charge of the direction-finding radio stations on the Atlantic, at St. John Chi-bucto, Canso, and Cape Race, Newfoundland. This service administers the Radiotelegraph Act and has charge of all radio matters in Canada; issues licenses to all radio stations in Canada, commercial, experimental and amusement; issues licenses to ships equipped with radio; inspects all ships and stations to which licenses are granted; holds examinations for various grades of radio-telegraph operators; handles all accounts connected with radio matters.
The subject of the Canadian navy is one which has interested the people of Canada

for some years. In 1910 what is called the Naval Service Act was passed, under which Canada established for herself a naval service. In 1911, I think it was, arrangements were made under which the British Admiralty handed over to the Dominion certain services which the Admiralty had previously performed, particularly those relating to the docks at Esquimalt and Halifax. Now, there was great divergence of opinion as to what we should do under the Naval Service Act. That act, of course, provided for different things. Under it the then government purchased two ships, the Niobe and the Rainbow, for the purpose of training young men for naval service. The purchase was made in 1910, in consultation with the Admiralty. In 1911 the government changed, and in 1912 these ships were tied up. When the war broke out in 1914, the Niobe was refitted and placed in service, and served one year. Then it was taken out of commission and used as a depot shop, or something of that kind. In 1911, I think it was, an arrangement was made, followed by a treaty later, by which Canada agreed to do what Great Britain would otherwise have had to do in the matter of patrolling the waters of the Behring sea for the protection of the seal fisheries around the Pribyloff islands. The Rainbow was deputed for that service and she was steaming for these waters when the war broke out. She was brought back into naval service, and served during the war. In 1920 she was sold for $67,000 to some commercial firm, by whom she is still being used as a freighter. We had no ships to take the place of the Niobe and the Rainbow until the British government, after the war presented to Canada three ships, the Aurora, the Patricia, and the Patriot, and two submarines. The records of the British House of Commons disclose that a question was asked in the House as to whether Canada undertook to maintain these ships in commission when they were accepted, and the answer was, in substance, that there was no agreement except that implied by the acceptance of the ships. I think we are all agreed, notwithstanding any criticism that has been made, that Canada must maintain something of a naval service. We started such a service in 1910. It has passed through various vicissitudes, and I think the opinion now generally expressed as to what Canada must do in the matter of naval service is primarily to protect her own coasts and harbours, and her fisheries. We

Supply-Naval Service
showed during the war, although we had no navy, that Canada was ready to do her part just as well as any other portion of the overseas dominions, or as thoroughly as the Motherland herself or any of her allies, so there can be no question of the willingness and anxiety of the Canadian people to do their duty as a young nation in the making. What has been done in the past will be continued, I believe, in the future.
We are in this position in regard to the question of a navy. Every country in the world to-day is endeavouring to reduce its armament. At the great conference in Washington recently, where we were represented, the great nations of the world agreed not only to take a holiday in naval construction, but to scrap many of their fighting ships. All over the world to-day people are anxious to reduce as far as possible, within the limits of safety, and without any sacrifice of national dignity the expenditure on fighting machines and fighting material. Let me quote just a few sentences from the report made by our own representative at the Washington Conference, Sir Robert Borden, to show what the trend of public opinion is on this question. On page 17 of that report, in sessional paper No. 47, we find the proposals that were made for the reduction of naval armaments:
(1)	That all capital-shipbuilding .programmes, either actual or projected, should be abandoned;
(2)	That further reduction should be made through the scrapping of certain of the older ships ;
(3)	That in general regard should be had to the existing naval strangth of the Powers concerned;
(4)	That the capital ship tonnage should be used as the measurement of strength for navies and a proportionate allowance of auxiliary combatant craft prescribed.
I also want to read from page 80 of this report to show the trend of public opinion as represented by the great minds of the great powers of the world, and
5 p.m. to make it clear that the trend is towards a reduction in expenditure on armaments, without any sacrifice of national dignity and consistent with considerations of safety. Referring to the great powers the report says:
The treaty provides that all other capital ships of these Powers, either built or building are to be scrapped or disposed of as provided in the treaty.
It is provided that the present building programmes are to be abandoned and that there is to be no building of capital ships hereafter, except in replacement and as the treaty provides.
Let me pause for a moment to make a comparison with the proposal which was made on November 12 on behalf of the American Government in respect to capital ships.
That proposal set forth that 18 ships were to be retained by the United States, with a tonnage of 500,650 tons. In this treaty the same ships are to be retained.
In that proposal there were set forth 22 capital ships to be retained by the British Empire. Under this treaty the same number of ships is to be retained; in fact, the same ships, with the single substitution of the Thunderer for the Erin, with a tonnage of 580,450 tons, as against the calculation in the proposal of 604,450 tons for ships retained.
In the case of Japan, the proposal set forth 10 ships to be retained. By the treaty, the same number of ships is to be retained, the difference being that the Mutsu is to be retained and the Settsu is to be scrapped. The tonnage retained by Japan, as indicated in the proposal, was 299,700. The tonnage retained under the treaty is 301,320. The effect of the retention of the Mutsu, a ship just completed, on the part of Japan, was to make necessary certain changes for which the treaty provides.


Mr. LEWIS:: The minister referred to the number of ships permitted to the British Empire. Would that include Canada?


George Perry Graham: It would include, I think,
all the overseas dominions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Have we a
capital ship?


George Perry Graham: I do not think we have.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then how can it include Canada?


George Perry Graham: I said, the overseas dominions, and if Canada had a capital ship it would affect us.


Arthur John Lewis: We would benefit, of course, from having these 26 capital ships in the service of the Empire. Is Canada paying towards the upkeep of those ships? Is it because all nations in the world are moving to reduce their expenditure on armaments, as the minister has just read, that he is reducing this item to $1,000,000? Or did that apply to Canada, which practically, to all intents and purposes has no navy?


George Perry Graham: It applies to Canada,
being one of the overseas dominions. As I pointed out, Canada has no capital ships. She does not contribute to the upkeep of the British Navy. No man in the world, I think, would agree more heartily than myself to the proposition that the British Navy is essential to the peace of the world. The British Navy not only saved Canada but saved our friends on the other side of the line, and it is a question of policy whether there should be a contribution, or

Supply-Naval Service

that each portion of the British Empire should do its own part. Canada at the present time has taken the ground that we, as a young country, growing up, having our own service,-the British government having handed over to us the naval service, which we undertook, and the management of our militia,-should proceed along that line. It may be in the years to come that Canada will have to develop, perhaps, a larger naval service than she has or has had, but one that will maintain the principle of Canada, within the Empire, being a nation that, so far as possible, looks after her domestic affairs. However in the times of stress and war, the British Navy is the safety of the world.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I should like to know from
the minister if under the Washington Agreement, it is possible for Canada to have a capital ship until the expiration of that agreement which will occur, I think, in 1940.


George Perry Graham: I would rather think
not.


Arthur Meighen: Unless it were in reduction of Great Britain's capital ships.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We could
look after one of her ships.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: We could not in Canada,
if we are bound by the terms of the Washington Agreement, build one capital ship until 1940, unless we did it through England.


George Perry Graham: I imagine, as part of the British Empire we could have one transferred.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No difficulty
about that.


George Perry Graham: But I am not absolutely
sure that we will.


Arthur John Lewis: One reason that I asked
the question was that I noticed a statement in the paper by Lord Lee a little while ago that he was just a little disappointed that the whole burden of the 26 capital ships was going to fall on the taxpayers of Great Britain, who were already overtaxed. But, morally, I think we are responsible, because we are receiving protection, and if the members on the other side of the House, and we on this side of the House, are always saying that, as far [DOT] as we are concerned, we are a nation, and

that we want to stand on our own feet, I think we ought to help pay for the protection we receive.


George Perry Graham: If we started discussing
that question, it would take us pretty far afield, because that is a pretty large policy, It has been said that certain things did take place at the conference of premiers. I do not know anything about that.


Arthur Meighen: The resolution is on
the table of the House.


George Perry Graham: I am inclined to think
what is on the Table of the House is not everything.


Arthur Meighen: It is everything:


George Perry Graham: It is everything that
is on the Table of the House.


Arthur Meighen: It is everything, in
so far as Canada's engagements go.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to be led astray. Some day we may discuss that matter. I have a lot of documents in my desk relating to it. I was just reading part of the report of Sir Robert Borden of what took place at the conference at Washington, merely to point out to the House and to the country the trend of the public mind. I find the following in this report:
"The United States proposes, if the plan is accepted

one year's service for any period not exceeding six months, and for such further service he shall not be entitled to any increased rate of pay, unless, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the person concerned merits it.
That is one kind of force. Then there is another which provides for a volunteer force, and I want to submit to the judgment of members of the House that, in the Dominion of Canada as we are now situated, a better service on our own behalf, a better service for the Empire at large, will be obtained and can be retained by using the voluntary effort of our young men better than by having a great permanent force. The act of 1910 provides for this. It reads:
The Governor in Council may organize and maintain a force to be called the Naval Volunteer Force.
The Naval Volunteer Force shall consist of officers and seamen raised by voluntary engagement from among seafaring men and others who may be deemed suitable for the service in which such volunteers are to be employed.
The Governor in Council may make regulations for the government of the Naval Volunteer Force
Every naval volunteer shall be engaged for the term of three years and, provided his conduct and qualifications are satisfactory, shall be eligible for re-engagement for further periods of three years up to the age of forty-five years; at the expiration of each term he shall be entitled to his discharge, save as hereinafter mentioned.
Naval volunteers shall receive such training and capitation or other remuneration as may be prescribed.
In an emergency the Governor in Council may order and direct that the Naval Volunteer Force, or such part thereof as may be deemed necessary, shall be called into active service, and the naval volunteers so called out shall be liable to serve under such regulations as may be prescribed.
If a naval volunteer's period of service expires while he is employed on active service, he shall be liable to serve for a further period of not more than six months, and for such further service he shall not be entitled to any increased remuneration, unless, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the person concerned merits It.
In short, the proposal that I have to lay before the House, and for which estimates are asked, is that we discontinue in commission the ships that we now have; that we continue the protection and care of the wharves and docks at Halifax and Esquimalt; that we provide a reserve force composed of officers and men, officers who are now in the navy-the number of them altogether, I think, will be 233, if I remember correctly-that we create on the Pacific coast at Esquimalt an establishment with one small ship and two trawlers of about 450 tons; that we establish there a por-
[ Mr. Graham. ]
tion of our naval force for training in the protection of our shores, protection of our harbours, mine-sweeping, mine-laying; that at Halifax in the east we have the same services. I may say that we have the boats that we can use for this service economically. We have in contemplation the selling of one small boat that we have and the purchase of another which, if it can be secured at the same price as the other one is being sold at, will make an ideal ship for the Pacific coast, and Captain Hose tells me that it is just the ideal craft for patrolling the seal fisheries. We have not such a craft in the present group of ships. With these three at Halifax and these three at Esquimalt, we shall have, in those two services alone, ships, boats and crews that will give first-class training to young volunteers. In addition to these ships, it must be remembered that the second line of defence, if one might call it so, the great reserve in the Dominion of Canada, is our merchant marine. I do not mean altogether by that the merchant marine owned by the Government; but it includes all our wonderful merchant ships which during the late war performed such great services, a service second only to that of the great warships and, perhaps, in many cases not second.
Then we have the Fisheries Protection service, containing quite a number of smaller ships. We hope in time, if the scheme goes through and is successful, as I predict it will be, that we shall find an outlet for our young men whom we train in those ships in our own boats in the Fisheries Protection service. Further than that, as long as the Government continues to operate the merchant marine, I believe that will furnish an outlet for the young men so trained. This means that, under this estimate, in another year-it will take most of this year to get organized-some 1,500 men can be trained during the year on land and on sea for two or three weeks. These young men will not go to Halifax or Esquimalt at the same time; they will go at different times and receive their instruction, so that the officers will be kept busy most of the year. This will have one benefit, namely, that it will not take a single man out of industrial employment in this country. In a permanent force he is out of industrial employment and is a consumer and not a producer; but by this method the young men will get training on land and sea for two or three weeks per year over a period of three years just as the militia get train-

Supply-Naval Service
ing now for several weeks during each year. They will be given the rudiments the first year; the next year they will receive training in mine-laying and minesweeping; they will be taken out for a short cruise in the ocean and back again. This will have the effect of instilling into the minds of our young men that they can take a part in this work and train for naval service without leaving their own employment. They will be absent for only a few days.
It strikes me that another feature of this will be that, as part of the course, the regulation will require that these young men take a drill wherever they reside, of an hour a day for some few days in the year, at no cost to the country except, perhaps, that of an instructor from the department. This will not involve the expense, proportionately, that our military training has involved, for the simple reason that we have in all centres of the Dominion now armouries where this department, organized with the National Defence Department, will provide the quarters for the young men who wish to train, without the expense to the naval service. Newfoundland has a force of this kind; so has South Africa; and I believe that in preparing the young men in the way I have outlined, forming a volunteer force, we shall instil a better spirit into them because they will feel that they are doing the thing because they want to do it. I believe that in the years to come it will be shown that in taking this step we have begun at the right end of the problem. To my mind the problem of having anything like a naval service is not solved by getting one or two ships, and having a permanent force on them. The force at present consists principally of men from Great Britain; we have men of our own, of course. But this proposal will bring our own young men more intimately in touch with the naval service and so far as patriotism can be inculcated by that kind of service it will develop that spirit to a greater extent in our youth. I do not want to be prophetic, but should we require, in the years to come, to develop a navy, we shall have on hand in the Dominion young men trained to take positions in that navy. Under this scheme we are retaining four officers from the British Admiralty. The rest, kindly loaned to us, will return to the Royal Navy. The others will be young Canadians. I do not know that I can say anything further. This is the scheme we have in mind for the training of 1,500 men annually for this work and for which we now ask from the committee an appropriation of $1,500,000.


Arthur Meighen: The minister's statement is important in this sense, that it touches a subject that is of paramount consequence to our whole country. It has been of great concern for years, and indeed will be so long as we are a country. I do not propose now to go into any detailed criticism of what are described as the proposals of the Government as related to naval service. They require careful examination, particularly at the hands of one who is not familiar with the question from any technical standpoint. I merely give now a statement of my view in a very broad and general way.
I was impressed, as the minister proceeded, with the thought that the Government's plan of defence is admirably adapted to guard ouh shores with absolute security throughout the days of peace and quiet. So long as there is no danger I am quite sure that this force which the minister proposes will be entirely adequate to meet any assailant. I am thoroughly in accord with the sentiment he uttered when he commenced his address, and I am only sorry that his concrete proposals have not the remotest relationship to that sentiment or to its inevitable consequences. Yes, in time of quiet and serenity the five trawlers will be all right and we shall be quite safe in training our navy in our armories. But in time of emergency and danger, which in my humMe judgment, as a layman, is really the time one requires to prepare against, then it is that defence is rather more desirable than in sunshine and calm. In such a time, though, we are to depend upon the British navy and the British taxpayer

I do not know of What value this Government's service is going to be. I wonder if the minister is armed with any statement, from one acquainted with the needs of empire defence, as to the value of this service? If he has such a statement I should 'be very glad if he would give it to the committee. It occurred to me, as he spoke, that it would be rather serious for us if Great Britain herself prepared for her and our defence in this manner, if she put a few trawlers on the Atlantic to watch the fish, and put a few boys into our armouries as a sort of diversion or pastime. If she took that course what would 'become of our defence in the hour of crisis and peril? Where would Britain be? Where would we be? No, she does not take that course; that in-
Supply-Naval Service

diligence is reserved for Canada. I am afraid the minister's statement will be received with profound disappointment, if not with poignant humiliation, on the part of this country.
The statement just given makes some comparison of what we are doing, with what South Africa has done. I fear his comparison will not hold good very far. South Africa is a very small country in population and a very young country compared with Canada. He also compared us with Newfoundland. I do not doubt the comparison is likely a very good one in the measure of what we are doing. I have no doubt, too, that possibly Trinidad and maybe Bermuda would be appropriate comparisons; but the minister omitted these two countries.
So far as our freedom of action is concerned, it stands to-day where it has always stood throughout our history. The position taken by this country last summer was embodied in a resolution agreed to unanimously by all the representatives of the nations of this Empire. It was a resolution which obviously expressed the right course, because the measure of imperial defence, essential could not he known until the measure of world armaments would !be dealt with by the Disarmament conference. The Disarmament conference is over, and now the time for determination of our policy has come. We are free to decide. This is the resolution that was passed:	i
That while recognizing the necessity of cooperation among the various portions of the Empire to provide such naval defence as may prove to be essential for security, and while holding that quality with the naval strength of any other power is the minimum standard for that purpose, this conference is of the opinion that the method and expense of such co-operation are matters for the final determination of the several parliaments concerned, and that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming conference on disarmament.
That was the resolution that was passed.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I should like to know from the right hon. gentleman if that resolution is to be taken as implying a contribution to the Empire by Canada for naval purposes.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; it is to be taken as implying just what it says. Let me read It again:
That while recognizing the necessity of cooperation among the various portions of the Empire to provide such naval defence as may prove to be essential for security-

The word used is "co-operation." There are many ways of )co-operation. The method is left absolutely open.
-and while holding that equality with the naval strength of any other power is the minimum standard for that purpose, this Conference is of the opinion that the method and expense of such co-operation are matters for the final determination of the several parliaments concerned, and that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming Conference on Disarmament.
Now, it would be well to proceed with the estimates for the purpose of obtaining any information that may be desired; but I do not think the discussion should be closed to-day. I think perhaps some time next week might be fixed when the discussion of the issue in its general aspect could be continued.


George Perry Graham: We might take the other branches in this department first, such as the Hydrographic.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask my right hon. friend one question to clear up a matter of doubt which appears to be in the minds of a good many hon. gentlemen. I assume he has read the London despatch which appeared in the newspapers of the 10th instant of an address delivered by the Right Hon. Lord Lee, First Lord of the Admiralty, who was one of the British delegates to the recent Washington conference, before the Colonial Institute in London on the subject of the Washington conference. The despatch contains the following:
Lord Lee pointed out that the Imperial conference, after a full, prolonged, and intimate discussion of the naval needs of the Empire, had agreed that the maintenance of an Empire navy was the common concern of the whole Empire, and that the extent and form whereto the burden shSuld be shared should be left until after the Washington conference.
Is my right hon. friend aware of any understanding arrived at at the conference which he attended with respect to any obligation upon Canada in relation to an Empire navy?


Arthur Meighen: I am certainly not
aware of anything beyond the resolution. That, I presume, is a press statement of what Lord Lee said. Lord Lee was doubtless interpreting for himself the resolution. There was no agreement or understanding of any kind whatever save that embodied in this resolution which has been on the table of this House since the opening of the session.

Supply-Naval Set-vice


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: Was that resolution not passed in the face of proposals similar to those suggested by Lord Lee in the newspaper report? In other words, were there not proposals made by the British representatives at that time for a contribution from the dominions?


Arthur Meighen: I would have no difficulty whatever in answering the question if I could do so in honour. The conference published its report, and I am bound to abide by it. Those are the conclusions of the conference. I cannot go behind those conclusions until it is agreed that publicity can be given. The Government is in a position to obtain consent for such publicity, if it yet can be obtained. It has refused to try. Some things are confidential for a time, but do not need to be so for all time, and the seal of confidentiality can be lifted sooner or later. If the Government secure consent to lift that seal, the details of the proceedings at the conference can be known. Until then I abide by the report which is on the table, as I am in honour bound to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we right in assuming that the Canadian government is not obligated in any particular with respect to matters of imperial defence beyond what this Parliament has already approved?


Arthur Meighen: The government is not obligated by me save to the extent disclosed in the document now on the table.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask the right hon. gentleman the question as one of the representatives of Canada at the Imperial Conference. Is he aware, directly or indirectly, of any obligation resting upon the government of this country as a consequence of the conference which he attended with respect to naval defence other than what has already been approved of by this Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: I am aware of none, and there is none arising from that conference other than what appears in this document.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: must face the situation in the light of the experience which these men have gained and which is embodied in the conclusions they have arrived at.


Arthur Meighen: If I caught correctly what the hon. member said, I take no exception at all to the terms of the extract he read from the report. I would presume it was quite right that the Empire delegation at the Disarmament Conference was in no way entrusted with the power of decision in anything that related to co-operation among the dominions of the Empire in the matter of naval defence, and therefore I am in thorough accord with him. I think perhaps I have as good a right as any member of this House to express the fullest sympathy, indeed, enthusiasm, with all the purposes of the Disarmament Conference. That that conference did make it possible for the heavily burdened nations of the world to reduce their naval armaments is a matter for the sincere congratulation of all humanity. It is no doubt that it did take a very long and a very practical step to that end. As to what may be the residuum of necessary defence for this Empire, after all that is done, and as to what, the residuum fixed, may be our share therein, is another question. I venture to suggest that he would be a remarkable Canadian who would find our share taken care of in an honourable way by the estimates presented now, and by the proposals of the minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The right hon. gentleman may be enthusiastic with regard to the result of the conference at Washington, but he knows very well that the conclusions of the Imperial Conference were that this whole subject should be postponed until after the conference on disarmament at Washington had taken place, and that the question as to what participation there should be on a permanent basis should form the subject of another imperial conference. In the meanwhile, why should we not have a naval holiday, the same as every other country?


Arthur Meighen: Until another imperial conference?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: But I did not understand the minister to say he was deferring the final pronouncement of his policy until there was another imperial conference.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nor did 1 say so, either.


Arthur Meighen: I thought we were getting the policy now. The naval holiday that the hon. member wants for Canada is only to last until the next imperial conference; is that what I understand him to say?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No; my right hon. friend is at his old trick of quibbling and hair-splitting. The point I am making is this: the effect of the resolution adopted by the conference which my right hon. friend attended last summer, and agreed to by all the delegates, was that the question of the participation of the overseas dominions in the naval defence of the Empire should be postponed for consideration until after the holding of the conference in Washington. That was expressly set forth in the resolution which my right hon. friend has read. Now, the conference at Washington has taken place; conclusions of a general character have been arrived at, and the absolute inference, having regard to the manner in which the question was dealt with by the Imperial Conference last year, is that its consideration is to be postponed until another imperial conference is held.


Arthur Meighen: Well, if I was hairsplitting and quibbling I was only repeating the position which the hon. member himself had taken and which he has now repeated. That is what I understood him to say before. The resolution that was passed did not postpone the determination of the part to be taken in imperial defence by any dominion until the next imperial conference. It says :
That, while recognizing the necessity of cooperation among the various portions of the Empire to provide such naval defence as may prove to be essential for security, and while holding that equality with the naval strength of any other power is a minimum standard for that purpose, this conference is of opinion that the method and expense of such co-operation are matters for the final determination of the several parliaments concerned, and that any recommendations thereon should be deferred until after the coming conference on disarmament.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are going to make the recommendations?


Arthur Meighen: The recommendations referred to there would doubtless be recommendations by another imperial conference if it chose to make any, but it does not say by any means that nothing should be done pending another imperial conference. If this Government is saying that it is waiting for recommendations from an-

Supply-Naval Service
other imperial conference, then perhaps my hon. friend's words would have some application. Does the hon. member say that they are waiting, before making a declaration of policy, for the findings or recommendations of the next imperial conference? The hon. member, when I suggested that, resented it with some heat.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what the Imperial Conference wanted the overseas dominions t*o do-to wait until another conference was held.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all; this resolution means just what it says. But, I say, if the Government were to state-which it does not-that it is waiting before coming to its conclusion for another conference, possibly the comments of the hon. member would have some relevance. But the Government does not say so; the hon. member himself affirms that the Government does not say so and that he does not say so. The Government has come down with its policy, as it had a right to do; it was not in any way bound to wait by the terms of the resolution of last summer. It has come down with its policy, and that policy is now before us for our consideration.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the right hon. gentleman what these recommendations which he has read refer to?


Arthur Meighen: To the method of cooperation with the other dominions and with Great Britain as to naval defence.


William Irvine: Do they not also imply
the expense on the part of each nation?


Arthur Meighen: What imply the expense?


William Irvine: The recommendations.
The right hon. gentleman has, in his resolution, mentioned the expenditure and the method.


Arthur Meighen: The recommendations
can cover anything that another conference decides to recommend upon.


William Charles Good: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether in his opinion this Government is under any obligation to advise a policy prior to any recommendations which may come from a subsequent imperial conference? It seems to me a rather strange thing that the Government should attempt to lay down a policy prior to the holding of another conference. Does the right hon. gentleman think the Government would be wise or justified in taking such a step at the present time?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the
question arises, because the Government has taken the step. The minister has made no reference whatever to waiting for another conference; he has announced his policy, such as it is.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am very glad to hear
the leader of the Opposition say that the resolution to which he has referred does not involve this country in any obligation, and I accept his statement in that connection so far as contribution is concerned. But I am frank to say that while I have been able to read only the summary of the speeches of the premiers of New Zealand and Australia, they seem to bear a somewhat different construction. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should have an opportunity to discuss this matter very fully in order that we may determine exactly our position and exactly what our obligation may be in the future.


George Perry Graham: My suggestion is that
the item for the naval service proper be allowed to stand until next week, so that hon. gentlemen may have an opportunity to get ready for a discussion.


Arthur Meighen: Could we fix Thursday?


George Perry Graham: I suggest that my right hon. friend consult the Prime Minister as to that. But the proposal is one of some magnitude; it reaches further, possibly, than our own shores and we ought to fix a day for its discussion.
Item stands.
Civil Government-naval service-salaries and contingencies, $255,220.


Arthur Meighen: This is more than last year.


George Perry Graham: There is an increase of
$5,000, but we had to provide for statutory increases amounting to $8,000, so it is really a little less than last year.


Arthur Meighen: With a "five-trawler" policy, one would think it would be a good deal less.


George Perry Graham: A five-trawler policy
would not be very effective for the purposes of the nation. This item includes radio-telegraph, hydrographic services, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Naval Service
[Stage Direction]
Hydrographic Survey and to provide for the maintenance and repairs of Hydrographic steamers, $350,000.
William Charles Good: The minister explained that the work involved here was a survey of the coast. Is this survey never to he completed? If it is not completed now, how long before it will be completed?


George Perry Graham: This survey will be continued for a long time. As my hon. friend here says, like the brook it goes on forever. Changes, of course, are taking place all the time, and the survey will probably continue as long as my friend and I last, at all events, as long as I last.


Mr MEIGHEN:: There is an increase of $35,000 this year. This is a very large item, and I do not think the increase is really necessary. It is not necessary to push the item through before six o'clock.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, respecting The Quebec Railway Light and Power Company.-Mr. Mitchell.
Bill No. 44, to incorporate The General Missionary Society of the German Baptist Churches of North America.-Mr. Hudson.
Bill No. 53, respecting Itabira Corporation, Limited, and to change its name to "Itabira	Corporation."-Mr.	Maclean
(Halifax).
Bill No. 63 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Turner.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 64 (from the Senate), for the relief of Walter Michie Anderson.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 65 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Fredenhurg.

Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate), for the relief of Sheriff Elwin Robinson.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 67 (from the Senate), for the relief of Rhoda Renfrew McFarlane Brown.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate), for the relief of Abraham Leibovitz.-Mr. Mc-Quarrie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 72 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Robert Lloyd Beamish.- Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 73 (from the Senate), for the relief of Clarence Robinson Miners.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 74 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Eleanor Menton.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 75 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harvey Easton Jenner.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 76 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marie Louise Dagenais.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 77 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Lawrie.-Mr. Gordon.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 52, respecting the Canadian Transit Company

Mr. Rankin-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Mr. McBRIDE:: I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill. I do not want the committee to think I am criticising their work in any way, but I think this bill passed the committee in somewhat of a hurry, as the committee was in session only about twenty minutes. This company, which goes under the name of the Canadian Transit Company, wants to change its offices from Windsor, Canada, to the American side, and I think we should look into this bill a little more carefully before we pass it. We must stand up for the good name of Canada, and if any company comes over here in order to get prestige from the name of Canada, I think Canada ought to be good enough for it and to keep, its headquarters in. Not only do the directors of the company want their headquarters transferred to the other side; but they want to sell bonds in Canada and when they do so, they want to have the right to mortgage the property. I know, on a number of occasions when this sort of thing was carried out in British Columbia, bonds were sold up to pretty nearly the limit of what the company intended to do. They sold the bonds to people who did not expect that there would be anything crooked about the matter. They sold the bonds to men working for $30 a month. I know men working for that amount who invested over $2,000 in such a company. They then mortgaged the property and allowed the mortgage to lapse, so that the people lost everything they had. I do not think this bill should be passed as it is. I do not think it has had the consideration

Supply-Naval Service
that this House should give it nor that the Railway Committee should have given it. We have the good name of Canada at stake in this matter, and I think this bill should be referred back.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that, as the sponsor of the bill is not present, it might stand, unless the hon. member wishes to make a motion.


The CHAIRMAN:: The committee has no power to refer back. That is the power of the House only.


Mr FIELDING:: I think the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that, as the sponsor of the bill is absent, the hon member will, perhaps, be content to let the matter stand for the present. My disposition in a case like this is to accept the judgment of the committee; but as neither the sponsor nor anyone from the committee is present to support the bill, I would not like to join in passing it to-night. I would concur in the view that it be laid aside for the present.
Progress reported.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:



NAVAL, SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Hydrographic Survey, and to provide for the maintenance and repairs of hydrographic steamers, $350,000.
George Perry Graham: At six o'clock the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) called my attention to the fact that there was an increase of $35,000. This increase over last year's estimate is accounted for in part by the steadily increasing number of new charts and new additions to old charts that require to be published each year, and in part by statutory salary increases. In addition the sums provided for the operation of ships' parties on the Atlantic coast and on the lower St. Lawrence for the last two years were not sufficient to maintain these parties at work during the whole season, and consequently operations had to be curtailed. It is much more ecomomical to continue operations, once they have been started, as long as possible, and it is proposed that a sufficient sum should be provided this year to enable the parties to remain in the field until weather conditions compel them to return.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fisheries Protection Service and to provide for the repairs and maintenance of the Fishery Protection steamers, $345,500.
Arthur Meighen: I understood from the minister that the fisheries protection service was included in the first vote, No. 214. I knew it was not, but there must be some explanation of what is included in that vote related to the fisheries service as distinguished from this vote.


George Perry Graham: I explained that I was giving the list of services performed under the Naval Service Department, but which had no connection with the naval service vote.


Arthur Meighen: I understood those
trawlers were to protect the fish.


George Perry Graham: Those trawlers I said were practising coast defence. I did not make any reference to their being used for fisheries protection. I did say it was hoped that we would be able to supply men for the fisheries protection boats at the time they would be part of our reserve force.


Mr. MARTELL:: What progress has been made towards handing back the patrol boats in connection with the fisheries protection service to the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


George Perry Graham: The deputies of the two departments are working out a scheme for the transfer of more than one of these branches to the Department of Marine and Fisheries in case our plan for reorganization goes through.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister intend that all the various services covered by items 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 and 221 shall now go under the jurisdiction of the new Department of Defence, or will they be left with the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


George Perry Graham: That is the matter I was speaking about. The deputies of the two departments are working out a plan, if it can be worked out, for the transfer. Under that plan will go a portion of the staff, the estimates for which I put through this afternoon. We are trying to make a division of the staff as well as of the service. My own idea is that the Department of Defence should have nothing in it except that which pertains to defence.


Hugh Guthrie: The hydrographic survey I assume pertains to defence as much
Supply-Naval Service

as to fisheries, and the fisheries protection service belongs as much to defence as anything else. Where would the minister put the radiotelegraph service?


George Perry Graham: We have in the Department of Militia and Defence a small radio service, but that service proper is in the Department of Naval Defence, and no definite conclusion has been arrived at in regard to it. My own idea is that that should go with the Marine and Fisheries Department as well, for we will still have in the Department of National Defence a small radio service sufficient to carry on our work in connection with flying operation and the naval service.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is Captain Barkhouse under the control of the Naval Service or of the Marine and Fisheries Department.'


George Perry Graham: The Naval Service.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I suppose in the event of the transfer of the fisheries protection service to the Marine and Fisheries Department, he also will be transferred to that department?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I should like to bespeak the minister's favourable consideration for Captain Barkhouse. He has been in the service for a great number of years. My experience with the department, and I think it will be borne out by every official there, is that Captain Barkhouse is probably the ablest man in the employ of the Marine and Fisheries Department on the Nova Scotia coast as regards the fisheries protection service, and I believe the minister would be well advised when the transfer is made and a commodore, or some such officer, of that service is appointed, to promote Captain Barkhouse to the position on account of his long experience, thorough training and outstanding ability. I do not think there is a better man in Canada for that position. In a word, he is a fine type of Nova Scotia seaman and an excellent official.


George Perry Graham: Everything my hon.
friend has said about Captain Barkhouse is true, so my officials tell me, and I shall call the attention of the Minister of Marine to my hon. friend's recommendation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understood the minister to say that the Fisheries Department was to be put back under the Marine Department.


George Perry Graham: I was talking of the
fisheries protection service. The Fisheries Department is in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but the fisheries protection service has been taken charge of under the Naval Service since its inception. Whatever complaints there may be about the fisheries protection service come naturally to the Fisheries Department and have to be transferred to the Naval Department. This roundabout course involves delay and is condemned both by the deputy and correspondents. In view of that it seems to me it would be better if the fisheries protection service were put under the Fisheries Department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know whether this would be the correct time or not for me to refer to something in connection with the fisheries on the Pacific coast. Perhaps it should be held over until the Fisheries estimates are before us.


George Perry Graham: If it belongs to the
Fisheries Department, the minister is not here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister will at
once advise me if I should hold this over. During the latter years of the war the fees in connection with the salmon fisheries on the Pacific coast were very drastically increased, a step which, I think, was quite correct; but with the conclusion of the war certain cheap classes of fish became unsaleable, and the canners found themselves still saddled with these abnormally high fees, although the earnings from their product had dropped off very substantially. I believe that last year the minister was considering the reduction of these fees. I intend to briefly discuss that point, and the minister will at once advise me whether or not he is in control of the fees under these estimates.


George Perry Graham: That comes under the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Hugh Guthrie: How many vessels are engaged in the fisheries protection service?


George Perry Graham: There are six.


Hugh Guthrie: Are these armed
vessels, and are the crews enlisted under the Naval Service Act?


George Perry Graham: Two on the Atlantic
are armed, and one on the Pacific, but those on the Great Lakes are not. I am informed that the crews are not enlisted men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Naval Service
Radiotelegraph service, and to provide for the building and maintenance of wireless stations and the general administration of radiotelegraphy throughout the Dominion, $440,400.
Hugh Guthrie: How much of the vote of last year was spent?


George Perry Graham: 


Hugh Guthrie: Have we any stations in the interior part of Canada-I know we have them on the seaboards-which could be used in case of interruption of telegraphic service? I understand there was a proposal to establish some stations in Ontario and some in the midwest, as well as one on the eastern side of the Rockies. Has any advance been made in that direction?


George Perry Graham: The Marconi Company have the right under their contract to establish cross-country stations. They are now building one at Montreal.


Hugh Guthrie: Is that the first one?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where are the stations located on the Pacific coast?


George Perry Graham: Prince Rupert, Dead Tree Point, Alert Bay, Bull harbour, Este-van, Cape Lazo, Vancouver and Victoria.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the department in contemplation the extension of this service on the Pacific coast-for instance, to connect the coast service with the Yukon?


George Perry Graham: It has not been considered as yet. Eventually it will have to be done.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that the Government consider the question of cost. The cost of maintaining the telegraphic land line to the Yukon is, I always did think, prodigious. I remember bringing the matter up more than once and asking the officials to go thoroughly into it with the view of determining the possibility of establishing wireless stations. The cost of upkeep would surely be infinitely less than the cost of the upkeep of a land line.


George Perry Graham: The department has discussed that with the Public Works Department on more than one occasion. I think they have a scheme practically worked out, but it has never been consummated. I agree with my right hon. friend that it would be cheaper to maintain a radio service than to meet the annual cost of repairs and upkeep of the telegraph line.


Arthur Meighen: I may say for the
benefit of the minister that the strongest
pressure will have to be brought to bear upon the officials of the Public Works Department. They have had it under consideration-and I kept prodding their consideration-for a long while, and that under a live minister. The minister will have to keep very busy indeed if he is going to get any results there.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: In connection
with the suggestion that the radio be substituted for the present land line to the Yukon, known as the Yukon telegraph line, I think myself that the Government might very well seriously consider such a proposal, but not with the view of altogether scrapping or abandoning the Yukon line, because in the Yukon territory its operation and maintenance is economical. That part of it is not subject to the heavy storms or weight of snow with which the part of the line in northern British Columbia has to contend. An examination of the accounts and expenses of upkeep will show that fully eighty-five per cent of the cost occurs south of the Yukon boundary in northern British Columbia. I think it would be altogether in the interests of economy if that Yukon telegraph line could be disconnected from its southern connection at, say, the new mining camp of Atlin in British Columbia, or at White Horse in the Yukon Territory. The line from there south to the National Transcontinental is practically of no use except as a connecting link, and on that portion of the line the greatest part of the expense occurs. There is practically no revenue from it. The stations are isolated; supplies for upkeep of service and maintenance of operators have to be carried over hundreds of miles on pack-horses, with consequent high cost for both maintenance and repairs. Double shifts have to be maintained at these stations, they are so isolated; it is not safe to have only one man, as is done in the Yukon. Now, from the National Transcontinental west to Prince Rupert that government telegraph line is duplicated by the National Railway telegraph line. There is no need whatever for two lines from that point of contact west to Prince Rupert. If the Government would establish one radio station either at the mining town of Atlin, British Columbia, or at the mining town of White Horse in southern Yukon, they could cut out all that expensive stretch of land line. The sooner this is done, the sooner they will commence to save money and bring about greater efficiency. For weeks at a
Supply-Naval Service

time nearly every winter that line is down; the people of the north country are cut off from communication, and are obliged to send their messages by radio or by cable around to Alaska and Seattle. I would very much regret the taking of any step which would remove the telegraph line within the Yukon territory, connecting, as it does, points along the trail and along the river, affording means of communication for steamboats in trouble along the river, and providing communication between the mining camps. I may say that I am negotiating with the Public Works Department in an endeavour to have them extend that line within the Yukon Territory for a distance of some 75 miles from the main Yukon telegraph line to Mayo. More business goes over that section than over any other part of the line, and leaving out of consideration the expense of maintaining the line through British Columbia, that section is a paying unit, and the proposed Mayo branch would undoubtedly pay and handle a great volume of business. The Mayo branch would undoubtedly pay and handle a great volume of business. I therefore wish to support the remarks that have been made in favour of establishing a radial station in northern British Columbia or southern Yukon, which would make unnecessary that very expensive telegraph line to the south connecting with Prince Rupert.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Public Works has heard the remarks of my hon. friend, and I hope he will be successful in getting that line fixed up in the Yukon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to add this observation to what the hon. member for the Yukon has said. On the Coast we have a series of wireless stations which are rendering a most valuable service in many ways, not only commercial but the usual service rendered by such points of communication on a coast. They form as it were, a link with the north which could very easily be extended into the Yukon, and that is a point that I think the Minister of Public Works, as well as the minister having this service in charge, should bear in mind. I note in the estimates that for the Yukon service from Ashcroft to Dawson the sum of $279,000 is set aside. I think a very substantial reduction could be made in that expenditure and the saving transferred to the item now under consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: To me $279,000 seems an enormous amount for the maintenance of that line from Ashcroft to Dawson. It represents the interest on five or six million dollars. I believe I am within the mark when I say you could establish a radio system throughout the whole Yukon for $2,500,000, or not more than $3,000,000 at the outside, and give the people there and the people of Canada a better service. I believe this item could be cut in two.


Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: This matter is under consideration by the Department of Public Works at the present time, and I hope we shall be able to proceed more rapidly with it than apparently was the case under the late administration, despite the fact that the then leader of the Opposition was prodding the Public Works Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patrol of the northern waters of Canada, $15,000.
George Perry Graham: This is really to publish the reports of the Stefansson expedition.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister state what is the policy of the Government towards the northern islands, with particular reference to those covered by the Stefansson expedition, laid claim to on behalf of Canada, and to Wrangel island.


George Perry Graham: It is a delicate matter to state the policy of the Government on that question.


Arthur Meighen: Has the Government
any policy?


William Stevens Fielding: What we have we hold.


Arthur Meighen: I would recommend
the Government never to fall away from that principle.


George Perry Graham: Some people have failed to do that.


Arthur Meighen: The Government failed once, but I think if they had the same thing to do over again they would act differently.


George Perry Graham: The old government.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, the old government my hon. friend was in. It is well known that there is a dispute as to Wrangel island. The question of the proper attitude of Canada towards that island is doubtless before the Government. This vote has to do with these matters, and I am asking if the Government is in a position to say what its views are with relation

Supply-Naval Service
to the retention of Wrangel island or the continuance of Canada's claim thereto; and the same words apply to the other islands covered by the expedition.


George Perry Graham: The policy of the Government, as I understand it, is as just expressed by the Minister of Finance-what we have we hold.


Arthur Meighen: Well, have we Wrangel island?


George Perry Graham: Yes, as I understand it, and we propose to retain it.


William Stevens Fielding: We had it in December, and we have not let it go.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think there is probably, as the leader of the Opposition has said, a great deal more to this matter than appears on the surface. I understand that the United States have published a map in which they show all the lands north of Melville island, I think, as being a country which does not belong to anybody, and which is consequently open for discovery by any nation whose expedition may happen to locate there. I think it is a matter of the utmost importance that we should not lose sight of the fact that the extreme northern part of this country should be preserved to Canada. It may not seem of much importance now, but I have no doubt that in the years to come it will be a matter of very great regret if this or any other government fails to take proper measures to ensure that that country belongs to and is secured and maintained by Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: I can only say in addition to what has been said by the hon. member for West Oalgary, that this question is being discussed in the United States papers now. Within the last month it has been discussed in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and there is no doubt that certain interested parties in the United States intend to make a claim to Wrangel island as United States territory by right of prior discovery. In my view, from the little inquiry
9 p.m. I have made, I am satisfied that that claim is unfounded. There is no right of prPr discovery beyond the right of Canada or Great Britain in that respect. However, this matter is going to come to the front in the very near future, and I think it is high time that this Government should take a stand on the matter, and make its stand known to the world!
It will be a matter for international discussion very soon unless we are going to forego our claims and let the United States take over the island. Whether the island is of very much practical importance I do not know, but parties in the United States seem to think it is. In fact, one paper says that from one point of view, the mineral wealth of Wrangel island is far greater than that of Alaska. That may be problematical, but it is the basis of the claim which is made by certain interests in the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government has had interviews with Mr. Stefans-son. I do not know that it is in the public interest to disclose the full nature of those interviews, but I might say that at the present time the Canadian flag is flying on Wrangel island, and there are Canadians on the island, members of a previous expedition of Stefansson's. Mr. Stefansson is about to take a ship up to Wrangel island with some of his men, and has recently had it fitted out with supplies. The Government certainly maintains the position that Wrangel island is part of the property of this country.


Arthur Meighen: That is clear and definite. Of course, the Prime Minister knows that the men that were there were there long before he had been in his present position, and therefore some considerable length of time. I may say as well that there may be claim to this island on behalf of Russia, a claim based very largely on the geographical location of the island. The island of Ellesmere on the west coast of Greenland is also one to which the Government should give some attention. An expedition was about to be launched by a Dane, with, I think, the approval of the Danish government, designed to make some occupational claim in Ellesmere island, and it was anticipated, probably, to base on that occupational claim certain rights of Denmark in the island. I call that matter to the attention of the Government, so that whatever position Canada is in with respect to Ellesmere island will be held, because, in my judgment, Ellesmere island is of greater consequence than Wrangel island.


Mr. BROWN:: This is a matter of intense interest to every member of this House. Some subjects are discussed, and those who take part are able to speak in a loud tone. This is a matter of great interest, and yet this whole discussion is
Supply-Naval Service

conducted in such a tone of voice that it is almost impossible for us to hear anything, and absolutely impossible for those at the far end of the chamber to hear at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pay of temporary officers and clerks at Headquarters Halifax and Esquimau dockyards, $20,000.
Arthur Meighen: What is being omitted in the services as respects temporary clerks, or what services are being reduced to account for the reduction of $20,000?


George Perry Graham: My deputy informs me that it is just as it has been in the Militia Department. The services of the temporary clerks were required during the war, and there has been a natural decrease since. This is the result of the temporary service.


Arthur Meighen: That has been going on for some time.


George Perry Graham: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: Mostly in the records department?


George Perry Graham: Mostly overseas account.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-naval service, $956,800.
Hugh Guthrie: What are the claims?


George Perry Graham: War Service Gratuity & Separation
Allowance adjustments	 10,000
Medal-
British War-Silver, 4,800
at $1.50	 $7,200
Victory-Bronze, 4,100 at
26 J	 1.100

 8,300
Vessels in reserve- Watchmen, etc. . .
10,000


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose the committee understands that these war claims that are now being paid under the heading of "adjustment of war claims" were formally carried in the estimates under an item called "Demobilization vote." The name has been changed, but the purpose of the item is just the same. This claim arises out of the late war. There are a number of claims, I fancy, not ready for settlement.
I had occasion last year to enter into a controversy and discussion with the Ministry of Shipping in England in regard to their claims against the Dominion of Canada. What I want to know is whether the item now under discussion is one of the items which were taken into account which we adjusted last summer. I may say that after three or four weeks of pretty hard work, in which I had the very able assistance of an accountant from the Militia Department, we succeeded in reducing the claim of the Ministry of Shipping by an amount of $750,000, and we agreed upon a stated amount for the various items that were chargeable against capital, but the account had to do very largely with the question of passage money, and damages to ships while in the Canadian service. It was purely a shipping account, I cannot remember just what the figure of the total account was, but there was one very serious outstanding claim which I refused to settle, and I hope it has not been settled yet. It was in connection with a boat which was submarined, and which was in the hospital service of the Dominion of Canada at the time at which it was submarined. The case had been referred in England to a board of arbitration upon which Canada was not directly represented. The finding of the arbitration board was that Canada must pay the replacement value of the ship, and I think that value was something like $5,000,000. The ship was certainly chartered by Canada, or by the British government and used by Canada at the time of the disaster. The cost of the ship was about half that amount, and, in the first instance, when the Admiralty dealt with losses of that kind, they allowed the cost of the ship, but after a few months' experience, with an allowance of that kind, the same board of arbitration changed the basis of allowance and allowed the cost of reproduction, and, as the cost of construction of vessels had risen enormously in the interval, Canada was let in by the arbitrators finding for an award of something like a million or twelve hundred thousand pounds, but, as Canada was not

Supply-Naval Service
represented directly on the board-we were nominally represented by some department of the Admiralty-I objected to the payment of that amount, and I assume the amount is still outstanding. My object in mentioning it now is to bring it to the attention of the minister, because I think that is one of the claims that should be very seriously reconsidered before it is allowed. The other claims I dealt with were all shipping claims, and the account with which we were dealing was adjusted after a reduction of $750,000. Does this item involve the matters which were settled by the representatives of the Admiralty and myself and Mr. Garrison of the Militia Department last summer?


George Perry Graham: That is not in this expenditure. I think you will find it in the Militia Department.


Hugh Guthrie: There was some uncertainty. The Admirality made a claim against Canada for a million dollars which they said the naval service of Canada owed them, and they requested authority to deduct it from the settlement of accounts, I had no authority to agree to that and I thought perhaps it was this $1,900,000 which we had before us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Something was said by the minister as to a claim on account of the difference in exchange. It was some $200,000, was it not?


George Perry Graham: It was $268,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does
this arise?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understood the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) to say that the British government were seriously asking the Canadian government to become responsible for the loss of this hospital ship that was sunk by a German submarine. It seems to me that a claim of that kind would be absolutely absurd, and I join with him in saying to the minister, that I hope the minister will never acknowledge any such claim on the part of Great Britain against Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: We have not acknowledged it, but there is something in the contention that we are liable for something in the matter. When we took over ships as hospital ships, we took them into the service of the Dominion of Canada, and we became responsible for them and for all the wear, tear and damage. The
rates got so high that it became impossible to insure these ships. The British government abandoned insuring ships and we did likewise; in fact, I do not know that we ever attempted to insure them. We have, however, paid losses on ships under our control which were sunk by submarines. The point that struck me was that we should not be liable for anything but the actual value of the craft sunk, and that was only 50 per cent of the amount found by the board of arbitration.


George Perry Graham: If my recollection in reading over some of the documents in the department serves me aright, some of the settlements were made through the High Commissioner's office; but the details, to which my hon. friend refers, I imagine, I have in the Militia Department somewhere.
As regards the question asked by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), the British Admiralty sent us drafts on New York instead of on Montreal. We really received more money than we should have received, because wa got the benefit of the exchange on the American currency. They are now making a claim for the amount of exchange.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope that will not be given into at all, because at the same time that we received drafts on New York, if I remember correctly, they also insisted on our making payments in New York at the New York rate. I also remember very distinctly that the British Admiralty took full advantage of the New York rates; and if we have taken advantage of them, we have only been acting in accordance with the same rule. I think the item should be struck out.


Mr GRAHAM:: My hon friend knows
that the decision in this matter lies with the Department of Finance. Although this item is inserted, we do not propose to pay the claim unless we are instructed to do so by the Finance Department after investigation. By inserting the item in the estimate, we do not admit the claim at all; but should the Finance Department, after investigation, decide that this claim is good, we have provided the money to settle it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me that it would be better to settle the matter in this way, namely to advise the Finance Department that we do not think there is any claim; and if a new claim has

Supply-Naval Service

to be looked after as a result of different advice, it may be dealt with by a Governor General's warrant. I do not think it should be admitted even to the extent of inserting the item in the estimates. We have a claim for a very much larger amount which England as steadily declined to admit. Unless I am very much astray in my recollection, I think the fact is that we have already settled cross accounts with the Admiralty on the basis of New York exchange, and I think, therefore, no action should be taken in this matter.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a large question between this Government and the British government in connection with the matter of exchange, and we must be prepared to give and take; whatever we lay down on one side we expect to claim on the other. My impression is that, if this claim be approved, it would require an appropriation of Parliament to pay it. Therefore, my hon. friend may be wise in inserting the item, but I quite concur in the view that he had better not be in a hurry to make payment until the whole matter is adjusted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I certainly agree that he should not be in a hurry to make payment. I am quite sure that the whole matter will be property and fairly adjusted. When it once gets to the British government and out of the routine of the offices, I do not think there will be much difficulty in adjusting the matter. I have no doubt, when the Prime [DOT] Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) takes a very well earned holiday this summer and goes over to England, he will be able to adjust the whole of this matter without any difficulty.


William Duff: I think the minister said, in explaining the details of this item, that part of it was for war medals. The department issued a war service badge which was very unsatisfactory, and1 many complaints have come to the Minister of the Naval Service and his officials. I have received, in the last two or three years, probably two or three hundred letters from young men who received this war service badge which was issued to men Who served in the Canadian navy or to Canadians who served overseas in the British navy. The badge was very much larger than the one issued to the soldiers, and these young men claim that it should be similar to the one issued to soldiers, instead of the large white badge which was issued by the Naval Department. I have, upstairs in my room, about a dozen of these badges which weye

sent to me by these boys. They would not keep them, and they asked me to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Naval Service and to ask him to have issued a new badge which would be satisfactory to them. They want one the same size as the one issued to the soldiers, which badge was quite satisfactory. This will cost a very small sum of money, and these young men, who risked their lives on the sea, should receive some consideration from the Government. I trust the Minister of Naval Service will look after this matter and issue the badges to the naval men.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understood the minister to say that one of the items contained in this very large appropriation is for reconditioning or repairs to certain vessels, known as drifters. We had a very large number of most curiously constructed, queer looking vessels floating around the coast of the maritime provinces. I do not know where they were built, and anybody who knows about conditions there knows they were of no value during the war. I cannot understand why we should be now voting money for vessels of that kind. Some of them belong to the Canadian Government, but I do not know whether there were brought across the Atlantic any that belonged to the Imperial government.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact,
these were trawlers or drifters that were built in Canada on the order of the Imperial government and lent to Canada. The contract with the Imperial government was that we should repair them and place them in the same condition as they were before. None of these items, of course, will be paid without the fullest scrutiny.
With regard to the medals, I must admit that the medals issued by the Naval Department have called forth a good deal of protest. Many that were issued by the British Admiralty were large. The Naval Department, I understand, has issued some that were smaller; but so far as I could learn, neither the larger nor the smaller were quite satisfactory. We will go into the matter and see if any alteration can be made in the design of the badges.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think there was an understanding with my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that we might go on with Public Works to-night, although that was not the understanding last night.

Supply-Public Works
We have departed a little from the announcement made last night, but this has been done after consultation with the two leaders opposite. We will take up Public Works for the rest of the evening.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Public Works-public buildings-rent, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $4,959,600.
Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works) :: The first three items in this vote have been passed.


Arthur Meighen: Subject, I think, to getting some information as to what was spent last year.


George Newcombe Gordon: That reservation does not apply to the first three items; they have been passed. The item now under consideration is the fourth:
Lighting, including roads and bridges, $90,000.


Arthur Meighen: Then we will ask for information regarding this item.


John Warwick King: The amount
spent last year up to the 31st of March was $80,084.59.


Hugh Guthrie: Can you not get on with $80,000 this year as well?


John Warwick King: The accounts are probably not all in yet. I notice that in 1920-21 the expenditure was about $88,696.


Arthur Meighen: Well, costs are going down now.


John Warwick King: There was a contract let last year for lighting, and I imagine that this estimate is based upon it.


Arthur Meighen: Are things not cheaper this year? I thought the Government was to bring about a lowering in the cost of living.


John Warwick King: These contracts were entered into on the first of October, 1921.


Arthur Meighen: For how long?


John Warwick King: For five years.


Arthur Meighen: How much does that cover of this amount?


John Warwick King: The contract covers the lighting of the Parliament buildings, and all buildings owned or rented by the Government in the city of Ottawa.


Arthur Meighen: Amounting to what proportion of this vote?


John Warwick King: 


Arthur Meighen: What is the rate?
llli


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman,
I heard you announce the fact that the item had reference to public buildings, but in this corner we have not been able to hear a single word since that announcement. We are here to discuss public affairs and if we cannot hear what is going on, then we ought to meet in a chamber in which we can hear. It is simply impossible two-thirds of the time for members at this end of the House to tell what business is being transacted at the other end.


John Warwick King: The particular
item before the committee is a vote of $90,000 for lighting, including roads and bridges.


William Charles Good: If hon. members would only realize that there are others in the chamber who would like to hear the questions they ask besides those to whom those questions are addressed, the proceedings would be much more satisfactory. There are hon. members back here who tell me they have not heard one-quarter of what has been going on, and it is really too bad. It is simply scandalous that such a condition should prevail, and we who are expected to participate intelligently in the discussion of public affairs should be able to hear what hon. gentlemen are saying. I wish to protest although I do not see why it should be necessary to do so. There would be no cause for protest if hon. members would only bear in mind that there are other gentlemen in the chamber besides themselves for whom they ought to have some consideration.


George Newcombe Gordon: I may remark that
the difficulty lies not so much with hon. gentlemen who are discussing the items under consideration, as in the fact that there is an incessant conversation in an undertone among hon. members themselves all over the chamber.


Mr. GARDINER:: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? What are the duties of a chairman?


Arthur Meighen: We have not yet had an answer to the question I asked regarding the rate.


John Warwick King: The lighting
rate is 5 cents per kilowatt hour for the first thirty hours, monthly use of installed capacity, and 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour for the next seventy hours, and i cent per kilowatt hour thereafter for monthly use. There is a discount upon
Supply-Public Works

bills paid within thirty days of 12 per cent if the transformer in the building is owned by the company, and 15 per cent where the transformer is owned by the Government.


Arthur Meighen: As I know that hon.
members could not hear the minister, I will simply say that the bargain made last October appears to be a very provident one and I hope it will not be altered for the worse by the Government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $385,000.
Arthur Meighen: There is a decrease
which, I presume, is owing to the reduction in the price of coal. To what else is it to be attributed?


John Warwick King: There has been
a marked reduction in the price of coal.


Arthur Meighen: What else accounts for the reduction?


John Warwick King: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Departments generally-char service, including $100 to E. Snowdon for firing noon gun, $385,000.
Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: There
should be something more descriptive than the mere word "generally".


John Warwick King: This amount is required for char service in the cleaning of offices in government owned and rented buildings in Ottawa for the year 1922-23. It also includes $100 to E. Snowdon for firing the noon gun. The details of the expenditure are:	supervision, $1,920; Foremen, $7,420; charmen $47,120; charwomen, $307,767, and contingencies, $20,772, making a total of $385,000.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Are
these people under the Civil Service Commission?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Repairs, furniture, grounds, street cleaning and maintenance, $700,000.
Arthur Meighen: What accounts for the reduction here? I presume it is mainly because the furniture is new.


John Warwick King: Apparently
$700,000 was the amount expended last year, and that is what we are asking this year.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the minister hope to secure a reduction? I would think there might be a reduction, due to the lesser amount of repairs required now.


John Warwick King: I imagine the repairs would be the same from year to year. There may be some decrease in wages.


Arthur Meighen: Repairs to good new furniture will not be as extensive as repairs to furniture many years old.


John Warwick King: There is also the supply of new furniture.


Arthur Meighen: But the new furniture is all supplied.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not supplied in my room yet.


John Warwick King: It is supplied
from this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau Hall (including grounds)-improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc., $60,000.
Arthur Meighen: How much was spent last year?


John Warwick King: The amount
spent last year was $58,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Arthur Meighen: Why is this more than last year with the price of coal going down?


John Warwick King: The vote of $19,000 is for the payment of the annual amount to His Excellency the Governor General for fuel and light required at Rideau Hall, including the military secretary's cottage. The $19,000 is paid directly to His Excellency in four payments. The increase in this appropriation was made upon receipt of representations from His Excellency that the sum of $17,000 was inedequate. The matter was referred to the chief architect, who on the 9th February, 1922, submitted the following report to the deputy minister:
Replying to your memo of January 12th with regard to the increase of the fuel and light allowance for Rideau Hall, I attach a report from Mr. Croll, in which he states the cost for the year ending April 30th, 1921, to be as follows: Coal, $15,379; wood, $512; gas, $1,553 ; light, $1,622; electric bulbs, $225, making a total of $19,292.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. BAXTER:: The question is not strictly in order, hut I should like to know where the coal is obtained for these 'buildings.


John Warwick King: It is being supplied from our own Canadian mines. Last year I believe it was supplied largely from the mines in Minto, New Brunswick.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am delighted to hear it.


Arthur Meighen: Up to very recent years the coal supply came from the south, but the policy of getting Canadian coal was inaugurated two years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telephone service, $93,600.
Mr. CARROLL:: Are the telephone and telegraph services of the Public Works one at the present time?


John Warwick King: We have a branch of the telegraph and telephone service. This item is not connected with that service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Public buildings-Dominion Immigration buildings-repairs, furniture, etc., $18,000.
Donald Sutherland: How much of this is for furniture?


John Warwick King: This vote is required for indispensable repairs and renewals to buildings at all immigration agencies throughout the Dominion, and for furniture and so forth which may be required during the year.


Hugh Guthrie: How much was spent last year?


John Warwick King: Last year $34,441 was spent.


Arthur Meighen: What will not be necessary this year so that the $18,000 will be sufficient?


John Warwick King: Out of the appropriation of $45,000 for 1921-22, $30,000 was provided for the supply of bunks at the immigration buildings in Halifax, St. John, and Quebec, as requested by the Acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Colonization and Immigration in a letter dated 5th February, 1921. That accounts largely for the decrease this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fittings and general supplies and furniture, $185,000.
Arthur Meighen: How much was spent last year?


John Warwick King: Last year we spent $169,705.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that item cover all the public services throughout the Dominion or only those in Ottawa?


John Warwick King: It covers the public services for the whole of Canada.


Donald Sutherland: Are these furnishings replaced from year to year? I imaging that most of the members who are familiar with the debate on the necessity for economy must be somewhat startled when they observe the elaborate furnishings which have been brought into this building during the last two or three weeks. I doubt whether some of the furniture ever will be used, and a good deal of it I think we could very well get along without until these buildings are completed at any rate. We had an item of $185,000 last year, we have another item of $185,000 this year for fittings, general supplies and furniture, and a few minutes ago we passed an item of $700,000, the greater proportion of which was also for furniture, the minister informed us. There must surely be a limit to the purchasing of furniture. We have been told that $30,000 was spent last year for bunks. I think we ought to have some information as to whether sufficient bunks have already been supplied, or what the limit is to be.


John Warwick King: These bunks
were supplied during last year-my hon. friend was a member of the House when the appropriation was voted-and were used in the immigration sheds throughout the Dominion. This vote is for fittings, supplies, furniture, filing cabinets, adjustable rollers, bookshelves, steel drawers, etc., for public buildings throughout the whole of Canada. The amount spent last year was $169,000. The appropriation this year is made on the recommendation of the department which has the matter in hand, * and must be the judge.


Robert James Manion: Throughout this country in past years there have been built by both governments expensive and elaborate public buildings in different towns and cities. I admit that in the capital city, such buildings should be in keeping with the dignity of government, but in some towns and cities it seems to me they are too large and too elaborate and might well be subdivided in order to afford more space for use as public offices. I have in mind some cities, including my own, where there are immense buildings for the Customs D*
Supply-Public Works

partment while other branches of the public service are spread over the city in rented quarters. It has been my impression that not only in my own city but in others, there would be plenty of room for other departments if these large buildings were further divided up. I am not blaming the present Government in the least, for most of these buildings were erected years ago; but in some of the customs offices I have seen there seemed to be enough room to provide for the needs of cities five or six times the size of those in which the buildings were situated. Possibly the minister would do well to carry on the work that was taken up by Mr. McCurdy, who, I happen to know, was looking into the possibilities of co-ordinating or bringing together some of the different offices of government. Of course, I would not like the minister, in return for my suggestion, to carry out the idea in my city alone.


An hon. MEMBER:: Use that for a starting point.


Robert James Manion: No, not even as a starting point. But I would be quite willing to see my city taken with the rest of the cities in anything which is done in this connection. I think the minister would be well advised to carry on the work that Mr. McCurdy started to do, but which he did not have an opportunity to complete.


John Warwick King: I shall be very glad to give that matter consideration. It is advisable wherever possible to bring these various services under one roof. My hon. friend suggests that he would like any action taken with respect to his city to synchronize with similar action in others. We will bear that in mind.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In view of the surplus last year of $16,000 would it not be possible to cut this item this year? The price of fittings, supplies and furniture should be coming down like the prices of other things.


John Warwick King: The amount of $169,705 is the amount expended, so far as the department knows, up to March 31 of this year. When the accounts are complete we may find that sum augmented. I would not think it advisable to cut the estimate.


Arthur Meighen: There would.1 be no accounts coming in after this for fittings, general supplies, and furniture. It is inconceivable that the department would not know now the actual expenditure of last

year, and if the minister looks at the year before he will find additional reason why the vote shold be reduced this year.


Mr GOOD:: Do the Dominion public buildings include the public buildings in Ottawa, or only those outside the city?


John Warwick King: Only those outside Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings-heating, $420,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Can we get some particulars in regard to this item? I assume it is for heating accounts outside of Ottawa.


John Warwick King: The amount is required for the purchase of fuel, etc., for heating the public buildings throughout the Dominion outside of Ottawa.


Arthur Meighen: What was spent last year?


John Warwick King: 


Arthur Meighen: The minister explained that owing to the reduction in the price of coal he was able to effect a reduction in the estimate for heating in Ottawa from $540,000 to $385,000, or about forty per cent. Why can he not do the same in this case? Coal has gone down elsewhere, certainly, just as much as here. If only $450,000 was spent last year, he ought to be able to get on with $300,000 this year.


John Warwick King: 35,500 tons of coal at $9.55 per ton would amount to $339,000; wood, $25,000; removal of ashes, $12,000; heat, gas, $3,500; steam heat, $25,000; fuel oil, $3,450; contingencies, $11,600. That makes up the $420,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What does the minister mean by steam heat? Is not the other fuel used for that purpose as well?


John Warwick King: In some localities we are able to purchase steam from a central heating plant.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister going to continue to purchase in quantities, or is he going to revert to the old process of patronage in coal?


John Warwick King: The purchases will be made through the Purchasing Commission, in quantities as required, I suppose, in the various localities.


Mr MEIGHEN:: By contract and tender, as before?


John Warwick King: I would say yes

Supply-Public Works


Robert Milton Johnson: Has the
minister any information as to the relative difference between the cost of coal heat and of steam heat, as referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens)? I have in mind the city of North Battleford, which I suppose is one of those that have a municipal heating plant and a number of big buildings.


Mr KING (Kootenay) :: I am not sure we have the information as to relative costs, but I believe North Battleford has a contract for steam heating from a central plant.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has given us the price of coal this year, $9.50. What was the price yast year?


John Warwick King: Last year, $9.55.


Arthur Meighen: If it was only $9.55 last year, $9.30 or $9.50 this year is far too high.


Mr. LOGAN:: I find in a return which was brought down at my request on the 20th of April last, that coal was imported from the United States for use in federal buildings as follows: in 1918-19, 28,973.91 tons, at a cost delivered of $318,850, or an average cost per ton of $11; in 191920, ,32,646.81 tons, at a cost delivered of $327,941.65; in 1920-21, 52,279.58 tons, at a cost delivered of $821,748.55, or an average cost per ton of $15.71. In other words, while the Public Works Department imported in round figures, 29,000 tons of American coal in 1918-1919, at a cost of $319,000, or an average cost per ton of $11, this tonnage increased for the year ending March 31, 1921, to over 52,000 tons or nearly double the quantity, at a cost of nearly $822,000, or nearly treble the cost in 1918-1919.
The leader of the Opposition has spoken to-night of some Canadian coal being used in the public buildings in Ottawa. Very little could have been used, because under his government and its predecessor the amount of American coal imported for the use of public buildings jumped inside of three years from 28,000 odd tons to 52,000 odd tons per year. Is it the policy of the present Minister of Public Works to discontinue using American coal in federal buildings where Canadian coal can be procured at a decent price?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When that was done in 1920-1921, Canadian Companies were not in a position to supply the coal. Was not Canadian coal bought last year for the public buildings?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it was, and what was the proportion?


Arthur Meighen: Replying to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), the date he stopped at was the date up to which there was an ample market for Canadian coal elsewhere. In Ottawa the policy was established-I cannot give the exact date, but certainly all the time I was Prime Minister, and I think before-of buying Canadian coal rather than American coal because the prices were so comparable we could do it. So I was right in what I said. The time came when the market for coal overseas was exhausted, and what did the late government do? We pressed on the railway companies to buy Canadian coal to keep the men employed. They, of course, resisted because the price was higher, but we stood behind the company and paid the excess price out of the treasury of Canada in order to keep the men employed to the utmost extent we could during that hard period. That was the course the late government pursued in all these things, and I think it was right. What is more, I would do it again.
I believe we ought to use Cana-
10 p.m. dian coal. There is a limit, of course. You cannot go very far above the market price at which you can get coal elsewhere, but we can afford to do something in order to extend further the market for coal produced in our own country.


Hance James Logan: The hon. gentleman's argument would be all right if his facts were right, but perhaps he does not know quite as much about the coal trade as we who come from the province of Nova Scotia. I can tell him that when he purchased 52,000 tons of coal in 1920-1921, as compared with
28,000	tons in 1918-1919, the bottom had then dropped out of the coal market and the miners of Nova Scotia were walking the streets.


Arthur Meighen: That was not last
year.


Hance James Logan: The bottom dropped out of the coal market in 1919, after the armistice in 1918, and in 1920-1921 coal was an absolute drug on the market and our miners in Nova Scotia were unable to secure employment. It may be hard to explain why in that year the amount of coal imported from the United States was almost twice as much as the amount imported three years before.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that we will gain much unless we get the real facts. They ought to be here. I asked the minister how much Canadian coal was bought last year for use in Ottawa, and how much American coal.


Hance James Logan: The figures I am quoting are from a return brought down to the House, so there cannot be any doubt as to the correctness of the figures.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member gave the figures for 1920-1921. What were the figures for last year?	.


Hance James Logan: It was in 1920-1921 that we had a lack of coal orders in Nova Scotia. I am as anxious as the ex-Minister of Finance to hear the reply of the Minister of Public Works. The ex-Minister of Finance has rather intimated that this is not a matter of importance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I never said any such thing. I think it is a matter of importance, and it is important that we get the facts.


Hance James Logan: The amount involved may not be stupendous, but the principle involved is a very important one. In my humble opinion the time has come in this country when we must establish a Canadian national coal policy, and it must be the rule of this Government, not only for its public buildings, but for the railways, to purchase coal mined in Canadian mines. Look at the item before us. The government of Canada, for the year ending 31 March, 1921, bought over $800,000 worth of American coal for use in its own public buildings. Do hon. members think the United States of America would buy Canadian coal to use in their public buildings? At Washington they would almost sooner burn wood than Canadian coal.
We need in this country more Canadian-ism and more devotion to Canadian industry. We preach the doctrine, which is all right in itself, to buy Canadian goods made in Canada, but we often forget to buy coal produced in Canada. It is one of our natural products. Upon it depends a large amount of the revenue of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and yet we will find that, even down in some cities in the maritime provinces, large quantities of American coal are being brought in, and burned and very often burned by those who are preaching the loudest "buy goods made in Canada".

This is in my humble judgment, a most important matter, although only involving perhaps a few hundred thousand dollars. At the same time, it is important in principle that it should be established in this country that we should patronize Canadian home industries, particularly those that are producing from our natural resources. We had a statement made here not long ago, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Pictou, (Mr. Macdonald) in reference to the amount of American coal burned on Canadian railways, and I think the answer was "about a million tons per year". Do hon. members realize the fact that down in the province of Nova Scotia-and I presume this remark applies to the western country as well-about two thirds of our collieries are idle, that men are walking the streets looking for work, and at the same time the government of Canada is buying a million tons of coal per year for railway purposes? According to this statement, for the year ending 31 March, 1921, we burned a million dollars worth of coal in public buildings. This is not Canadianism, and not a policy which will build up Canada, particularly that part of Canada which depends so largely upon the production of this very important product of our country.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely
agree with my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) in the principle he has enunciated. The late government went so far as to practically pay premiums for Canadian coal, and they were criticized for it in this House. I am amazed at one statement my hon. friend makes. He tells us that down in the maritime provinces American coal is being burned. If it is true that any one of our public institutions is burning American coal where Canadian coal could easily be got, the least my hon. friend can do is to give the facts to this House. Let us'know what the institutions are and where they are, because frankly I am amazed to hear the statement.


Hance James Logan: I think the hon. member may have misunderstood me. I did not say the government of Canada was buying coal for use in maritime cities from American sources. I said American coal was being burned in those cities by people who were preaching very loudly the "made in Canada" doctrine. I was amazed not long ago to pick up a Halifax paper and to see that they congratulated, I think, the

Supply-Public Works
school commissioners for having purchased a very large amount of coal, but when I came to consider the kind of coal it was, I found it was American coal being burned in the city of Halifax, in that province which depends so much on the production of coal. What we need in this country, in reference to coal and in reference to many other products of the country, is more Canadianism, and we should patronize Canadian industries as far as possible. There may be cases where it would be too expensive to bring in Nova Scotia coal, say to central Canada. That is another question, but, as far as the portion of Canada east of lake Superior is concerned, there should be no coal purchased by the government of Canada for use on the railways or the public buildings, except coal produced in a Canadian mine by Canadian miners.
Mr. ME1GHEN: I have only one word to say, and it is not in criticism of the hon. gentleman. I admit, without going into the facts-for I cannot get the facts- that I do not understand just why that increase took place. There may be some explanation. It may be there was some additional use for anthracite coal, which is not produced in the maritime provinces, and it may be that, as well, there was increased consumption for some special reason in those parts of Canada to which there cannot, of course, be access for maritime province coal. I want to impress upon the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) that the last government went as far as they could. You can go too far, I know, but we did not go too far. Hon. members are criticizing us for not going far enough. We went so far in the purchase of Canadian coal as to pay a premium for it. I cannot give the figures, but I am sure the Finance Minister will correct me if I am wrong. We went to the expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars, in order that the workmen of the maritime provinces might do business. We had to stand for criticism from hon. members on this side of the House for doing it, and we had to defend ourselves, but I have learned to know the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) well enough to say he would have stood up and stated what he thought was right, no matter on which side of the House he happened to be.


Thomas George McBride: I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by hon. members, but I do not think they have gone far enough. I think they should advocate a tariff on
fuel oil, so that our mines in Canada would have a better chance to give steady employment to our miners.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I am glad that the hon. member for Cumberland registered so strongly in favour of Canadian products. However, before this subject was introduced, there was a question asked to which a distinct answer was not given. The contrast was made between heating the Ottawa public buildings and the Dominion public buildings, and before an answer could be given another question was put, and, to my mind, at least, no clear explanation was given as to this difference. It seems that the heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen of the public buildings at Ottawa, shows this year in the estimates a reduction of $155,000- that is $540,000 reduced to $385,000. I presume there has not been much reduction in the salaries of the engineers, firemen and so on. Then we have the plain item for heating Dominion public buildings. The vote last year was $450,000, and this year $420,000 is asked, a difference of only $30,000. I would like to have some explanation from the minister as to that.


John Warwick King: The decrease in the item for public buildings in Ottawa is principally due to a very material reduction in the price of coal. In 1921-22, the estimate provided for the purchase of 13,500 tons of bituminous coal at $15 per ton, and 11,400 tons of anthracite coal at $17 per ton, making a total of about $379,000. In 1922-23, the estimate is for 25,890 tons of various kinds of coal, at a cost of $230,000, an increase of 990 tons and a decrease in cost of about $148,000. There is also a large reduction of $18,800 in the allotment for wood. For the past two years, owing to the uncertainty of the coal situation, a large quantity of hardwood was secured; but now that conditions are becoming more stable, the only wood that will be required for the next year is a supply of kindling wood. Besides those two reduced items, there is a reduction of $3,072 in the contingent appropriation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister has not yet told us how it is that he cannot extend the economy in coal to other points where he is buying coal.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I would point out
to the minister that, on the one hand, on a basis of $540,000 last year, there is a reduction of $155,000, and on the other, on a basis of $450,000 last year, there is a
Supply-Public Works

reduction of only $30,000. The statement that he has given has not explained that, at least to me. In a word, how is it that we can save $155,000 on $540,000, and only $30,000 on $450,000? ,


John Warwick King: I think the explanation given regarding the Dominion item will be satisfactory. As regards the estimate, $420,000, outside service, I have cited the items making that up and the quantity required, namely 35,500 tons. I imagine that the departmental officials must have a fairly accurate knowledge as to the tonnage of coal that is required. The requirement is a yearly one, and it would not vary very much from year to year.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: That would make no
difference, because it should be relevant in either case.


John Warwick King: This appropriation is largely due to the use of bituminous coal where anthracite coal was previously used. This scheme necessitates the purchase of a much greater tonnage of coal than in the previous year, but at a much reduced price. In 1920-21, the quantity was 31,216 tons; in 1921-22, 35,000 tons, practically the same quantity as we are asking this year, namely 35,500 tons.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is entirely losing the point as regards what we desire to know, and that is why it is costing just as much to buy coal this year as it did last year in connection with these outside points. We all know how the price is down. The minister has shown how it is down in Ottawa.


John Warwick King: The price of coal in 1920-21 was $13.09; in 1921-22, it was $9.55, and from present indications I do not think the price of coal will foe much less this year. We are estimating it at $9.55 this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister is estimating it at the same price although there is a difference in Ottawa. What is the reason why, when there is a difference in Ottawa, the minister cannot get it outside of Ottawa? Is the real difference not this, that last year the government insisted on using Nova Scotia here and got a proper price for it? I wonder whether the deputy could not just tell the minister whether the fact is or is not that last year we burned Nova Scotia coal and got it at a cheaper price, and that is available this year. Is that not the fact?


John Warwick King: That is a fact.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Why cannot we have it?


John Warwick King: Last year we had an appropriation of $540,000 for heating public buildings in Ottawa. This year we are asking $385,000, which item, I believe, is passed. There is a comparison now as to the expenditures between the two items, the Outside Service and the Inside Service. I have given the information as 'I have it here. The decrease is principally due to the price of coal. The price of bituminous coal last year was $15 per ton, and anthracite coal, $17 per ton.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently we cannot get the information.


John Warwick King: You will get the information.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It does not make much difference whether we get it or not, so long as the minister gives his pledge. Is he going to continue to buy Nova Scotia coal for the government buildings this year?


John Warwick King: There is nothing very startling about the policy of the late government in connection with coal purchases. As regards Canadian coal being used in public buildings throughout Canada, I may advise the hon. gentleman that it will foe the policy of the Government to utilize Canadian coal where it can properly be used. Coal is not produced in Ontario, and there is the question of shipment to that province. My hon. friends will realize that the matter will undoubtedly be dealt with in the interests of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not asking that. We are dealing with this Ottawa item. As my hon. friend has admitted, we did burn Nova Scotia coal here last year. Is it his intention again to invite tenders from the Nova Scotia dealers and give them the business next year. There is no trouble about carrying it into Ontario. I am asking only in reference to Ottawa.


Hance James Logan: Will the minister tell me how much coal was burnt in the public buildings in Ottawa last year?


Mr. BOYS:: May I ask the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), a question regarding the purchase of coal in the United

Supply-Public Works
States in 1920-21 to the extent of $800,000, as mentioned by him. What kind of coal was that? Was it bituminous or anthracite, and could it have been purchased in Canada?


Hance James Logan: I want to get an answer to the question I have asked the minister?


William Alves Boys: The minister is looking up the information, and I thought that while he was doing so I might ask the hon. member this question.


Hance James Logan: The return brought down in answer to my motion does not specify how much bituminous or how much anthracite was imported into this country. Now, I submit, that there is no necessity for importing any American coal for public buildings and government railways in Canada east of lake Superior, because bituminous coal, which can be used in the heating of all furnaces, can be purchased in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick. The coal that was purchased for Ottawa by the late government was bought in New Brunswick and not in Nova Scotia. I make that statement by the way. Coal can be purchased in Nova Scotia at the present time, delivered on the government railways, at about $5.50 a ton. The Government owns the railways; they own railways running throughout the province of Ontario; and if they would carry coal at cost from Nova Scotia they could deliver it at the eastern end of lake Superior in competition against American prices. But they cannot do so if they charge the regular cost of transportation on coal. A few years ago the Government of Canada carried coal from Nova Scotia to the city of Montreal at $1.60 a ton. They increased the rate from $1.60 to $3.80. We contend that that is an excessive freight rate, but they would never suggest that it was the exact cost of transportation and my contention, even in opposition to what has been intimated by the minister, is that there is no need for this Government to buy any American coal for use in Ontario if they will only buy it in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and transport it at actual transportation cost. They can buy a million tons of coal to-day in Nova Scotia delivered on the government railways at $5.50 a ton, and good coal at that.


William Alves Boys: I am not criticizing for
one moment the purchase of coal in the maritime provinces; quite the opposite. But to reach an intelligent conclusion regarding the criticism offered by the hon. member (Mr. Logan) with reference to the $800,000 expended on coal in the United States, it is necessary to know whether that coal was anthracite or bituminous coal. If it was bituminous, then the criticism might be well founded; if, on the contrary, it was anthracite, there was no ground for the criticism. And the same argument would apply to the discussion on some of the other items.


Hance James Logan: I contend that there is no necessity for buying anthracite for public buildings, and that is why I want the minister to tell me how much anthracite was bought last year for use in heating public buildings in Ottawa.


John Warwick King: I have the information. There were purchased 163 tons of anthracite.


Mr. HANSON:: I am informed that the late government let a contract to a company in my constituency for supplying all the coal used in the public buildings here, and I understand that the contract price is lower still than that named by the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan). I believe that coal is being loaded in New Brunswick, under contract made by the late government for the heating of public buildings in Ottawa, at as low as $5.25. I am glad the minister is laying down the policy which he has stated. It would be a great benefit to the district I represent and, incidentally, to the district he himself comes from. I do not see the necessity for buying anthracite coal, because in the lower provinces the use of anthracite in large public buildings is being entirely discontinued.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I wonder if my hon. friend frcm Cumberland means that coal should be transported by the railways at rates affording special consideration to the coal operators?


Hance James Logan: Any government coal
bought from the operators in Nova Scotia for the use of the Government should be transported at cost. It is not giving any advantage to the operators.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I received telegrams about a fortnight ago from people in my constituency complaining that American soft coal was being sold in the town of Windsor at about $4 less per ton than Canadian coal produced in Nova Scotia. Now, I claim that the railways of the country ought to be run on a business basis, and
Supply-Public Works

if you are to give special consideration to coal produced in any part of Canada the people generally will be taxed in consequence. Coal is not entitled to any greater consideration than any other commodity produced in the country. My reply to my own constituents was that the object was to get coal at the cheapest possible price and not at the expense of the public at large, and that they had to put up with it, and I was very glad that they were able to get coal for $8 or $9, as against $15 which has been charged during the past few years. My advice to the Government is to buy coal where it can be purchased at the cheapest possible rate. If that is done the Minister of Railways will be able to administer the railways of the country as a business proposition. If the railways give special concessions to coal it will mean so much more of a deficit; and I repeat that it will be the part of wisdom for the Government to procure their coal where it can be got at the cheapest price.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like my hon. friend to go down to Pictou and Springhill and some other places down there, and preach that doctrine at election time.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not afraid to preach it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure you have not the courage to do it.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I have the courage to practise whatever doctrine I preach, and if you come to my constituency and advocate that any special concession should be made in favour of any coal company in Canada at the expense of the consumer I will run against you. I will even go into the old Tory county of York and run an election there against the hon. gentleman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No one is advocating any special concessions in favour of coal sold to the public. But the member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) contends that the Government in hauling its own coal for public buildings should do so without a profit, and he is quite justified in that contention.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The Government should be run on a business basis and the railways should not be hewers of wood and drawers of water for anybody. They are public utilities which are supposed to serve the interests of the people, and nothing should be done whereby the taxpayers can be mulcted in unjustifiable costs. I repeat that coal should be got at the cheapest price no matter where it comes from.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) is amazed when he finds the tremendous amount of anthracite tonnage -163 tons-which the late government imported into Ottawa. Of course it was an exceedingly small amount. There was a reason for it: the late government was very sincere in trying to bring about a condition that would enable as much of our own coal as possible and our money kept in the country. Among other things we looked into the changing of our furnace equipment so that we could use bituminous coal, and in that way help our own coal mining industry and our own unemployed. City by-laws, of course, make *a good deal of trouble in some instances, but I dare say we will be able ultimately to use still more of our own coal. Perhaps the minister can tell us what percentage of maritime coal was burned here in Ottawa.


John Warwick King: Of maritime bituminous coal we burned 23,745 tons.


Hance James Logan: How much coal was burned altogether?


John Warwick King: A total of 25,607 tons.


Hance James Logan: Where were the 2,000 tons purchased?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It was 1,300 tons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was that purchased by tender?


John Warwick King: By tender. The requirements last year were: 23,745 tons of bituminous coal; 163 tons of anthracite coal; 1,530 tons of coke; 169 tons of peat; making a total of 25,607 tons of fuel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighting, $195,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: What accounts for the increase of $15,000 in lighting?


John Warwick King: Of this increase $12,500 is due to the necessity of supplying lamps to all buildings throughout Canada occupied by the Department of Militia and Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, $1,250,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: vVhy this increase in rents at the present time when we are supposed to be cutting down services and dismissing employees.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: The increase of $120,000 is due to the inclusion of rents for the Militia Department amounting to $185,000. These are included at the request of the Department of Militia and Defence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does that
mean that the Department of Public Works is now carrying a part of the expenditure Qf the Department of Militia and Defence?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much is the Militia Department helped out altogether?


John Warwick King: To the extent of $185,000.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Were these buildings rented by the government previous to December last?


John Warwick King: They were rented by the Militia Department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbour and river-Nova Scotia-Baddeck- repairs to wharf, $3,500.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, it is Friday night, and judging from the the deserted appearance of the benches on both sides I think that most of the members have gone to catch their trains. I imagine the House generally did not think the Opposition would be quite as easy as they have been with the Minister of Public Works in allowing so many estimates to go through in the last few minutes. In view of the progress we have made and of the lack of attendance, I would suggest that the House might adjourn.


Hance James Logan: Does the ex-Minister of Finance desire that we postpone consideration of the Nova Scotia estimates until some Opposition members from that province get here?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not at all.


Hance James Logan: You would have to wait about ten years for any of them to get here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will go ahead.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then let us hear what is going to be done at Baddeck. What are the repairs to the wharf there?


John Warwick King: The appropriation is required to renew the deck of the wharf which is badly decayed and unsafe.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is Baddeck?


John Warwick King: Down in Nova Scotia.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the trouble there?


Mr. McKENZIE:: I shall have much
pleasure in telling my benighted brethren across the way where Baddeck is. Baddeck has figured prominently in the literature of this country, and any gentlemen who have never heard of it before must have sadly neglected their education. The ex-Minister of Finance need not worry himself to find out why this or any other public work in the province of Nova Scotia needs to be repaired, for the simple reason that during the ten years that he and his party were in power they absolutely allowed these public works to fall into decay, and now they require to be put into a proper state of repair. We are doing the best we can with the remnants of the moneys that our predecessors left in the treasury to make good their dereliction of duty. The wharf at Baddeck is a very good one; it is practically a part of the Intercolonial system. One of the termini of the Intercolonial is a place called Iona, and a very excellent ferry runs between Iona and Baddeck. This wharf has been neglected and is now badly in need of repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a wharf at which subsidized boats call?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, quite a number
of subsidized boats call there. The steamer Marion, plying on the route between the city of Sydney and Whycocomagh, calls there, and there is a subsidized steamer called the Bras d'Or, a new boat, which calls at Baddeck. Other boats which come from Halifax and go through the St. Peter's canal make some calls at this wharf. It is the only wharf at Baddeck which is capable of accommodating them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In view of the lucid information given by my hon. friend, I withdraw my opposition to the item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Big Bras d'Or-repairs to wharf, $1,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Would the
hon. Solicitor General enlighten us with regard to this item?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is also a public
wharf, and somewhat the same conditions apply. The hon. ex-minister was in Bras d'Or not very long ago and possibly went
Supply-Public Works

through the lakes; he knows the route of the steamer Marion from Sydney to Whycoco-magh, a distance of about 80 miles. There is no railway in that part of the country and this boat calls at wharves, just as trains call at stations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cow bay (Port Morien)-repairs to breakwater, $4,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is proposed to be done?


John Warwick King: It is proposed
to renew the crib work at the outer end of the breakwater, which was washed away. The average length of the work required is 125 feet and the average width 40 feet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Digby-repairs to pier, $5,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is proposed to be
done at' Digby? The Government have a large pier there; I did not know that it was out of repair at all.


John Warwick King: This amount is required for repairs and renewals to floor and fenders, annually necessary on account of wear and tear.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it proposed to spend the whole amount?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Inverness-repairs to pier, $11,300.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How is this sum made up?


John Warwick King: The proposed work will consist of repairs to the eastern pier. Repairs to cribwork are necessary because the outer end of the eastern breakwater has been partly destroyed, on a length of 210 feet and a width of 18 feet, 55 feet having been damaged on a height of one foot to 5 feet, 105 feet totally destroyed, and 50 feet damaged on a height of 3 feet. The amount required for this work is $2,650. Then there is close piling on 335 feet of channel face, $2,285; construction of a seawall 300 feet long, $965; repairs to pile, brush and stone work, $5,356.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is this a place where you have frequent destruction by the elements?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is there a railway there?


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Perhaps I can give my hon. friend the information he desires. This pier is at the terminus of the Inverness railway. The undertaking was commenced some years ago over $200,000 being spent in an effort to complete it. For the last ten years a little money has been spent there annually, but each fall the storms would carry away all the work that had been done because it had been commenced too late in the season. This appropriation is to repair some of the destruction done last fall. When this is completed and the necessary dredging done, we will have a very fine harbour there, one of sufficient depth to facilitate the carrying on of the fishing industry in that locality. It is mainly for the purposes of the fishermen.


Henry Lumley Drayton: From what the minister 'says, the elements are always breaking down these works. Is the pier in a wrong location, or is it so placed that it is unnecessarily exposed to the elements?


Alexander William Chisholm: For the last ten years the work has never been done at the proper season. In 1910-11 a good deal of work was done, but since then it has only been partly carried out and always at a season of the year when any substantial work was impossible. Every year during that period I have in this House called the attention of the minister to the fact that it was useless to spend money there in the fall of the year, and I say the same thing to the present minister. If it is his intention to finish this work, the only time to do it is in the early season; otherwise it will be destroyed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will this
amount finish the work?


Alexander William Chisholm: It is to finish the work that was undertaken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do I understand that when this money is expended we shall hear no more of Inverness?


Alexander William Chisholm: There are annual repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not
speaking of annual repairs-unless you have annual washouts, which apparentlj you do in a lot of these little harbours Will this $11,300 complete the whole undertaking as planned?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Joggins, repairs to breakwater, $1,200.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a breakwater at Joggins, away up there at the head of the Bay of Fundy? It is beyond reason a breakwater should he required there. It is not out on the Atlantic, and hardly on the Bay of Fundy. It is on a very dirty river, if I recollect correctly.


John Warwick King: There is a
breakwater at that point to protect the shipping pier of the Maritime Power, Coal and Railway Company. Schooners and costal steamers playing between St. John and other Bay of Fundy ports load and discharge produce and merchandise at that place. It is a general utility wharf.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It seems to be a breakwater to assist the Maritime Power and Railway Company. How long has this breakwater been built, and what steamer runs between St. John and Joggins? I do not think there is one myself.


Hance James Logan: I happen to know the
locality pretty well. This breakwater is a combination breakwater and wharf. It has been used for the last twenty-five years.


John Warwick King: Since 1879.


Hance James Logan: As usual, I was well within the mark. There is a most important trade carried on between Joggins and the city of St. John. All the goods that go into that part of the county of Cumberland go by water from St. John and are landed at Joggins. It has been used all these years, and, incidentally, the breakwater is a protection to the little harbour in front of the coal company's coal pockets, but that is merely incidental. The wharf is used for public purposes and has been for forty-three years. The hon. member for York-Sunbury was hardly born then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a steamer running between Joggins and St. John?


Hance James Logan: A steamer runs down the Petitcodiac river, calls at Joggins, and goes to St. John. Quite a schooner trade is carried on there. In the summer months you will find four or five or six schooners right inside that breakwater engaged in the coast trade.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister will have the engineer's report showing the amount of traffic done at that point.


John Warwick King: All I have as to traffic is what I have read. .Schooners and coastal steamers plying between St.
John and other Bay of Fundy ports load and discharge produce and merchandise at that place. The repairs are urgently required. The daily output of coal there is 870 tons.


Mr HANSON:: Not a ton goes from this wharf.


John Warwick King: Our information is from the district engineer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is any other trade done at this wharf besides that in coal?


John Warwick King: General produce and merchandise.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does that consist of, and what is the amount of the trade?


John Warwick King: I have not that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There has never been any coal shipped from this Wharf. I think the repairs are for the wharf of the Maritime Coal and Railway Company.


Hance James Logan: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
$2M00aree harbour-:repairs to breakwaters,
Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a
large item. What is the explanation?


Alexander William Chisholm: This is another monument to the indifference and folly of the late government. Three years ago a certain amount of destruction was
11p.m. wrought there ,by the storms.
I told the minister at the time from my place in the House that about $800 would make the repairs, but this was neglected. Next year about $3,000 would have done the work, but not a dollar was spent, and the breakwater was allowed to
Supply-Public Works

go until finally it became necessary to expend $26,000, and I venture to say that it will be necessary to spend four or five thousand more.
This is perhaps one of the most important little harbours in eastern Nova Scotia. It is the only medium of transportation for a population of about 10,000 people. There is a large fleet of boats runing in and out of this little port, and there are now three steamers plying along the coast, making five calls a week at that port. I could not give the exports and imports, but they are very substantial indeed. The point I wish to impress not only in criticism of the late government but for the guidance of the present Government with respect to works along the coast, is that this work should be done early this season. If not, we will be coming back for an item of $40,000 next year in addition, because the balance of the work will be gone. This is an old work dating from before Confederation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to get the exact facts from the minister. He will know the traffic in and out.
work, amount required $9,800, making a total of $12,300.
Item carried.
Shelburne, repairs to wharf, $4,500.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is that?


John Warwick King: To renew the planking on the wharf and some guard rails. I will give the quantities. They are as follows:
73 M ft B.M. 4" plank	at	$30..	..	$2,190	0010$ M. ft. B.M. square	timber	at $33	346	50Iron and spikes	
375	00Labour	
1,450	00Contingencies	
138	50Total	$4,500 00


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the adjournment of the House.
John Warwick King: This is an important fishery harbour, and is also the commercial centre in many respects for the adjoining agricultural district. Three subsidized steamboats call at this port, and as the nearest railway station is 20 miles distant, most of the freight is transported by water. The village has a population of 1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Hood, repairs to wharf, $12,300.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Tell us something about this.


John Warwick King: This is a revote of $3,000, to complete work now under contract with Mr. T. B. Morrison. The work consists of cutting down to 21 feet above low water the wrecked portion of the pier, 325 feet in length, and reconstructing this part with fully ballasted native timber crib work, 20 feet in width, to height of ten feet above low water, or to the level of the covering of the adjoining portion of the pier head. Amount required $2,800.
The second item is to rebuild the pier head of the breakwater, carried away by January, 1922, storms from low water in sections 50 ft. x 371 ft. and 40 ft. x 25 ft. to close pile the outer end of the wharf with creosoted timber, renew part of covering and replace ballast in several bays of


Henry Lumley Drayton: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first
item of business will be concurrence in the reports of Committee of Supply, and putting the Supply Bill through the different stages. Then, as mentioned earlier in the day, we will take up the motions of private members that appear on the Order Paper, beginning with No. 23, relating to oleomargarine, and, when that has been disposed of, we will take up the other motions in the order in which they appear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon. friend considered whether or not we shall have any choice as to how those motions are to be taken up? Is that not left entirely in the hands of private members? Are they not to be taken in their turn? I would have thought so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I spoke of it this afternoon, and asked if there was any objection, and I understood the House was unanimous. I presume anything the House may agree to will he permissible.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know. Perhaps the House did come to an agreement. I was not here at the time. If we had to come to any agreement, I would have thought that we would have agreed, at

Dominion Elections
least, to give preference to the motion for redistribution. I would have no difficulty in agreeing that my hon. friend should give preference to that motion on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned, in answer to the hon. gentleman who asked the question, that that motion would be taken up at a later time, but the Government would like to fix its own time for it. I wish also to mention to my hon. friend- and I mention it now so that hon. members will know

that on Tuesday we will go on with the estimates on naval service and continue with the militia estimates.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Monday, May 15, 1922.