1922-05-22

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1015	Volume II: Pages 1017-2033


Volume III:: Pages 2035-3039	Volume IV: Pages 3041-3619



VOLUME CLIII


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] [DOT] . 1 *'
[Stage Direction]
- -
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
[Stage Direction]
Debates
Monday, May 22, 1922

On motion of Hon. Mackenzie King the name of Mr. Bouchard was substituted for that of Mr. Stein on the Committee of Agriculture and Colonization, the Banking and Commerce Committee, and the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING presented a return showing correspondence exchanged between the Government of Italy anad the Canadian Government with reference to the International Conference at Genoa, including Order in Council appointing delegates from Canada and instructions given to such delegates by the Canadian Government.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES MALCOLM (North Bruce) moved for leave to introduce Bill, No. 108, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919. He said:
Section 57 of the Soldier Settlement Act contains the following clause:
"Prom all sales and grants of land made by the board all mines and minerals shall be and shall be deemed to be reserved-"
And so on. This clause works an unintentional hardship on men located in the province of Ontario purchasing land and tendering the same to the board as security for the loans. Take an illustration from my own district. Tracy J. Anderson, a returned soldier, desires to continue his occupation of farming in his own county. He buys a farm, and conveys it in security for a loan to the- Soldier Settlement Board. When he pays off his loan he finds that the title given him has a reservation as to mines and minerals, while the title he conveyed to the board, had no such reservation. This bill simply covers that point as follows:
Section 57 of the Soldier Settlement Act 1919, Chapter 71 of the Statutes, of 1919 is amended by adding thereto the following proviso-
"Provided, however, that the provisions of this section shatl only apply to sales or grants of ungTanted land belonging to His Majesty in the right of the Dominion, or lands heretofore granted by His Majesty in the right aforesaid, in which His majesty reserves the mines or minerals and which lands are situated in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, or in the Northwest, or, the Yukon Territory, or are lands that have been transferred to His majesty in the right of the Dominion of Canada by the Government of the province of British Columbia."
The lancls in 'Ontario which have a clear title when given to the Soldier Settlement Board as security should not come under this provision for reservation of minerals.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 107, to amend the Bankruptcy Act. He said: The Bankruptcy Act was first passed in 1919, amended in 1920, and brought into force by proclamation on the 1st of July of that year. It is based largely on the English act as revised and consolidated in 1914. Certain substantial alterations however were made in the English act to accommodate it to the different conditions existent in Canada.
The Dominion act has been in force, therefore, for less than two years. The period of its application has been one when business conditions have been adverse and insolvency more prevalent than is the case under normal conditions of trading. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that an act of this character, making substantial changes in the law governing the commercial life of the country, must result necessarily in some confusion and uncertainty in the early stages of its application. In these circumstances it is not surprising that some criticism has been forthcoming, but I venture to think that to make substantial changes in a highly technical
REVISED tolTION
[Stage Direction]
Bankruptcy Act Amdt.
statue such as the Bankruptcy Act before it has been in force for two years would necessarily tend to increase rather than diminish the difficulties. For these reasons I consider it essential that the statute be allowed to remain substantially as it is for the present, with the object to consider its complete revision at the next or subsequent session of Parliament, if it should appear necessary. The amendments I propose therefore will not disturb the scheme of the act and are calculated merely (1) to enact an amendment in one instance where the statute does not afford adequate relief to creditors seeking to prevent the dissipation of insolvent traders' assets (section 2); (2) to dispose of certain doubts that have arisen as to the meaning of certain provisions of the act (sections 3 and 6); (3) to provide for the more expeditious and satisfactory administration of the act by the court, trustees and creditors (sections 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9).
I will explain shortly the amendments proposed to be made by this Bill.
Section 2: It is proposed by these provisions to enable creditors to apply for a receiving order against any debtor who gives notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended or that he is about to suspend payment of his debts, or who ceases to meet his liabilities as they become due. It has been found that a fraudulent debtor may stand off his creditors for a sufficiently long time to enable him to dissipate his assets. It is proposed by these provisions to enable creditors to take possession where the debtor has acknowledged that he suspends payment or ceases to pay his debts as they become due. Provisions similar to these are to be found in the Dominion Insolvency Act of 1875. By this means the delay required to obtain judgment and execution before proceedings can be taken under the Bankruptcy Act will be avoided.
Section 3. This amendment is intended merely to clear up a doubt that has arisen as to the effect of section 30, which provides to avoid general assignments of book debts.
Section 4. This amendment is to provide merely that the trustee when calling the first meeting of creditors shall supply them with a list of creditors and their addresses. A good deal of criticism against the statute depends upon the fact that in some cases the trustee, selected by the debtor, is able to control the situation because the creditors have not got together in advance and decided upon a course of concerted action.

Section 5. This amendment is to require the trustee to verify the debtor's statement of affairs and make an inventory of his physical assets. Trustees frequently show a disposition to submit to the creditors the statement of affairs and inventory prepared by the debtor and accept no responsibility therefor.
Section 6. This section is intended to dispose of a doubt that exists in section 63 of the statute, which invests the provincial courts with jurisdiction. Under this section as it stands the view has been taken that federal courts are thereby established each of which has original jurisdiction in bankruptcy throughout Canada, consequently that a creditor, say in Manitoba, may apply to a court in Manitoba for a receiving order against a debtor carrying on business in Saskatchewan. By striking out the words which purport to constitute the provincial courts into federal courts the doubt which exists will be cleared away.
Section 7. This amendment is to repeal the provision of the statute which vests in one judge of each provincial court jurisdiction in bankruptcy, that judge being selected by the Minister of Justice. Inconvenience and delay have resulted from this provision and the expenses of proceedings greatly increased and it is proposed to repeal this provision with the result that all judges will have jurisdiction in bankruptcy as in any other matter, civil or criminal. At the same time, it might be desirable that the Chief Justice of each province assign especially, but not exclusively, to one or more judges of the said court, the administration of the Bankruptcy Act.
Section 8. Is simply to require registrars and other officers of the courts to account to the provincial authorities for fees collected by them under the Bankruptcy Act.
Section 9. Is to impose a penalty upon trustees for failure, without reasonable excuse, to observe and comply with the provisions of the act. It has been found in some cases that trustees have neglected to observe the provisions of the act, and section 96 is inadequate as it stands to compel such compliance since the penalties thereunder may be imposed only in case of fraud of the trustee. It is proposed to extend this penalty provision to cases where the trustee fails to comply with the act without reasonable excuse.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

[Stage Direction]
On the question being called:
1.	Has the Legislature of the Province of Saskatchewan, or any person representing said Legislature, made representation, verbally or in writing, to the late Dominion Government, that could be properly construed as an effort to prevent the importation of alcoholic liquor into the Province of Saskatchewan for purpose of export to other Canadian Provinces?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such representation?
Mr. MILLAR:: Before this question is answered I would like to explain that a slight error has crept into it, probably a printer's error. This makes quite a material difference in the question, and I would therefore like to ask that it stand over until I have had a chance to correct it.
Question stands.


MR. W. P. O'CONNOR, K.C.
Mr. GORDON:: 1.	What sum was paid to W. F. O'Connor, K.C., for his services during the years 1919, 1920, and 1921?
2.	Was any deduction made by the late Government, from Mr. O'Connor's retainer, while he was engaged in election operations in West Peterborough, in January and February, 1921?
3.	If so, what were the amounts by which Mr. O'Connor's retaining fee was reduced?
4.	Does he still claim an amount unpaid for his services?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Justice-
1.	In 1919-20, $1814.49; 1920-21, nil; 1921-22, $8,000.
2 and 3. Mr. O'Connor's employment having terminated before the mentioned dates no deduction was necessary.
4. Mr. O'Connor has intimated that he will apply for a more equitable valuation of his services in connection with revision of the statutes.
Department of Trade and Commerce-
1.	Fiscal year 1919-20, August 12 to March 31, $5,096.72; Fiscal year 1920,-21, April 1 to June 30, $1,999.98; total, $7,096.70.
2.	Mr. O'Connor resigned June 30, 1920.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	No information.
Department of Secretary of State-
1.	1919 and 1920, nil; 1921, $1,500.
2.	No information.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No information.
GRAND TRUNK; GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC FINANCES


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Lanark):: 1.	What is the total amount of the advances made by the Government to the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada since January 1, 1919?
2.	What amount of capital expenditure has been made by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada for each of the years 1919, 1920 and 1921?
3.	What amount has been advanced by the Government to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company since January 1st, 1919?
4.	What amount since January 1, 1919, has the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company paid as interest upon securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada?
5.	Has the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada paid any sums since January 1, 1919, in respect of its guarantees upon Grand Trunk Pacific securities?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.
-	1919	1920	1921	1922Under 1920-21 appropriation- Cash advances	$ cts. 20,192,275 28 25,000,000 00	$ cts. 4,807,724 72	$ cts.Government guarantees	Under 1921-22 appropriation- Cash advances	31,844,735 09 25,000,000 00 16,857,419 33	7,449,763 28Government guarantees	Settlement of liabilities to Government	
45,192,275 28	78,509,879 14	7,449,763 28
ment temporarily $593,733.33 in 1918, and $554,800.00 in 1919. These amounts have now been transferred into the 1921-22 appropriation and are included in the amount of $16,857,419.33.
The amounts above include $21,071,080 to meet Grand Trunk Pacific 1921 requirements (No. 5).
2.	1919, $725,442.84; 1920, $3,994,345.16; 1921, $24,765,040.21.
3.	$35,958,095.83.
4.	Nil.
130J
Questions

5.
-	1919	1920	1921	1922Series "A", "B" and Lake Superior coupons	
5% secured notes, interest	$ cts. 1,108,080 00 243,000 00	8 cts. 554,040 00 486,000 00	$ cts. 1,108,080 00 243,000 00 9,720,000 00 10,000,000 00	8 cts. 554,040 00
1,351,080 00	1,040,040 00	21,071,080 00	554,040 00


CARTIER SQUARE, OTTAWA
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	Is the shed which was erected during the late war, on Cartier Square, Ottawa, by the Militia Department, still in use?
2.	Is the Government aware that the City Council made strenuous protests against the building of this shed as its erection was a violation of the civil by-laws?
3.	When does the Government intend to have this building removed?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes,
2.	Yes, but it was necessary as a war measure.
3.	This building is now being vacated by the Militia Department, and, as soon as empty, will be handed over to the Department of Public Works.


MOUNTED POLICE-SQUADRONS A AND B
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	'How many officers of A squadron of the North West Mounted Police enlisted In the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the late war, and saw service in France?
2.	How many non-commissioned officers and men of the said squadron were so enlisted and saw such service?
3.	What monetary loss was sustained by the said officers, non-eommisioned officers and men, on account of the difference between their civil and military pay while on this service?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse such loss to the said officers, noncommissioned officers and men, as was done in other Government departments?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Twelve-
2.	Two hundred and nine.
3.	Officers, $3,874.86; noncommissioned officers and constables, $33,289.41; total $37,164.27.
4.	Not known.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	How many officers of B squadron of the North West Mounted Police enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces during the late war, and saw service in Siberia?
2.	How many non-commissioned officers and
men, of the said squadron, were so enlisted and saw such service-?	.
3.	What monetary -loss was sustained by the said officers, non-commissioned officers and men

on account of the difference between their civil and military pay while on this service?
4. Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse such loss to the said officers, noncommissioned officers and men, as was done in other Government departments?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Seven.
2.	Thirty-six.
3.	Officers, $3,654.98; non-commissioned officers and constables, $5,259.55; total, $8,914.53.
4.	Not known.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- RESTAURANTS AT RIVERS AND MELVILLE
Mr. SALES:: 1.	Are the railway restaurants at Rivers and Melville operated directly by the Canadian National Railways or indirectly by lease?
2.	If by lease, to whom are they leased, for what period and for what amount?
3.	Are they leased, furnished, free of taxes and with free light and fuel?
4.	What control, if any, is there to insure the public of fair prices in connection with meals at these restaurants?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Operated under lease.
2.	Leased to the Canada Railway News Company from year to year. The rent is included in general arrangement covering the operation of news service over entire system which is on a percentage basis.
3.	The lessee supplies all equipment and furnishings and pays all taxes; the restaurants being located in the premises of the railway company, the latter supply light and fuel.
4.	The railway company control prices through their local superintendents.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Do the Canadian National Railways have the contracts to carry the malls when they run parallel with the Canadian Pacific Railway?
2.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: This inquiry is
answered by the reply to Mr. McQuarrie's question, No. 3, April 10, 1922. See unrevised Hansard, page 859.

Questions


OTTAWA-PRBSCOTT HIGHWAY
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: 1.	Is any portion of the Federal grant for Highways applicable to the planting of trees on the Provincial highway from Ottawa to Prescott ?
2.	Is the Government aware that hundreds of trees planted along this highway are dead?
3.	If the Federal grant can legally be used for tree planting, will the Government insist that the contractor who supplied the trees be compelled to replace those which are dead?
Hon. Mr. .KENNEDY:
1.	Yes; where trees are considered necessary to protect the road surface from the effects of sun and storm.
2.	Oak, maple, ash or elm trees to the number of 5,070 were purchased from local farmers at 25 cents per tree, and planted, 75 feet apart, on portions of the highway, aggregating thirty-six miles, where no natural protection had been afforded. In addition, some 2,000 pine trees, the cost of which was not charged to the highway, have been set out. All tree planting has been under the supervision of a provincial forester. It is estimated that possibly 500 trees have failed to survive transplanting; it is understood that these are to be replaced at once iby the provincial Highways Department.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


MILITIA COUNCIL
Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What was the total amount expended on salaries or otherwise, in connection with the Military Council, for the year ending March 31st, 1922?
2.	Are the Minister and Deputy Minister of Militia ex-officio members of the Militia Council?
3.	If so, do they receive any additional remuneration in this connection?
4.	What do these additional salaries amount to?
5.	What officers are members of the Militia Council?
5.	Do these officers hold any other position?
7.	If so, what are their respective salaries?
8.	Are the sittings of the Militia Council fixed by regulation or statute, or are said sittings left to the discretion of the council?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1,	3 and 4. There is no expenditure in connection with the Militia Council, except in so far as the vice president is concerned. He is an officer of the permanent force seconded for duty in accordance with paragraph 4, sections 8, 9 and 10, Militia Pension Act, and is entitled as Vice President of the Militia Council to the pay fixed by pay regulations, i.e., $4,500 per annum.
2.	Yes, the minister is the President and the deputy minister is the Vice President of Militia Council.
5,	6 and 7. Military Members: The Chief of the General Staff, the Quartermaster General, the Adjutant General and the Master General of the Ordnance, are the members of Militia Council. Their salaries are as follows: Chief of the General Staff, $8,000; Quartermaster General, $7,500; Adjutant General, $7,500; Master General of the Ordnance, $7,500. The position of Master General of the Ordnance has been abolished from 1st June, 1922. These officers are receiving no extra emoluments as members of Militia Council.
8. Sittings are left to the discretion of the minister.


WAR VESSELS AURORA, PATRIOT AND PATRICIA
Mr. ARTHURS:: What was the expenditure for 1921 on the cruiser Aurora and the two destroyers Patriot and Patricia (a) for repairs, (b) for maintenance, (c) for equipment and supplies, and (d)
for pay and allowances? Hon. Mr. GRAHAM: Aurora	Patriot	Patrician$	$	$Pay and Allowances 	346,856.44	90,126.66	83,153.38Stores and Allowances .. .	361,007.09	125,868.55	113,307.88Medical Services 	3,576.63	1,336.49	507.09Martial Law. ..	299.91	-	-Recruiting Expenses ....	' 492.34	98.12	Repairs ....	70,131.84	41,810.96	48,936.53Miscellaneous Effective Services 	17,264.15	2,035.81	2,366.74Non-effective Pay 	19,888.35	6.017.43	5,956.10819,516.75	267,294.02	254,227.72


HIGH COST OF COAL
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to hold an inquiry into the high cost of coal in Canada, to the small consumer, in view of the falling prices at the mines?
2.	What action, if any, does the Government intend to take to regulate this commodity?


Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	An inquiry having been held last year into the matter of fuel by a special committee of the House, the Government does not deem it necessary to hold another inquiry at present.
2.	Any action deemed advisable will be made known in due course.
Questions


POSTAL REVENUE
Mr. HUMPHREY:: 1.	What was the gross postal revenue of the Portage la Prairie Post Office for the year ending March 31st, 1922?
2.	What was the gross postal revenue of the Prince Rupert Post Office for the year ending March 31st, 1922?
3.	What was the gross postal revenue of the Nelson Post Office for the year ending March 31st, 1922?
4.	What was the gross postal revenue of the Nanaimo Post Office for the year ending March 31st, 1922?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	$40,648.56.
2.	$34,515.22.
3.	$41,164.96.
4.	$27,070.72.


CARRIAGE OF MAILS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the total amount paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in payment of contracts for carrying the mails on parallel lines with the Canadian Government Railways?
2.	Is the Canadian Government Railway equipped for carrying said mail?
3.	Is there any reason why the Government Railways could not handle these mail contracts satisfactorily?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: 1. The question is so indefinitely worded that figures cannot be given.
2 and 3. See reply to Mr. McQuarrie's question No. 3, April 10, 1922. Unrevised Hansard, page 859.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-DINING CAR SERVICE
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is the cost of the dining car service on the Government Railways kept separately?
2.	If so, was there a deficit in 1921, and how much?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes; $176,394.22.


ROAD PROJECTS IN ONTARIO
Mr. WILSON:: 1.	What road projects have been submitted to the Department of Railways and Canals by the Ontario Department of Public Works?
2.	What road projects have been approved by the Department of Railways and Canals?
3.	What amounts of money have been paid to the Ontario Department of Public Works upon the approved road projects and the amount paid on each project?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: 1. Project No. 1, York county-Whitby; subsection Al, Pickering township.
Project No. 2, Whitby-Belleville.
Project No. 3, Belleville-Kingston.

Project No. 4, Kingston-Brockville.
Project No. 5, BroCkville-Prescott.
Project No. 6, Ottawa-Prescott.
Project No. 7, Hamilton-Stoney Creek.
Project No. 8, Stoney Creek-Queenston.
Project No. 9, Hamilton-Brantford.
Project No. 10, Brantford-Woodstock.
Project No. 11, Woodstock-Ingersoll.
Project No. 12, Ingersoll-London.
Project No. 13, St. Thomas-Windsor; section S, Aldborough township, section C, Sandwich W. and So. townships, subsection Dl, Sandwich So. township.
Project No. 14, London-St. Thomas.
Project No. 15, Lambeth-Maidstone; subsection Kl, Chatham township, subsection Al, Westminster township, subsection Ml, Raleigh township.
Project No. 16, St. Thomas-Niagara Falls; subsection Ul, North Cayuga township, section V, Canboro township, subsection Y1 and section Z, Crowland and Wain-fleet, subsections BB1-CC, Thorold and Stamford townships.
Project No. 17, Jarvis-Hamilton.
Project No. 18, Clappison's Corners-Chatsworth; subsection LI, Guelph township, subsection No. 1, Puslinch township, subsection No. 2, Puslinch township, subsection Ql, East and West Flamboro township.
Project No. 20, Elginfield-Sarnia; subsection Bl, Sarnia township.
Project No. 22, Hamilton-Kitchener, subsection Bl, West Flamboro township, subsection Dl, Beverly township, subsection FI, Dumfries township, section H, Waterloo township.
Project No. 23, London-Stratford.
Project No. 24, Stratford-Goderich; section B, Downie township, subsection Cl, Ellice township.
Project No. 25, Dundas street (Toron-to-Clappison's Corners).
Project No. 27, Toronto-Bradford.
Project No. 28, Bradford-iSevern, section B, Gwillimbury township, section E, Barrie town and Oro township, section F, Oro and Vespra townships, subsection Gl, Oro township, subsection G2, Oro township, subsection II, Orillia township, subsection 12, Orillia township.
Project No. 31, Port Hope-Peterboro; section J, North Monoghan township, section K, North Monoghan and Peterboro city.
Project No. 33, Ottawa-Point Fortune.
No. 35, St. David's-Niagara
Project
Falls.
Project
Corners.
No. 36, Hamilton-Clappison's

G. T. R. Employees
Project No. 37, Port Credit-Cooksville.
Project No. 39, Belleville-Foxboro; subsection Al, Thurlow township.
2. Project No. 1, York County-Whitby; subsection Al, Pickering township.
Project No. 2, Whitby-Belleville.
Project No. 3, Belleville-Kingston.
Project No. 4, Kingston-Brockville.
Project No. 5, Brockville-Prescott.
Project No. 6, Ottawa-Prescott.
Project No. 7, Hamilton-Stoney Creek.
Project No. 8, Stoney Creek-Queen-ston.
Project No. 9, Hamilton-Brantford.
Project No. 10, Brantford-Woodstock.
Project No. 11, Woodstock-Ingersoll.
Project No. 12, Ingersoll-London.
Project	No.	13,	St.	Thomas-Windsor;
section S, Aldborough township.
Project No. 14, London-St. Thomas.
Project No. 15, Lambeth-Maidstone; subsection Kl, Chatham township.
Project	No.	16,	St.	Thomas-Niagara
Falls; subsection Ul, N. Cayuga township, subsection V, Canboro township. .
Project No. 17, Jarvis-Hamilton.
Project	No.	18,	Clappison's Corners-
Chatsworth; subsection	LI, Guelph township, subsection Nl, Puslinch township, subsection No. 2, Puslinch township.
Project No. 20, Elginfield-Sarnia; subsection Bl, Sarnia township.
Project No. 23, London-Stratford.
Project No. 24, Stratford-Goderich; section B, Downie township, subsection Cl, Ellice township.
Project No. 25, Dundas street (Toronto-Clappison's Corners).
Project No. 27, Toronto-Bradford.
Project No. 28, Bradford-Severn; section B, Gwillimbury township, section E, Barrie town-Oro Township, section F, Oro and Vespra townships, subsection Gl, Oro township, subsection G2, Oro township, subsection II, Orillia township, subsection 12, Orillia township.
Project No. 31, Port Hope-Peterboro; section J, North Monoghan township.
Project No. 33, Ottawa-Point Fortune.
3.	Project No. 2, Whitby-
Belleville	,
Project No. 3, Belle
ville-Kingston	
Project No. 4, Kingston
-Brockville	
Project No. 5, Brockville
-Prescott	
Project No. 6, Ottawa
Prescott	
Project No. 7, Hamilton Stoney Creek. .	..
$ 183,382	65
246,660	00
257,524	43
26,149	42
421,315	31
33,169	22
Project No. 8, Stony Creek-Queenston.. .. Project No. 9, Hamilton
-Brantford	
Project No. 10, Brantford
-Woodstock	
Project No. 12, Ingersoll
-London	
Project No. 23, London-
Stratford	
Project No. 25, Toronto [DOT]-Clappison's Corners. Project No. 27, Toronto-
Bradford	
Project No. 33, Ottawa- Point Fortune	
172,963 98 5,220 76 68,500 34 21,959 70 38,030 32 1,874 94 30,540 66 45,044 04


$1,552,335 77 GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-PENSION RIGHTS AND STATUS
Mr. J. W. KING (Huron) moved:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents that have passed between the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway, the officials of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, and the Order of Railway Conductors, and all agreements signed between the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway and officials of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and the Order of Railway Conductors, regarding the strike on the Grand Trunk Railway System, of trainmen and yardmen, in 1910, and particularly the correspondence and agreements affecting the seniority rights of the men who worked during this strike.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty large order for which my hon. friend has moved. I am not sure that it is possible for the Government to get all the letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents that have passed between the officials of the Grand Trunk railway and officials of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen and the Order of Railway Conductors relating to a strike that took place in 1910.
The Government, of course, has control of some of the correspondence; how much of it is in existence at the present day it is difficult to say. I fear, if all the correspondence were brought down, it would make a prodigious load. Perhaps my hon. friend would intimate more particularly what documents he desires, and it can be ascertained whether they can be brought down or not. I think he has one or two documents more particularly in mind, and if he will intimate just what he desires, the Government will endeavour to obtain them. I doubt, however, if it will be pos-
G. T. R. Employees

sible to obtain from the Grand Trunk officials all the correspondence that is asked for in this motion, and to have that brought down, at this session of Parliament, at any rate.


John Warwick King: I would be satisfied if the Prime Minister would bring down the two agreements that are in existence between Charles M. Hays, of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the trainmen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two agreements, my hon. friend says?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government will undertake to endeavour to obtain those agreements for my hon. friend. Will that satisfy him in regard to this motion?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and any other parties, relating to the appointment and residence in the County, of the Junior County Court Judge, for the County of Nanaimo, British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and any other parties, relative to the claims of H. W. A. Page.


Mr. RAYMOND:: For a return showing the origin of all goods purchased by the Purchasing Commission, distinguishing such as are of Canadian manufacture from those of foreign origin, from the first of April, 1921, to date?


Mr. McQUARRIE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports, and other documents, exchanged between the Government of Canada or any minister thereof, and the Government of British Columbia or any minister thereof, or received from any person, relative to the advisability of transferring the control or administration of the Canadian fisheries on the Pacific coast, to the Province of British Columbia.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to the fact that an order was passed by this House for a return covering

copies of all letters, correspondence, etc., exchanged between the Minister of Labour or any member of his department and Alfred J. Andrews, in connection with the strike in Winnipeg, in the year 1919. About fifteen letters and telegrams only have been brought down, none prior to July 5, 1919, and all extending over a period from July 5, 1919, to May 26, 1920. It is simply incredible that, during that great strike and those long-drawn-out trials, only some fifteen letters and telegrams should have been exchanged. Have all the documents in the possession of the department been brought down, or have certain of these papers been destroyed? Any other alternative, I do not understand.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, there were some other telegrams and letters marked " personal " or " private," which I showed to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray), and I asked him if it would be proper and necessary for the purposes that he had in mind, to make those telegrams or letters public. He suggested to me that such as were brought down would be entirely sufficient. But I shall be indeed glad to let my hon. friend see the entire file, including those to which I have just referred, if he desires to do so.
_PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. J. T. SHAW (West Calgary) :: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to fix a date for a full discussion by this Parliament of the report of the proceedings of the last Imperial Conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I think the subject is one of sufficient importance to have it fully discussed in the House, and the Government will be pleased to arrange a time; I cannot say, at the moment, just when.


COOLIE LABOUR ON BRITISH SHIPS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, according to the
May number of the Official Journal of the Marine Engineers of Canada, I notice that British ships manned by coolie crews are engaged in coastwise port traffic on the Atlantic seaboard. In view of the discussion and the resolutions which were passed the other night in this House on the orien-

Supply-Naval Service
tal question, I should like to know if the Government will take steps to protect Canadian seamen against the unfair competition of coolie labour on board British ships engaged in coastwise trade.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: The matter has been engaging the attention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and steps are being taken to meet the views of my hon. friend.


NAVAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair:
Naval Service-To provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $1,500,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: I believe, a year ago last December, there was a balance of some $115,000 due from the New Brunswick Roller Mills in connection with the sale of the Niobe. Has that balance yet been paid?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of the Naval Service) : The situation is this. The Niobe and two submarines were sold for $135,000; $20,000 was paid and the balance remained. The Government took action against the purchasers to recover the balance due; but discovered, through the Justice Department, that there was not much to be realized, and that the best thing they could do, acting on the advice of that department was, as some say, to run to cover. As a result the department got back the Niobe, $5,000 in money, and the amount of costs. The Niobe was advertised for sale by auction recently and sold for some $41,000.


Mr. EULER:: Has the money been paid?


George Perry Graham: A cheque has been received for it.


Mr. CALDWELL:: To whom was she sold?


George Perry Graham: To an American firm, H. B. Hintner's Sons Co., I believe.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What was the original cost of the Niobe?


George Perry Graham: I cannot answer offhand; I will get that information and submit it later.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have that information available. The original cost was $1,200,000. Do I understand that the total amount received by the Government for the Niobe and two submarines was $60,000?	i


George Perry Graham: It was $66,000 odd.


Mr. CHURCH:: I contend that the fleet units should be kept up and toe increased from year to year. At all events, nothing should be done, until after the next Imperial Conference, that might tend to its disintegration. It is true that a Disarmament Conference was recently held in Washington, the object of which was to reduce arms and create a naval holiday. But it will he remembered that Mr. Harding's policy, and that of the Republican party in the last American election, was one of opposition to the League of Nations. On every platform of the United States they .voiced their opposition to the League, and although after their election public opinion forced that government to summon a new conference, the one recently held at the American capital, the American shipyards have nevertheless 'been kept busy. The conference at Washington declared a shipbuilding holiday, but so far as Canada is concerned there was no necessity for this: Canada has always enjoyed a maritime holiday. She has been content to sponge on the hard earnings of the British taxpayers, who have had to pay heavy taxes on sugar, bread, coffee, tea and all sorts of other necessities in order to maintain a navy to protect our shores. Now, while the conference at Washington recommends a curtailment in the building of capital ships of war, this does not prevent President Harding's administration from going on with the construction of a merchant marine. And after all is said and done, as I pointed out the other night, the merchant marine has always been the backbone of British maritime strength, from the days of Drake and Frobisher and Hawkins down to the present time. There is nothing in the recommendations of the Washington conference to prevent the people of the United States from launching a great shipbuilding policy and building as many merchant marine ships as they please. And they are doing so. You go down the New Haven and Hartford road, passing through all the towns from Boston to New York, and down the Atlantic seaboard, and at every seaport you will find shipbuilding plants, which were closed for some time

they were formerly war plants-but are, most of them, now busily engaged executing orders both from private individuals and from the government. The object is to supply a fleet of merchant ships that shall carry the American flag into the seven seas to secure trade for that country. They are spending millions of dol-
lars in expanding the merchant marine, in the hope that eventually, notwithstanding the sentiments or the recommendations of the conference at Washington, they may out-distance the British merchant marine fleet, to which this Empire owes so much. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a fool's paradise, so far as that conference is concerned. The world has witnessed similar conferences before. Such conferences have been held at various times in the last hundred years; they were held in Gladstone's day; and they have always failed to a greater or less extent of their purpose. We need not, therefore, be over sanguine as to the efficacy of the latest assembly at Washington. Take the Genoa conference, again. What hopes can we entertain in respect of it when we think of the secret treaty between Germany and Russia. Russia to-day has a million and a quarter men mobilized and she is in a warlike mood. The conference at Genoa has virtually failed, and the outlook in Europe is far from reassuring today. As one leading French statesman said the other day, as reported in the various newspapers, war is as imminent to-day as it was immediately prior to August, 1914. I want to emphasize as strongly as I can the inadequacy of the present vote. I think the Government should at least retain the fleet unit they now have as it has been.
At the Naval College at Halifax there are forty cadets now undergoing training. In a couple of years' time they will have graduated, and what is to become of them then? What also of the forty who have graduated now on our fleet unit? What is to become of the college itself? I should like to see that college continued and the fleet unit maintained until another Imperial Conference is held at any rate. Talk about economy! We shall pay up in millions a little later for our folly in reducing this vote. It will prove to have been no economy at all.
Now perhaps the Government will inform the committee, with whom they consulted in framing their policy. Have they consulted the British Admiralty? Have they even consulted their own experts? If so, where are the written reports? Who is responsible for the recommendation to reduce the vote from $2,500,000 to $1,500,000? I do not see how it is that this is the only department-that of defence-that is singled out for a forty per cent or fifty per cent reduction. Is this an honourable policy? Is it, indeed, a justifiable policy?

Supply-Naval Service
Are we to go back a hundred and fifty years to a Crown teolony status and (be dependent on the army and navy of the Mother Country in time of trouble? Are we going to continue to sponge on the British taxpayer? If so, it is a most humiliating position for this country, especially in viefr of what Canada did in the great war.
New Zealand and Australia have coordinated their naval policies, and to-day they have real, effective navies instead of a few fish trawlers. Following the example of those dominions, I think fit would be a good thing to ask the British Government to have Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Beatty, make a report on the naval defence of Canada so that it may be available for the next Imperial Conference.
I	am very much disappointed with the policy of the Government because had they continued the policy of building up a fleet unit we would obtain some tangible results. It has been said that, as an Empire, we came into being by the sea, and that we cannot exist without the sea. The sea is His, and He made fit. Great Britain, as we all know, is primarily a maritime nation, and I think it will be generally agreed that Canada, with her 6,000 miles of coast lines on the Atlantic and Pacific, should also be, and is to a great extent, a maritime nation. She leads in rowing, canoeing, yachting, fishing and lumbering, but what opportunities do the Government propose to give our young men who excel in aquatic sports and would brake good sailors, to develop themselves as mariners so that in peace or war the country could rely on them, to man its merchant marine and its navy and fleet units? The only opportunities are in the shape of a couple of weeks' drill in fire halls or armouries each year! I disagree absolutely with this policy, for it cannot possibly be of any use to us. I venture to say that those landlubber, three-weeks-trained young men, on their first ocean trip, would prove toy sailors, and get seasick, and many in that time would be unable to even swim a .stroke. They would be quite unsuitable to man the magnificent fleet of our First Lord of the Admiralty.
Last week the hon. member for Assini-jboia (Mr. Gould) said the next war would be fought in the heavens above. I do not agree with him; I thfink the next war will be fought in the earth beneath. But apparently Canada's First Lord of the Admiralty is under the impression that the .next war will be fought among the fishes in the waters under the earth. This magnificent toy fleet of his, which is to be maintained at a cost of 17 cents per capita, will be a myth, so far as any effective defence for our shores goes: it may, however, keep a few fish in order.
The Prime Minister said that his Government was prepared to continue the naval policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier of 1910. In that year the Liberal party moved the following amendment in the House of Commons to the naval resolution proposed by the Borden Government:
This House regrets to learn the intention of the Government to indefinitely postpone the carrying out by Canada of a permanent naval policy.
It is the opinion of this House that measures should he taken at the present session to give effect actively and speedily to the permanent naval policy embodied in the Naval Service Act of 1910 passed pursuant to the resolution unanimously approved by this House in March 1909.
This House is further of the opinion that to increase the power and mobility of the Imperial navy by the addition by Canada under the above act of two fleet units, to be stationed on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, respectively, rather than by a contribution of money or ships, is the policy best calculated to afford relief to the United Kingdom in respect to the burden of Imperial naval defence, and in the words of the Admiralty memorandum, to restore greater freedom to the movements of the British squadrons in every sea and directly promote the security of the Do-minions; and that the Government of Canada should take such steps as shall lead to the accomplishment of this purpose as speedily as possible.
That could be done under the act of 1910. I am informed that it is the intention to construct three battleships under his bill. If hon. gentlemen or the government of the day wanted four or five, they could build them wherever they pleased under the act of 1910.
Further on he says:
No disunion; the Admiralty and House of Commons all one in defence of the Empire; that is the position in which we should be today.
Again he says:
Under the Laurier Act of 1910 provision was made for the training of men on board training ships, and in naval schools and colleges, so that the ships, as soon as constructed, would be prepared to go to sea and fill their place in the naval defence of Canada and the Empire as the case might be.
That was the policy of the Liberal party. In conclusion he states the principles of . the Liberal party in the .matter of naval defence as follows:
It stands for the defence of the Empire, from Australia to the Pole. Not on the North sea alone, hut on every sea where the British flag floats in time of danger.
iSecondly, we stand for as many battleships of the most modern type as are required; at any rate to the limit of our resources.
Supply-Naval Service

Thirdly, we stand for a permanent Canadian navy to guard our coast and trade routes and commerce with Great Britain, and all other nations at peace with the Empire.
Fourthly, we stand for the construction of a navy and shipyards, using for that purpose the product of Canadian industry and building it by the industry of our people.
Fifthly, we stand for the training of our own seamen in naval schools and colleges, and on board training ships, so that when our ships go out to sea they will represent Canadian blood and bone and flesh, and sentiment.
Sixthly, we stand for placing our ships at the disposal of the King in case of emergency, or at any tijne, at the expense of Canada, and not at the expense of the British taxpayer.
The leader of the Liberal party in the Senate argued in favour of contribution; and if ever there was a time when we should make a contribution, it is here and now. Canada owes it to the Mother Country and its magnificent fleet-that the awful horrors of war were not visited upon our own soil and that the war did not cost us many millions more than it did. Sir George Ross says further:
Our hearts, hopes and money to go with the ships wherever they are called to fight for the integrity of the Empire.
Seventhly, we stand for co-operation with His Majesty's dominions beyond the sea in forming one solid phalanx if need be, with all the powers they represent, in the defence of Britain for the peace of the world.
Eighthly, we stand for unity and defence if the emergency arises, and we do not propose to question the wisdom of the Admiralty as to how or where that emergency has arisen, or with whom or why we are called upon to fight for the Empire. If you can get any better foundation, I will go with you, and I will stand on a stronger platform than any own if you build me one. We want to be in the strongest position and we want to do that in perfect independence.
Where does the Liberal party stand to-' day? By their seventeen-eent-a4iead policy they have discarded the eight planks laid down by Sir George Ross which I have just read.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I may say that the people of Canada are disappointed and humiliated by the attitude of the Government of the day. It has been stated that we are a nation; but notwithstanding the great part taken by Canada in the war, notwithstanding the status which we are supposed to have attained, in the matter of naval policy we are going back to the state of affairs which existed one hundred and fifty years ago-Canada-a so-called nation-is to continue to sponge on the British taxpayer and, through the action of the Government in this matter, is reverting to the position of a Crown colony.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) :: Mr. Chairman, I do not flatter myself that anything I can say will change the policy of the Government. At the same time, I think it is my duty to voice a protest against the reduction that has been made in the naval estimates. There can be no doubt whatever that the amount put in last year was the absolute minimum to be 4 p.m. of any service whatever, to be of *any value in keeping a naval organization of some small degree of efficiency. The Government have thought it wise to reduce the appropriation to the point where practically no reasonable result can be obtained. Now, sir, if' they were wiping out the naval appropriation altogether, there might at least be some ground of economy upon which they could argue; but what they have done is to make an appropriation for an expenditure of a million and a half which can produce no result whatever. Two or three trawlers out on the Pacific and two or three trawlers on the Atlantic, with a torpedo boat, is to be the naval establishment of this country for the next year. I do not believe, Sir, that this meets with the approval of the people of Canada. I know how anxious the people of this country are for economy; I am as keen as any member of the House to reduce the expenditure; but I think that at a time like this there should be some appreciation of our duty in the matter of providing for the defence of Canada and of showing a desire not to continue to lean entirely upon the navy of the Mother Country.
In discussing this question the other night the right hon. leader of the Op'po-sition (Mr. Meighen) made a remark which indicated that, in his mind at least, the state of affairs existing throughout the world was not such as to justify our dispensing with the little degree of efficiency that we had in our naval service. I want to read to the committee the opinion of a man who ought to be a competent authority on that particular subject. When Right Hon. Lloyd George reached London yesterday he presented a picture of Europe which must make every man harbour a fear of the possibility of another outbreak on that continent; and if that is the case, surely it behooves us at a time like this not to wipe out the effectiveness and efficiency of the naval establishment that we have, hut, if anything, to increase it. Mr. Lloyd George, referring to the Genoa Con-

Supply-Naval Service
ference and to the Hague Conference which is to be held, said:
You must remember that a few weeks ago there were armies massing on frontiers extending over thousands of miles with every evident intention of marching against each other, and the whole centre of Europe was in a state of fear and trembling because they were expecting the march of these armies and a renewal of the terrible conflicts of the last few years. By the Genoa conference the march of these armies has been arrested, and I believe that an order will never be given for a single battalion to go forward.
Let me draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the march of these armies has been arrested for a period of eight months. That is all that any nation in Europe is committed to do; and if that was the state of affairs two months ago; if all they have been able to do by a conference of two months is to enter into an armistice or a truce for eight months, I think we must regard the situation as one of very great seriousness'-certainly one which does not justify this country in destroying what . little naval establishment we have.
I am not a militarist, Mr. Chairman, but I hope I am a self-respecting citizen of Canada who is prepared to do his part in defending his country; and I believe that is the attitude of the people of this country generally. For that reason I believe they will not be content with the appropriation which has been made, and the plans which have been outlined, for carrying on our small naval operations. It is not a question of economy, because I think I can convince the committee that more money is being expended in ways that are entirely unnecessary than has been cut off these estimates.
My hon. friends to the left, a short time ago, went down to the city of Quebec. I do not know who was the personal conductor of that expedition, but I understand the purpose of it was to convince those hon. members that an expenditure of a million and a half for improvements to Quebec harbour was a wise and necessary expenditure. Well, I was greatly interested upon their return from Quebec to hear one of these hon. members stand up and say he did not at all approve of extending the facilities there, because the existing facilities were sufficient to handle twice the amount of business that was done last year or that will be done this season. I point out there a wasteful expenditure of at least a million and a half of dollars on the harbour of Quebec. I have no objection to an expenditure of $5,000,000 on the harbour of Montreal, because I believe that additional facilities, especially for loading and unloading, are required there. I think that, perhaps, is an expenditure that can be justified and which is reasonable in its character, but why this House should spend a million and a half dollars on unnecessary work and cut a million and a half of dollars off the naval estimates is something I cannot understand and something, I think, which will not be justified by the people of this country. We must either make it plain that we are going to adopt efficient action, or else do nothing at all. It cannot be argued that this reduction has been made on the score of economy. I want to make my protest against wasteful expenditures of the kind alluded to and the cutting off of necessary expenditure such as we find here in this particular branch of the service. As my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) said a few moments ago, there has been a large amount of money spent, and a very large organization created, in this country for the development of any naval talent, or desire for naval service, that may be latent in the youths of the country. That work has been accomplished by voluntary contributions and expenditure. In many points in Canada the Navy League is developing what talent or inclination there may be for naval service among our boys, and they hope to direct that talent or inclination to the service of the country. What inducement is there for them to go on and spend money collected from private sources on a service of that kind if we are going to cut out and destroy the naval establishment we have had in the past? I submit, the Government is making a great mistake; and they will be apprised of that in an unmistakable manner by the Canadian public when the time comes. I want to join my hon. friend from North Toronto in registering a protest against the destruction of the naval service of this Dominion.


Mr. J. H. MacKELVIE (Yale) :: .I would like to ask the minister if he has fully taken into consideration the responsibility which, I think he must admit falls to some degree upon the Government with respect to the students who have taken a course in the naval college, and some of whom, perhaps, have put in two, if not three, years in that institution. These lads have selected the navy as their career; they certainly entered the institution with the idea that
Supply-Naval Service

they had a chance of securing the training that would fit them for commissions in the navy; and I cannot conceive how the Government can escape from a certain responsibility by reason of failure to realize these plans. I am acquainted with some of these young men.-one belongs to my own constituency-bright lads who would be a credit to the navy. Yet they are now deprived of the careers upon which they had entered although they have spent two or three years studying at the naval college. In view of the time so spent I do not think they are in a position to enter a university from the naval college. The training they have received would be of service in a science course in the university, but I do not think it would be of material use in classics. I therefore want to ask the Government if they have fully taken into consideration any scheme whereby justice can be done to the lads referred to.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of the Naval Service) :	The matter of the
Royal Naval College at Esquimalt was one of the difficulties of the situation, which confronted the Government, and I am going to explain it frankly to the House. My hon. friend has asked me if any care or thought has been given to the students who are in course of training at the col-' lege or have graduated from it. Some of the students who have graduated have gone to other universities. The Naval Department made arrangements previously that students from the naval college could enter the universities either of Queen's, Toronto, or McGill before completing their second year. We are now endeavouring to ascertain if arrangements can be made with the universities so that those who have attained their second year in the naval college may be given matriculation standing in those institutions. As to the school itself it is a remarkable institution, there is no question about that, but for the last two years only four students each year have gone from it to finish their training in the Royal navy. Even if there had not been any change in the system no graduate would have gone this year from the naval college to the Royal navy, so that, so far as opportunities of service to the country from that college are concerned, they have come to an end, at least for some years. At the present time we have in the Royal navy some forty young men and Canada is paying for their training which will take some years to complete.

The Government intends, under its scheme, to allow those young officers to finish their training as was anticipated. The cost of that training alone for the coming year is estimated at $73,000. As I said before, no graduate from that naval college can find entry into the Royal navy for training; we have come to a blockade in that regard. I therefore ask the committee, in all fairness, of what use is it to the young man that he should be allowed to continue his naval course when at the end of the term of three years there would be no place to which he could go?-it would not be fair to him, and would not be fair to the country.
Now let me point out what the naval college is-and as I said before it is a wonderful school of training. The young men there are being trained ostensibly for a naval career, but that career, no matter what policy is adopted by Parliament, so far as the navy is concerned does not exist for the present. The committee can readily understand that while the British navy will probably retain all the officers we have there in training and for whom we are paying, there is no great career ahead in the Royal navy when that navy at the present time is dismissing its officers day by day and cutting down its staff. There are forty-two students at the naval college; but so far as conditions are concerned we cannot compare the present with the past. It will be found as the days go by that the taxation that may be imposed on the people of Canada is all that they can stand. I want to emphasize that: The taxation that the Canadian people will have to bear is all that they can stand; and wherever the country is not getting what it believes to be value for money expended, that expenditure ought to be dispensed with. Nobody can accuse me of not being in favour of such institutions as the naval college because I am. But if we are not going to get any value for the country, and if there is no career for the young men that we are sending to the naval college, why keep up this expense merely for sentiment?
Now, let me give a little statement as to conditions in connection with the Royal Naval College. The cost of that college is $175,000 per annum the number of cadets at present at the college is 42; and the cost of training each cadet for three years is $12,000.


Mr. CRERAR:: The cost of training each
cadet?	.

Supply-Naval Service


George Perry Graham: The cost of training
each cadet for three years is $12,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is $4,000 a year?


George Perry Graham: Yes, $4,000 a year. At the present time 25 graduates are serving in the Royal Canadian navy, and a number are undergoing further training in the Royal navy. The complement of the college is 12 officers and 41 instructors and 12 civilians, a total of 65. I will not say that number of officers, instructors and civilians in various employment are not necessary, because each branch has to be taught, and a man could instruct a hundred, perhaps, as easily as he could instruct two, but in this line of instruction 65 people are employed under pay to instruct 42 young men; that is, merely to finish their education so that they can go into the second year in the university, after this training as midshipmen. And the cost to each pupil is $12,000. In the face of the fact that there is no future for the boy, either here or abroad, for some years at least, should we continue that? Perhaps you will say that it is useful in that it trains the young men in other walks of life. But surely that,is not part of the federal authority's duty. Education belongs to the provinces, and the reason for the institution of this naval college was that it might train boys for the naval service. When we consider that each graduate costs $12,000, and after the training they are only fit for a second year in a university, without any naval career ahead of them, I believe the country will agree that we ought for the time being to close down the naval college.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: What the minister has said may be taken as an argument for the discontinuance of the college, as far as new pupils are concerned, but I still think he must recognize the fact that some obligation rests upon the Government regarding these lads who are there, who have entered in good faith, on the understanding that their training was to be completed. Did I understand the minister to say that the Royal Navy now refuses to take any further graduates in the school?


George Perry Graham: No, I did not say that.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: How is it that no career is open for them in the navy?


George Perry Graham: The Royal navy does
not need officers, and is dismissing officers every day at the rate of something like 2,000 I think. What young man would care to enter on that career? As a matter
of fact, during the last two years, before that took place, only four went from the college to the Royal navy.


John Armstrong MacKelvie: I would like to have
an answer from the minister with reference to the point I raised, as to whether he concedes that the government has any responsibility in connection with those lads who are already taking the course, having in good faith entered the institution.


George Perry Graham: The boys who are just
on the first year have not lost much, as their junior training would stand them in good stead anywhere. In the second place, we are endeavouring to get various universities to accept second year boys as matriculants, without examination. The third year boys come to the universities, and are credited with the second year work.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: They may go to the
university if they are fortunate enough to have parents or friends sufficiently well, off to finance them through their university career, but, if I understand aright, a number of those boys are not so situated, and a nice question arises as to what is to be done with the boy whose father is not able to give him a university career and who-may have spent two or three years at the naval college, having gone there in good faith hoping to complete his education and enter the navy and make that his calling for a lifetime. A difficulty arises in connection, with the cadets of the naval college, but I think, perhaps, a greater difficulty will arise in connection with those who have gone through the naval college. I was (always under the impression that the British Admiralty had made an arrangement with the Government of Canada that they would accept a certain limited number of our naval college graduates each year. I do not know what the number was, but I think probably those who graduated from the college were entitled to a course in the British navy and to become fully equipped in every respect. Judging from what the minister has intimated to the committee to-day, I gather that this arrangement is still in force. There has been no intimation from the British government that' it will not continue that practice and accept from Canada or the other Dominions such men as we may prepare and send forward. Of course, if we stop the college we certainly will not have any boys to send forward. But I do not think the trouble is with the British Admiralty. I doubt
Supply-Naval Service

if they would send any information to this country that in future they will not accept all the qualified cadets we are able to send them. I think there may he a greater difficulty in the case of. the boy who has passed through the naval college and has entered upon his course of training in the Imperial fleet or, having qualified there, has taken a position in the Canadian navy What is to be done with the officers on our own Canadian ships who went into Canadian naval service on the faith of an act of Parliament, went through the whole course of training, passed through the college, through the rank of midshipman, obtained rank as officers in the various units of our Canadian navy, or are holding positions in the British navy? Are you going to demobilize these men? Are you going to turn them adrift? And if so, upon what principle are you going to act? I have a communication here from the parents of some of these boys. The parent of one lad living in Guelph, where I reside, has also communicated with me on the subject of his son. His son, I think, in the coming month is to become a lieutenant? Of what? I assume he will be cast adrift. Another one writes as follows:
We have say, 60, officers of the Royal Canadian Navy serving in our own ships and with the Imperials. Their service extends from one year to about tweilve years. Before going to sea these officers put in three to four years of study to qualify; since 1910 at the Royal Naval College.
If these officers are turned adrift now or urged to retire on the small gratuity offered, a great injustice will be done.
The midshipmen who went to sea last year will of course be the least affected. Their training is such that they can enter the 2nd year at McGill in engineering and the break will not be severe, and they can more easily adapt themselves to some other line of work. Take, however, the officer who has put in five years or more at sea after his college course ; it will take at least three years of hard work to lit him for some other work, and the officer who has served from the outset will find it will take him longer. It may well turn out that he will find it impossible to fit into something else. That will be his misfortune. All the country can do and what it ought to do is to start these officers towards any new calling they might choose.


George Perry Graham: Where is he now?


Hugh Guthrie: What happened was that the dom! A made requests for certain vessels which w ^usually in the'ir waiters, were not required by the Admiralty for further use and probably to them had not much more than a scrap value, and the view of the Cabinet was thait when a dominion made a request of that sort it should be acceded to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman is not quoting my words.


Hugh Guthrie: No, this is a quotation from the report of the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee in England.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a quotation of a sworn statement by a witness before that committee.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the statement which, I think, has given a very improper impression. The impression seems to have gone abroad that the five ships which we have in Canada have nothing more than a scrap value; that they were amongst the ships which were in Canadian waters either during or after the war; and that they were ships referred to by this witness who appeared before the committee in the British Parliament and who said that they had only a scrap value to Great Britain. That statement is not in accordance With the facts at all. As a matter of fact, the five ships which we have are thoroughly mo-

Supply-Naval Service
dern, thoroughly well equipped, up-to-date in every way, and exactly suitable for the purpose to which we are putting them.


An hon. MEMBER:: When were they built?


Hugh Guthrie: I will take the largest of them first. The Aurora is described as a light cruiser, adapted for coast, river and harbour defence. I assume that that is what we want particularly. She is an oil-burner, built in 1914, and her armament is as follows: Two six-inch guns; six four-inch guns; one four-inch anti-aircraft gun; eight torpedoes. She has a speed of 28.5 knots.


George Perry Graham: I think she has exceeded that.


Hugh Guthrie: She has at present a complement of 19 officers and 307 men, the great majority of whom are Canadians. I think I am correct in saying that 13 officers and 230 or 235 men are Canadians, but I cannot establish the correctness of those figures by the latest reports. She is a very fast ship, and the minister, I think, intimated a moment ago that she had attain 1 '< greater speed than 28.5 knots an hou .a is particularly adapted for the work . ih we require in Canada. She is an excellent training ship, an excellent coast and harbour defence ship, modern in every respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Am I not right in understanding that that ship is of the Arethusa type? And if so, is it not true that she is the only ship of that type in active commission at the present time, and that other ships of that type are at present being scrapped?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give the information to my hon. friend, but I think he has been in his department long enough to get the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is the fact.


Hugh Guthrie: The Aurora was not in Dominion waters either during or after the war, and she could not be one of the ships refrred to in the statement made by that witness before that committee. The ships in Dominion waters were the Sheerwater and the Algerine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement said "usually" not "always".


Hugh Guthrie: The Aurora never was.


Mr. DUFF:: That is right. She never was.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) says that I am right, and he probably knows.


William Duff: Right, for once.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, we agree for once. The two destroyers, the Patricia and the Patriot, are what are called sister ships. They are both oil-burners, built in 1916. Their armament is as follows: Three four-inch guns; one two pounder; five machine guns and four torpedoes. They have a speed of 35 knots an hour, and each of them a complement of five officers and 76 men, the majority on each ship being Canadians. Neither of these ships was ever in Canadian waters, either during or after the war. The two submarines are known as the C.H. 14, and the C.H. 15. They were built in October, 1918. They have each a complement of 3 officers and 18 men, nearly all of whom, I think, are Canadians. They are both thoroughly modern in every respect. These are the five ships which were transfered by the British navy to Canada within the last year or two, and which have been kept in commission since then by the Dominion of Canada. I am informed that the total expense in connection with the naval service, including the maintenance of these ships, is in round figures, only about $2,000,000 a year. The statement appeared this morning in one of the daily papers that $2,000000 would cover the whole outlay, although $2,500,000 was the appropriation. I have not seen the returns and I cannot verify the figures. I know, however, what the maintenance was. To-day the Government submitted answers to the following questions:
What was the expenditure for 1921 on the cruiser Aurora and the two destroyers Patriot and Patricia, (a) for repairs, (b) for maintenance, (c) for equipment and supplies, and (d) for pay and allowances?
The answer was that the total under all these heads for the Aurora was $819,516; for the Patriot, $267,294; and for the Patricia, $254,227; a grand total, bn the three ships, of $1,541,037. No question was asked in regard to the two submarines, and no answer was given in respect of them; but I would imagine that the expenditure in regard to the submarines would be much less than in regard to the other three ships.
The proposal now is to take that cruiser and practically tie her up, to disband her crew. You cannot keep a crew on a ship tied up to a dock. The alternative would

Supply-Naval Service

be to return her to Great Britain, and I think that was the intention of the Government when the estimate was first laid before the House. I assume, however, that this fine ship is to be tied up to a dock. Some kind of a crew will have to be kept on her; but whether she has a crew or not, she is- going to deteriorate very rapidly. The two destroyers, these long knife-like ships, which are not adapted for training purposes, are to be kept as training ships.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does the hon. member speak of the Niobe and the Rainbow in the same way?


Hugh Guthrie: As training ships the* Niobe and Rainbow were excellent. But they are not like the destroyers of modern times, which are in no sense of the word training ships, and which have never been used as such. They are not used except for the special purposes for which they are designed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the purpose of the government in acquiring them?


Hugh Guthrie: They were acquired as destroyers, as complementary ships to the cruisers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What were
they going to destroy?


Hugh Guthrie: A man has to be trained for work on destroyers as well as on other ships.


George Perry Graham: Then they are training ships?


Hugh Guthrie: They form part of the auxiliary craft which accompany the cruiser, and certainly you must have some trained men upon such craft. But I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to consult his own naval department. If he does so he will ascertain to what extent destroyers are used as training ships. The Aurora is splendidly adapted for the purposes of a training ship, while destroyers are ill adapted. They may be used as a makeshift, and that is evidently the object in view in this case, This good ship, however, is to be tied up at a dock and left to deteriorate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would the hon. member suggest that the cruiser should be used for training purposes and the destroyers tied up?


Hugh Guthrie: I suggest that the Government continue to keep them all in com-

mission. It is poor economy to allow these vessels to deteriorate under the circumstances, when a real benefit would accrue from maintaining them in the modest way in which they have been maintained in the past. Now what is to happen to the submarines? They are to be tied up at the docks, I suppose. Any one who inquires into the matter will discover that a submarine tied to the dock rapidly depreciates. A submarine has certain delicate gas, electric and other machinery which has to be operated occasionally to be kept in trim. If allowed to stand idle, without being occasionally submerged and tested, the machinery gets out of order, and after a very protracted period of disuse the vessel becomes absolutely useless. I have brought these matters to the attention of the committee only because I felt, since the debate in the House last Tuesday, that probably a wrong impression had gone abroad about these ships. I believe they are suitable in every way for the purposes for which they were procured.
I should like to know what was the entire cost of the naval service last year. If, as has been suggested by a morning paper in this city to-day, the whole expenditure last year was only two million dollars or thereabouts, surely my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) could manage to keep the service going for another year without any great strain upon the treasury. There are undoubtedly other avenues and other departments in which we could lop off half a million dollars in order to maintain this service. I make an appeal to the minister. I do not suppose it will have any effect, but I appeal to him that in his treatment of the men whom he is going to let out, these young men who have been trained and are now qualified and ready for lieutenancies or higher ranks, he will make sure that they are not oast adrift. I hope he will accord them very generous treatment. They have gone into the naval service with the best of intentions. The naval course is hard and exacting and they have gone through with it successfully and now that they are qualified for lieutenant's rank, are they suddenly to be told, " You can cut loose, we are done with you"? They should certainly be generously treated, and I appeal to the minister accordingly.


William Duff: I want to say a word in answer to the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I am glad, and I am sure the committee is glad, to get the

Supply-Naval Service
information from him with regard to the different ships he has mentioned. I presume he took the matter up last year when he was over in London. He had a very nice trip, having visited France and other places, at a cost to this country of $9,180, and I take it for granted that he got the information over there. Now, he is not quite right in saying that the Aurora is a modern ship. She is eight years of age, and it is a well known fact that when a cruiser or a man-of-war reaches the age of five she is considered obsolete. The member for South Wellington did not tell us what work the cruiser did during the war. Let me say that she did important work in the North sea. She steamed between 70,000 and 80,000 miles with the result that she was practically worn out at the close of the war. Any ship that steams 70,000 or 80,000 miles is not much good for anything after that; her machinery especially is no longer serviceable. It is common knowledge that when she returned to this side a very large sum of money had to be spent by the Canadian government in an attempt to repair her machinery. Last year when the people of Nova Scotia wanted to get a government boat to accompany the sailing ships in the international race, I telegraphed the Minister of Naval Affairs in the matter, and in his own telegram in reply he said that the boats, the Aurora, the two torpedo boat destroyers and the two submarines, were in dock being refitted. In other words, the whole five boats comprising the Canadian navy were in the dock at one time being repaired with their machinery in the repair shop. These are the kind of boats we accepted from Great Britain. They are absolutely no good for defensive purposes, because a cruiser or a torpedo boat destroyer which is over five years old is absolutely useless for that purpose. With reference to the Aurora, this vessel did such good work during the war that her guns are no longer fit as weapons of war. If my information is correct the Aurora took part in the battle of Jutland and also in some previous engagements off the English coast when the German cruisers came forth and attacked some of the coast towns. As a result of her activities her guns have been entirely used up, if I may put it that way; and before she could be of any further service in the way of defence she would have to have new bores fitted into her guns. What, therefore, is the use of the hon. mem-1311
ber for South Wellington telling the committee that the Aurora is a proper ship to defend the Nova Scotia or the British Columbia coast? Then he says that she is good for training purposes. The Niobe was far better than the Aurora ever was or will be, for the reason that the Niobe could take twice as many men as the Aurora can. The Aurora is not a training ship; she is a fast cruiser. Any cruiser that can steam 28 knots is no good for training purposes. The old Victory in Portsmouth harbour is a better training ship for young men than the Aurora. And yet the hon. member for South Wellington, who never smelt salt water in his life, tells us that the Aurora is a better training ship than the Niobe. It is all very well for him to read letters from men who have boys training in the colleges, but this country is not going to spend much more money in training boys who have no prospect of being able in the future to put their naval education into practise. It is bad enough to have wasted $4,000 a year, or $12,000 for the training of each cadet, as the hon. member says, and it is time for this or any other government to consider carefully all the circumstances and the possibilities before spending $12,000 in order to make a midshipman or a lieutenant who will not be engaged afterwards. The minister, I think, said that the British Navy let out 2,000 men. My information is that they turned out 20,000 officers and men in the past two or three months. So that if we did keep these boys and train them there would be no career for them, because the British government would look after their own men before Canadians. The right policy, therefore, is either to tie these vessels up, sink them, or use them for breakwaters on the New Brunswick coast. Perhaps Grand Manan would be a good place to put the Aurora, while one of the destroyers could be placed at Campobello and one at Fredericton on the St. John river, in the constituency of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). They would serve a good purpose in this connection, perhaps. But at all events the Government is doing wisely in tying them up.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I believe I represent
the views of my constituency, as I do my own, in expressing the opinion that the proposed reduction in the naval estimates is unwise and unjustifiable. Before I proceed to say what I purpose saying, I shall
Supply-Naval Service

refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I believe he stated that the expense for naval students was $12,000 a year.


William Duff: No, I said $12,000 per cadet.


Murray MacLaren: I understand the minister said it was $4,000 per cadet.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Murray MacLaren: At first blush that
seems a large amount, but those of us who have boys or girls at boarding schools or universities will not be very much impressed by the figure-


William Duff: When we send our boys to
school we pay the expense ourselves.


Murray MacLaren: And I trust we will
pay for a fair navy before many years are past. If you are sending a boy to a university or boarding school where there may be two or three thousand or two or three hundred, other pupils, you are obtaining for him the advantages in training that result from his being among a large number of fellow pupils, and the expense will run about $1,500 a year. Therefore I do not think it out of the way that the rate for a naval student is about $4,000 a year, considering the small number of about fifty cadets. Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe that throughout the country there is a feeling of war-weariness, and that the people are impressed with the magnitude of our national debt; that is natural. But we must remember that this applies to the Mother Country and to our sister dominions also as well as to other countries; the condition is not exceptional, and a certain time must elapse before matters are completely adjusted. In the meantime I submit that in view of many estimates which have already been passed and in view of what the Mother Country and the other dominions are doing in regard to their navies, there is no occasion to reduce our naval estimates by so large a sum; the economy is altogether too drastic.
I have just had placed in my hands the Ottawa Evening Journal containing a Canadian Press cable from London dated to-day, and I should like to read it to the committee. It is as follows:
Premier W. F. Massey, of New Zealand, replying to a speech made by Lord Lee, First Lord of the Admiralty, to the Colonial Institute in London on May 10 in which His Lordship regretfully referred to the shrinking of the navies of the Dominions and intimated that the result might be that the Royal Navy of Great Britain would be compelled to shoulder
[Mr Duff. 1
the entire responsibility for the protection of the commerce and liberties of the Empire, asserts that New Zealand will do her part, says a Reuter despatch from Wellington. Premier Massey points out that the resolution on the naval question passed at the Imperial Conference stated plainly that the matter of the naval contributions from the various Dominions was held over until after the Washington conference.
The responsibility of the British Empire has not been lessened thereby, Premier Massey says, except in so far as an understanding being reached respecting the Pacific. He takes the stand that whatever each of the Dominions contributes can be settled on at an Empire conference subject to ratification by each of the Parliaments.
Premier Massey adds: "I have stated definitely that New Zealand will give her full share and I am quite confident that our Parliament will shoulder its responsibility but while this should be done as soon as possible we must have an opportunity to readjust our finances and recover, to a certain extent, from the effects of the war, in which we played no unimportant part."
That is the attitude of New Zealand in regard to naval defence.
I submit that no one is urging upon the Government an enormous naval expenditure, but simply that such an amount be expended as will give the country something effective and tangible in the way of naval defence. Last year's estimate was what might be termed the irreducible minimum, and if the minister continues to press for this reduction it will resolve itself into a reductio ad absurdum. Undoubtedly the sentiment of the country is in favour of our doing what is reasonable and proper and self-respecting in bearing our share of the naval burden of the Empire. No one asks the Government to go beyond what, under the circumstance, should be considered the minimum.
Yesterday was observed all over the country as Empire Sunday; next Wednesday will be observed as Empire Day. It is a striking coincidence that, at this time when our people are about to engage in fittingly observing this great day, the Government should propose sueh a reduction in the naval estimates as to reduce our navy's effectiveness to futility. But that is the condition. Yesterday I happened to be in Toronto and heard an admirable sermon on the text, "If I forget Thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning." I do not know whether the learned preacher had in mind the present naval programme of the Government, but I think there would be ample reason to infer this from the aptness of his text. I submit that the naval policy of the Government is a most clumsy handling of what so vitally

Supply-Naval Service
affects the Empire. Our country has done nobly; no one can question that. Nor need we despair of our country, notwithstanding the discouraging and trying circumstances of this naval policy. May it never be truly said, Sir, of Canada, as Edmund Burke said long ago: "The age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists and calculators has succeeded."


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: I was very glad to bear the remarks of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in connection with the treatment that should be accorded to young Iboys now in the Naval College at Esquimalt. I very heartily concur in his recommendation to the minister that ample justice be done these boys. I would ask the Minister of Naval Affairs Mr. Graham) not to deal lightly with this suggestion; I hope he will take .sufficient time to understand every fact in connection with the situation and, in the end, do what is nothing tout justice to these tooys. I am not prepared to make any definite or what I would consider practical suggestion in the matter, but I do feel there must toe many cases where great injustice will be done to some of the boys at least, who entered the naval service, and now find that the career which they had hoped to follow is not further open to them.
I should like to say just a few words in connection with the naval policy which was was laid before the House a few days ago by the minister. I cannot say that I am very enthusiastic about it personally; at the same time I am not in a position to submit to the House any proposals which I think would toe more practicable. At least, I cannot put myself in a position to recommend with confidence any other proposals. I want to point out, however, that so far I have heard no hon. memtoer, unless it be the hon. memtoer for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), has recommended that there toe no expenditures for naval defence. That being the case, it means that the House has not absolutely declared against the principle of naval defence. Considerable criticism was made of the militia estimates, tout I do not recall that any hon. gentleman went so far as to say that we should have no militia expenditure in this country. I should hope that no naan would be so foolish as to make such a suggestion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: IMay I just say that I was one who was "so foolish" as to say that I was here to advocate absolute disarmament? I want to make my position clear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then I am very sorry that my hon. friend makes what, in my judgment, is such a foolish suggestion-and, of course, I do not intend by that to be personally offensive to my hon. friend. I shall take the opportunity of reading his remarks again; I thought he spoke very guardedly, indeed. Nevertheless, if he did make that suggestion I would feel myself on very strong ground in opposing it absolutely. In this country and in all countries of the world, the maintenance of law and order depends upon force, and there must be some instrument for that purpose, and it would be utterly preposterous to say that in Canada we can (safely pursue our national course without some arm of defence.
I sympathize with the Government in their endeavours to practice economy; that is quite necessary. But any campaign of public economy on which we embark must have some intelligent, and uniform basis; and there should toe no unfair discrimination as between the different public services. By a vote which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) will present to Parliament presently, he will ask for $4,000,000 on account of the mer-
5 p.m. chant marine, a service which it is not necessary for the Government of this country to Carry on. Economically it is of no value; it cannot now or ever perform a service which could not be as well performed by the world shipping, yet it involves an annual expenditure vastly greater than the amount toy which the Minister of Naval Affairs has reduced his vote for defence since his estimates were first submitted to Parliament. When we talk of practising economy in public expenditures we must do so upon some fair basis as affecting all the national services. My fear as to the policy which the minister has announced is that it is not practical enough. I am quite willing that it be given a fair trial, but I fear that at the end of the first year's experiment it will toe found to toe ineffective. I hope that experience will prove that I am wrong. However, I really rose to express the hope that in the meanwhile, for a year at least, the minister would see that proper care was taken of the Aurora and of the submarine vessels so that in the event of the commercial and economic outlook of this country 'being brighter a year from now, these ships might toe returned to the service in proper shape. I hope the minister will toe able to take due and proper care of the boats which he now proposes to put out of commission.
Supply-Naval Service


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Mr. Chairman, I express my appreciation very gladly of much that has been said by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) and of the spirit that animated all he said. He evidently has been anxious to do one thing only, and that is to get to the rights of the question. I am, of course, no authority of my own knowledge on the value of vessels for fighting or for training purposes, and in so far as that is an issue here I would like to see the committee favoured with the report of the best officers of the department, of the best experts in the service of the country, as to what the values of these vessels are that have constituted the nucleus of the naval service of this Dominion; and by that I would be very largely guided. I do not, in all respects, think the hon, member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is an informed critic on that question. Were he a public officer, possibly, with some training, one might give some weight to what he says; but he is a party man, he is a follower of the government; and I do not think, speaking from that position, in view of his lack of acquaintance with naval matters in the military sense, that his judgment is really very dependable.


William Duff: Is the right hon, gentleman any less a partisan on the other side than I am on this?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly; but I am not affecting to give personal opinions as to the value of these vessels. That is the difference between me and the hon. member.


William Duff: The hon. gentleman did,the other night.


Arthur Meighen: No, not at all.


William Duff: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. I stated when they were bought; I stated the character of them. I do not know how they are fitted for these things, save to the extent I have been advised. I think it would be fair to the committee if the committee were favoured with th'e opinion of the officers- I do not know who they would be. I have heard Commander Hose mentioned by the minister; Admiral Kingsmill is now out of the service; there may be others. Let us have their opinions. My opinion would be -judged only by what I have been advised; judged only by the information that came to me when they were purchased-that these vessels were admirably adapted for the purpose. But of personal knowledge or expert opinion I have none; I am just in the

position of one who, as the hon. member for Lunenburg says, knows very little about salt water and salt water matters. It is my recollection-and I give it only as my recollection-that this vessel is not one of those of the type which is being scrapped by the Imperial Navy. It may be that the words quoted by the Prime Minister referred to covered this vessel, but I do not think so; it is more likely, I think, they referred to a vessel of the type of one that had been under negotiation, for which subsequently the Aurora was substituted. The Aurora was understood at the time, I know,-and was so represented to us-to be modern in every way, fitted in every way for coast, harbour and river defence, and for training purposes. Let this point be remembered as well: If we are to do any training we ought to have ships fitted to do the training upon. And if the Niobe was a ship of the right class why did the government sell it?


William Duff: The Tory government did it, not this Government.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, (because we did not think she was of the right class.


William Duff: You did not know that.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend's style of reasoning may have the effect of exposing his reasoning powers to the committee even if it does not have other effect. We determined the character of our naval service on the advice of the officers of the department, and we decided1 that the Niobe was not useful at all in view of present naval conditions. Consequently we determined to sell her, and did so. They took her back and sold her again. Yet my hon. friend says the Niobe is just the ship for training purposes.


William Duff: I do not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Well, far better than the Aurora, and still they sold her for $41,000.


William Duff: I would like to know why? You ought to be able to tell me, it Was your government that did it?


Arthur Meighen: I say she was not a vessel of the requisite type. I have gone far enough to expose the hon. member's strange reasoning; it is certainly not worth pursuing further.
Now I come to the other question, as to the value of the ships for the purposes for which they are intended. Acting on the best advice we could get the late government felt they were. If the present Gov-

Supply-Naval Service
eminent has different advice let it present that advice to the committee; let it present the advice of men who are -at least in the best position to judge of the character of these vessels. In that connection, I only suggest this: We have to decide whether we are to have a naval service or not; we have to decide what our fair portion of the burden of naval defence -is and undertake that portion in a naval service; we ought to -get the -best results we can obtain for our expenditure. We are now at the point of deciding-this is what I emphasized when I spoke first, but really it seems to me it is the whole question we -have to discuss- are we not in the place where it is our duty to establish a modest but a real unit of naval service? Hon. members say we are in difficult financial circumstances. They say we have a great debt, more debt than we had before the war. Very well, that it correct; we have more debt than we had before the war. But are other nations not in the same condition? Is Britain not even more emphatically in that position than we? Is the British debt per capita not two to three times what ours is per capita, and their resources, their natural resources, per capita very much less? Are we not in a position fairly eamparable with Australia? Yes, fairly comparable with Australia, for her debt would run, I think, about three or four per capita to ours- two or three anyway-and New Zealand the same. But we find all these countries maintaining naval services on a scale far transcending ours-yes, -by hundreds of per cent. Then the question comes: Are they doing more than is essential? Is there extravagance in naval construction? Are the -Mother Country and Sister Dominions going anywhere a't all beyond the margin of safety itself? Has any hon. member discussed that point in this committee? I have not heard the point debated by any hon. member opposite. Now, does any hon. member think these countries are -doing too much? What are they -doing? They are striving to maintain a one-power standard as the aggregate naval strength of the British Empire. Now, do we say that is too much? Will even the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), will any hon. member, stand up in this House and say that in his judgment that is too high a standard for the British Empire to set for itself? I do not think any one will.
Such being the case have we a right to say, "Oh, we will do nothing; let the other fellow do it." We have a duty to perform. How would the Prime Minister feel,
sitting before the Prime Ministers of the other Dominions and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, telling about what the debt of Canada i's? When the debts of the other Dominions were shown him to be far greater than ours, and much harder for them to bear, would he not consider the argument closed on that score? If he has any further argument at his disposal to advance in answer I would like to hear it; I personally do not know what it could be. Very well, is it the part of honour, is it the part of manhood, is it just to the sense of honour of the Canadian people, is it fair and right and just to the manhood of our country, to stand up and say "Oh, we will unload ourselves for a while. We will build wharves, we will expend1 money on facilities here and there at home, and we will let you, Australia, you, New Zealand, and you, Great Britain, take care of naval defence"?
It may be all right to economize, undoubtedly it is; but as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) says:	We must
take care where we apply economy. I would suggest this maxim: That it does not do an individual or a nation great credit to apply economy at the expense of somebody else. Let us economize first at our own expense; let the Government go into any department and make a saving as we of the late government did; let the Government go into any one department and apply the knife there as we did in three departments-and we took the political penalty for our action-and in any one of eight departments they can save more than the additional amount that is necessary for the continuance of the nucleus of the navy that we have.
Of course, if we were an independent people we might stand bravely before the world and say: "We throw down our arms; we have more common sense in these enlightened days than to build instruments of destruction." That would be courage; -most people would call it insane courage, but at least it would be courage. But such is not what we are doing at all. No; we are in effect saying this: "We don't throw down the burden of defence, we just lay it on somebody else; we just expect Tommy Atkins and the Weary Titan to. carry it. We expect our Australian brother and our New Zealand brother to carry it. While we are spending 28 cents".-as we were last year-"to your $2.80 in Australia, we will reduce our 28 cents to 17 cents, and all that even though now we have reached the Stage where we realize the
Supply-Naval Service

aggregate responsibility of the Empire." I cannot understand the course of reasoning which arrives at that conclusion.
An hon. member read some reference to reductions having been effected by New Zealand; I do not know whether he included Australia or not. Is it any wonder when they look over here and see us contributing only a fraction in the matter of handling this naval burden-only a mere fraction of their burden-and they see no reason for it; is it any wonder that they feel like taking that course? They may feel that in this way they will bring the matter to a head. Perhaps it will be brought to an issue. I cannot but think, from what experience of life I have had, that by allowing the Dominion of Canada to pursue this course the Government is ultimately going to drift our nation into a shoal where it will pay a disastrous penalty for playing such a part as this. I never knew a similar course to be pursued by an individual, where that individual did not ultimately reap the bitter reward. The fire in the end came upon his own head. He finally had to pay in shame and in suffering more than he would have paid if he had pursued an honest and an upright course. In what form our penalty will come I do not know, but I cannot conceive that we can successfully play the part recommended by this Government, virtually dissolving the naval service, and relying more and more upon others to do what we know those others must do, and of which we get the advantage, the same as they-we cannot so act and not at some day take our punishment.
1 But if the Government cannot come to that conclusion, then do not make a farce of the whole service. Do not pretend to be training men for the defence of this country in naval service by putting them an hour or so a day, for two or three weeks, in an armoury, or sending them out on a fishing scow or a trawler on the Pacific for two or three weeks to get sick. Do not let it go abroad that we believe such conduct is a naval service. I could not but admire the euphony of the hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) when he expressed the fear that this would turn out to be no good, and a negligible factor at the end of the year. It will turn out to be a joke; in fact it is an obvious joke to-day. No other nation ever attempted such a thing. If this is all we can do, it is better to do nothing. Let it all go, and let us stand before the world in our true position. This policy simply adds the offense 
of waste to the offensive poltroonery and national mendicancy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. member means what he says, why does he not bring'in a motion to that effect?


Arthur Meighen: Because it is not my policy.


Mr CRERAR:: I would judge from the tenure of my right hon. friend's argument, that it is based on the assumption that Canada should do her share in Empire defence.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, precisely.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Do I gather from the remarks of the leader of the Opposition that Canada is bound and obligated to the policy of the one power standard?


Arthur Meighen: Canada's obligations are purely bounded by a sense of duty. I believe in the one power standard as a standard for the Empire. I do not believe the Empire dare in the vital interest of all of us go below it. I do not believe many in Canada take any other view, nor did I ever hear anybody in this House subscribe to any other belief, and I am prepared to take the responsibility of endorsing the one power standard, and if the hon. member feels that it is the will of the country that the British Empire go below the one power standard, in my judgment he does not know the will of the Canadian people.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend asked about the suitability of the Aurora for training. I am not going to shield myself behind my officers or anything of that kind. This matter has been discussed and the concensus of opinion is that the Aurora is not by any means the best type of ship for training. In the first place, she is so speedy and narrow that she is loaded down with machinery, and space and draught are sacrificed for speed. The Aurora is 410 feet long and 39 feet wide, a very narrow boat. Her draught is only 13J feet and she would go over the sills of one of the St. Lawrence canals. I think any person, even though not a naval officer, would say that a boat of that size, with a speed of 28 to 30 knots an hour, would not be an ideal boat for training, although training could be done on her. The Niobe, in her class, was a superior boat for training, but I am of opinion that when she was sold recently she was in such a condition that it would have taken almost as much to refit her for training work as it would

Supply-Naval Service
to buy a first or second class new boat of the same size. Now we are all striving to ascertain what is best in this situation, and it is my firm belief that what the Government proposes is superior to what the Government found to be in existence, for the benefit of Canada, and for the performance of her share in the defence of the British Empire when the programme reaches its culmination. The Government is beginning at the bottom, and not at the top. We are starting to train men to be ready for the service, instead of getting the service and then starting to look for the men. It is said that no country in the world would take this attitude. In other words, that they would not have a naval reserve force. The United States has 30,000 of these men now.


Arthur Meighen: Trained in this way?


George Perry Graham: Thirty thousand trained in the naval service.


Arthur Meighen: They are defined in our act. This then does not provide to really train a naval reserve in the sense that the United States does so?


George Perry Graham: Yes. My hon. friend asked me to give him the view of the technical officers in the United States. I am going to give it to him. I will show him our authority with regard to this scheme:
A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the policy of developing a naval reserve system. The main arguments have been that with two or three weeks training in a year you cannot make a sailor.
Such an argument confuses the function of the permanent naval officers and men with those of the volunteers.
To produce the highly skilled officers and'men who must necessarily form a large proportion of the complement of modern men-of-war ranging from the battleship to the submarine undoubtedly requires years of training.
Permanent work and study of the problems of defence against the types of vessels and weapons by which the shipping making and leaving our ports and coasts may be attacked, is also essential for a certain number of officers and men in order that the complicated organ-iation of coast and port naval defences may be put into operation in quick time when necessary.
But there are large numbers of officers and men required to carry out defence work afloat which calls for but a small amount of technical training combined with principles of discipline, knowledge of technical terms and orders, which may be acquired by men who are anxious to learn in a very short time.
The essential defence work of minesweeping, patrols, examination service etc. was very largely carried out by all countries in the last war by these "amateur sailors" organized by a nucleus of permanent men, and the story of their work and its value will be undying.
If money spent in such methods of defence were useless one can hardly conceive of Great Britain including in her naval estimates provision for the maintenance of a naval volunteer reserve of 484 officers and 5,000 men

men who are not sailors by profession-in addition to a naval reserve of merchant seamen of 2,029 officers and 9,000 men. The latest information from the United States is that they have a naval volunteer reserve of some 2,000 officers and 30,000 men.
That is just what I am describing as the naval volunteers, and I want hon. members to bear in mind that this is only part of the naval reserve scheme. These are volunteer naval reserves. There are men who need not necessarily be sailors to attend to the work I have outlined here, and surely in modern warfare the laying of mines and mine-sweeping, and all the other similar duties, form the most modern style of defence against any effective attack. In this scheme, the development of which will come later, there is the naval reserve, and this will be composed of seamen who can be given technical training, discipline, gunnery and all that kind of thing, and do not have to acquire the process of seamanship, because the men will be selected when the time comes from seamen themselves. It looks then as if, instead of running away from our duty, the Government have taken the risk of some adverse criticism in arriving at a substantial basis from which a navy of any size can emanate in years to come.
I do not know that I can say any more except in reply to the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). I was somewhat worried in regard to the boys in the naval college; but I do not think much stress need be laid on the few months' work that these boys have done at Halifax because they have been started on a career; they have done a few months' work of initial service that will stand them in good stead wherever they go. As I have pointed out already, all those who have graduated through the naval college at Esquimalt are, if they so desire it, in the Royal Navy now, paid, not by the Royal navy, but by Canada, and this Government does not propose to change that system. Therefore, every boy who has graduated up to the present time will be paid during his training overseas. The fact that the situation has been changed in Canada does not decrease that boy's chance of a career in the Royal navy; but at the present moment, no matter what navy we might have had in Canada, no difference

Supply-Naval Service
would have been made in the standing or in the opportunity of the boys who had graduated through the naval college. If any of the officers who have graduated through the naval training college wish to retire, they can retire on a gratuity scheme under the Naval Service Act; but we believe that the young men in the Canadian navy can be absorbed and used in this new scheme.
During the first year, of course, nothing much can be accomplished, and the hon. member for Halifax will probably be right, because we shall have approximately half the year gone under the old expenditure, so that there will be probably three or four hundred thousand dollars left for the reorganization and all that sort of thing.
But I am convinced, from what I have read, from the discussions which I have had with members of the naval staff, that Canada can save quite a large amount of money and yet begin a system that will not lessen our ability to protect ourselves and serve the Empire, but that will, in a few years, prove the foundation for a service that will intensify our ability for service and protection. I say quite plainly that if the cost were the same under the scheme that has existed and under the one now proposed by the Government, I would suggest to Parliament to accept the new scheme, because I believe it gives a broader and wider opportunity for doing the thing that Canada in years to come will probably have to do, and for launching on a permanent naval policy. There is to be an Imperial Conference where all these things will be discussed. I must not forestall any attitude that any member of the Government might take; but these things will be all discussed in a friendly manner, and if I were Prime Minister of Canada with the scheme outlined by the Government, I would not be ashamed to sit in with and face any of the prime ministers of the Empire and say: "This is our policy which, when developed, will give us a medium for performing our whole duty to ourselves and to the British Empire."


Mr. HUGHES:: The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) made the statement that there were eight departments of the government service where economies could be practised that would amount to more than the present Government proposes to spend and, I think, he said more than the late government spent, on the navy. At all events, he said that the economy would amount to a very large sum of money. I would ask the right hon. gentleman to name

those departments and to tell the committee and the country how those economies can be practised, how those savings can be made. In my judgment, as a member of this House and a citizen of this country, any man who has information of that character and who does not give it to Parliament and the country, is not fulfilling his whole duty. Another question which I have to ask is this. What, in the opinion of the leader of the Opposition, is our share of the one-power standard? I do not know whether he would feel like answering that question or not, but that is information which I should like to have.


Arthur Meighen: I am sure it is the
duty of the leader of the Opposition to inform members on the Government side on matters of policy, and just as far as he can to answer their hunger for information, long unsatisfied in looking around them. In the first place, the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) will, I hope, be more accurate in listening to what I say now than he was in listening to what I said before. What I said before was this, that there were departments in which more could be saved than the Government was saving to-day, more than would be necessary to keep up the necleus of the navy that was kept up. The hon. member wants to know what the departments are and how to effect this saving. Just the way we effected savings in connection with the departments which we took up. For example, in the Printing Bureau alone, not a large department, by any means, nearly $600,000 a year was saved, and that is more than the Government is trying to save this year over the expenditure of last year in the matter of naval defence. In the Post Office Department we effected a still greater saving, and in the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue, still more, by their amalgamation, not by merely nominal amalgamation, keeping all the staff. That is how the saving was effected. An organization was put into these departments to make recommendations that would enable us, through the Civil Service Commission, to effect the saving.


James Joseph Hughes: Was that done by reducing the staff?


Arthur Meighen: By reducing the staffs, almost altogether.


James Joseph Hughes: When was that done?


Arthur Meighen: That was done during the last two or three years when my hon. friend was back in Prince Edward Island.

Supply-Naval Service


Mr. ROBB:: When was the staff increased to enable the late government to make this reduction?


Arthur Meighen: Mostly during the fifteen years preceding 1911. That is when the increases came in that were unnecessary. Certain necessary increases were made during the war.


Ernest Lapointe: Thirteen thousand
were replaced by 26,000.


Arthur Meighen: The reorganization
undoubtedly effected very great savings in those departments, and similar savings can be effected in other departments of the Government. A saving can be effected in the Department of Trade and Commerce presided over by my hon. friend (Mr. Robb), in the Department of Public Works, and in the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Ernest Lapointe: Building another merchant marine.


Arthur Meighen: But I despair of this
ever being done the way the minister has started out. A considerable saving can be effected even yet in the Department of Railways and Canals, in all the large departments of the Government. That is where the Government has an opportunity of applying its reorganization efforts. We got through with three of them and we effected great reductions, indeed.


Mr. CLARK:: The question has been
asked whether or not the responsibility resting upon this country to take part in Empire defence is recognized. Personally, I thought that point was well and clearly established; that this House was unanimous upon the question whether or not we would contribute to Empire defence. But if it is not I think it should be brought out in this debate so that we might know where the members of this House stand on this question, because I do not think we can come to an intelligent conclusion on the subject unless we know where the members of the House stand. The resolution which was adopted by this House in 1909 and which was referred to before in the debate, will be found in volume 2, of Hansard of that year at page 3564. This resolution represents my view as regards the obligation of this country to take part in Imperial defence, and particularly the last two paragraphs of the resolution, which state:
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full symipalthy with the- view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will he found ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty cooperation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.
I understood the Prime Minister himself (Mr. Mackenzie King) to refer to that resolution and to intimate that he endorses the sentiment expressed therein; and if there is any section of this House which does not stand behind that resolution wc* should have an emphatic declaration from each and every hon. member. We should know where we stand on the subject. That resolution says that the House stood for a speedy recognition of the policy mentioned therein. That was in 1909, and very little has been done yet.
Now, several members have asked the question whether or not we have had the opinions of experts as to the policy of the Government this year. I have before me an opinion which is certainly concise and terse, expressed by Vice Admiral Sir Edmund Pears, K.B.E., C.B., R.N., a retired officer of the royal navy. He says:
To reduce the present very small naval force means the killing of the Canadian navy.
That is his opinion with reference to this year's estimates, and it is my own view of the subject. My feeling has been that the reduction which has been proposed recognizes the principle of doing away with the navy; it recognizes the principle of shirking the responsibility of taking any part in empire or national defence. So far as I have been able to observe, the great argument that has been urged against the maintenance of a navy and in favour of the present proposed reduction in the estimates, has been that the present taxation is all that we can stand. Well, I agree, and I think that every one else agrees, that our taxation is practically all that we can stand. But, as has been ably pointed out before, are we not in the same position as all other countries in this respect? Can it be said that to-day the people of Great Britain are suffering less from taxation than we are? Or can it be contended that our duty is any less than that of the Mother Country or any other partner in this Empire of nations? If we recognize the principle that we are a part
Supply-Naval Service

of the Empire-and the fact is so often brought to the front, that we are an integral part of it-then we must recognize our duty as a partner; and if there is a responsibility for the maintenance of a navy for Empire defence we must assume our share of that responsibility, whatever it may be. I am not expressing any opinion as to what our share should be. I do say, however, that, whatever it may be, we should play the part of men and declare without hesitation that we are prepared to do our duty to the fullest extent.
Now, are we suffering in any material sense from the contribution we have been making towards our national defence? Let us compare the positions of Australia and Canada. The comparison has already been made, but I want to place the positions of Australia and Canada before this committee in a slightly different light from that which has been shown heretofore. Australia in 1921-22 had a total expenditure of approximately $275,000,000; our expenditure for the same year was approximately $650,000,000, about two and a half times Australia's. And yet Australia was able to spend, out of that $275,000,000, the sum of $30,000,000 for national defence, while we, on the other hand, were able to find, out of our $650,000,000, a total of only some $15,000,000. The fact is that taxation has nothing to do with this question; our contribution to naval defence is only an infinitesimal part of the total expenditure of the country. There is no country in the world where the expenditure on national defence is such an infinitesimal proportion of the total expenditures as Canada's naval expenditures were last year. If we recognize our duty as a partner in the Empire we must recognize the principle that was laid down by Mr. Lloyd George recently, with reference to the weight he carries in the conferences of nations. He said:
My word in conference is as strong and efficacious as is the muscle represented by the British navy.
If it is a fact that we are a partner in the Empire, can we honestly say that we are doing the right thing in scrapping our navy or even in taking a breathing spell? It seems a rather strange thing that the Liberal party should find it possible, in view of their past attitude towards the naval situation, to repudiate, as this proposed reduction does, their declaration as stated in the resolution to which I have referred. I do not approach this subject in a partisan spirit, and I only refer to

that attitude because I believe this fleet unit which we have now represents exactly the declared policy of the government many years ago, and again affirmed by the Prime Minister last week. If that is the policy of the Government, surely It cannot be considered a waste of money to add another $500,000 so that the navy can be continued in force until we know what is the best course for Canada to adopt.
Some hon. member said: Well, you have offered no concrete proposal as to what we should do. It seems to me a very simple thing to determine upon the course that we should pursue. If we are still a part of this great Empire,-and no one wiu assert the contrary-then it seems to me that a conference of the partners should be able to solve in a comparatively short time the exact policy that it is desirable for this country to adopt. I for one am absolutely prepared to see this country take part in a conference of the components of the Empire; and, further, I am prepared *-and I think the people also are prepared 

to stand behind the policy that such a conference shall lay down. Unless we are prepared to do that, our action must amount to a repudiation of our position as a component part of the Empire.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: I have listened to the remarks of my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark) with a great deal of interest, and as one who had the opportunity of sitting in this House in the days when the resolution to which he referred was first discussed, and when his party so valiantly fought against the assertion of the principle contained in that resolution, the changed conditions prompt me to say a word or two in this debate.
The Prime Minister in the early part of this debate declared most emphatically where the Liberal party stand. We stand to-day where we stood in 1909 and 1910- for recognition of the fact that Canada will share in the naval defence of the Empire along the lines of developing our own defence on the sea in conjunction with the British navy. That is where we have stood all through these years; but in 1911 my hon. friend's former leader and associates " sold out " the whole question of the participation of Canada in the naval defence of the Empire to the men in Quebec who declared that they would never take any part in naval defence-men headed by Henri Bourassa, who put his Conservative friends in power in 1911 as the result of that union.

Supply-Naval Service
Let us see what happened after that date when the responsibilities of office were assumed by the Conservative party. At once they absolutely disregarded the resolution to which they gave unanimous assent in 1909. They proposed a contribution of $30,000,000 to the British exchequer instead of carrying out the policy of building up a Canadian navy. Is there a man in this country to-day who in view of the events of the war would undertake to say that Canada would have done wisely in making that present of $30,000,000 to Great Britain? I venture to say that no hon. gentleman who understands the position of matters would support that policy to-day.
We hear of Australia participating in naval defence. Well, what happened in her case? She scorned the idea of a contribution, and whatever share she took in naval defence was based on the principle that she should work out her own problem in her own way. Australia is essentially interested in this question, because she is an island-continent, every foot of her shores is washed by the Pacific ocean, and she is in close proximity to the nations of the East who at all times might menace her security. And New Zealand is situated in exactly the same way. That is the position of those two great dominions.
But when the responsibility of dealing with the situation came upon the Borden government in 1914, what did they do? They proceeded to tie the Niobe up at the wharf, and to scrap whatever existed in the way of naval facilities for defence as created by the Liberal government in 1911. In looking back upon the debate in this House in 1916 I find that at that time there was only one vessel in any position to defend our shores, and that was the small gunboat Canada. We in the Maritime provinces who are not dependent upon time provinces who are not dependent for our knowledge in the matter upon windy orations, know that in the days when German submarines were off our Atlantic coast we had to depend upon the cruisers and torpedo destroyers of the American navy to defend us.


Mr. HANSON:: America was not in the war from the beginning.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend who comes from an inland pointupthe St. John river probably does not know what happened to the people who live along the shores of Nova Scotia, but I repeat now the assertion, that we were dependent upon
the United States cruisers and torpedo boats for the defence of our coast from attack by German submarines.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are making a mistake; the United States did not enter the war until 1917.	'	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I made the statement then, and perhaps I may inform my hon. friend that the then leader of his party undertook to send it to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that correspondence took place, which perhaps it might be interesting to give to the House in full, as to why certain criticisms were made and certain discussions took place at that time. My hon. friend will allow me to remind him that along the shores of Nova Scotia numerous fishing boats were sunk by German submarines in 1917. Off the port of Halifax, outside of the mine sweepers which are so much despised today, the only active force upon which we depended was the cruisers and torpedo destroyers of the United States navy. That illustrates in a striking way how the leaders of my hon. friend's party discharged their responsibilities in regard to the naval defence of the country. Millions of dollars were thrown away in the construction of vessels of no value whatever in the way of defence and which were sent up and down our coast for no purpose.
That is the history of the policies of the two great parties in so far as our participation in naval defence is concerned. Last year my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) attended the Imperial Conference in London which solemnly decided that action by the dominions and the Mother Country in regard to naval defence should be postponed until another conference was held following the then proposed Disarmament Conference in Washington. The latter conference took place and resulted in an agreement for naval disarmament by all the great naval powers. Therefore the Prime Minister, realizing, as we of the Liberal party do, that with our enormous railway deficits and burdensome taxation, and with the many serious problems facing us, this is not the proper time to decide our naval policy, declared that for the time being we hold by our original policy on this question until after the next Imperial Conference, and that in the meantime we should not spend $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 on a naval service which would be neither an effective defence for Canada nor a contribution of any value to Empire defence.
Supply-Naval Service


Mr. MANION:: I understood my hon. friend to say that the United States previous to 1917 supplied torpedo boats for the protection of our shores. He knows, of course that the United States did not come into the war until April, 1917. I wanted to know if he meant that her vessels protected our shores prior to that time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: After the United States came into the war the situation was this: by arrangement with Great Britain, American torpedo boats and des-stroyers patrolled the coasts of Nova Scotia and of the Maritime provinces generally. They were the vessels which protected our coasts and our fishing vessels and acted very largely as convoys of the steamers which crossed the ocean.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Will my hon. friend inform the committee whether the sailors who manned those destroyers were trained in drill halls, as is proposed here?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for South Wellington says that men cannot be trained on torpedo boat destroyers.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend's friends did not attempt to train any of these fishermen who live down by the sea under their Volunteer Reserve Act, which was on the statute book at that time. In fact, when Hon. Rupert Guinness came from England, supposed to be looking for men to serve in the British navy, my hon. friends sent him into the agricultural counties to find men instead of into Lunenburg and other counties along the Atlantic coast where any number of men could be found who had been trained on the sea. That was the wonderful effort which was made by my hon. friend's friends to create a naval service in this country; so that if my hon. friend wants to know whether or not these men were trained in drill halls, he will have to consult some of the hon. gentlemen who were in Parliament at that time, and whom he supported; probably they will inform him.
In view of the conclusions arrived at by the Imperial Conference; in view of the arrangements in regard to disarmament made at Washington last year, why should we spend millions at this time when there is no necessity for doing so? There is full recognition of the principles, so far as we on this side are concerned, set forth in the resolution which we placed upon the record of Parliament in 1909, principles which were embalmed in the Naval Service Act and in respect to which hon. members now I" Mr. Macdonald.]
of the official Opposition sold us out for the support of the Nationalists. That is where we stand; and as matters develop and the necessity arises, this policy will be carried on. In the meantime, why should we spend any money unnecessarily?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Will the hon. member tell the committee what progress his party had made in October, 1911, when they went out of office? While New Zealand and Australia were building their navy, how much had the Liberal party, of which the hon. member was a supporter, accomplished?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, if he was in the House the other day, heard the statement made in regard to that. He will recall that after the act was passed in 1910, the Government of the day proceeded to call for tenders from all parts of the world for the construction of a certain number of vessels. But when the hon. gentlemen's friends came into office they refused to go on with these tenders; they cancelled the whole business.
Mi'. SUTHERLAND: Did not the hon. gentleman's party leave these tenders pigeon-holed during the whole summer?


Richard Burpee Hanson: WThy did you not let the contracts?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is aware that we arranged for and obtained the Niobe and the Rainbow. In dealing with questions involving millions of dollars it was wise for the government, knowing that they were going to the country, to await the result of the election. No one would have raised a more terrific row than the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) if the government of that day had undertaken to let these contracts in the face of an approaching election.


Donald Sutherland: They did not let them.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. LEWIS:: In answer to a question this afternooon the minister said there was a volunteer force in the navy of the United States and also in the navy of Great Britain. My understanding is that the United States has a regular navy and Great

Supply-Naval Service
Britain also; but what I wanted to find out is this: If we are to have this volunter naval reserve force, is it contemplated by the policy of the Government to have any kind of regular navy at all?


George Perry Graham: It depends on what my hon. friend would call a regular navy.


Arthur John Lewis: A permanent force, a
small one?


George Perry Graham: The present arrangement will provide for a destroyer and small vessels on the Pacific, and a like number of vessels of the same type on the Atlantic for training purposes.


Arthur John Lewis: Will there be a permanent force on these vessels or will they be taken care of by this volunteer force?


George Perry Graham: We would require to have on each of these vessels a permanent force. I think the permanent force required to begin with will probably amount to about 300 men, speaking from memory.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to revert to the question of the sale of the Niobe. Why was the New Brunswick Rolling Mills allowed to back out of the contract for the purchase of the Niobe?


Mr GRAHAM:: I do not want to say that the firm was insolvent. As a matter of fact, if I remember the circumstances rightly, the bank had practically all the assets of that company as security for advances made.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to quote from the discussion which took place on this matter on May 27 last year, when the estimates of the then Minister of Marine were being considered. In reply to a question from Mr. Fripp, of Ottawa, Mr. Bal-lantyne said:
We did make careful inquiries with regard to the standing of the New Brunswick Rolling Mills, and the information was that the financial standing was good.
Then, in another place, Mr. Ballantyne said:
I do not see any reason at all for letting this firm out. They knew whajt they were doing when they tendered for the Niohe and the submarines. We have $20,000 of their money, and we have the Niobe. The firm is financially good and it is the intention of the government to see that they pay for the Niobe and the submarines according to the contract price, $135,000.
If that firm were good financially they should not have been allowed to back out of this contract; if they were not. I would
feel like censuring the former Minister of Marine for awarding a contract to them at all. The former Minister of Marine further stated that he had received an offer last year from an Ottawa firm of $100,000 in cash, for the Niobe alone without the submarines. At least an offer of $88,000 was made but it was not accepted, and the tender was then increased to $100,500. Another firm offered $135,000 for the Niobe and the submarines, but could only pay $20,000 down and were willing to pay $10,000 a month, if I remember aright. Now, if this firm's financial standing was good they should have been compelled to stand by their agreement. If their financial position was not good, their tender should never have been accepted. How long is is since the Niobe and the submarines were bought in the first place.


George Perry Graham: The Niobe was bought in 1910 and the submarines in 1914. The Rolling Mills paid only $25,000; the three ships were purchased by them for $135,000. We got back only the Niobe. I may say that the government entered suit through the Minister of Justice and the company made application for release of the judgment. The Finance Department sent down a man to investigate conditions and he made a report to the Minister of Justice. On the advice of the Justice Department we got all we could, $5,000, and they paid the costs and we got the Niobe back.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister says he got $5,000. Was the $20,000 that the New Brunswick Rolling Mills put up as a deposit returned? Did the Government hold that and get $5,000 more?


Mr GRAHAM:: As I said this afternoon we got $66,000; the sum of $41,000 for the Niobe, and $20,000 from the New Brunswick Rolling Mills first. That made $61,000 and there was also the $5,000 referred to, making $66,000 received altogether.


Arthur Meighen: Did the Government ever issue an execution on the judgment taken out by the previous administration?


George Perry Graham: I think not. We were advised not to do it because there was nothing to base an execution on.


Arthur Meighen: The usual way to find out is by return of the sheriff's writ. What ground had the Government for compromising the judgment obtained for the full amount? Why did the Government not issue a writ of execution and endeavour to collect the money?
Supply-Naval Service


George Perry Graham: The situation was that the Government was trying to get all the money it could, and having received the report that it could get nothing on execution, as the bank had all the assets of the New Brunswick Rolling Mills, after full investigation the Government accepted $5,000. Then the Rolling Mills paid the costs and the Government took back the steamer.


Arthur Meighen: The bank might have all the assets assigned to it by way of security, but that would not say that the company was bankrupt by any means. Why did not the Government get out a writ of execution?


George Perry Graham: I am not posted on the legal niceties of the matter. Those proceedings would have added more costs without obtaining any results for the Government. An officer was sent down to report to the Government as to what it would likely get if it issued an execution. The report was that the Government would get nothing, if I remember rightly.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not have been a lot cheaper to have had the sheriff make a seizure than to send an officer from Ottawa? A private individual acting in this way certainly would not be acting in his own capacity. The Government did not exhaust its remedies to collect that money.


George Perry Graham: Would the position not have been this, that if we had gone on with that method of procedure we would not have got the $5,000?


Arthur Meighen: Maybe you would have got a lot more.


George Perry Graham: Not so far as the Justice Department ascertained, and it strikes me we would not have got the Niobe back.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Did they get delivery of the Niobe? The late minister told us they did not deliver the Niobe at all^that they would not give delivery till the purchasers made payment. Can the minister tell me on what date judgment was secured?


George Perry Graham: June last, I think.


Arthur Meighen: No, much later.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps it was. The deputy informs me it was last summer, he thought last June.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I know the late Minister of Marine on the 7th May last told us it was in the hands of the Justice Department, and he expected action to be

taken at once. After the judgment was secured last May or June, why was it allowed to run all summer? The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) criticised the present minister for not issuing a writ. It was in their hands until last December. I think there has been some easy work somewhere. I do not know where to lay the blame, and I am not particular where it lies.


Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. gentleman is very particular.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Indeed, I am not.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, he is very anxious to have it lie to his right, and not across the floor. When his line of thought hurts any one opposite he changes his tune right off. I have never been able to understand the geography of the hon. member. I cannot see why he does not sit with these gentlemen opposite. He would feel much more at home.


George Perry Graham: We would like to have him.


Arthur Meighen: The writ was issued some time in the summer, I cannot recall the date, nor can I recall the date when judgment was rendered. I think judgment was taken out pretty late in the fall. At all events these parties were endeavouring all the time to get some settlement, and did their best to get a settlement, but we did not make a settlement. We resisted. However, when the new Government came in they had no trouble in getting a settlement. They did not even issue execution although the judgment was in their favour. An officer of the Finance Department went down there, came back and said the company had made an assignment of its assets, and I suppose the present Government, feeling they would score on the late government more by sacrificing the Niobe, pursued their own course. The sale of the Niobe by auction was about the best method to get the least money they could get. If they had advertised for tenders, as the late government did, and if, in their opinion the offers were not high enough and they had tried again, they would have secured higher bids for this vessel. We would have sold it for a smaller sum if we had taken the first offers by tender, but we went back and got larger offers. The reason we accepted this offer was because it was the largest, and we thought that, with $20,000 down, we were safe. If we had sold to a lower tenderer, even though it was all cash, we would

Supply-Naval Service
have been criticised and told that we should have had $135,000 out of it. It was in the exercise of the government's best judgment to get the largest amount possible and we took that course. To say that the government could not get the Niobe back-well, perhaps, the minister did not know, but the Justice Department would know, that, even though the Niobe were delivered, which I understand it was not, the subject matter of the sale can always be taken in execution. I am not satisfied by any means. I would like to have the report that this financial officer read to the House so that we could see how far he went into the assets of that company. We would like to know just what his report was, to support the statement that the Government were not in the position to realize the sum they desired.


Ernest Lapointe: The leader of the
Opposition is an artist. He is trying to lay the blame on this Government for a bad transaction of the late government. That government sold that ship for an amount which seemed rather large, $135,000, and, I think, they only got $20,000 out of the transaction, and accepted promissory notes for the balance. The judgment was delivered later, on the promissory notes. Did the minister collect the notes? He allowed the company to become insolvent, and when this Government had to deal with the matter, and to close it up, it sent experts to ascertain what the conditions were, and they reported that the best way out of it was to take back the Niobe, keep the $20,000 the late government had received, to get another $5,000, and to try to make'the best of the Niobe afterwards. This Government considered the matter very very seriously and: thought that was the best way out of it. That company was far from being a friend of the present government. We thought it was the best way to get out of a bad situation created by the late government.


Arthur Meighen: How would it be for the hon. member to answer my question after he has told us what we all knew?


Ernest Lapointe: Nobody asked me a question.


Arthur Meighen: I asked the minister a question and the hon. member undertook to do the answering, but he did not answer.


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all. I undertook to place the blame where it belonged.


Edward Joseph Garland: It looks to me as though neither side was in a position to criticise the other. I think the late administration made a fair deal in a mighty bad proposition, but the present government made a mighty poor deal with a good concern. I would like to know why the loss of $8,000 or $9,000 was necessary. The present government has sold the ship for a very much reduced sum, which means a loss of $8,000 or $9,000 over the first contract price.


George Perry Graham: The first contract was made at a time when scrap was very much more valuable than at the present time. I think I am safe in saying that the scrap value of the ship would not be over 50 per cent, at the time we were compelled to dispose of it, of the value at the time of the first contract. The value is getting less all the time.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were
tenders asked for?


George Perry Graham: Oh, surely. I was
going to correct the impression I left on the mind of the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he suggested that I should advertise for tenders. We did advertise and sold to the highest bidder.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member in his first statement said it was sold by auction.


George Perry Graham: I meant to say by
tender. It was advertised and sold by tender.


Arthur Meighen: How many tenders were received and what were the amounts?


George Perry Graham: There were three tenders received as follows:
John Simon	 $ 7,000
J. Lipsitz & Co., Chelsea, Mass... 16,600
H. H. Hinteris & Sons,
Philadelphia, Pa.. ..	40,175
We sold for the latter amount, which, under the circumstance, and considering the value of the ship as scrap, I consider a good price.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Notwithstanding the sting which the right hon. leader of the Opposition manages to get into every little fling, I want to give the late Minister of Marine credit for not having accepted the first tenders that were sent in last year. He got one for $20,000, another for $80,000, and another for $88,000. He did not accept any. He called for tenders again. He got one tender for $80,000 and another for

Supply-Naval Service

$88,000. He did not accept them. I think the minister was well advised in not accepting the first tenders. It looked like a cheap price for a vessel that cost over a million. He called for tenders and the party who had tendered for $88,000 put in a tender for $100,500.


George Perry Graham: That was for the three boats, I think.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But the point I am making is that these people kept tendering higher and higher when these tenders were not accepted. A. Garson & Co., St. John, offered $110,000 and the New Brunswick Rolling Mills offered $135,000, which they did not get. If our marine vessels are going to run down in value at this rate,^ it does not look encouraging for this Parliament to vote money to provide ships for anything more than is absolutely necessary at the present time. I want^ to commend the minister for not putting into commission all the ships which he had. I think the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) spoke this afternoon in regard to how fast vessels deteriorate in value when they are not in use.


William Duff: That was the whole trouble with the Niobe.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know whether those vessels were in use all the time, but it looks like very fast deterioration in value for a vessel to come down from $1,000,000 to $41,000.


George Perry Graham: On one occasion they were bought as ships to he used in commission. In this case they were sold merely for the value that could be got out of them . as scrap. They are not being used in commission at all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was the Niobe a new vessel in 1910?


George Perry Graham: No. She was an old vessel in 1910. She was purchased by the then government for a training ship.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston) :: It strikes me that the reason why the Niobe was tied up was that she met with an accident on the shores of Nova Scotia.


George Perry Graham: I understand she was repaired after that accident, and was in commission afterwards.


Mr. BOYS:: I understand that the settlement was made on the report of an officer of either the Justice Department or the Finance Department. Surely, it would be

proper for us to have that report before this estimate is passed. Is there any reason why we should not have it?


George Perry Graham: That is a matter altogether with the Justice Department. That was a question that was handed to the Justice Department before this Government came into office, and on the advice of that department after it had all the information, we made the settlement.


William Alves Boys: That would not be a reason for withholding this information from the committee. An officer was sent down to see whether or not this judgment could be realized. The ordinary course would have been to have awaited the issue of an execution by the sheriff, and that may have been done; but I understand the settlement was made on the advice of an officer of the Justice Department. We ought to have a report from that officer, whether he was from the Justice Department or this department.


George Perry Graham: I do not see what advantage is to be gained by bringing down that report, because the matter has been settled and we have the money. I have given every detail; in fact my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) has (given more details than I have. Acting in the capacity of minister in charge, I advised the Justice Department that we were satisfied, and I thought that was the best settlement that could be made. I submit that it was a good settlement, considering the price of scrap at that time. Had the settlement been delayed for five or six weeks or two months, we would not have secured as good a price, as scrap was going down rapidly in value. The hon. member will remember that nations the world over are busy scrapping ships, and the price will soon be at rock bottom.


William Alves Boys: The settlement was made on information which the minister received from somebody, and surely it is reasonable for us to have the report before dealing with the matter.


George Perry Graham: The ship has been sold. Of course, if my hon. friend takes the ground that he would not care to decide as regards our naval policy until he finds out what that report says, he has a perfect right to take that attitude; but the Niobe was sold, and the money is in the hands of the Receiver General. The Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) is 'here, and I will ask him to send over to his department if he has that report handy, but it seems to me it has a very remote connection with the question before the committee.

Supply-Naval Service
. I


William Alves Boys: I got the information from the minister himself, and if it has no connection, I do not know why it was given. I am not seeking to criticize; I am only endeavouring to find out the reason for the minister doing what he did.


Mr. BROWN:: It seems to me generally
agreed that this matter of naval expenditure in Canada is one of the most important subjects to which we give attention; and since there seems to be a disposition in some quarters to believe that those who sit in this corner of the House are necessarily opposed to all naval and military expenditures, I should like to state briefly my views on this subject in general. First, I would wish most emphatically to dissociate myself from any policy that might follow from sentiments expiessed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). While we all look forward to the coming of the time when men's swords will be beaten into ploughshares, yet at the present time we must come down to solid facts, and just as long as we need policemen on our streets, I am afraid human nature will be such that we shall require some military and naval defence. As soon, of course, as we are able to get rid of policemen on our streets, we shall probably get rid of all military and naval expenditure. This question has concerned the people of Canada for a number of years, and I have no hesitation in saying that the views that I have held in the past have been to the effect that Canada shoulc assume her fair share of the responsibility that ought to rest upon her as one of the nations of the world.
The time was when we considered this from the standpoint of our duty to the Empire. We may not consider it from that standpoint to-day; but I should like to consider it from the standpoint of what part Canada, as one of the community of civilized nations, should bear in assuming the burdens of the world. The position in which we stand to-day is that our real status is not, perhaps, very clearly defined, and until such time comes I think we might very well adopt what might be termed a "marking-time" policy. The present is not a time certainly to enter upon any agressive military or naval policy. The present condition of affairs in regard to naval expenditures generally is such that no person knows what an up-to-date battleship is. No person, in view of the advances that have been made in aircraft and in other directions, knows just what service the most modern battleship can render or how long it will remain modern. Therefore, it seems to me that, in view of the present financial position of the country and other conditions, we might very well adopt what might be properly spoken of, although the Government has not named it such, as a "markingtime" policy.
There are, in the proposition of the Government certain things that have made some appeal to me. I do not propose to express any opinion on the technicalities of naval affairs; like many other hon. gentlemen, I know absolutely nothing about them. I accept the general proposition, however, that we have had navies in the past, and probably for some time we shall have navies; but just what navy we shall require, or what Canada's share of this world's responsibility is, we are not in a position at the present time to determine. Whatever the future may lay upon us, for my part, I would prefer that we, as a self-respecting people, should be willing to bear our fair share of what we might speak of, if we like, as the white man's burden.
One thing is the suggestion of the minister made some appeal to me, although I am not in a position to criticize the merits or demerits of one policy or another, and that was the establishment of a volunteer reserve. That is a policy that was advocated for many years by that good old newspaper, the Montreal Witness, a paper that, I think, perhaps, has done more to mould my thinking along public and economic lines than anything else in this Dominion. The suggestion was made again and again that we might pursue a naval policy that would secure the establishment of a naval reserve along the coasts of the Maritime provinces. Now, some criticisms are made in this regard that have no point at all. It is argued, for instance, that a few weeks' training given to men from the country must necessarily be entirely inadequate. Well, I agree that it would undoubtedly be inadequate if given to men from the prairies or from the constituency of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), which also happens to be the county in which I myself was born. But the matter has been very well placed before the committee by the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) ; and while I cannot agree with all that that hon. gentlemen says in the House, yet I think he did em-
Supply-Naval Service

phasize a good point, that there were thousands of men in his own constituency-


William Duff: At least ten thousand.


John Livingstone Brown: who were already initiated in the elements of sea-faring life. I readily understand that while a short term of training would be absolutely wasted upon men from the interior of the country who do not know the first thing about the elements of sea life, men who have been accustomed all their lives to the sea and are already welll instructed in the rudiments of a seaman's education, would quickly respond to a few weeks' training in the technicalities. So that while I would not undertake to pronounce an opinion as to the merits of one policy or another, or as regards the technicalities of the subject, and while I would not offer any view on the question as to whether a certain amount of good could be achieved by the expenditure of a certain amount of money, at the same time it does seem to me that this particular feature of the policy enunciated by the minister (Mr. Graham) might very well commend itself to us. And in view of all the considerations, among the most important of which is our present financial situation, in view of the fact that we are already oppressively burdened and that the men who passed through the late war have a tremendous claim upon us which we can hardly meet, this is an opportune time to pursue what I have referred to as a marking time policy, provided we are heading in the right direction; and for the present, having regard to the unsettled condition of naval matters in general, I think we might well adopt some such policy as has been recommended to us by the Government. For my part I have no hesitation in supporting the policy that has been submitted to Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: While I cannot express surprise at the conclusion of the hon. member, I must make some comment on the reasoning by which he arrives at it. He states that this is an opportune time to adopt a marking time policy. He has well described the policy he purposes supporting. The reasons he gives are these: First of all, our status within the empire is not clearly defined as yet; consequently mark time in the matter of assistance in naval defence. Secondly, we do not know how long it will be before a modern battleship is obsolete; that is to say, how long it will be of actual service; consequently mark time in naval defence. Thirdly, we have a heavy bur-

den, and therefore so long as we are marking time in the right direction he is satisfied to do very little. Now, let us examine the last first. Surely it occurred to the hon. member that we are walking in exactly the opposite direction to the one he assumes we are pursuing. We are not walking forward at all; we are going backwards. If there was anything to be complained of in what we have been doing, it has been that we have not been doing our share; our contribution has been much below our share. There were special reasons for that, none like those my hon. friend advances, but reasons of a very practical character. We did not know whether or not there would be armaments to any extent at all necessary. Now we are informed on that point, and we are going in precisely the opposite direction to what the hon. member says we ought to go. Consequently he will vote for such a policy. But he states that we are hard pressed for money, and because we are we must not undertake now to bear our fair share of the white man's burden. Well, are not the rest of the white men pretty hard pressed for money, and have they not their burdens to bear? Every thousand dollars we throw off we simply throw on to someone else.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Arthur Meighen: Is not that so? Any hon. member who denies that statement becomes sponsor for the theory that the British Empire, in undertaking to maintain an equality with every other power, has assumed more than she ought to. Unless he is prepared to back that up there is no logic in his position whatsoever. So much for the last reason. What is the first? It is this: We do not know our exact status. I have not the least doubt as to my hon. friend's sincerity in advancing that position, but let me tell him this. I think our status is just as clear as it ever was or is ever likely to be. The status of a nation within the empire, yea, the status of a nation in the world, is a matter of evolution, a matter of growth; and the more you attempt to fix it within the terms of a definition, the more harm you do the status. Our status to-day is on a solid footing; it has been established by our history, by our record, by our achievements. Men establish their status in the world in that way, and so do nations. There is no dispute about our status; no contention of ours as regards the rights of Canada is met with a negative by the British government or the British people. There

Supply-Naval Service
is no controversy whatever as regards the relations between us and the empire as a whole, and consequently we cannot advance any argument in that direction, and that excuse for marking time is gone. Indeed, it never existed.
Now, the hon. member's second reason is this: We do not know how long a battleship is going to remain modern. I admit that, and I ask the hon. member if he expects that we ever shall. Does he think that twenty years from now the most advanced type of battleship will be any more certain of remaining in the first class than any other ship? If Britain accepted the theory of my hon. friend and acted upon it, then she would cease to have any muscle at all on the sea,- and Britain's representatives in the conferences of the world might just as well be the representatives of Uraguay or of some island in the Pacific. The words of the Prime Minister of Great Britain are as true as human lips ever uttered. His voice in world's conferences and among the powers of the world counts for as much as the muscle behind it as represented in the British navy. We may deplore that fact, we may weep over it, we may lament it; but it is true, and those words would be supported, endorsed, affirmed by every prime minister, I venture to say, of any power in the world to-day. So I repeat that if Britain followed the theory suggested by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) there would be no arm of defence at all. And are we or are we not interested in the arm of defence of the Empire? If we are not, very well; let us stand out on our own feet. That is the logical manly thing to do for those who hold these premises. I do not hold them; I say we are interested; we are interested because of the traditions of this country, because of the sentiments and the feelings of the people of this country; we are interested as well because of the tremendous economic advantage it is to this country to join the rest of the empire in matters of defence, thereby lowering the burden on each. That is the plan we are following. But that plan will fail, and collapse sooner or later-probably sooner [DOT]-if other parts of the empire pursue the course which we, under the leadership of this. Government, now propose to take.
Before I conclude I wish to deal with one other point which the minister (Mr. Graham) mentioned shortly before six o'clock. I was asking that he read to the House some expert authority, preferably
in his own department, if he has it, but an expert authority within the empire, to the effect that he is actually going to get practical results by training men the way he proposes. He read some memorandum, but he did not give us the author of it. That memorandum did not go to the extent that the hon. minister seems to think. True, it did speak in favour of a volunteer naval reserve. That is all right; we have always stood for a volunteer naval reserve. I think it is section 19 of our Naval Service Act that provides for such a reserve. But I assert that no country has ever attempted to produce a volunteer naval reserve or any other kind of reserve by this process. It is the process of education and development that I complain of. I understand that something of the kind, not like the hon. minister says, but bearing a faint resemblance to it, was attempted by Newfoundland. I venture to say, however, that the United States do not produce their naval reserve by training men a few hours a day for two or three weeks in trawlers, or by putting them on trawlers to patrol pelagic waters; you cannot produce a naval reserve in that way. I am quite prepared to admit that boys, such as those described by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) will learn more readily and probably more perfectly the ways of the sea and the technique of naval training than will inland boys, but to say that they are getting anything whatever of the technique that comes from the five or seven years special concentrated training that men must have to be of any value at all on a naval ship under war conditions is, I venture to suggest, to contradict the plain dictates of commonsense. It could not be done, no matter how assiduously the minister might address himself to the task. Experience shows that it cannot be done.


George Perry Graham: I never said it could be done.


Arthur Meighen: Then when he is
through, what has he got in the event of trouble? He has good material, we will assume that the men must have the technical training to be of any value at all on active service. These men will have merely the atmosphere of naval life, but they will not have the requisite technical training. How are you going to give them that training? After all, that is what naval service is for. You could do that to a very useful extent under the modest
Supply-Naval Service

expenditure that was made before. That is to say, to the extent that you get the boys in, to that extent you make them really valuable in the event of trouble as trained naval men; but the course proposed by the minister does not get him anywhere, the only result is to get rid of the money, and I do not think it is good policy to be prepared to spend money so long as we are quite certain that in our expenditure we do not contribute anything effective to naval defence at all.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend does not mean, of course, to misconstrue what I said, but I confess that I do not see how he could misunderstand it. It was pointed out in the memorandum I read that Great Britain had thousands of what have been referred to in the course of this debate as "amateur sailors," men engaged on trawlers doing work which I described, such as mine-sweeping and mine-laying, work which is absolutely necessary. During the war these men made a name for themselves that will never be forgotten. They did not need the intensive training as sailors that the ordinary naval seaman needs; they are engaged in coast and harbour protection. The officer who gave me that memorandum described what their duties were, and he pointed out that such argument as that used by my right hon. friend now was beclouding the issue, mixing up the work of what might foe called a naval reserve force consisting of trained seamen with the work of these other men.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister permit me two questions? Will he say that Great Britain trained those men to be useful in that way by the process he advocates here, that is, by two or three weeks' training annually, partly on land and partly afloat? And will he say that those men, except in co-operation with the rest of the navy, would be of any value at all under war conditions?


George Perry Graham: They would be absolutely of value unless my technical officers are all wrong. So far as my information goes, thousands of these so-called "amateur sailors" performed the duties to which I alluded, and they were seamen only by partial training.


Arthur Meighen: Not like this training.


George Perry Graham: But my hon. friend does not know.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say it is?


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend
asked me this afternoon to give him the opinion of a technical man on that point-[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: And the minister did not get it.


George Perry Graham: -and I gave it to him. It was the opinion of the head of our Canadian Naval Service, Captain Hose.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister himself say that Britain's method of training was what the minister now proposes for these very men, or comparable to it in any way? The memorandum did not say so.


George Perry Graham: The memorandum was given by the head of the Canadian Naval Service, who received his training in the British navy. He did not get his suggestions from imagination; he must have got them from his experience and knowledge He pointed out in his memorandum that the use of these men must be recognized as Great Britain used thousands of them during the war, and I think she still has five thousand of them in service at the present time. I will read the memorandum again so the House will be seized with what he says concerning the whole scheme.


Mr. EVANS:: I feel it a duty at this time to enunciate my views as I think the question of naval defence is perhaps one of the most difficult to decide as well as one of the most important that has yet come before this Parliament.
During our childhood as a nation we have been guarded by the Great Mother and have felt safe in that guardianship. We are looking now to attaining, and indeed we have attained, to all intents and purposes, the status of nationhood. But even now we must not entertain the idea that the problems of empire are any the less for us in view of the condition of world affairs to-day. We have to take our place now as one of the grown up members of a great family of nations, and it d-.es not matter who owns the ships, or who from now on commands the naval forces, we are part of that great empire and its defence will still be conducted over the Seven Seas. Although it is our first duty to guard our own shores, and that is the share of empire defence that is assigned to us, even that is necessarily an empire duty. We shall still shelter in the guardianship and strength of the great Empire to which we belong, and I hope we shall go on belonging to it. The defence of the Empire will still have to be maintained, and it is for us now to

Supply-Naval Service
decide whether we want the status of nationhood by accepting our share of that defence on the Seven Seas.
We shelter under and share in the strength of the Empire to which we belong, and we must do our part to maintain that strength. It is a national duty, it is a duty we owe to the Empire, it is a duty we owe to civilization. It is true that Britain has agreed to considerable disarmament in response to the proposals from Washington. She has lowered, too, her two-power standard, thereby relieving herself of the boasted position of mistress of the seas. Even at that the burden is great, and she fairly claims our aid. Indeed, iSir, I am afraid that a great portion of our people, living as they do, so far from the sea, have but a small consciousness of the interests of empire to-day, and are quite willing to join in the cry of "No navy.'' If it ever comes to pass that the strength of the Em-pie is weakened in proportion to the strength of other nations, we shall be unprepared, not only in time of emergency, but even in the days of peace; and we shall he made to feel the effects of that condition in one hundred and one ways of which we can now form no conception. Particularly is this true in view of the fact that we have become a world-trading nation. If there has been one outstanding feature of the British Empire for the last hundred years, it is that her subjects have been safe in any part of the world; she has been willing to spend millions of dollars to rescue even the most insignfiicant of her subjects from any danger in which they happened to find themselves.
In a recent issue of the London Times I saw the report of a statement made by Lord Lee of Fareham, now First Lord of the Admiralty, I believe-who, by the way, is very heartily in sympathy with the Washington arrangement-in which he expressed rather forcibly the disappointment of the Mother Country in the fact that while demanding full equality of nationhood, the sister nations of the Empire have left the burden to be borne by the Mother Country at a time when she most needs help. I take it that this is an appeal, this is a challenge to Canada at this time; and what is our answer to it? There is no doubt that everyone in this House is in accord with the Washington policy of reducing armaments, but the fact remains that the Empire of which we are a part, and of which we shall remain a part, needs defence. Do we, as a nation, consider that defence a part
of our duty? We see that Australia is maintaining her navy. I believe if we were in Australia's place, and not alongside the United States of America- whom Miss Canada has come to look upon as a great big, protecting brother-we would realize our inconsistency, and take part in the defence of the Empire on a scale consistent with the size and dignity of Canada as a nation.
I believe the amount to which it is proposed to cut down this estimate is so small as to render the whole thing a waste. We should, at least, maintain a nucleus around which effective training on a larger scale may be carried on whenever we see fit. We must go on, I think, along safe lines of policy, even though something has been accomplished by the various conferences Which have been held throughout the world. We do not want to make Canada a military nation, but she has an obligation to fulfil. I believe that we might well cut some mil-lins off other estimates rather than be too scant on this one.


Donald Sutherland: This question is of such vital importance, not only to this country but to the world in general, that I would not like the item to pass without expressing my views in regard to it, particularly in view of some of the arguments advanced by supporters of the policy of the Government before the committee rose at six o'clock.
National defence is a problem with which every country has been confronted throughout all the ages, and it is one which will engage the attention of people as long as the world lasts-as long, at any rate, as human nature is what it is. Much as1 I would like to see the world reach that stage where all disputes should be settled by more conciliatory methods than have been adopted in the
9 p.m. past, I hardly think we can hope for very much in that direction at present. In spite of the terrible ordeal through which the world has just passed, we find that to-day conditions are probably more unsettled than they were prior to the outbreak of that terrible conflict which began in August, 1914. That being the case, can we afford to take chances on any policy which might not provide for our proper defence in case of another emergency arising? It is true that years might pass, and quite a number of them, without any occasion arising under which we would have to employ those methods of defence which nations considered it wise to adopt.
Supply-Naval Service

I cannot recall that during the last general election the policy of the present Government with respect to naval matters was dealt with before the electors. I cannot recall a single instance, in the province of Ontario, at least, nor have I. seen any reported, in which the Prime Minister enunciated the policy now being advocated by the Government. I would ask hon. members whether it is fair, whether it is right, that we should change the policy that we have been endeavouring to carry on, without informing the people of what we intended to do? Hon. gentlemen opposite claim to be a very democratic party, particularly during the last few years, and have been asserting that the autocratic party was the one which was in power when they were in opposition. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) before the committee rose at six o'clock, was proclaiming in a very loud voice that the policy of the Liberal Party prior to 1914 was the policy which would now continue. All the different branches of national defence are now to be merged under one head-the militia, naval service, and air force.
I was much impressed by the question which was asked by one of my hon. friends to my left this afternoon with regard to the students who were taking courses in the naval colleges, and what was to become of them when you close the naval colleges? These young men are being trained to be of service in the defence of our country should necessity arise. One hon. gentleman made a comparison of the cost of an education in ordinary civil life and the cost of educating these naval students, and asked why the country should be put to the expense of training these young met! in methods of skill in naval defence. But the comparison is not a fair one. These young lads intend to devote their lives to the service of their country; the other young men referred to are being trained for an entirely different purpose. It is quite true that in the event of trouble large numbers of civilians might volunteer for naval service. But has it not been proven conclusively that the efficiency of the Canadian forces during the late war was owing to the fact that we had trained men to take command, that we had quite a large number of officers who were thoroughly competent, by reason of the training which they had received, to lead and to train other men for service.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) spoke in rather a doubtful tone this
[Mr. Sutherland.!
afteroon as to whether the policy which the Government is now advocating was the correct one or not. I am not surprised that he should do so, if he remembers the speech which he delivered in the House just prior to the outbreak of war in 1914. I wondered whether the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) had forgotten the speeches which were delivered during the debate at that time. As late as June, 1914, taunts and sneers were being thrown across the floor of the House at the Prime Minister of that day because of the emergency which he had foreseen. These hon. gentlemen declared the emergency had passed away, that the sky was clear, that everything was lovely, and no occasion existed for making the preparations to which the Prime Minister of that day alluded. Yet the need for those preparations was well established by the information placed before Parliament at that time and the confidential information to which the then leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) was given access.
What did the Prime Minister of that day do? Did he retaliate when those jeers were indulged in; did he debate the matter with the opposition of that day, some of whom now confront me in this Chamber? No, he realized that the question was all too serious, that party politics should not be allowed to obtrude in a matter of that kind, and I am going to point out what he did in spite of the disparaging attitude of the opposition. His promptness in acting accounts for the fact that Canada was able to quickly mobilize her men and send a contingent across the seas in a credibly short time.
The then Prime Minister made absolutely no reference to the speeches which were made by the leader of the opposition and his chief lieutenants on that occasion. But he organized a committee empowered to report to him from time to time, a committee composed of the following: The Under Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Governor General's Military Secretary, the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence, the Deputy Minister of the Naval Service, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Commissioner of Customs, the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Deputy Postmaster General, the Deputy Minister of Railways; with the Director of Military operations; Major Gordon Hall, the Director of Gunnery, and Lieutenant R. M. Stevens. The work commenced in January, the necessary arrangements were practic-

Supply-Naval Service
ally completed during July. Every department of the government was instructed to follow one line of action in detail, and the whole was subsequently co-ordinated and incorporated into one scheme, indicating the course to be followed by the government as a whole upon the outbreak of war. The committee's work resulted in the preparation of a war book which was completed only a few weeks before the appalling struggle began. Such was the view of the government at this time, and the methods adopted were such as I have described- methods adopted in spite of the attitude and protests of the hon. gentlemen opposite and my hon. friends from Halifax and Pictou were among the opposition at the time. Now the officials that I have enumerated are responsible heads of branches of the public service of to-day, and they will confirm the statement which I have made as to the methods pursued at that time.
In spite of the attitude of the opposition at that time hon. gentlemen sitting opposite to-day get up and confidently again assert that there is no danger. According to them we can afford to take a naval holiday. The hon. member for Pictou stated the other day; it is time we were having a naval holiday. Well, in view of the report which appears in the press of to-night containing the statement of the Premier of New Zealand I am afraid we are inclined to take a little more of a holiday than our self-respect warrants us in doing. Why, the impossibility of anything happening in 1914 was referred to by numerous speakers' at that time. For example I have before me the speech of the hon. member for Halifax and I will quote a few paragraphs from it. Speaking on January 20, the hon. gentleman said:
There was presented to parliament last session a measure providing for an expenditure of $35,000,000 for the construction of three battleships and the presentation of them to the British Admiralty. This policy was urged upon the ground that Britain's supremacy was imperilled and that a great conflict was imminent between two great European Powers. Tokens and signs we were told were not wanting. There were pealings of thunder and flashes of lightning, premonitions of this terrible naval conflict between two great Naval Powers, and upon this ground we were urged, cajoled and threatened to support this measure of the gov-erhment, we were told it was purely an emergency policy; that the government had in mind the adoption of a permanent policy which they would shortly present to parliament. Several months have at least elapsed since then. The evidence of the emergency conditions and of the European Armageddon has vanished: Time has vindicated the position which the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House took upon that occasion.
The hon. member for Halifax to-day was a little bit doubtful of the wisdom of the policy which is now advocated by the Minister of Militia and the Government. The Prime Minister the other night in dealing with this question referred to the co-ordination of the three departments concerned and the object which was had in view, and discussed the arguments which had been advanced that it might be the part of wisdom to wait until another Imperial Conference was held before deciding upon any policy with regard to this question. In dealing with the matter he said:
"We are seeking to consolidate the great departments of defence and to bring into one department, under one minister, the naval, the military and the air forces. What is the object? Avowedly, it is for the purpose of economy; avowedly, for the purpose of retrenchment. If we are ever to have retrenchment in military and naval expenditures this is the one moment in which it is possible to bring about something of that character. The government regards that as its first duty, its first obligation. It is sensible of all its larger duties and obligations, but it feels that it will best serve the interests of the British Empire as a whole when it helps to enlist, in the matter of defence, whether on land or sea, the sympathies of all our citizens throughout the Dominion, rather than antagonize their just sentiments by experiments of different kinds which will only tend to increase taxation antd render no effective service in the long run.
He emphasized the value of sympathy.
The Prime Minister was also very emphatic in condemning the dreadnaughts which it was the policy of the government in 1914 to assist in building in order to prepare for the events which later developed. He said:
The large dreadnaughts were of little or no service and supposing that resolution had carried, what would be the situation as regards those ships to-day? They would have been in British waters throughout the whole period of the war without being of any real service at all, and to-day they would have been among the number of capital ships consigned to the scrap heap.
Let me ask hon. gentlemen opposite where the war was won? Was it not in the North sea by the Royal navy? Was it not the Royal navy which was stationed day and night in the North sea, that policed from that point the waters of the world? Did Colonel Roosevelt not publicly proclaim at Oyster bay, when the United States entered the war that the only reason why war had not been brought to the shores of the United States was that
Supply-Naval Service

the British navy had been on the alert to prevent it. He paid a tribute to the British navy for what they had done during the war, and, in the face of that, in the face of history which is there for every one to read, was a government ever more justified by events in the methods which they pursued than the government of that day? Would they have been justified in building navy yards at that time to build men-of-war to sent over, years later, after the war had begun? What use would they have been?
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) referred to what Australia and New Zealand had accomplished. Yes. They entered upon the task of carrying out the arrangement which had been reached at the Imperial Conference, but did Canada do so? The government called for tenders, it is true, in July of 1910. The tenders were opened in the department on the 1st May, 1911. The government did not go out of office until October of that year. Those tenders remained in the office of the Minister of Militia or Naval Service. Not a keel was laid, not a contract was given during the years the hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. That was the manner in which they endeavoured to carry out their part of the Imperial compacts upon that occasion, and those are evidently the methods by which they are prepared to meet any other emergency which may arise, but we cannot afford to take chances on anything of that kind happening. Our self-respect as a people and the fact that the youth of this country expect a better example from those who are older and who are administering public affairs, are things we cannot afford to lose sight of.
But is there a policy at the present time? What is the policy of this Government anyway? They are introducing items in the estimates and cutting them down. Anything in the nature of effecive national defence meets with disapproval at the hands of the Government. Why is this the case? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in a very loud voice, proclaimed the attiude of the hon. members on this side of the House during the election of 1911, where they were appealing to the people.	,


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: How many
years ago?


Donald Sutherland: In 1911. He said:
But I can remember how he and his friends in the province of Ontario went up and down the back concession. declaring that Laurier's
TMr. Sutherland.]
creation was a tin pot navy. They told the .people that he was a French-Canadian and would do nothing for the Empire; and while they were making these representations in one province, other of the right hon. gentleman's friends were going up and down the province of Quebec saving that Sir Wilfrid Eaurier and his party were too imperialistic, and were trying to force Canadians, by conscrption, upon warships in order that they might be brought into European and Japanese broils.
This is the charge that the Prime Minister of Canada throws at those of us who were in opposition to him in 1911. As far as the people in the constituencies near where I reside are concerned, I say that nc reference was made to such a matter af all. We had been told on previous occasions, by hon. members on our left, that Reciprocity was the issue in that election, and that we did not do our duty by the country when we rejected Reciprocity. The hon. Prime Minister finds it convenient to-day to sneer at the Opposition and states that they were condemning the government of that day because of their tin pot navy, and making base appeals to the passions and prejudices of the people of Ontario. For my part, I resent any such imputations being thrown at me.
The Prime Minister came into my constituency during this last election and brought with him the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), who, I believe, came there to deliver a certain message, in regard to the fairness of the people of Quebec, and how they absolutely refused to discuss any question of that kind. He . asked the people there to remind their member, the next time he referred to any such matter, of the absolute fairness of the people of the province of Quebec, and how they avoided any appeals of that kind. I wondered at fthe time what (particular message they came there to deliver, but looking over the report of their meeting I came to the conclusion that this was the message. There is not a man, woman or child in the constituency of South Oxford who has ever heard me make such an appeal in that constituency or elsewhere. The rebuke which the people of South Oxford gave the right hon. Prime Minister and one of his lieutenants was evident on the night of the election. We have however had some by-elections in Quebec recently. There was one election down in Yamaska, when the House was in session a year ago.


Ernest Lapointe: And we won.


Donald Sutherland: I will quote from a Canadian Press despatch in the Ottawa

Supply-Naval Service
Journal of May 18, 1921, some of the arguments which were being advanced on that occasion, to show that the naval question has been a real live issue in some constituencies, even if it did not reach western Ontario. Mr. Boucher was the Liberal candidate in that constituency.


Joseph Archambault: He is a member now.


Donald Sutherland: Yes, this despatch is as follows:
Mr. Boucher said there was no knowing when war would break out again, and he clung to the argument for the "solid block" in Quebec, urging that if it was necessary in 1917, it was no less necessary now.
The Farmer candidate, J. Lambert, did not appear for this meeting. Yesterday at St. Bonaventure Mr. Mondou challenged his opponents to declare themselves in tariff matters. Mr. Boucher, on the other hand, claimed that with civil war in Ireland, India on a volcano, Japan and the United States at daggers drawn, France mobilized and the British navy ready for action, war might come at any time and the Liberal party want no change in relations between Canada and England and further do not want any commitments engaging Canada to the expenditure of a cent for military or naval purposes. Mr. Boucher said there had been Liberal traitors who had left Laurier, such for Instance as Hon. W. S. Fielding, and like L. J. Gauthier, recently.
These are the arguments which have been advanced. Mr. Boucher who is a member of the House at the present time, was elected in Yamaska constituency and re-elected in the last election. I quote now from the Ottawa Evening Journal a few words in reference to a by-election in Hull in September of 1919-
Deafening applause greeted Mr. Lucien Cannon when he went to the platform to speak. Like the other speakers, Mr. Cannon practically confined his remarks to praises of Dr. J. E. Fontaine and strong condemnation of the present Government. The member for Dorchester declared that Dr. Fontaine was known for his great devotion to his constituents and his party.
Must Fight For Rights
"I have gone into the House to vindicate the rights of the French-tCanadians," stated Mr. Cannon. "I do not regret in any way the battles that I have fought and I consider that they are an incentive to greater effort. I am not here to preach revolution, but I do say that we, having come here first, are the masters in this country. We have the right to vindicate the rights our forefathers won, but if you want victory with respect then you must fight with courage and with all your heart. I regret to see that in Ontario there does not exist that bond of fellowship between the Irish and French races that is so desirable."
Further on:
He spoke at great length of the manner in which Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King had supported Sir Wilfrid Laurier during the dark times, and he was sure that all French-Cana-dians would give the new Liberal Chieftain the support they tendered to Laurier.
And they did.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did.


Donald Sutherland: They surely did. I have a quotation from the Toronto Globe during the campaign in 1911, and I might as well give the views of the present Prime Minister on that occasion. The Toronto Globe reports the Prime Minister as follows :
Hon. Mr. King read extracts from Hon. Mr. Borden's speeches in the House of Commons in which the Conservative leader referred to the danger of war with Germany, and urged the Government to go to Britain's aid with a dread-naught or a cash contribution.
"Are the people of this country going to place at the head of affairs a man who will be precipitated into such a position as this, who will take from the treasury of this country and who would have taken enough money to build two dreadnaughts and send that money to England so that they could spend it as they pleased? And against what country? He was ready to send money to build warships to fight Germany."
Actually to fight Germany. These are things that are on record and that indicate what the policy of the party which is in power to-day is. There is a solid block from the province of Quebec; they are in the saddle and they are riding hard. There :s no question of that. I know the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham), in his heart, disapproves the policy which he is advocating; he cannot do anything else. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) does not approve this policy. I question whether any but a very small percentage of the people of this country favour any such policy. You are going to destroy absolutely everything that we have that has a tendency to create efficiency in training men for national defence. You are going to spend money, it is true, but for what? For national defence? No, nothing of the kind. You are going to spend a great deal of money to keep friends of the Government employed here, there and elsewhere. That was.made quite evident by a letter that was read in this IJouse the other night from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), with regard to the dismissal of the harbourmaster at Quebec. Was ever anything more apparent than that it was the policy of the Government to remove from office those who could not be made partizan servants of the Government? There was no charge against the harbourmaster at Quebec; on the contrary,
Supply-Naval Service

he had demonstrated that he was an efficient public servant and soldier and he had created reforms there that were a credit to him. For the first time and under his administration there was a substantial surplus in connection with the management of the Quebec harbour.
There is another item in connection with national defence, because the militia, the navy and the air service are all being merged. The air service is, as some one has pointed out, being absolutely destroyed, and the Government are attempting to hire out what will be left of the force to the different provinces as fire rangers. Five million dollars worth of aeroplanes were given to the Government by the British authorities in order to maintain and keep up a small air service; but instead of doing that, the Government, if they can, are now going to hire these young men'out as fire rangers to the different provinces, if the provinces wil take them over, and in the event of the provinces not doing so, we do not know what they are going to do. Is not this a magnificent system of self defence that the Government are adopting? In one province they state that they will not countenance the spending of a dollar for militia purposes or for naval defence and they come before this House and ask us to reduce this estimate so the balance will be of no effect; will not be efficient or of national service in the event of trouble arising. The Prime Minister laughs, and he thinks that it is a light matter. Well, it may be a light matter to him, but it was not a light matter to many people in this country when the nation was in danger and they had to make sacrifices on behalf of the nation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody made sacrifices.


Donald Sutherland: Yes, everybody
made sacrifices. I know some people think they made tremendous sacrifices, they think, because they could not turn out so much stuff at high prices as they would have done, if they had only been able to get more help, that they made great sacrifices in that respect. I am speaking however of the real, actual sacrifice of those who took their part in the battle line; and to the credit of our system of national defence be it said, those who had training in military service or in the navy were not slow to respond when the call of duty came. It will be a dark day for this country, if the occasion arises for the rest of the Empire to look upon the people of Canada 
as spongers; we cannot consider ourselves anything else if we adopt such a policy as is enunciated by the present Government. If in years gone by we have refused to do anything in the way of national defence, during the war crisis the people of Canada responded nobly, made great sacrifices and fought as bravely and gallantly as it was possible for men to do. But you cannot afford to stop there; you cannot afford to permit those, who refused to recognize Canada's duty to participate in the war and to do what she did on that occasion, to control the affairs of this country under present conditions. I stand here to-night to register my protest against any such policy as that. You may say that conditions in Canada do not justify the Government in making this expenditure. The first call upon the people of any country is that of national defence; the duty of the citizen to the state is the first duty of the citizen. In the time.of Chatham, it was a maxim that the navy was the standing army of Britain. Are you going to force the old land to take care of these vigorous young colonies which have grown up to nationhood? Are they still willing to allow the old land to bear the whole burden of defence? Look at the burden which Britain is contending with to-day in the East, yes, and fighting heroically at conferences of Nations to prolong the peace of the world. Until the very last minute the British exerted every ounce of energy which they possessed in an endeavour to prevent the outbreak of war which took place in 1914. It was through no desire on their part that the world was plunged into that war; but it was in spite of every effort which human ingenuity could gring to bear that that war occurred, and that, I am satisfied, will be the policy of Britain in the future. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Britain's power and influence in this world will depend upon the energy and force that she is able to throw into a conflict in the event of its taking place. I am absolutely opposed to a reduction in this item of expenditure, even under present conditions. I think our self respect demands of us that we shall do our duty in the future, even if we did not do it in the years immediately preceding the war.


Mr. AIME BOUCHER (Yamaska) (Translation) :: It was not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to take any part in this debate, but seeing that my name has been mentioned by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, with reference to the election which took place, a year ago, in

Supply-Naval Service
the county of Yamaska, I deem it my duty to give this House some explanation on the subject.
First, let me state that the newspaper extract from which the hon. member has just quoted, contains in parts the words which I used in May of last year, at the meeting held in St. Bonaventure. However, I take exception to that part of the article in which the newspaper accuses me of having said that the hon. Mr. Fielding, at present Minister of Finance, had been a traitor to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I strongly protest against such language being attributed to me, and I wish to state emphatically that never were such words uttered by me against the hon. Mr. Fielding, in whom we all have-on this side of the House at least-the greatest confidence and for whom we also have the highest esteem. There is another point to which I want to draw the attention of the speaker who has just preceded me in this debate. It is still in reference to this election which took place in the county of Yamaska, and if I remember well, it is a question which was put, in this House, to the hon. Minister of Marine of that day (Mr. Ballantyne), by the present Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe), to ascertain if the Conservative party had a candidate in the field, and the hon. Mr. Ballantyne answered that the Government's candidate was my opponent, Mr. Mondou. Now, what was the principal argument which I brought forth in this contest against Mr. Mondou? I made use of the newspaper, "La Presse," which had published an interview given by Mr. Mondou, and in which he declared that the Conservative party by choosing Mr. Meighen to replace Sir Robert Borden, had given itself a tyrant instead of a leader, because in his opinion, Mr. Meighen was an autocratic tyrant, owing to the way he had treated Quebec during the war. However, this did not prevent the right hon. Mr. Meighen acknowledging Mr. Mondou's candidacy in the county of Yamaska.
It is not, Mr. Chairman, by crying down imperialism or censuring the naval policy that I won my election. I won it through the weakness of the candidate who was put up against me, because of his lack of sincerity in supporting Mr. Meighen's policy, the same individual that he had accused, some time previous, of being an autocratic tyrant.


Mr. FORKE:: A little while ago we had the pleasure of listening to an hon. gentleman who first saw daylight in our little island far across the sea, and I thought
perhaps I might take a few minutes to express my views along a different line. We have heard a good deal to-night about patriotism, and it seems to be generally assumed that those who advocate further armaments and greater expansion in naval affairs are more patriotic than those who urge the opposite course. I have been astonished to listen to some of the arguments advanced to-night. Now, I do not want to take a critical attitude or to suggest that things might be done somewhat better or debated from a different standpoint, but I do protest against having to sit in this House and listen hour after hour to the recapitulation of ancient history with which we were all perfectly familiar before we came here. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) was rather severe in his criticism of the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). I think that if he had paid attention to what that hon. gentleman said he would have realized that the member for Lisgar was not so much concerned with Canada's status as a nation as he was in regard to the question as to what position Canada was going to take in the Empire in reference to naval and military matters. We know there is going to be a conference of the premiers of the various parts of the Empire, who will assemble to discuss this question; and perhaps some mutual arrangement will be arrived at whereby each part of the Empire will know what it is expected to do. That is what the hon. member was referring to when he spoke about our status.
We have heard much about conditions as they exist to-day. I heard one hon. member to my right make the statement that after every war the view was always put forward that never again would war occur in the world. But conditions have never existed before in the same degree as they exist at the present time. Never was war so horrible, nor its ugliness and sinfulness so patent as it is to-day; and those who have studied the question cannot but realize that every nation and individual will look upon the possibility of future wars with feelings of horror and terror. War in the future will not be war in the ordinary sense. Going back over the ages, we see the time when warfare consisted in hand to hand conflict; then armour and machine guns were introduced; and after every war, it is true, men have felt almost convinced that warfare would be improbable in the future. But what is the situation to-day? War has passed from individual bravery on the battlefield and is carried on by the
Supply-Naval Service

chemist in his laboratory. To-day it is the scientists and mechanics who really wage war, and not the men on the battlefield; and I venture to make the statement that the nations of the civilized world will ponder a very long time before going to war under present scientific conditions. At the close of the last war it was said that an American chemist had invented a poisonous gas that would devastate whole countrysides. What would battleships avail in such a case? I can assure hon. members that the nations will think twice before going to war, and we in this country should carefully weigh matters before spending money to-day on a scheme the benefit of which we cannot foresee.
I want to say a word in regard to the naval reserves. I am not a seafaring man myself, but I was born in a seafaring country and I know a little about the conditions as they exist around the coasts of those wonderful little islands over the sea. I have lived a long time in Canada and am a good Canadian, but, if I may be allowed to say so, I hope the day may never come when I can look across the ocean and not be sensible of a warm spot in my heart for my native land. So that it will be understoood, I -trust, that it is not because of any lack of fervent regard for that land that I am not ready to vote for the expenditure of vast sums of money at the present time for the purpose of building up naval armaments. With regard to the naval reserve, let me say that the fishermen in the villages around the coast of England, from Grimsby to Hull, manned the boats and ships that swept the seas around Britain for mines. And this work was done by these men *without any long training, because I know that friends of mine in the Old Country were engaged in that work a short time after the mines were laid by the Germans around the British coasts. I am perfectly certain that the naval reserve scheme is a good one, and that the naval reserve can be created from the ranks of the fishermen. I shall not follow the arguments of the leader of the Opposition. If we had been discussing the policy of spending twenty or thirty million dollars on a naval programme, I could understand the length of time that has been devoted to this debate. But we have taken up a day and a half discussing what an hon. member said could be entirely covered by $500,000. Surely there is not such a tremendous difference between the two policies that it takes so much of the time of this House to discuss

such a small matter. Had it been $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 that hon. gentlemen on my right were advocating should be expended, then I could have understood the. stand they are taking.
A good many slurs-perhaps that is too strong a term-statements are sometimes made that we do not take a wide enough view, that we are not patriotic. I repudiate that statement. I believe every hon. member is patriotic. Perhaps we view things from different standpoints, but I think we ought to treat one another as patriotic gentlemen, no matter -what part of the country we come from.


Arthur Meighen: If I rise to say one or two words anent the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) I hope he will not feel that I resent anything -he has stated; indeed, I have confidence that he was addressing himself sincerely to the question. I would be the last -man in the world to question his patriotism. I do not know whose patriotism has been questioned in this debate. Such taunts are usually flung merely for the sake of the reply. The patriotism of -hon. members never is called in question at all. Now, while I am sure the hon. member's heart beats just as true for the Old Land as mine, and that he has just as keen a sense of national obligation as I have, I am afraid that some pre-conceived ideas have warped his judgment at this moment. While I am afraid of that, I express confidentially the hope that the time will come when he will decide that the hour -for action, rather than aspiration, is at hand, and that he will be just as ready to do something practical as myself. He says I misconstrued the words of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown).


Robert Forke: Misunderstood.


Arthur Meighen: Well, misunderstood. I do not think so; and that is really my only reason for rising. The hon. member for Lisgar expressed the view that the question of our status within the Empire is In doubt. He may have had in mind merely as to our share in defence; however, he did not use those words. I do not think myself that he had reference merely to our share in defence. But suppose he had? The hon. member for Brandon says: "Let us wait until at some Imperial Conference the share of each is agreed on-the share of Canada, the share of Australia, the share of New Zealand, the share of South Africa, the share of Great Britain." I believe the hon. member for Brandon sincerely looks

Supply-Naval Service
forward to that consummation. Well, let me tell him that if he does he will sit in this House and he will be a resident of this country a good many years before he will ever see it come to pass.
Let me ask hon. members opposite, let me ask those supporting this policy, if they are ready to wait and have the share of this country fixed at any Imperial Conference held this year or any other year. Will any of them say, "yea"? Not one who supports the Government in backing away from our naval obligations will do that

not one. Years before we adopted the principle that we must ourselves determine what our share is, that we cannot be dictated to at a conference. Very well, that must go comcommitantly with the honest and practical effort to do our share from year to year. I am pointing out to the hon. member that he will look in vain for an agreement at the Imperial Conference that this country will feel to be binding, or that any hon. gentleman opposite will feel to be binding upon our country.


Mr. CANNON:: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me one question?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, or two.


Lucien Cannon: While the right hon. gentleman had the honour to represent our country in London last summer, did he make any engagement to the Empire on naval defence?


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman has answered that question at least six times in the course of this debate. The only acknowledgment is that contained in the one resolution, which is as clear as sunlight, and which lays upon the Parliament of Canada the obligation of determining what this country should do in the matter of naval defence. It is wholly a question for Parliament to decide. I quite aprove of that principle. I believe anything else is impossible. But while I approve of that principle, I say it essentially follows that we must here and now determine what we will do, and not be forever preaching that some day in the future there is going to be another Imperial Conference. We have been putting this decision off on the plea of conferences for many years-we put it off twenty years ago on that plea, we put it off thirteen years ago on that plea, and we have kept out of our just obligations all that time. When the war was on we were prevented from carrying out our obligations. Under the late government we were quite prepared to do
so. And much that has occurred in this debate would indicate that there is a Whole lot to be said, even in ordinary times, in favour of some system based on contribution.
If I felt hon. members were right in saying:	You cannot do anything effective
in the way of naval defence by spending $1,000,000 more, $2,500,000 more, $6,000,000 more, or even $7,000,000 more,- I would think they could not make a stronger argument in favour of contribution. In fact, that argument is unanswerable, but, for myself, I do not think it is correct. I believe we were doing something of some value before. But now that we know what the whole collection of nations known as the British Empire must do, we know, too, that the measure of help we were giving before was not our fair share; we must do more than that. But let me point out to the hon. member for Brandon that the error is this:	Instead of going
forward we are going behind, humiliatingly behind, indefensibly behind, we are moving in exactly the wrong direction; and that is why that movement is resisted in this vote. If the Government were making a serious effort to really place Canada in a respectable position before her sister nations, then there would be little cause for opposition in this House; but instead of that the Government is yielding to the demands of those who do not want to do anything practical and effective in the matter of naval defence.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I wish to ask my right
hon. friend one question to elucidate, if possible, a point upon which there has been a good deal of discussion. Is it a fact that at the last Imperial Conference, or at any previous conference, the question of defence was made a joint affair for the Empire or was it not? Is that the position we are in to-day, that we are under an obligation to contribute? True, we fix the measure of the contribution-


Arthur Meighen: And the method.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: and the method. But is it a fact that we are under an obligation to make a contribution to Empire defence? And to what extent are we under that obligation?


Arthur Meighen: We are not under any contractual obligation at all-no obligation based upon a resolution. The whole obligation to defend ourselves is just the same as the obligation of every nation on earth,

Supply-Naval Service
and when we are part of the Empire we share in the common obligation. It is an obligation that is incident to our existence, and from which we cannot escape save byloading it on someone else.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But my right hon. friend is skating around the point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps I am uncommonly dense this evening, and unable to see the point, but I think a very great deal, Mr. Chairman rests right upon that question. In 1917 it was definitely understood that a constitutional conference would be called after the war to define Canada's status within the Empire. That was the agreement reached in 1917 at the Imperial Conference held that year. Now, as I understand it from my reading of all the literature dealing with the question, our position as far as the defence of the Empire was concerned would not be determined until that constitutional conference was held and we knew what our status within the Empire was. I may be wrong in that, but if that is correct, then I submit that the whole ground upon which my hon. friends to the right are arguing this question is absolutely and entirely wrong. If we take the ground that Canada as a matter of right, in her own defence-as has been argued here-should create the nucleus of a navy, should engage in naval training on the assumption that that navy is absolutely her own and that she may send it tc war when she cares to send it and keep it at home when she cares to keep it, then there is a fair ground for argument. But as I understand the discussion that has taken place here to-day-and indeed, before to-day-one of the strongest reasons urged by my hon. friends to my right why this vote should not be reduced is that we are not making our fair share of contribution to Empire defence. Consequently, I think . it is a fair question to ask, when was that obligation reached? When was the understanding arrived at that we should make aa contribution to Empire defence? We have not had that elucidated, and I submit that if my hon. friends to my right are to be on sound premises in the argument they are making, they should explain that point.
Now, we come back to the general question. It was not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to take part in this debate, because

in my judgment this vote should have been passed two days ago. However, the matter is being discussed, and now that I am on my feet there are one or two observations that I should like to make upon it. I support the reduction made by the Minister of Militia. My regret is that the minister, if I may say so, did not stick to the first programme he laid down, because I think the second programme involves a further expenditure of money which at the present time this country is not in a position to face. My hon. friends argue that we must have a navy, and they have argued also that our militia establishment must be kept up. Against whom must we have a navy? That is a fair question; against whom is Canada to arm?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Some of my hon. friends say, "Oh, oh." Well, what is the result of the Washington conference? Who has Canada to fear? Are we going to build a navy against the United States?


Mr. MEWBURN:: What has the United States got a navy for?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is their affair.
What I am asking my hon. friends is this: are we to arm against the United States? Are we to arm against Japan? Canada is a party to the treaty which resulted from the Washington conference, a treaty which will be presented to this House for ratification.


Mr. BAXTER:: Against whom are they arming?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are disarming.


Arthur Meighen: Not half as fast as we are.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is all very well; but my right hon. friend knows that a treaty was signed as a result of the Washington conference-we are signatories to it- whereby all the great nations who could possibly be the source of any danger to Canada have by mutual understanding agreed to adopt a peaceful method) of settling their disputes. That is one reason "why-putting it on the very ground upon which my hon. friends debate the question -we can reduce this expenditure this year. The second reason has been mentioned several times to-day.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: After the United States has proportionately disarmed, and after Japan has proportionately disarmed, who is England proportionately arming against?

Supply-Naval Service


Mr. CAHILL:: India.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My imagination is not vivid enough to enable me to see the relation of my hon. friend's question to my argument.
I come now to another point. Reference was made to-day, and has been made several times during the course of the discussion, to the financial position of this country. I wish to direct that point to the attention of my hon. friends who are advocating this expenditure. What do we see in the United States to-day?
10 p.m. What do we see in Great Britain? In both those countries we see reductions in expenditure and reductions in taxation. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is coming down to-morrow to deliver to this House the annual budget. I may be mistaken- I hope I am-but I venture the prediction that the Minister of Finance, if he discharges his duty to Canada, will not take the way of reducing the taxation, but must find additional taxation; there is no way out of it if this country is to meet its obligations. In the face of that situation, therefore, are my hon. friends on good ground in arguing that we must spend a million dollars more on the navy this year?
My right hon. friend the other evening, and some of the other gentlemen to my right, dwelt at great length on the extent to which Canada- had sponged on Great Britain in the matter of defence. They cited what Australia was doing, what New Zealand was doing, what Britain was doing. Why, they said, Britain is spending $10 per head on her navy; Australia is spending $6; New Zealand is spending $2.50, and we are only spending 17 cents per head on our navy. Well, how are my hon. friends going to do away with sponging? By having the Canadian people spend another 11 cents per head on the navy.


Arthur Meighen: We did not say that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, then I do not know what my hon. friend is arguing upon. I presume he contends that this vote should remain as it was last year. I may be mistaken; if I am, I am doing him an injustice. But he has not made his position clear in the House, and if he made his position clear I think I am correct in saying that it would mean another 11 cents per head to be paid by the Canadian people. The thing is absurd. My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) made the other day what was, to my mind, the most sensible
suggestion that has been heard in this debate, namely, that if we are going into the naval business we should go into it in earnest and quit playing with it. I think this country could well take a naval holiday for five years. My hon. friends who are opposing this reduction in the estimates say: "Oh, Canada must make her fair contribution to defence." Has Canada done nothing for the defence of the Empire-placing it even on that basis? What did we do in the war? We sent 500,000 men overseas. Canada did her part in the war toward the defence of empire. But she did more than that, if her contribution rests upon something more than men and ships. We discovered during the late war that food, for instance, was just as vital a thing in the waging of war as were munitions and ships. And what has Canada done in that respect? It is not a fair comparison to put Canada on an even keel with Great Britain in the matter of these expenditures. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the building of railways and in the opening up of new country, and every time we built a mile of railway; every time we opened up new parts of this country and brought additional areas under cultivation; every time we contributed to the material wealth of this country, we were adding to the strength of the Empire. Canada has made her contribution, and a very notable one, in that respect. And I would point out for the information of my hon. friends tc my right that the doctrine I am preaching in this respect is not a new doctrine; it was preached by one of the most eminent men of the Conservative party in this country, the late Sir Charles Tupper. In the last decade of the last century, the question was mooted that Canada should make her contribution to the British navy, and Sir Charles Tupper took the ground that Canada should not be expected to do that. He argued that when Canada built her railways across the Dominion, linking up New Zealand and Australia with Great Britain, she was contributing to Empire defence. Alluding to things I have just mentioned, he says:
These actual facts illustrate, in my opinion, the best mode of contributing- to the strength and defence of the Empire. In my judgment, instead of adding to its defence, the strength of a colony would be impaired by taking away the means which it requires for its development and for increasing its defensive power if it were asked for a contribution to the army and navy.
He was alluding there to a contribution, and the same thing would apply to

Supply-Naval Service

the expenditure of a similar amount of money in the building of ships.
Any such contribution would be utterly insignificant in its value compared with what is now being accomplished.	[DOT]
Those are not my words, those are the words of Sir Charles Tupper. I submit that is the line along which Canada can make her best contribution to Empire defence.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Will the hon. member permit me a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Certainly.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the hon. member think that in the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, Canada has contributed her part to the naval defence of the Empire?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not going to give my hon. friend my opinion. I have given him the opinion of Sir Charles Tupper which was that Canada had done so. If my hon. friend wishes to repudiate that great statesman of the past, that is his affair.


Ernest Lapointe: The party has changed since.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -This question, I think, must be considered in the light of what Canada can do at the present time. I have stated time and again-I have said it so often that I am afraid hon. members in this House and people in the country will get tired of hearing the assertion-[DOT] but I repeat it here, that the most pressing thing before this country to-day is to get its finances in order. The Finance Minister comes down to-morrow possibly with a programme of increased taxation. I do not know, I hope not; but if he does not, I do not know how he is going to make his budget balance this year. But say he comes down with that proposition, what is the problem before this country, and before this House? It is to keep our taxation down. If you run your taxation up in this country in view of the scattered area of the Dominion it becomes a question how long will you hold your people. To my mind that is the most serious question pressing upon us financially, and for that reason I gladly support the reduction suggested by the minister in these naval estimates. Moreover I will tell the committee I would have been prepared to go a great deal further than he has gone.


Donald Sutherland: I would like to ask the hon. member if he would wait 
until the enemy was at his gate before preparing to do anything to defend himself?


Mr. SPENCE:: In all my life I have
never heard such a system of quibbling as that advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite, and some other hon. members, in order to make excuses to get away from assuming our share of responsibility for naval defence. The statement has been made that this is one of the most important subjects which has been taken up this session. I agree with that statement; I say it is just as necessary to maintain the navy at proper strength as it is to support the Canadian National Railways, and we all know how absolutely necessary that is. Because if you have no navy then you have no support for your merchant marine; and if your merchant marine suffers then your National Railways will be prejudicially affected. I am not so familiar with naval affairs as I probably am with matters concerning the militia and therefore I do not propose to go into the discussion of details. But I heartily endorse everything that has been said in favour of the maintenance of the navy, and I do hope the Government will see to it that at least a sum equivalent to the expenditure of last year will be provided to keep our navy in as efficient a condition as possible.
The maintenance of the navy should not be regarded as a .political matter. It is absolutely a matter of business and every hon. member here should give his support to the maintenance of an efficient navy. Let there be no suspicion entertained in the outside world that we as Canadians, are not prepared to do our share towards the upkeep of the British navy. We should be British enough-because we are all Brit-tishers in Canada-to wish to continue to sing "Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves." This country owes a great deal to Britain and we ought to show, in some tangible way, that we appreciate what the Mother Country has done for us. A number of hon. members opposite have been talking about events of the past. Well, a great many of us here do not want to hear so much about the past; what we are interested in is the future. I hope the Minister of Militia will see to it that a substantial contribution is made towards the maintenance of the navy.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall the resolution carry?


Lucien Cannon: Just before the item is carried I have one or two observations to

Supply-Militia
make. I understand that while I was out of the chamber the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) made certain references to speeches which I had made in the province of Quebec. I wish to inform the hon. member, and other members of the committee that I do not take back one word of what I said. My stand to-day is exactly the same as it was during the last election, and years before. My opinion is the opinion expressed by the leader of the Liberal party in this House -that this question should be dealt with from a purely Canadian viewpoint and from no other viewpoint at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dominion Arsenal, Lindsay-for the (pay of caretakers and general maintenance, ?25,000.
Hugh Guthrie: I want to ask the minister if I understood him aright on the last occasion upon which these estimates were up in regard to the arsenal at Lindsay. I understood him to say that he was negotiating for the sale, or other disposal of the property. Has the minister definitely decided on the abandonment of the Lindsay arsenal as a government arsenal in the future.


George Perry Graham: I may say that the department has been approached in the matter but the parties who made the advances were told that if they came prepared to talk in a definite way we would discuss the matter with them. My own view is that there is no definite need for the Lindsay arsenal-that the arsenal in the province of Quebec can provide all the ammunition we need in Canada for our annual training. If that be the case why should we have two arsenals to do the work of one?


Mr. THURSTON:: May I ask .the minister if he has seriously considered this matter. I understand that the Lindsay arsenal is an up-to-date factory, the most up-to-date and modern factory on this continent. If there is any question of disposing of an arsenal why not dispose of the one at Quebec instead of that at Lindsay?


George Perry Graham: There is one strong reason, and that is that the Lindsay arsenal only manufactures small arms ammunition and the Quebec arsenal manufactures both.


John Jabez Thurston: The hon. minister (Mr. Graham) has not answered my question. I have wondered at times why the Lindsay arsenal, a new building, modernly equipped and more centrally situated than 1331
the Quebec arsenal, should be closed down, instead of the Quebec arsenal. The minister states that the arsenal in Lindsay only manufactures small munitions, but I cannot see what other ammunition we need. Why do we need larger ammunition?


George Perry Graham: In military training we use other ammunition, outside of the small arm ammunition, and, although we possibly have a supply on hand now, if we have our annual training, it will not last very long. The munitions are turned over every seven years.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: It would only mean moving machinery from Quebec to Lindsay.


John Jabez Thurston: Did I understand the minister to say the other evening that he negotiated with some four firms in connection with disposing of the Lindsay arsenal, but at the present time he has nothing definite view?


George Perry Graham: Parties waited on the Government and discussed the question of the disposition of the Lindsay arsenal. Some discussion had taken place between a deputation from Lindsay and myself and afterwards between the Minister of Railways and myself. I thought some use might be made of the building by the Canadian National Railways, but I have been rather discouraged along that line during the last week or two by the Minister of Railways. Another party approached the department, but had nothing definite in view. I suggested that if they had anything definite to discuss to come back.


John Jabez Thurston: Could the minister tell us what the Lindsay arsenal cost?


George Perry Graham: Land $39,943.97, buildings $813,915.94, equipment $909,897, making a total of $1,763,755.


Mr. HARRIS:: I did not hear all the answer. The reason why the arsenal at Quebec was kept on and the one at Lindsay closed was not quite clear to me. Another point struck me very forcibly was this: All hon. gentlemen know the geography of this country fairly well, and in case of aggression from outside, I think, they will agree that it is quite possible the arsenal at Quebec could be blown to pieces much more quickly than the one at Lindsay.^ Although I am not a militarist, never having fired a gun, perhaps, in my life, it seems to me it would be more practicable to retain the arsenal at Lindsay, which is situated far enough inland to enable us to
Supply-Militia

maintain our position against attack much longer than we could in the case oi the arsenal at Quebec. With regard to making small arms at Lindsay, I think it is quite possible to make larger arms there if necessary. In my humble opinion, it would be well if both these institutions could be kept running. In case of aggression, we would be in a much better position with this arsenal at Lindsay than with simply one at Quebec. Has this matter been taken into consideration? I would like to get the views of the minister with regard to the possibility of something happening the arsenal at Quebec, in case of aggression, and as to the position we would be in if the arsenal at Lindsay were closed.


George Perry Graham: Of course there is a possibility that the arsenal at either place might be destroyed. At the present time I do not see any danger of the Quebec arsenal being destroyed by any foe. In the second place, I might say that the Quebec arsenal is an old established arsenal, employs over a hundred men more than the number employed, even for the short time, at Lindsay. Its machinery is up to date, as is the Lindsay machinery. As I stated before, it is equipped for manufacturing 18 pound explosives, while the Lindsay only manufactures small arm munitions.


John Jabez Thurston: The question was
asked the other evening as to what amount of munitions has been shipped out of the Lindsay arsenal. Could the minister give us that information?


George Perry Graham: No munitions from the Lindsay arsenal went overseas. There were used in training approximately
3,000,000 rounds. That would be the annual training.


Hugh Guthrie: How much has been
manufactured a Lindsay since the factory was opened? Was it 3,000,000 rounds only?


George Perry Graham: No, there was more
than that manufactured. The local munitions manufactured at Lindsay since the arsenal was opened were:
Cartridges S. A. Pore 303, mark VIX= 34,997,293.
Small arm rounds for American Government 896,925.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is it the policy of the Government to dispose of the arsenal at Lindsay?


George Perry Graham: The policy as to the disposal of the arsenal at Lindsay would be that, if conditions did not change very materially and very rapidly, the Government would be prepared to dispose of that arsenal, if it got a proper price for it, or to lease it for a term of years.


Robert Forke: We voted $243,000 last year. Could the minister tell us how many rounds were manufactured in the arsenal last year?


George Perry Graham: About 3,000,000 rounds.


Hugh Guthrie: And how much money was spent?


George Perry Graham: Spent, $174,000.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Is there not a sufficient quantity of small arm munitions and of heavy ammunition on hand to warrant the closing down of the Quebec arsenal, so that a holiday would be taken there, as well as at Lindsay?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that the amount of reserves we should maintain is
90.000.	000 rounds, and these munitions must be turned over every seven years. At the present time we have on hand
45.000.	000 rounds. In that case, it is necessary to continue the arsenal at Quebec.


James Dew Chaplin: In the ordinary course of events, how long would it take, in ordinary military training, to use up 45,000,000 rounds of munitions, and how much with the reduced training?


George Perry Graham: About 10,000,000 rounds a year.


James Dew Chaplin: We have on hand about four years' supply. I think we could readily take a holiday.


George Perry Graham: But we must maintain a reserve.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this reserve is one of the things that we should eventually aim at. The reserve was fixed by a suggestion made by the present Lord French, then Sir John French, in the year 1910, when he came through Canada at the invitation of the Liberal government then in power and made an examination of ail the military establishments in the country. In his report he stated that 40,000,000 rounds, the quantity which was then the reserve of our rifle ammunition, should be doubled. I have never seen where the figure 90,000,000 was used.

Supply-Militia


Mr. PARENT:: Was that a private
report?


Hugh Guthrie: No. I have it here. It is in the Library; it is circulated, and everybody knows about it. Our reserve may have been climbing up to that figure, but we have never reached it. We have maintained a reserve at just about the figure at which it stands to-day, namely
40,000,000 or 45,000,000. The annual training and the Rifle Association will use probably eight or ten million rounds. I think that is the case when the whole volunteer establishment is trained. The effort, however, has been to get up to the proper reserve limit. I will ask the committee to note that this appropriation is entirely for small arm ammunition; nothing is asked for in this appropriation in the nature of artillery ammunition, and this kind of ammunition can all be made at Lindsay. I have had occasion to go through both the arsenals, and they are both very good institutions. The one at Lindsay is, of course, the more modern, and I think the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) is quite correct when he says that at this date it is the most up-to-date ammunition factory in America. In round figures, it cost $1,750,000,000, and it is only three or four years old. I do not believe it can ever be sold for anything approaching the figure which it cost. There is room in that arsenal to manufacture, not only our rifle ammunition, but our heavy ammunition, and I know that during the last two years the proposal was made to remove the heavy machinery from Quebec and to bring it to Lindsay. The reason for the suggested change was that Lindsay strategically was the proper place for an arsenal, whereas Quebec did not offer the same advantages on account of the exposed situation. There is no doubt that one cruiser in the river could, with a single shot, put the Quebec arsenal out of business.


Mr. BUREAU:: The same thing might be done at Lindsay by an aeroplane.


Hugh Guthrie: But that can be said
of every arsenal in the country. One is in an exposed situation; the other is remote from our frontier, well inland, and I think any military man in the department -and the minister can make inquiries for himself-will agree with me when I say that, from a military point of view, Lindsay is the best situation for an arsenal.
We know that we have on hand in the way of rifle ammunition, because we have just been told that, and we know approximately how long it will last. We have also a general idea of what we have in the way of heavy ammunition for our artillery. If we did not know that; the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) tried to inform the country last fall as to what we had, and he said: "this country is becoming literally a storehouse of high explosive shells and the like." We know what the quantity is; it is 500 rounds per gun. It has been so stated on oath before the Public Accounts Committee. That was our reserve before Lord French came to this country to make his report, and we have that reserve of 500 rounds per gun. The question for the committee to decide is whether the suggestion of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is not a good one, whether we cannot afford to take a holiday at both arsenals,-if the one, why not at both? The most modern arsenal is at Lindsay; the best situated is at Lindsay; all they propose to manufacture is .303, the small arm ammunition, which could be made at either of them. It is for the committee to decide where that ammunition ought to be made.


John Jabez Thurston: How much land is
there in connection with the arsenal at Lindsay? How many acres?


George Perry Graham: I have the cost of the
land, $39,943. I have not the acreage at hand.


John Jabez Thurston: I have been told on
some authority that the gentleman who owned the land received $10,000 for it. Where did the balance go?


Mr. HALBERT:: How many employees
are there at Lindsay?


George Perry Graham: There are 171 at Lindsay and 281 at Quebec.


Donald Sutherland: When did the
Government decide upon its policy of disposing of Lindsay arsenal? Negotiations have been on foot, and apparently it ts the intention of the Government to dispose of it. I do not believe this matter was discussed during the campaign last December, and it must have been very recently when the Government discussed it.


George Perry Graham: I could not exactly
give the date, but the Minister of Militia and Defence recommended to his colleagues that, as the Lindsay arsenal was .not necessary, a large amount of money could

Supply-Militia
be saved annually. That suggestion was accepted by his colleagues, and consequently the recommendation is made to the House.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Will the minister
kindly tell us first, what product of the Quebec arsenal went overseas and next, what is his argument in favour of the Quebec arsenal as against the Lindsay arsenal?


George Perry Graham: There >are two or three
arguments which I have given. I will give them again.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What product of the
Quebec arsenal was actually shipped overseas and used at the front?


George Perry Graham: Cartridges, small arm
bore, .303, mark VII, approximately 16,000,000 rounds; cartridges, filled, B.L. 12-pounders, 15,000 rounds; shrapnel and blank, 97,000 rounds. As I.have pointed out to my hon. friend before, the Quebec arsenal is an old institution which manufactured both heavy and small arms ammunition and the eighteen pounder. It employs over 100 men more than the other arsenal. It would cost a great deal of money to move that machinery to Lindsay. A very strong argument in favour of disposing of Lindsay arsenal was that the Quebec arsenal could not be sold to any such advantage as the Lindsay arsenal could as a building. As to the suggestion by the hon. member for South Wellington (M- Guthrie), as regards the danger at Quebec, the great danger to hospitals as well as to arsenals is from the air and not from the land or sea, as our boys found out in France.


Lucien Cannon: Did I understand the
hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Thurston) to state that when the Lindsay arsenal was built, the land was bought by the government for $39,000, and that the owner of the land received only $10,000. Where did the other $29,000 go?


John Jabez Thurston: Can the minister tell me from whom the land was purchased, if he cannot tell me the number of acres?


George Perry Graham: This land was purchased by the Public Works Department, which does all the building for the various other departments. I have not the information with me.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Rogers was Minister of Public Works at the time.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that if the hon. member for Victoria (O.),

(Mr. Thurston), has any charges to make in respect of that purchase he make them in the usual way. I will ask for no special formality; let him demand an investigation by the Government without delay.


Lucien Cannon: The member for Victoria (O.) is under no necessity to lay any formal charge.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he will.


Lucien Cannon: He is entitled to ask for information just as my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) is, and that is what he is doing now. If the Minister of Militia has the information it is time that the committee were given it. When was the land bought, and from whom?


George Perry Graham: The Public Works Department carries on that part of the business for the other departments; I have not the information available. I should think that the land was bought in 1916 or 1917.


Jacques Bureau: Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria (O.) has the information.


George Perry Graham: Does the hon. member know the date?


John Jabez Thurston: I do not know the date, but I am told by Lindsay people that this man owned a hundred acres and that he received $10,000 for the land, and I was wondering why the cost should be represented as' $39,000.


Lucien Cannon: Do you know the year?


Arthur Meighen: I should like the minister to give the information before the vote carries. I object to leaving the matter in the shape of an innuendo.


Mr. McBRIDE:: We have heard a great deal for the past two days about cutting down expenses, and we have listened to that sort of thing until we are almost tired. Now if there is one item that has come before this committee, since the House met, that can stand cutting down it is this item of $425,000. The militia is cut down, the mounted police estimates are cut down, and the navy is practically abandoned. That being the case, why do we want ammunition? I move in amendment that this item be reduced by $110,000 for the Quebec arsenal.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) moves that vote No. 96 be reduced by the sum of $10,000.


Thomas George McBride: No, Mr. Chairman,

Supply-Militia


George Newcombe Gordon: I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the committee is considering vote No. 96 which calls for an expenditure of only $25,000.


Thomas George McBride: I stand corrected, but I thought that we had passed that item and were on No. 97.


Donald Sutherland: The location of an arsenal is an important matter to the whole country. There are two arsenals in Canada, one of which is about to be closed, and this perhaps might be approved by many. But the Government have intimated that they have entered into negotiations for the disposal of one of these arsenals without consulting Parliament or bringing the matter before the people. Now, the location at Lindsay was selected because of its distance from the international boundary and the facilities at hand for its proper defence, while the other one at Quebec is in a more exposed position. During the war the arsenal at Quebec was exposed to danger. This was recognized by no less a personage than the leader of the Opposition of that day, who, in the city of Quebec on December 8, 1916, delivered an address from which I shall quote a paragraph to show the danger in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier supposed that arsenal to be, from its exposed position.


George Newcombe Gordon: I must point out to the hon. member that we are on item 96 "Dominion Arsenal, Lindsay-$25,000."


Donald Sutherland: The location of an arsenal, Mr. Chairman, is a matter of great importance to the country, and the abandonment of the arsenal at Lindsay has a direct bearing upon the remaining arsenal at Quebec. I contend therefore that I am in order in discussing the relation of the one to the other.


George Newcombe Gordon: Provided the quotations are relevant to the item under consideration, and conform to the rules, they may be read.


Donald Sutherland: If I contravene the rules I bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. But my contention is that the policy of the Government in regard to the location of the arsenal at Lindsay is a matter that has a distinct relevancy to the other arsenal at Quebec. Of course, if I am not in order I do not wish to proceed in that direction.


George Newcombe Gordon: If item 96 is passed it will be quite in order for the hon. member to discuss it in connection with the following vote, as he is doing.


Donald Sutherland: I take it that if this particular item is disposed of I shall be out of order in later adverting to it. I hold, Sir, that we should not dispose of the Lindsay arsenal as the Government proposes to do. I was stating some reasons why this should not be done, and I think I am well within the rules of the House in doing so. I was going to quote from the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, spoken on December 8th, 1916, in the city of Quebec, when he pointed out the danger to which the arsenal there was exposed at that time.
Sir Wilfrid then read extracts from a plan prepared toy the German General Staff and published before the war, showing that it was their intention to add two more provinces to those taken from France. He could prove that the German idea was the imposition of Deutsch turn, or German domination, on the world, and he added that the war had shown how near they had come to succeeding.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow me a question?


Donald Sutherland: Let me finish the quotation.


Lucien Cannon: What document is the hon. member quoting from?


Donald Sutherland: If you will permit me to read the extract I shall be glad to answer any questions afterwards. The report goes on:
If it was 'possible for merchant submarines to enter United States ports it was possible for armed submarines to enter Halifax, St. John and Quebec ports.


Lucien Cannon: What document are you quoting from?


Donald Sutherland: From the Toronto Globe of December 8, 1916.


Lucien Cannon: Reporting a speech which was supposed to have been made at what place in Canada?


Donald Sutherland: At Quebec. Now, Sir, we have had an intimation from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) as to what the policy of the Government is in regard to the harbour at Quebec. I also desire to draw the attention of the House to another matter. I hold in my hand the Canada Gazette of April 6, 1918, in which I find an Order in Council passed by the government on the 4th April of that year. It is in these words:
Whereas on the 28th day of March last the opposition of a large number of the population of the city of Quebec to the enforcement of the Military Service Act 1917 and the regulations thereunder broke out in open violence and serious riots ensued on that day-
Supply-Militia


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I must call the hon. -member's attention to the fact that this Order in Council, so far as it has been read, is not relevant to the item under discussion, the Dominion arsenal at Lindsay, and therefore he is out of order.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to be out of order, but I have read only a part of the recital. I think if you will permit me to read the remainder of the order I shall be able to demonstrate that I am well within my rights, and that this Order in Council proves conclusively that Quebec city is not a suitable place for a Dominion arsenal.
And whereas-


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. The hon. member has already been advised that the Order in Council he is attempting to read is not relevant to the item before the committee. Therefore under Rule 13 (5) he is clearly out of order.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to appeal to the House from your ruling, although I think if you had permitted me to read the Order in Council you would not have taken exception to it. I was endeavouring to point out that the location of the arsenal at Lindsay was much more suitable than at Quebec, and my reason for doing so was the danger with which we might be confronted in the event of a national crisis. I pointed out that the arsenal at Quebec is situated on an international waterway which in all probability will be the main international artery of this continent in a very few years. During 1918, while we were tested and tried to the limit of our national capacity, we found that Quebec was the one point in the whole Dominion where martial law had to be enforced in order to suppress rioting and an outbreak of its citizens-at a time, I repeat, when we were being called- upon to exert our utmost energies in the successful prosecution of the war, and yet I am prevented from reading this Order in Council to substantiate my statement.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I have already declared the hon. member to be out of order in regard to the reading of that document.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not be well if hon. gentlemen opposite were kept in order and some decorum observed in this House? That is infinitely more important than the mere wisdom of reading a particular order-in-council.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think the right hon. gentleman is quite right, and that an effort

should be made on the part of hon. members of this committee to give a courteous hearing to every hon. member discussing these items. I would ask hon. members to follow that practice.


Donald Sutherland: The location of our dominion arsenals is of too great importance to be passed over lightly, what has happened indicates what the policy of the Government is with regard to our national affairs. We have extracted from the Government at different stages information as to their policy in regard to national defence, and while a great proportion of the party opposite sit back and say nothing, yet the ministers who are responsible for the administration of their departments express in a half-hearted way what has been taking place behind the scenes. I ask this committee whether they consider it to be in the interests of good government that the Administration should negotiate for the disposal of one of the most important features of our system of defence without consulting Parliament or the people. When a policy of that kind is entered upon the people are entitled to know something more about it than has been furnished so far. And when by insinuation and innuendo it is made to appear that the people of Ontario are absolutely opposed to the best interests of this country, I think the Government have to put up some better arguments than they have advanced so far. The insinuations thrown out by the Prime Minister were such that every self-respecting citizen of Ontario will, I am sure, resent when the proper time comes they will call him to account. I refer to the campaign which he claims was carried on in Ontario in regard to national defence. Now, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the evident desire that certain things should be kept from the public, so far as I am concerned I may say that I am going to protest as vigorously as I can on behalf of my constituents against the disposal of the Lindsay arsenal and^he maintaining of the arsenal in the city of Quebec. In doing so I do not wish to be understood as advocating the manufacture of large quantities of munitions at the present time; but we should have at our disposal the facilities for turning them out in the event of their being required, and, above all, we should have an arsenal located at a point where there will be absolutely no danger of any interference with those who would be there carrying out there duties in the event of a crisis arising.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Militia
Dominion Arsenal, Quebec, $425,000.
Ernest Lapointe: As intimated the other day by the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham), I beg to move that this item be reduced by the sum of $50,000.


Thomas George McBride: I beg to move an amendment that the item be reduced by the sum of $110,000.


George Perry Graham: It strikes me as peculiar that when we shut up one arsenal some hon. gentlemen object, saying that we should keep it open to manufacture munitions; yet they now show signs of being in favour of cutting $110,000 off the vote for the other one.


Arthur Meighen: It was ruled, the minister will remember, that we could not discuss the proper location of the Quebec arsenal while the other vote was under consideration.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that it was not ruled that for purposes of comparison it could not be discussed. But an Order in Council dealing with certain riots and lawlessness alleged to have taken place in the city of Quebec was ruled out of order on the discussion of the item in respect to the Lindsay arsenal. That was the intention of the Chairman, at least.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Chair contend that that had no relevancy at all to the question as to the proper location of the arsenal?


George Perry Graham: There is no point of order in this, that I can see. I have made my statement as to the inconsistency of assuring the House that the Government should not think of shutting up the Lindsay arsenal, because of its being required to manufacture small arms ammunition, and of thereupon arguing that the Government should take $110,000 off the vote for the*)ther arsenal. I could understand the attitude if hon. gentlemen were in favour of not cutting either down. Now, the Government proposes, as moved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that this item be reduced by $50,000. This, together with the reduction in the case of the other arsenal, is, I think, a big jump in the reduction of expenditure so far as these two items are concerned.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent last year at the Quebec arsenal?


George Perry Graham: For ten months, $311,000.


Donald Sutherland: Will the minister inform the committee who is propounding the policy of the Government, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or himself? There is a motion to adopt this item, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, another member of the Government, proposes to reduce it by $50,000. I am wondering whether or not we have any government at all. This is surely becoming a spectacle such as has never before been witnessed in any civilized country. It is a peculiar procedure for one minister to move the adoption of an item and then for another minister, in order to forestall our friends to the left, to jump up and introduce a motion to cut the item down by a large amount. Surely this is an innovation in responsible government. I would like to know from either one minister or the other, which is the policy of the Government?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend I know, is thirsting for information. I would ask him this: if the vote related to works in the county of South Oxford, would he move a reduction, as the Minister of Marine did? I rather think he would say, on the contrary, that he wanted more. However, owing to the ruling of the Chair that the minister in charge of the estimates cannot properly move a reduction, as has been the custom in the committee for many years, it becomes necessary for someone else to move that reduction.


Donald Sutherland: Why does the minister submit the estimate, then?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will permit me to answer his question. As a matter of fact, if someone other than a member of the Government, had moved the reduction which I told the House some days ago we intend to move, the hon. member would immediately have raised the point that although the Government were responsible, they were getting a private member to move the reduction. So we make it absolutely governmental; a member of the Government living in the city of Quebec has asked the reduction.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister says that $311,000 was spent during ten months of last year at the Quebec arsenal. The proposal now is to spend $425,000 for this year; that is the economy the Government practices, it is not economy as I view it. We have a tremendous amount of large am munition; we certainly do not want any more of that. From what the minister has
S upply-Militia

told us to night, we have 45,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, enough to last, under ordinary circumstances, for four years; yet the minister proposes to reduce this item by $50,000 as an evidence of practical economy. It is economy, is it?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: If that is economy as you have been preaching it for some time, it is not economy as I view it. You do away with the need for this ammunition by partly doing away with the annual camps; yet you now propose to make more ammunition.


George Perry Graham: Not so much. My hon. friend is mistaken; he forgets that some ammunition was manufactured at Lindsay last year.


James Dew Chaplin: I understand that perfectly well.


George Perry Graham: In the second place, we are taking $50,000 off the $425,000, which will leave $375,000. The amount
11 p.m. expended last year would have been $396,000, so that you have this year $375,000 instead of $396,000, notwithstanding the fact that the arsenal at Lindsay is closed.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think the minister's explanation is very clear. It is quite plain that all the ammunition that was made at Lindsay was small arms ammunition. Now, nothing but small arms ammunition is to be made at Quebec, and that amounts to $425,000. But according to last year's estimates, some large ammunition was made there. Does the minister give us that information now, or does he try to make us believe that all the ammunition that was made last year was small arms ammunition. I would like to ask him how much small arms ammunition and how much large ammunition was made in Quebec last year?


George Perry Graham: In this estimate we propose to make at Quebec 5,000 rounds of the 18-pounder shells.


Arthur Meighen: Has that the approval of the Prime Minister?


James Dew Chaplin: It is not so stated in the estimates.


George Perry Graham: If the committee desires it, I will read what the estimate is based on:
7,000,000 cartridges, S. A. Ball, .303.
200,000	cartridges, S. A. Ball, .303.
for Dom. Rifle Association.

10,000	cartridges, S. A. Ball .303.
Tracer, Mark VII.
500.000	cartridges, S. A Dummy .303.
7,710 boxes for .303 ammunition.
114.000	bandoliers .303 ammunition.
1,500,000	chargers, cartridges .303.
900 boxes for Long Rifle ammunition.
1.000	puffs, powder, 4 Drachms, R.F.G. 2.
1.000	puffs, powder, R.L.G. 2.
500 puffs, powder 4 oz.
500 puffs, powder 2 oz.
M|r. CHAPLIN: It is exactly as I pointed out a few minutes ago: There is not one dollar's worth of 18 pound ammunition in the estimate that I can see; it is all for rifle cartridges.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend is right but I have the 18-pound in my explanation and it is an error that it does not appear in the estimates, surely.


James Dew Chaplin: I submit that it is not an error, for the reason that the price of this ammunition as laid down in this specification amounts to $425,000 and that is the total amount of the estimate. Consequently there can be no 18-pound ammunition there. As the deputy minister is here, I hope the information asked for in reference to the division of the ammunition for which $311,000 was spent last year will be given, that is approximately how much was spent on 18-pound ammunition and how much on rifle ammunition?


Lucien Cannon: The patriotic spirit in the hon. member for Lincoln has always been known in this House, but this year he is evidently changing his attitude. I do not understand how my hon. friend can think of putting questions to the minister of such a nature as to cause our military secrets to be divulged. The hon. gentleman has always been a very strong supporter of the British Empire, has likewise always been in favour of our taking part in the defence of the Empire. Is it fair therefore that my hon. friend should to-night ask the minister such questions that tomorrow every foreign power will k*ow exactly the amount of ammunition we have in this Dominion. I think the hon. gentleman is treading on most dangerous ground and I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to protect our military secrets from disclosure.


Robert James Manion: I rise to say that I think that when the conditions of this country have got to the pass where my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) taunts my hon. friend from Lincoln with lack of patriotism, we really should reconsider this vote. In view of the cuts that

Supply-Militia
have been made in the various estimates- in the militia estimates, in the navy estimates, in the estimates for various other branches of defence-it is only reasonable that the hon. gentleman who has moved a reduction-and he informs me that it is quite in proportion with the other cuts that have been made-should be supported. I find that as a result of the different motions which have been made in the House we have a nation without defence; we have a navy without sailors; we have a militia without annual training; we have estimates without consistency; and now hon. gentlemen opposite are proposing ammunition without an army. In view of these circumstances I am going to have very much pleasure in supporting the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment to the amendment.


James Dew Chaplin: I am thankful to the hon. member for Dorchester for referring to me in the very kindly way in which he did. Let me say to him that we have very much missed his voice in the discussion of these estimates. But his voice was not lacking last year; he was one of those hon. members who were very persistent in moving for reductions. As I say we have missed him very much this session, we would like to hear something more from him; and yet to-night we find him defending an estimate which cannot rightly be defended. Let me say one word in respect to the accusation of giving away military secrets, I only asked for what is published in the estimates. That information is set forth there in black and white; it is there for anybody to see from one end of the Dominion to the other; and anywhere else for that matter. While I am on that question I may say that I have had placed in my hands a copy of last year's estimates and I find, although the minister would not give me the information, there is a matter of some six or seven thousand rounds of artillery ammunition referred to. I do not know what the price was but I think a reasonable figure to put it at would be about $25 a shell, which would represent a sum in the neighbourhood of $175,000 or $200,000. If I said the minister was misleading the committee, you, Mr. Chairman, would probably call me to order, but I certainly would like to have an explanation from him.


Lucien Cannon: I am very grateful to the hon. member for his statement that he has missed my voice this session. If I have not taken as active a part in the debates
this session as I did in former years, the reason, I may inform the hon, member, was that I was studying the Roumanian question.


James Dew Chaplin: If it were in order, Mr. Chairman, I might ask my hon. friend what he learned from studying the Roumanian question so hard.


Lucien Cannon: Axes sometimes cut.


James Dew Chaplin: If the Chairman wished to be fair to the committee he would tell my hon. friend that he has no business to talk about such a matter at such a time.


Thomas Langton Church: Surely the minister in the case of a large item like this, is going to tell the committee that he is acting on the advice of his technical experts. I may say that the freight charges for the carriage of small arms and ammunition in Canada is very great and that is one reason why an arsenal should be more centrally located. It certainly should not be established near the border of the country; that lesson has been driven home to us by examples during the great war. Surely from the standpoint of national defence a Dominion arsenal should be located where it is not easily open to attack. Suppose a hostile fleet ever sailed up the St. Lawrence what would become of the arsenal at Quebec? Is the minister going to depend on a few fishing boats and trawlers to protect the place, or does he expect it to be defended by the British fleet?


George Perry Graham: The suggestion for a reduction of $50,000 has not been made without full consultation with the officers responsible in the department. As I pointed out a few moments ago danger to any building in the future, as shown in the recent great war, will likely come from the air rather than from approaches by sea or land. There is no part of Canada, as far as I know, that could not be attacked by bombs from an aeroplane.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister was
asked, what portion of this sum of $428,300 had relation to small arms last year and what proportion to heavy arms or bombs? I should like an answer to that question, notwithstanding the pleasantries of the hon. member from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon), and upon that answer I shall make a further inquiry.


George Perry Graham: The amount expended last year was divided between small arm

Supply-Militia
ammunition and artillery. I think there were about 6,000 rounds of artillery ammunition-


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Give it in dollars and cents. That is the only way, in my ignorance, I can interpret it. How much of this $428,300 was for small arms, and how much for heavy ammunition? I am told there was $311,000. How much for small arms and how much for 18-pounders? It seems that the answer is not readily forthcoming, and I would almost think that the member for Dorchester, in that happy manner of his, has to draw aside an intelligent answer to that question. What do we find? This Government has proposed, and has succeeded in its proposition, to strike $700,000 from militia service estimates, and $1,000,000 has gone from the naval service estimates. That means that $218,300 have gone from the appropriation which was made last year to the Lindsay arsenal, and the proposition now is that, notwithstanding that $1,700,000 have been stricken out of the amount this country is going to have for its defence and, that $218,300 have gone from the Lindsay appropriation, we shall -strike only $110,000 from the amount that is voted for the Quebec arsenal. Under all the circumstances, from the amounts that have already been stricken out, this amount of $110,000 should be increased. Upon any reasonable solution of this proposition there is no question the amount should be larger, and if hon. members opposite want to justify the larger vote than the vote, minus the $110,000, they ought to explain it to the members of this House. In view of these large amounts that have been proposed, not by the Opposition not by the Progressive members, but by the members of the Government themselves, to be stricken from the naval and militia estimates, I have great pleasure in supporting this $110,000 rebate which the Progressive member asks, but which I think is altogether too small a sum, and I would support a proposition to strike off any other sum which could be saved to this country on this deal.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not propose to approach the consideration of this question from any political point of -view. I -have sat several hours in this House through what I would 'like to characterize, if it would not be too harsh, as a succession- of farces. - It seems to me the -navy has sailed back again into the Militia Department, and really when hon. members ask

for information, from the minister, I do not know whether they are asking it from the Captain or "Little Buttercup." The nearest thing we get is that it is shady-it is shady, for we cannot -obtain any exact information. I do not propose to vote for the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. mem/ber for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) unless I am forced to do so for want of information. It -does not square with my idea of the manner in which military or naval subjects should be treated in this House. I	am
prepared to give here an absolutely non-piartisan vote in support of any estimate that the Government will bring before this House with a sense of responsibility and- with a courage that faces the House and the country and -says the amount is required for the defence of Canada. Anything else would be exceedingly small politics indeed. I invite the hon. -minister to give us frankly the advice that 'he surely must have had from his experts and show us what this vote is for. Evidently what appears on page 29 of the Estimates is either a mistake or a sham. Let him give us What ought to replace that, and show us what they intend to do with it. I will assume that what was done at Lindsay last year is to be done at Quebec this year. That is a question of territory, and a question of politics, but if -ammunition is required for the Canadian militia it must -be made somewhere. The Government has to -settle that question. The -hon. member thinks the only danger is from the air. I think there is too much danger from the air in this House. We want to bring the thing out of the air, and get it down to concrete form, so that we can understand it and vote intelligently upon it. Can we have a plain direct statement as to the ammunition, not that some political body has recommended, hut that the officers of the Militia Department have recommended, as being necessary. Tell us the reasons of it and the cost of it. For one, I am prepared to vote for that cost, but I want more information and I want it here. I would like, at the same time, although it is not so important, to- -have an explanation to this House of why, when the estimates, which are supposed to be thoroughly considered and prepared by the minister with the assistance of his staff, were brought before the House they were brought down with apparently $50,000 more demanded than the minister thinks necessary now. I make no cavil with regard to the fact that the Minister of Marine, or some other member of the Gov-

Supply-Militia
ernment moves an amendment, but why should it be necessary to amend the estimates? Will the Minister of Militia tell this House one single bit of technical advice he has received from his experts since these estimates were laid on the Table of the House weeks ago, that he can transmute into $50,000, and show as a justification for cutting off that amount? Is this a real bona-fide reduction because his technical officers advised him that the original estimates were prepared in error, or is it a bit of cheap political stage play before the members of this House and the people of Canada? Let us have the reason. After all that, even if he finds it is only because the political club has been shaken, or because he wants to gain favour with some members of the morganatic alliance, if he will say he cannot stand the reduction suggested by the hon. member for Cariboo, I will vote for what he proposes, because I do not propose to take the responsibility in the matter. If, some months later, an emergency should arise, I do not propose to be counted as one of the men who refused to do what the military authorities of this country said was necessary.


John Livingstone Brown: Two or three times since this session opened, we have heard something about alliances. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) spoke, in the early part of the session, of a proposed alliance of which the banns were forbidden. The hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Baxter) for the second time has used the term "morganatic alliance". When those expressions were used, I for one could not but recall a certain illicit alliance that was entered into at one time, an alliance of which hon. members to my right have been reminded two or three times by hon. gentlemen opposite, an alliance that was entered into, as such illicit relationships are often entered into without very much regard for the consequences,-consequences that at one time threatened to be serious to the people of Canada, and consequences which were serious. I should like just to remind our hon. friends who speak of morganatic alliances that they ought to remember some of those alliances of the past-


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that while he introduced his remarks on the appropriation for the Dominion arsenal at Quebec, his remarks in the committee up to the present have not been relevant to this particular appropriation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John Livingstone Brown: I submit that my remarks may not be relevant; but neither were the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Baxter).


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend (Mr. Baxter) rather suggested that I was concealing information. The decision to reduce by $50,000 was not made by the Government. That made, of course some little difference in the details. I read out to my hon. friend a few moments ago all that the Government proposed to manufacture at Quebec with the $425,000. The change would be that we would drop some of the small arms and manufacture 5,000 rounds of 18-pound shells.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is that in money? No one has told us that yet.


George Perry Graham: I have informed one hon. gentleman that I have no calculation as to the cost and I cannot possibly give that to him to-night.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I want to know if I understand the minister aright, that at the time the estimates were brought down to the House, he did not know that shell ammunition would be required; that he has been informed since then that shell ammunition is required, and that he will have to cut down the small arm ammunition in order to make room for the other.


George Perry Graham: I want to give my hon. friend all the information. As I stated a few moments ago, an error was made in leaving out the 5,000 rounds of artillery ammunition.


James Dew Chaplin: In reference to the 5,000 rounds of 18-pound ammunition, we have no information as to the cost. I ventured the opinion a while ago that it would be worth probably somewhere between $20 and $25 a shell. Might I ask the minister, as his deputy is present, if that includes the explosive, the cartridge and the primer, the whole thing complete, loaded?


George Perry Graham: I am informed by my deputy that that is the whole shell complete.


James Dew Chaplin: At $25 apiece, that would mean that the small arm ammunition would be cut to the extent of $125,000.


George Perry Graham: I did not finish my remarks. I did not state any price.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has not done so yet.
Supply-Militia


George Perry Graham: I am doing my best to do so. I am informed that the complete shell will cost from $18 to $21.


Arthur Meighen: The committee is in just the position in which it was when this estimate was first brought up. The estimate is for virtually the same amount as that of last year. The only reason advanced so far by the minister for its reduction is that some 5,000 rounds of 18-pound shells extra are required. That might be a reason for increasing the estimate. No reason at all is given for the reduction; but, of course, we all know the reason; the reason is simply a demand made that it be done. But inasmuch as everything else is reduced that is of service, I for one do not know any reason why it should not be $110,000 less, or even $150,000 less, just as much as $50,000 less. We have no information on the subject at all. I need not comment on the inconsistencies of the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went through the last campaign-and ever since, indeed, he has continued the process-storming against the quantity of ammunition that was in the country, promising all sorts of exposures, all sorts of scandals about it, complaining that ammunition that we owned was brought here at the mere cost of carrying it, and now he comes to Parliament and wants us to vote $375,000 to make some more.
No reason whatever has been given as to why the Lindsay arsenal is closed and this one continued. The minister says: "There is danger as regards both being destroyed in the event of hostilities." We all know that there is possibly equal danger from the air; but the one is in very grave danger from the chief source of peril, and the other in no danger from that source at all. In point of danger, as regards geographical location, the argument is wholly in favour of the Lindsay arsenal. The minister never attempted to make any reply to that, nor to shift from the shoulders of his Government the very obvious explanation that it is merely a political move, keeping the one and abandoning the other. Inasmuch as we have no explanation at all why $110,000 cannot go off just as much as $50,000; inasmuch as the minister has reduced the provision for the rest beyond what he admitted, once at least, was the margin of safety, and inasmuch as he had virtually abandoned the training or, at least, the greater part of the training, can he show us that there is not on hand sufficient to enable them this

year to get along with the quantity that would be allowed by the amendment of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) ? Indeed, so far as information is given to the committee, there would not require to be any made at all, except perhaps of one line. If I have understood all the information given, there is enough of the rest on hand to last from four to nine years. Why then go ahead except with the line as respects which there may be some shortage? In a word, unless we are to get information that puts the responsibility up to us, I know of no reason for voting money here at all. We have enough to produce just what the minister says we need.


Mr. HOEY:: I want to make my position clear on this item in just a word or two. I want first of all to congratulate the minister on his courage in making these reductions, not only this particular reduction, but reductions in other items that we have already considered. It is my judgment that these reductions will be received throughout this country with considerable satisfaction, if not with enthusiasm. It is my hope-and I trust I am justified in that hope-that these reductions will be interpreted as economies effected in the interest of soldiers' civil re-establishment. Even this afternoon and for several days I have been moved-and I possess a somewhat phlegmatic nature-by the kindling eloquence of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). His speeches in the interests of Canadian defence were eloquent. He says that the policy of a country-referring to its defence-is reflected in the moral character of the citizens of that country. I was deeply moved by his appeal. But I cannot understand his position at the moment.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I do.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I cannot understand the attitude which hon. members to my right are taking. Even allowing that we have no militia at all, would not common sense tell us that ammunition itself is a factor in national defence in view of the thousands of trained men we have throughout the country? Now, these are the men that talk about national defence, and sing "Rule, Britannia." I do not take second place to any member in this House in my loyalty to the British Empire. I had the good fortune, or the misfortune, whichever you like, to come from a part of the country that has suffered more than any other part of the British Empire in the

Supply-Militia
determination to adhere to that Empire. But I say I cannot understand at all the position taken at the moment by the right ' hon. gentleman to my right, and I want to congratulate the minister (Mr. Graham) on his courage in giving way to the wishes of Paidiament in this regard and in making these reductions in the interests . of economy, thus relieving the people from the oppressive and ponderous burdens under which they are labouring.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman-


Ernest Lapointe: Speech No. 34.


Arthur Meighen: I am grateful to hon. gentlemen for the applause they have seen fit to accord me.


William Duff: Will the hon. member allow me a question? Is this the first time he is speaking?


Arthur Meighen: If it is your will, Mr. Chairman, and the will of the committee that we convert ourselves into an entertainment association we might import movies here with some degree of success.


William Duff: We do not have to when
you are here.


Arthur Meighen: The subject is treated as one purely of levity on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite. They seem prepared to spend money so long as it is spent just in the way they want, and when they get sufficient fun out of it in the House. I am not at all surprised at the position taken by the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Hoey). I make no comment on any alliances; I let the facts speak for themselves. The records of this House is a pretty good disclosure to the people of the country as to just the relationship between that hon. gentleman, at least, and some others near me, and hon. gentlemen opposite. He says that he does not understand me. As soon as it is shown to me that the further manufacture of ammunition to this extent is necessary, as soon as the minister states it on his responsibility and gives me the facts to prove that it is necessary to have this ammunition on hand for our purposes, I will support him, and support an increase in the vote.


Robert Alexander Hoey: He has already given that explanation.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Hoey) is easily satisfied. And if any hon. gentleman thinks the action courageous of a minister who brings an estimate to Parliament, declares it is the
minimum for the safety of the nation, and, because a roar is raised behind him, reduces it, then the relationship is pretty easily established between him and such a minister. The minister has stated that he cannot give any figures at all to show the cost of the extra ammunition he wants, nor will he tell us what it is proposed to make. We do not need to know accurately at all, but we should like him to give, even roughly, an estimate as to how long what is on hand will last, and what the cost will be of what it is proposed to make. As soon as we have that information and it is shown that we need that extra ammunition I am prepared to vote every dollar of the $50,000, every dollar of what in the first place he said would be required.


Donald Sutherland: The Minister of Militia before leaving the Chamber said that he anticipated the greatest danger to the arsenal from the air. I would ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Lapointe) who has moved to reduce the item, when the Government decided on this reduction? Was it after the estimates for the air force had been reduced by $617,000? This reduction was made in the expenditure on the Canadian Air Forces a short time ago in connection with the policy of the Government on national defence. The minister informed the House that he anticipated a greater danger from the air than from any other source. Possibly that is the reason why the arsenal has been removed from Lindsay to Quebec. Now it will be a long way from the headquarters of the remnant of the air service which was and might be situated at Camp Borden, and I think that Lindsay would have been a much more suitable place for the arsenal. Does the minister anticipate danger to the Quebec arsenal from our own air force or from some foreign force? Will he inform the committee as to when it was decided to reduce the item $50,000? He has told the committee that he made an announcement to the effect some days ago. Evidently I was not in the House at the time.


George Perry Graham: That has been explained already.


James Dew Chaplin: In last year's estimates the total amount of small arms ammunition proposed to be made was seven and a half million rounds, or perhaps about eight million. According to the estimate, at page 29, this year it is proposed to make seventeen million rounds. This is what the minister calls practising economy. He
Supply-Militia

proposes to make nearly seventeen million rounds of ammunition as against seven or eight million rounds last year.


Lucien Cannon: Does not the hon. member think that the reduction proposed is a fair one in view of the fact that a truce has just been signed for eight months at Genoa by thirty-four nations of the world?


James Dew Chaplin: There is no reduction. I have just pointed out that there is an increase of some nine million rounds of ammunition this year.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does not understand the facts. The nine million which he has added to the seven million have been deducted from the list.


James Dew Chaplin: Well, you never said so before. At page 29 of the Estimates, there are two figures, seven millions and nine millions.


Arthur Meighen: How many years'
supply have we on hand in the way of reserve? Can the minister tell us that, and on what authority? The only information I have heard has been that we have forty-five million rounds and that the utmost that has been used were ten million. There will be less used this year on account of the reductions in the other estimates. What is the minister's policy, and what does he base it on, as to the number of years' reserve that should be on hand?


George Perry Graham: If I remember correctly the figure given by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), it is eighty million rounds.


Arthur Meighen: There is that reserve?


George Perry Graham: No. I do not say that
any Canadian government has maintained that reserve, but it is the opinion of Lord French that a reserve of eighty million rounds should be maintained. I imagine that provides for ten million rounds in addition being used each year.


Arthur Meighen: That is for a very
much larger force than the minister contemplates by his policy. What is the minister aiming at himself, and on what does he base his opinion as to what we ought to have by way of reserve?


George Perry Graham: My officers think that
we ought to have eighty million rounds in reserve, but we have not anything like that number of rounds.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. minister's
officers also think that we ought to have much more training.
Amendment (Mr. McBride) to the amendment negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Lapointe) agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Adjustment of War Claims-Militia and Defence, $7,380,000.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, one of
the amounts in this item is $500,000 for the battlefield memorials. I admit without any hesitation that I think it should be separate. A committee composed of members of both Houses was named to deal with this matter. I might by repetition detail the history of the appointment of that body, but as the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) is chairman of it, I would suggest that he give to the House a resume of what has been done.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: Mr. Chairman, I
agree with the minister that this item should have been placed among the miscellaneous votes, but I do not criticise its inclusion in this vote.
For the information of some members of the House who were not then members,! may say that in 1920 a committee of the House [DOT] was appointed to consider the question of Canadian battlefields' war memorials. That committee sat for some time, took evidence, and made a report to the House, recommending that certain memorials be erected in France and Belgium. Eight sites were selected as follows: No. 1, St. Julien; No. 2, Passchendaele; No. 3, Observatory Ridge; No. 4 Vimy Ridge; No. 5, Drury Crossroads; No. 6, Bourlon wood; No. 7, Cour-celette; No. 8, Hospital Wood.
Subsequently a commission was appointed consisting of the Hon. . Mr. Lemieux, General Sir Richard Turner, Colonel Leonard, Senator Turriff and myself, a purely voluntary commission, to consider the erection of these war memorials. A competition was held for designs, open to architects and sculptors all over Canada, and very complete rules were printed and issued. Something like 160 competitors submitted designs. The assessors appointed to consider those designs were, Professor C. H. Reilly, representing the Royal Institute of British Architects; M. Paul P. Creats, representing the Societe Centraie des Architects (Paris); and Mr. Frank Darling, representing the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. Those assessors selected seventeen designs

Supply-Militia
for the second stage, and from those two awards were made, one to Mr. Allward of Toronto, the other to Mr. Clemenshaw of Regina.
The memorial designed by Mr. Allward, of which a photograph has been on exhibition, and I think is now in the Speaker's room, was proposed by the commission to be erected at Vimy. It is on a large and magnificent scale and has received great commendation throughout not only the length and breadth of this country but of England and France.
Working in conjunction with the Imperial War Graves Commission, we discussed the perpetuation of the names of Canada's missing. As you are all aware, the Imperial War Graves Commission is a body incorporated by Royal charter of which the Prince of Wales is chairman, and with which all the overseas dominions are associated. They are charged with perpetuating their quota within the war cemeteries by a headstone of simple design placed over the grave of every officer, noncommissioned officer and man. It has been unanimously decided that we should consecrate the names of Canada's missing within this one large memorial which we propose erecting at Vimy. Those names at the present time, I regret to say, run to about nineteen thousand.
The other seven memorials, exactly similar in design but on a very much smaller scale, will be erected at the other seven points. Land has been acquired at the eight different points at very low cost, one of the areas having been presented to the Canadian Government. General Hughes has been over there as engineer in charge; he has laid out the plans for the grounds, arranged for the grading of roads, and so on. We are hoping at an early day to complete the contracts for the erection of these memorials. I may say that this vote was brought into the House by myself in 1920 and again in 1921; it is now again presented this session. It was strongly recommended by the committee of the House appointed in 1920, and it has been practically a revote ever since. As I have already stated, this work is being carried on voluntarily iby the gentlemen whose names have been given. We hope this vote will pass the House unanimously, in order that we may be enabled to make some headway with what we look upon as the least this country can do to perpetuate the deeds of heroism of those Canadians who fell in France and Flanders.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to say just one word in regard to this vote and to the work of the War Memorials Commission. The hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) has spoken of what has been done in the way of the proposed erection of monuments. I hope the commission will consider very seriously indeed-I know in fact it is considering it-the advisability of acquiring a very considerable tract of land along Vimy Ridge as a permanent memorial. Whilst sculpture may do a great deal to commemorate the sacrifices of our men, Vimy itself is one of the world's great altars, on which a perceptible portion of our manhood has been sacrificed in the cause of the world's freedom. As a national memorial nothing can equal the preservation of the ridge itself, if it can be acquired. I hope the commission will go just as far as it can in acquiring what to Canada will ever be consecrated and hallowed ground.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I am glad the Prime Minister referred to that; there is just one word that I omitted to say. We took expert evidence as to the location of these memorials from all the officers, from the corps commander down, and in the decisions we arrived at we have been backed up by their opinion as well as by that of Professor Reilly, who went over and viewed the sites. The unanimous opinion was that the large memorial ought to go to Vimy. Many of the army officers held that Vimy was by no means the most important battle that was fought by the Canadian corps; yet it is agreed that there is something distinctive regarding Vimy that comes very close to the hearts of Canadians. We have a small site there and we feel that sufficient of that ground should be acquired; we trust that Parliament will approve whatever recommendation we may finally make with that idea in view. The base of this memorial will occupy very nearly an acre of ground, and we hope we can acquire at a reasonable price certain portions of Vimy to perpetuate for all time the outstanding features of Canada's exploits on that ridge. That, I think, is what the Prime Minister referred to. I may say that all the members of the commission are unanimously of that opinion, and General Hughes has agreed to continue the negotiations with the French Government and some of the owners with a view to seeing just what land we can acquire for that purpose.


Hugh Guthrie: I quite agree with the suggestion that additional land be procured

Supply-Militia

on Vimy Ridge. I was familiar with the work of this commission, because it is under the Department of Militia and Defence, as is also the War Graves Commission. I had an opportunity of personally inspecting all the eight sites which have been referred to by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn). At the time I examined the sites, the work on them was progressing. A good deal of work has been done on some of them in the way of levelling, cultivation, and the construction of permanent roadways, which have made them very accessible and also very beautiful. But what struck one on looking at the eight sites was that Vimy Ridge was too far removed from the main road and that many people might pass by without their attention being specially called to the fact that this site had been chosen as the location of the memorial. Originally the memorial was to have been erected on Hill 62, near the Ypres salient, but on further consideration, those more concerned than I was with the matter-the officers who had charge of it-decided that Vimy would be a more suitable point. It so happens that there is a large tract of the ridge running right out to the main highway which can be secured, I believe, on very reasonable terms from the government of France, who still own it. I quite agree with my hon. friend from East Hamilton and with the Prime Minister that the Vimy site should be secured right to the main road. It cannot cost very much, and the result will be to add materially to the value of the property as a monumental site.


Mr. SPEAKER:: As this is a nonpolitical matter, Mr. Chairman, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a 12 m. word. I had the honour to be appointed a member of this commission by the late government, and have attended all its sittings. The work has been most harmonious, and I must thank the late government for the appointment of my friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) as chairman of that commission. I have asked the new Government, since there has been a change, to maintain him as chairman of that commission. Very little has been said in the Canadian press about the monuments which have finally been selected, but in looking over the British and the French press- and, I may say, the American press, because our secretary has collated all these reports and comments published in the newspapers-we find with pride that the

monuments designed by Canadian artists equal, if they do not surpass, the memorials to be erected on that great battlefield by other nations. It has been stated-and I repeat, word for word, I think, what I have read in one of those most artistic reviews from France-that as regards grandeur, simplicity and reverence combined, there is nothing to equal the masterpiece that Allward, a Canadian, has produced. I re-echo the views expressed a moment ago by the Prime Minister. To Canadians, Vimy Ridge is hallowed ground, and it will be acquired by the commission if that can be done. I have nothing more to say; I repeat that I would not have taken part in this debate had the subject not been a non-political one. I am proud to serve on that commission and under my good friend the member for East Hamilton.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, as this_
commission comes under the Department of Militia and Defence, I want to assure the committee that up to date everything connected with the commission has been most harmonious. The commission has had but one object in view, that of carrying out the wishes of Parliament in order that honour may be done to our dead and a lesson be thus taught to the living. I have visited some of the battlefields overseas, and take this opportunity or assuring any hon. gentlemen who are personally interested in the cemeteries over there that they are being taken care of in minutest detail.
When the work of the War Graves Commission is completed Canadians who go overseas will find places not only of beauty but places of reverent instruction, places helpful in forecasting the possibilities of the future viewed in the light of what has happened in the past. When I went overseas two years ago I was waited on by some gentlemen there who wished to get the views of the Canadian people on the suggestions that had been made, that the remains of the boys who had fallen should be brought back to Canada. It is a delicate question to discuss, but after having consultation with the War Graves Commission, and after visiting the cemeteries, I have no hesitation in giving it as my view that the boys ought to be left to rest where their day's work was finished. I believe that is best in the interest of the world as a whole because, in the years to come, these monuments erected to the memory of the Canadian boys will stand as a part of the history, in a sense, of the world's revolution, and if these bodies were to be removed we would lose one of

Supply-Militia
the great lessons of the war. These cemeteries will form in the years to come a monument to Canada's ideals, to Canada's courage, and to Canada's devotion to what the people of this land deemed to he the right. I hope in a year or two, if I live, to visit these graves again, and I feel assured, from the sites that have been located for the erection of these battlefield memorials, that every Canadian who visits that land will feel a greater thrill of pride when he surveys these memorials.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: I am sorry the leader of the Progressives party is unavoidably absent at this moment, but having talked this matter over with him I know that had he been here his voice would have been raised in commendation of the work of the commission in reference to these war memorials. I believe too that he would have supported the idea of the Prime Minister that the commission should acquire a larger acreage in connection with the memorial at Vimy, and that this wonderful piece of work should not suffer for lack of space. It has been my privilege to view a photograph of these memorials and I am sure that all Canadians will feel great pride that we are to have such a memorial to commemorate the work of our men on Vimy Ridge as well as the smaller memorials at other points in the battle area.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I wanted to make one observation which I am sure the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) would have uttered had it not perhaps inadvertently escaped him, and it is this: I think the public should know that these monuments are being placed on spots which, to Canadian soldiers at least, are all historic ground. It is unnecessary to say that the monument at Vimy Ridge is essentially one of that character; but perhaps it may not be known that numbers of the others too, commemorate probably some of the greatest engagements in which the Canadian soldiers took part. I need only mention that the contemplated memorial at the crossroads near the little town of Dury commemorates the successful attack on the Hindenburg line, in which the Canadian corps formed the spearhead on that particular day in September. Might I also mention that the memorial proposed at Bourlon Wood commemorates the Cambrai attack in the latter part of September, 1918. So too it will be recalled that the proposed memorial at Courcellette commemorates the attacks on the Somme; and
similarly with the remainder. There is just one thing which occurs to me, as a tragic incident in connection with the war, and which probably will bring home to people who perhaps, at this distance, are not sufficiently impressed with the tremendous and awful horrors of war, and that is that to-day there are 19,000 Canadians, out of a total of 60,000 dead, who are missing. I think that is a tragic circumstance, and one that perhaps will not lose its significance upon those who seem to think that the horrors of war are overstated.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution carry?


Hugh Guthrie: The resolution comprises the whole war claims vote, whereas the item we have been discussing only refers to a sum of half a million. I understood my hon. friend wanted this particular item to pass. There was some arrangement with my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) that it should be discussed, but I know that my leader was under the impression that the rest of the vote would not go through to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well, we will hold it.


George Perry Graham: With the exception of this item; we are through with this particular resolution.


Hugh Guthrie: That is perfectly satisfactory.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the adjournment of the House


Hugh Guthrie: We will have the
Budget to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I may say that once the debate on the Budget is commenced the Government would like it to proceed until it is disposed of.


Hugh Guthrie: That is, the debate'
should proceed each day after routine business?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned 12.10 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, May 23, 1922 The House met at three o'clock.


MEMORIAL TO THE LATE COLONEL G. H. BAKER, M.P.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. P. KAY (Missisquoi) moved, seconded by Mr. Ethier: That the follow-
[Stage Direction]
A nimals-Diseases
ing members of parliament, namely Messieurs Ross (Kingston), Boivin, Kay and Mewburn be appointed a special committee to act with a like committee of the Senate in further considering and determining the form of the national memorial to be erected in the Parliament building to the late Lieut.-Colonel Baker, M.P., who lost his life on the field of battle, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours accordingly.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109 (from the Senate), for the relief of D'Eyncourt Marshall Ostrom.- Mr. Church.
Bill No. 110 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Herbert Stanley Campbell.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 112 (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert James Owen.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 113 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gibson Mackie Todd.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 115 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Thompson.-Mr. Slieard.
Bill No. 116 (from the Senate), for the relief of Daniel Calvin Bell.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 117 (from the Senate), for the relief of Stanley Davidson Morning-Mr. Duff.	*
Bill No. 118 (from the Senate), for the relief of Johnston Nixon.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 119 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Andrew Hawkins.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Malone.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 121 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marjorie Elizabeth Wickson.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Hewitt Bostock: Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Deliah Jane Mills, and Bill No. 114, for the relief of Mary Agnes Flynn Donog-hue, have no sponsor, and their first reading must be postponed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was understood that we would go on with the Budget; but might I ask the committee df they will kindly take up, in the first instance, Order No. 12, on the Order Paper? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has been delayed for a few moments in coming into the House, and we might proceed with that Order if hon. gentlemen opposite are agreeable.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. R. Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture) Bill No. 62, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On section 1-maximum compensation reduced.
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: As this Bill went through its second reading so quickly, I had not an opportunity of making a few remarks at that stage, but they probably can be made just as well now. As most hon. members are doubtless aware, since 1906 an act has been in force providing for certain compensation for animals on account of their being slaughtered to prevent the spread of contagious disease. That act has been changed from time to time with regard to the amount of compensation in proportion to the increase in value of animals on the market, whether pure bred or animals for commercial purposes. Now it is thought advisable to reduce the compensation to correspond with the reduction in value of animals on the market. That is the purport of this bill. There may be a difference of opinion as to the amount of this reduction on the various classes of animals; but I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in the committee as to the principle of reducing the compensation in proportion to the reduced value of animals on the market today. As a matter of fact, many animals are not worth one-half what they were two years ago; and as this bill is for the purpose, not of purchasing animals, but rather of indemnifying owners who have had animals examined and slaughtered, it is obviously inadvisable to leave these indemnifications at the high rate at which they are at present. It seems to my officials and myself that the amounts named in the bill are about right, but they are not fixed arbitrarily, and I shall be glad to have any suggestions made in cases where it is considered they are left either too high or too low.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the amount of the reduction that has taken place?


William Richard Motherwell: I have in my
hand a statement showing the various amount of indemnities during the years since 1906, and I have a copy of this for my hon. friend. The statement reads:

A nim als-Disea ses
Between 1906 and 1913 Pure breds-
Horses	 $300
Cattle	 150
Pigs or sheep	 50
Grades-
Horses	 $150
Cattle	 60
Pigs or sheep	 15
Between 1913 and 1918 Pure breds-[DOT]
Horses	 $500
Cattle	 150
Pigs or sheep	 50
Grades-
Horses	 200
Cattle	 60
Pigs or sheep	 15
Then, as the act was amended in 1918:
Pure breds-
Horses	 ?500
Cattle	 250
Pigs or sheep	 75
Grades-
Horses	 200
Cattle	 80
Pigs or sheeip	 20
The figures provided for in this amendment now before the committee are exactly identical with what they were from 1906 to 1913, just before the war, which I have already read. It is within the judgment of the House to indicate in what instance they are still too high or may be made too low. It was not originally intended to purchase the animals, but to encourage the inspection of them. The object was to identify and destroy diseased animals and indemnify the owners to the extent of these amounts, leaving the animals as salvage to the owners in addition to the indemnifications. It must be remembered also that we have only a certain amount of money to do the work with, the reasonable compensation like the foregoing will clean up a larger number of herds than if we left the indemnifications too high. In other words, you get more useful work done by this fair indemnification proposed in the bill than by the present rate, and at the same time give to the owners a fair compensation on the basis of the valuation of the animals.
' Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) : Is the full value of the animal paid or only a percentage of the value?


William Richard Motherwell: It depends on the relative value of the animal, but the inspector will take this amount proposed as a maximum. The compensation for each individual animal will depend upon the inspector's appraisal of its value.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw):: I do
not think the minister grasps my point. Is the indemnification a percentage of the value of the animal, or is it the entire value?	,


William Richard Motherwell: It is two-thirds
of the value.


Robert Milton Johnson: That is
what I thought.


William Richard Motherwell: And it is based
upon the inspector's appraisal.


Mr. SALES:: The inspector, I understand, may give what compensation he thinks is proper according to the value, in his estimation, of the animal destroyed. But the maximum is $150?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Thomas Sales: Does not the minister
think that this maximum is rather low? Here we have the question of tuberculosis confronting us. This is an important matter, as it effects the health of our people, especially young children who drink the milk from these animals. Many of these animals cost more than $150, some of them two, three or four times as much; and I think that, considering the way in which we were voting money for ammunition last night and for various other matters, we might well increase the maximum compensation paid to the owners of these animals. I urge this point not because it is a matter of agriculture; it is something that is of vital importance to all our people, from the point of view of health. I suggest that the maximum be increased by $50 at least, making the compensation $200. Horses are not used for food, and I am quite satisfied to let the compensation in regard to these animals, and in regard to swine and sheep, stand as it is.


Mr. HODGINS:: I am not quite clear
as to the meaning of the bill. Does the minister mean that the compensation to be allowed is two thirds of $150? He might explain that point.


William Richard Motherwell: As the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is ready to deliver his Budget I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance, member for Shelburne and Queens), moved:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.
He said: Mr. Speaker, eleven years have passed since I last had the pleasure of delivering the Budget Speech in this House of Commons. During these years, and particularly since the year 1914, a great change has come over the financial position of the Dominion. I am sometimes afraid that the full character and the consequence of that change are but inadequately appreciated and understood by the majority of our people. That Canada has built up a very large public debt; that the interest alone on that debt calls for an enormous sum of money, greater indeed than the total expenditure of Canada but a few years ago; that we have a large pension list; and that in various ways we have added enormously to our obligations, are facts well understood by all close students of our public affairs. I think they may possibly be understood in a way, a vague and hazy way perhaps, by the broader public whom we sometimes typify as " the man in the street." He has an opinion, no doubt, that things are a little more serious than they used to be; but I do not think he has quite appreciated the full consequences, of the change. Borne things are happening as in the good old days. The board of trade, the chamber of commerce, the city council, the town council, and all the other excellent organizations which exist for the advancement of the community, hold their meetings and pass their resolves. They decide at once that for some particular thing which is dearest to their hearts they must instantly have a large appropriation, and then they send sheaves of resolutions to that effect, sometimes following those up with delegations in carload lots to impress upon the Government the necessity of complying with their request. Have these people no notion whatever of the situation? It would hardly he fair to say that. Yes, they have a notion in a way; they have a formula of their own; and they will say to the ministers : " Gentlemen, of course we understand that the situation is a little more

anxious than it was wont to be; of course, there is need of economy. But the particular thing we want, everyone must admit, is entirely an exception to the rule." We are all in favour of economy for the other fellow, but we are not so ready to recognize the need of economy in the case of the things that are nearest and dearest to us ourselves.
I must to-day present two thoughts which are of paramount importance. The first is as to the need, the deep and earnest need, of economy. That means that we must appeal both to members of Parliament and to the people to pass what I may call self-denying ordinances. They must not expect all the things which in the good old days they got so readily,-it may be a railway, a bridge, a public work of some kind, a public building, a breakwater, a pier, or any one of the numerous things which we should all like to have, all in their way useful in the development of the community, all desirable, some of them even urgent under better conditions. But it is unpleasant to have to tell people, in most cases, that these things must for the present stand aside. The second thought is that, with all the economy that we can practise, there will still be need of severe examination into our taxation system. It is not pleasant to have to increase taxes, but the fact is that under our present taxation system, I am afraid, with all the economy we can practise, there will not be sufficient means to meet the various obligations of the country. And so we will have to ask the consideration of hon. members and of the public in order that there may be a proprer appreciation of these new conditions that have arisen.
The accounts for the fiscal year 1920-21 have been published and distributed, so that one need not dwell upon them to any extent. The budget speech necessarily takes some account of three years-the year which has passed and for which we have the public accounts, the year that is sometimes current-in this case it happens to be just finished;- and we have to have some regard to the year ahead.
Income and Expenditure
For the year 1920-21 the public accounts show what is called a surplus, to the amount of $73,268,391. Old members may recall the discussions that have taken place in this House from time to time with regard to the manner in which a surplus is declared. A Finance Minister who has

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
the good fortune to produce a surplus-I have had that good luck on a number of occasions-may find, and very often will find, that he meets with this criticism: Oh, you have no such surplus; you actually have run into debt during the year. The method in the past of showing a surplus has been to take what is called the ordinary expenditure of the country-the everyday expenditure, if I may so call it-and set against it the revenue of the year, which left you either a surplus or a deficit. If that revenue is more than the ordinary expenditure you will have a surplus; if it is less than the ordinary expenditure you will have a deficit.
But every year there are expenditures which do not appear in that calculation. The objection made in times past was well founded. It was and is a fact that there are always expenditures of a special character, and the criticism that has been made in times past is in that respect correct. The distinction that is drawn between capital expenditure and ordinary expenditure has often been a subject of debate. This much is clear, that where you have important public works, large undertakings- such, for example, as this building-they are a legitimate charge to capital account. There is very often much dispute as to what is a proper charge and what is not, but I have observed that notwithstanding criticism of that character, whenever a change of government occurred the new Minister of Finance coming into office fell into the old ways and claimed a surplus even when the country was running into debt.
It is not an unfair claim to make if the facts be clearly understood. It has always been the method by which our public accounts have been conducted. So when the accounts for 1920-21 claimed that there was a large surplus of $73,000,000, the method of bookkeeping was being followed that had existed in the past, yet as a matter of fact during that year there was actually an increase in the public debt of $92,000,000 and over, the difference, of course, representing the charges to capital and special account and that now ever-growing account, the railway service of the country.
If we turn to the year 1921-22, the year that has just closed, although the accounts are not quite complete we are sufficiently informed to be able to make a substantially correct statement of the outcome.
The income tax and business profits tax for this last year show an increase of $14,276,774 over the receipts of the previous year. That, of course, is very gratifying; but on the other side the Customs Department shows a decrease of $57,000,000. The total revenue from all Sources we place at $381,271,000, against in 1920-21 $434,386,000. There was, therefore, a very large decrease in the revenue of the year.
The expenditure charged to consolidated fund was $348,145,000, a decrease of $12,972,000, as compared with the previous year. With a revenue of $381,271,000, and an expenditure on consolidated fund of $348,145,000, there is therefore an apparent surplus, according to the method which I have spoken of, of $33,125,000 on the year just closed. There were, however, other expenses on capital account of $23,073,000, cost of loan flotations $80,218, demobilization $9,180,000. Then there are other payments which are classified as investments, active or non-active; only the active investments are taken in the reduction of the public debt.
The result of the operations for the year just closed is that while we have according to one calculation a surplus, we have to acknowledge an addition to the public debt of $86,417,000.
For the fiscal year 1922-23, on which we have entered, on the basis of our present taxation I would estimate that the revenue would be $332,629,000. In this we are including customs at $103,000,000, which is $2,500,000 less than the receipts of the past year. If our anticipations of improving business are realized, we should do a little better than this.
With regard to income tax we could not expect to be so fortunate. This tax is levied on the income of the past year, which was not a good business year; indeed, I think it was a year of exceptional depression, and the effect of that depression will be marked in the reduction of our income tax receipts for the present year. We received last year from income tax and from business profits tax $101,500,000. We would not feel justified in estimating for the coming year more than $60,000,000 from that source.
With a loss of revenue last year as compared with the previous year of $53,000,000, and with a prospect of a shortage of $40,000,000 on the income tax for the current year, the House will see that the situation is a very serious one indeed.
From these and other receipts we estimate a total revenue for the present year of $332,629,000, based, of course, upon our present system of taxation.
The estimates of expenditure which we have submitted to Parliament called for a
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
total of $466,983,359. Supplementary estimates yet to come will add something to this total, but I hope not much.
From our present sources of revenue we could provide for all our ordinary expenditure and have a modest surplus-in the way that surpluses are now made up- but there would still be a large expenditure on capital account and for the railways, and this would have to be provided for by additions to the public debt. That would not be a very cheerful prospect. We must soon begin to consider the question of the reduction of our public debt rather than aim to increase it. Great Britain with all her troubles has since the war paid olf £500,000,000 of her public debt. The United States is making efforts to reduce her public debt. We have not only made no reduction, but we have to acknowledge a steady increase in the public debt every year since the war. Last year, three and a half years after the armistice, we increased our debt by $86,500,000. If we cannot reduce our debt, we should at all events make strenuous efforts to guard against increasing it. We should endeavour to balance our budget, that is, to pay all classes of our expenditure. It would be a joy to me if I could tell the House that we have an expectation of that during the present year. I am afraid, however, the situation will not permit us to do so much. Let us ever recognize our obligation to move in that direction and make every possible effort toward the end in view. We cannot do this if we are content to rest on our present methods of taxation. Even if our estimates of revenue, which are conservative, should be exceeded -and I hope they will-we shall find ourselves short by a considerable sum. If we are to avoid that situation we must accept the responsibility of additional taxation.
The Public Debt
I want to call attention now to the increase of our public debt. Against the gross debt are set off what are called the assets of the Dominion. In former years practically all our assets were treated as good. When the amount was not very great in proportion to our business, perhaps there was no need of any discrimination, but when these assets, under the operation of our railways, grew to very large figures, it became desirable or necessary that there should be discrimination. My predecessor in office, very properly I think, made that discrimination by dividing

those assets into active and non-active. It makes no difference with regard to the general expenditure, but if only the good assets are set off against the gross debt we get a fairer statement of the real debt of the country. Now, we are continuing this method of treating the assets: we treat these railway moneys as loans. Perhaps there can be some just objection to that. The Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern are now virtually owned by the Dominion of Canada, and when we adfvance money to them we are, in a sense, lending money to ourselves. When we represent these debts as assets, a keen critic might find some fault. But it may be that it will be necessary to continue that system; we are following out the accounts for 1922 in that way. There may be an advantage and a convenience in separating the railway operations from the rest of our expenditure. However, there is another view of the matter. We have a justification for charging to capital or to a speeial account some particular thing-the building of a railway, for instance. Various classes of public expenditure having permanent results may properly be classified as assets, may properly be classified under capital account. But if from year to year we are to provide for the ordinary expenses of thi railway; if we are to provide for the deficit, the difference between receipts and expenditure; if we are also to provide large sums for interest on the bonds and other securities of these so-called railway companies-if we are to do that unfailingly every year, with a reducing figure we may hope, it will be open to some to say, with much justice, that this is no longer a special account but part of the ordinary expenditure of the country; and if so, that ordinary expenditure should be included before we undertake to declare a surplus. However, as I said a moment ago, there may be some advantage in keeping the accounts of the railways for the present as separate and apart from the others. If we clearly and definitely understand the nature of the transaction, I suppose there may be no serious objection to it.
The net debt on the 31st March, 1914-I am taking that year as one of great events -was $335,996,850. That was the accumulation of half a century of confederation. It included what remained of all the old provincial debts taken over by the Dominion. It included the construction of great public works. It included what we once thought were large expenditures. The

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
result of it was that that debt in 1914 was a shade under $336,000,000. That was considered in its day a large debt, and many a speech was made in this House as to its magnitude, many a cautious member wondered how we were ever going to stand it. But what are we to say of it to-day in comparison with the enormous debt that we now have? As against a little less than $336,000,000 in 1914, our estimated net debt on the 31st March of the present year was $2,427,296,798. Our largest increase was in 1920-$674,000,000; the smallest increase was in the year recently closed- $86,000,000.
Loans
During the year four Canadian government loans have been floated. Three of these have been in the names of the railway companies and one a direct government obligation. We still keep up the theory of corporations in regard to these railways; the railway loans are issued in the names of the railway companies, with guarantees by the government. As a matter of fact, the government to-day are both makers and endorsers of those securities; so that practically they are now government loans. Three of these loans, therefore, have been railway loans guaranteed by the government; the fourth was a direct government loan, of which I shall speak in a moment. In July, 1921, there were sold $26,000,000 of 6i per cent Canadian Northern Railway bonds guaranteed by the government. These were sold at 921; they were afterwards sold to the public at 961. There was thus on that transaction a clear margin of profit to the buyers of 4 per cent-the spread between what the government got and what the investors who got them paid. This, I think, indicates that it was rather a better transaction for the buyers of the bonds than it was for the government. In September, 1921, a $25,000,000; fifteen year 6 per cent loan of the Grand Trunk, guaranteed by the government, was placed. It was sold in New York to realize 92; subsequently it was issued to the public at 951, a spread in this case of 31 per cent-a little less than in the case of the previous loan, but still a pretty large margin for a transaction of that kind. A third loan was one of $11,000,000, floated by the present Government in March of this year, $11,000,000 of three year Canadian Northern Railway five per cent notes guaranteed by the Government. We needed $11,000,000 to retire obligations of the Canadian Northern Railway arising in New York and London.
We thought the arrangements that had been made on former occasions for the sale of these bonds had not worked out to the advantage of the Government, and we adopted a different method; we invited tenders in New York for the loan, receibed the bids, awarded the contract, and sold these notes at 99.03. They were sold again to the public at 991, a spread between what we received and what the investor paid of 59 cents on the $100, as against $4 on the hundred in one case and $3.25 on the hundred in the other.
Then, we come to the $100,000,000 5 per cent loan which we recently placed in New York. That loan was to run thirty years, with our right to redeem it, if we wished to do so, in twenty years. It was sold at 971; it was afterwards placed on the market at par. Some reference has occasionally been made to commissions. I ought to say that the word is not appropriate. In all these transactions to which I have referred there was no question of commissions; the price mentioned in each case was the net price received by the Government. Our $100,000,000 loan sold for 971 net; there were no commissions or charges of any sort to reduce it. We shall probably need for our financial operations some further borrowing at no distant date. I am hoping that when the moment arrives the condition of the money market in Canada will be such that we can have a domestic loan. I think many people regard it as important that we should place our loans at home, because the interest then is payable to our own people. That is an excellent idea, but it may be pushed too far. There are times when it would be manifestly advantageous to Canada to go abroad. But to begin with, times are not so favourable now for placing loans at home. The loans which were so successfully placed a few years ago had for their support the war spirit and the war fever of the .time. Men entered into these transactions largely from patriotic purposes, and they had money to invest in those days, for money was being made. That situation is not exactly repeated to-day. The last year has not been a good business year. Not many men have made money. Not many men have money to invest in government bonds to-day, and there is no longer the patriotic zeal for the war. A loan to-day must be looked upon as a coldblooded proposition. It might be you would have to offer, to induce our Canadian people to invest in a loan, a higher rate of interest than could be obtained
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
elsewhere. On anything like even terms I should prefer the domestic loan, if the money is available.
There is still another thought. Canada is still, I won't say an undeveloped country, but a partially developed country; Canada will still have to be a borrowing country for many years. We shall have to go abroad for capital. If we have too much money locked up in government bonds at home, there will be less money available for mortgages and industrial enterprises in this country. Much will depend on the condition of the money market. If there is an abundance of money, it may be wise for us to have a domestic loan. If there is not an abundance of money, it may be wise to go abroad, because if foreign capital is to be brought in it is easier for the government to bring it in probably than it would be for others. We may still hope, however, that conditions will favour a domestic loan when the moment arrives for us to make another move of that kind.
There is an interesting account that we have with the British government of which it is perhaps worth while passing mention should be made. In the early days of the war, arrangements were made by the government of the day with the British government whereby moneys were advanced by the Mother Country for the payment of our troops in England and France. For a considerable time that continued, and at one time we owed a very considerable amount to the Imperial government. In 1915, on December 31, we owed the British government almost $141,000,000. Then a change took place. The British government desired to buy munitions and supplies of various kinds in Canada, and they arranged with the Canadian government that advances should be made in Canada to the charge of the British government. Since that point was reached, the account has
turned the other way, and we have ever since that been the creditor of the British government to a large amount. At one time, on the 31st of August, 1919, the British government owed us the enormous sum of $333,000,000. On March 31, 1922, the year just closed, subject to some questions of readjustment with regard to exchange, Great Britain owed us on that date, $117,859,630. Arrangements have now been made by which this account is to be paid off in installments of $5,000,000 per month. We have received two payments of that character and no doubt in due course the whole matter will be settled.
Trade
Coming to the question of our trade, the effects of the depression of the past year are clearly seen in the returns of our import and export trade. As compared with 1921 our imports from the United Kingdom fell from $213,000,000 to $117,000,000, and our imports from the United States dropped from $856,000,000 to $516,000,000. Our exports to the United Kingdom held better, the amount for 1922 being $299,000,000, and for 1921 $312,000,000. Our exports to the United States showed the course of the decline, being $293,000,000 against $542,000,000 in the previous year. I do not wish to ask the privilege of the House to put in many statistical documents, but there is one statement prepared by our Bureau of Statistics which I shall ask the House to let me insert. It shows in a condensed form the trade of Canada with each country of the world for a number of years. It will not occupy a great deal of space, and it presents that aspect of the matter in a very quick form. If the House has no objection, I shall see that it is included in my speech.
(The following is the statement referred to) :	(See following page.)
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding

[Stage Direction]
Twelve Months ended March 1921
[Stage Direction]


United Kingdom	
Australia	
Bermuda	
British East Indies... British Guiana	
British South Africa.. British West Africa... British West Indies...
Hong Kong	
Newfoundland	
New Zealand	
Other British Empire Argentine Republic...
Belgium	
Brazil	
China	
Cuba	
France	
Germany	
Greece	
Italy	
Japan	
Mexico	
Netherlands	
Norway	
126,362,631
1,371,775
55,604
16,236,412
7,412,931
735,948
174,928
12,114,790
3,208,836
2,146,414
3,494,600
1,036,790
3,402,554
911,407
1,973,768
1,205,229
17,585,528
10,630,865
44,255
729,830
999,040
13,637,287
2,648,915
2,266,169
461,848
Roumania
Sweden	
Switzerland	
United States	
Other Foreign Countries
360,353
7,758,051
801,097,318
24,464,047
213,973,562 791,9S0 76,959 14,307,404 9,085,108 146,798 104,719 14,833,746 3,516,760 2,886,203 4,219,965 2,059,484 2,552,831 4,693,368 2,151,066 1,897,349 30,743,239 19,138,062 1,547,685 817,157 1,745,330 11,360,821 2,185,399 4,237,791 616,978 088 555,927 14,143,448 856,176,820 19,592,235
117,134,570
1,041,027
98,246
8,928,420
6,166,604
127,738
19,202
8,113,453
2,114,394
1,387,766
1,783,500
2,144,672
2,355,100
3,817,931
1,495,245
1,411,135
13,042,568
13,467,803
2,006,513
1,033,981
1,387,370
8,192,238
3,798,202
4,002,145
409,359
245,295
8,671,608
516,105,107
17,302,386
Total imports	
Exports (Canadian)
1,064,528,123
1,240,158,8S2
747,804,332
United Kingdom	
Australia	
Bermuda	
British East Indies....
British Guiana	
British South Africa...
British West Africa....
British West Indies....
Hong Kong	
Newfoundland	
New Zealand	
Other British Empire...
Argentine Republic	
Belgium	
Brazil	
China	
Cuba	
France	
Germany	
Greece	
Italy	
Japan	
Mexico	
Netherlands	
Norway	
Roumania	
Sweden	
Switzerland	
United States	
Other Foreign Countries..
Total exports
489,152,637
11,415,623
1,249,020
6,762,259
3,109,381
8,649,756
1,067,639
10,869,276
1,343,867
16,175,443
6,987,008
5,006,094
6,126,457
28,463,855
2,703,488
6,665,805
6,329,783
61,108,693
610,528
29,588,984
16,959,557
7,732,514
410,825
5,653,218
4,798,299
12,953,605
4,449,105
1,484,416
464,028,183
17,636,780
1,239,492,098
312,844,871 18,112,861 1,523,992 6,388,898 3,594,118 14,648,879 666,576 13,030,225 2,000,825 16,676,728 11,873,000 2,091,246 8,171,980 40,252,487 2,835,191 4,906,570 6,573,768 27,428,308 8,215,337 20,834,577 57,758,343 6,414,920 1,086,197 20,208,418 5,119,365 3,801,584 5,528,361 1,410,777 542,322,967 22,842,332
1,189,163,701
299,361,675
10,678,600
989,113
2,341,175
2,298,105
3,890,390
144,778
9,976,969
1,411,699
9,317,639
4,128,531
1,303,224
3,233,423
12,359,300
2,002,449
1,900,627
3,974,432
8,208,228
4,509,547
5,247,035
15,335,818
14,831,520
1,197,597
9,582.924
2,599,447
15,383
1,220,196
345,626
293,906,643
13,928,587
740,240.680
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
Trade Agreements and Negotiations
Several things have happened with regard to the tariff lately with other countries. An agreement was made by the late government, as the House will remember, with the British West Indies, which came into operation at an early date, and affected most of those islands. One of the islands, however, which remained outside for a considerable period, was Jamaica, but she has now joined the arrangement, and the agreement of that 'day is in force as between Canada and all the British West Indies.
We have many inquiries with regard to our relations with Australia. There have been communications for some time, under the late government, and under the present government, with the Australian government in relation to that. In the early days of our preferential arrangements, one of the Australian colonies received the benefit of the preference. New South Wales was a low tariff country and she was entitled to the preference. The neighbouring colony of Victoria had higher tariffs, and was not entitled to the preference. Soon after the Australian Commonwealth was formed a new tariff was adapted, which was less favourable than that of New South Wales, and from that time forward Australia has not had the benefit of our preference. Efforts have been made by the late government and by this to bring about a friendly arrangement between the two countries. Recently a member of the Australian government passed through Ottawa and we had an opportunity to discuss the subject with him. He manifested a warm interest in the matter and gave us every reason to expect that the Australian government would take a friendly view of our proposal. Thereupon we proposed to the Australian government that they should give us the preference which the United Kingdom enjoys, and we in return would give them the benefit of our preference. That proposal has not been accepted nor have we received any counter-proposal. However, we fully anticipate that some opportunity will occur for further negotiations, and our hope is that we will be able to make a satisfactory arrangement with the Australian Commonwealth.
Not many months ago this House ratified a treaty that had been made with France. It seemed to have been of a temporary character, contemplating a larger treaty at a later date. I believe the French Consul General approached the late government with a view to further negotia-
tions, but the time was not then deemed opportune and nothing was done. We have recently been asked iby the French Consul General to take up the matter, and have intimated our willingness to do so. That is the way the matter stands at the present. I hope at no distant datte we shall have some further negotiations, and possibly we may be able to revive the old treaty with France, or make some other treaty which will be fair and just to both sides.
Tariff Revision
Now I come to the question of tariff revision. In the Speech from the Throne His Excellency the Governor General said:
You will be invited to consider the expediency of malting some changes in the Customs Tariff. While there are details of revision, the consideration of which will require time and care that are not at present available, there are features of the tariff which it is felt may properly be dealt with during the present session.
The work of tariff revision may be divided into two parts. What I shall call part 1, the part wtoibh most concerns the public, I think, is that which touches the revision in the direction of re-
4 p.m. duction, if there is to be a reduction, in the duties of customs. That is probably the subject most keenly interesting both to those desiring the reduction and to those who do not desire it. The other part relates to what I may call readjustments in a different way. With the progress of time new conditions arise, new interpretations of the Customs tariff are given, new questions come before the Board of Customs, allegations are made that there is inequality between the duty on the raw material and the duty on the finished article. Many questions of that kind arise, not of wide concern to the public generally, but each of concern to some interest which is affected by it. There may be questions of that character to which we shall have to give attention at another time. Some of such there certainly will be, perhaps not so many as some people imagine, but with that portion of the question which relates to the matter of tariff reduction, we propose to deal at once.
The line upon which we ought to be expected to deal, and upon which we intend to deal, is expressed in a resolution that I had the pleasure of moving in this House a year ago:
That, while recognizing that existing financial requirements of the Dominion demand the maintenance of a Customs Tariff, the House is unable to concur in the declarations by the Government that the tariff should be based on the

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
principle of protection; the tariff is a tax, and the aim of legislation should be to make taxation as light as Circumstances will permit;
That the aim of the fiscal policy of Canada should be the encouragement of industries based on the natural resources of the country, the development of which may reasonably be expected to create healthy enterprises, giving promise of enduring success;
That such changes should be made in the Customs duties as may be expected to reduce the cost of living, and to reduce also the cost of implements of production required for the efficient development of the natural resources of the Dominion ;
That, while keeping this aim clearly in mind, the House recognizes that in any readjustment of the tariff that may take place, regard must be had to existing conditions of trade, and changes made in such a manner as will cause the least possible disturbance of business.
This resolution declares for tariff reduction-a tariff reduction that should be made with great care, guarding against any interference of a serious character with the business of the country. The policy so laid down is the policy we are prepared to carry out to-day. With the exception of one item, an increase for strictly revenue purposes, every change I shall propose to-day is a reduction in the Customs tariff; it is a revision downwards at every point.
British Preference
We maintain the British preference which the Liberal government established in 1897 and 1898. When that principle was adopted by the Canadian government it gave offence for a while to some of the people of other nations. Germany, in particular, took offence at it, and for a while undertook to penalize us because of the action we had taken, Other countries, perhaps, did not like it, but still took no very strong part against us. Germany and Belgium were in a particularly favoured position. Other nations had the benefit of what is called " Favoured nation treatment That is, that any nation having what is called a " Favoured nation " treaty shall, at all times, be on even terms with any other nation. That is the general principle of what the favoured nation condition requires. Germany and Belgium had more than that. Germany and Belgium had made treaties-Lord Salisbury called them " those unlucky treaties "-under which they had a right to claim not only the same conditions that were extended to other foreign nations, but the same terms and conditions that were extended to our Mother Country. We had to get rid of
those old treaties before we could establish the British preference, and in the end we did.
In the United States some objection was taken, but not in an official way. There was a good deal of discussion in the American press as to this, as was said, " unfriendly act"; but the American government never took (Objection. When the matter came up they understood that it was entirely a question within our own family circle. And that is the situation to-day. We stand by the British Preference today, and the world recognizes that it is our right to make any arrangement we desire within the Imperial family without any other nation having cause to take offence at it. So we adhere to the British Preference in the arrangement we make, and the effect of the change that we make will be to increase, in some respects, that preference.
Trade with the United States
For many years we regarded the United States as pursuing an unfriendly policy towards Canada in tariff matters. I do not think it was ever deliberately intended to penalize Canada; but we were the nearest neighbour and the tariff policy of the United States unquestionably did seriously affect us, and produced a good deal of hostile feeling in Canada; for years we had reason to complain and we did complain. There came, however, a happier moment when a change occurred. There came a moment when the American government sent representatives to Ottawa to ask us to reopen negotiations, and see whether we could not come to a friendly arrangement. The result of that negotiation- first held in .Ottawa and afterwards in Washington-was the making of a comprehensive agreement. It was not a treaty but a comprehensive agreement which was entered into in 1910-11 as the House will remember. I am wondering whether we did not miss the golden opportunity then.
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.
The flood tide of goodwill in trade matters from our American neighbours came to us in 1910-11, but unhappily the Canadian people did not accept the agreement. I do not want to dwell upon that further than to have the fact clearly understood that though, in former years, we had reason to complain of unfriendly action, at that moment we had every reason to recognize
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
the fairness of the American government. A happy combination of circumstances arose then which has not arisen since; which perhaps may not come again. A Republican administration, an administration representing the party of high tariff, was in power at Washington; and yet that Republican administration had come to us with a willingness to give us what we thought was a fair deal. The Democratic party was traditionally a low tariff party; and so, with the Republican administration supporting the agreement, the Democratic party naturally gave it their good will. The agreement was confirmed by the American Congress. It was not confirmed by Canada, much, as I think, to the regret of many of the people to-day who at that time did not view it with favour. Now many things have happened since that time. The Democratic party coming into power established trade arrangements which, for some years, gave us some of the benefits which reciprocity would have given us. The Democratic tariff gave us a chance still to do business, and we did a very extensive business. Unfortunately, however,-no I should not say that; we do not want to meddle in the politics of our neighbours-the people of the United States in their wisdom turned out the Democratic party, and the Republican party were restored to power. Since they were restoi-ed to power they have introduced what is called the Fordney Emergency Act, which deals largely with agricultural products. That Act unquestionably worked great harm to the Dominion of Canada, and especially to our western provinces. There is no doubt in the world-we may frankly acknowledge it-that the trade relations that had grown up between the two countries were sadly marred by the Emergency Tariff Act, and our western country in some branches of industry-notably the cattle business-has suffered severely in consequence. Now there is another Tariff Bill at Washington-a bill that has passed the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate-which proposes to enlarge on the Fordney Emergency Act. It includes, I think, all the duties of that Act, and in some instances they are increased. It proposes to establish a schedule of duties which is very high indeed. We have no right to complain of our American friends for doing that; but if they assume that position they cannot expect us in Canada to be as willing as we otherwise would to deal liberally with them. If our American brethren try to persuade 
themselves that you can sell all the time and never buy, we can only regret that they are failing to understand an economic truth; but since they want to pursue that policy we regret it because it must affect our own attitude towards them. I have had the privilege of being at Washington to discuss this question. I have had the opportunity to say to the President of the United States, and to the leading Congressmen of the Union, that Canada, notwithstanding the events of 1911, was prepared to open negotiations. We were glad that we had a friendly offer before. We were sorry on account of the difference with respect to it amongst our own Canadian people. However, we thought that was past and gone. We thought that the Canadian people to-day were prepared- at all events we the Government of Canada were now prepared-to undertake negotiations with the desire to obtain something like the agreement of 1911. Anyhow we took that course feeling that if would bring about better relations, believing that good relations will be 'better for both countries. We do not say that we are dependent on the United States, and still less that the United States would admit that they are dependent on us; each country can live and prosper and flourish without the other, but both will live and prosper and flourish more if they have friendly relations and intercourse as good neighbours should. A distinguished American, who himself was closely identified with the reciprocity movement in 1911, said some months ago that if the reciprocity movement was ever to be revived it must come from Canada. The United States, having made a friendly offer which was rejected, could not be expected to come to Canada again. That was a fair criticism. It was our move; we have made the move, and we have intimated to the American government in the way that I have described, that we are quite ready to re-open negotiations, with every desire to make a friendly arrangement. Whether anything will come of that or not remains to be seen. For the present, while our American friends are not prepared to meet us in the generous spirit they did in 1910 and 1911, while, in their judgment, it is necessaxry to adopt the higfh tariff policy which is now before Congress and which, in all probability, will become law, they will surely admit that, at such a moment, they cannot reasonably expect us to make concessions towards them. Therefore, we propose to hold our hands in that respect

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
and to await the turn of events at Washington. We shall be open at all times to friendly negotiations; but for the present, we are about to make tariff reductions which we are not prepared to extend to them. Whether we shall later be able to extend any of them to the United States or not depends entirely upon the attitude which they assume. I think myself there is a hope for better things. The bill at Washington is not universally popular; there is very strong opposition to it, and there is a possibility that it may not pass. But at all events, I think

and I am sure the House will agree with me-that until we have a clear understanding of what our American friends are going to do, we should hold our hands as regards the United States.
The reductions which we are going to make are almost entirely in the British preference. We are not going, except in a few cases, to reduce duties on American goods, which come to us under the operation of the general tariff. There are a few things which we desire in Canada which can be obtained most conveniently from the United States. As regards agricultural implements, for example, to offer a reduction of the British preferential tariff on agricultural implements would only provoke a smile, because such things are not brought from Great Britain; they are made in the United States. In that case, and in a few similar cases, we reduce the tariff on American goods, that is the general tariff, because that is the tariff that applies; but speaking broadly and generally, our reductions are being made in the British preferential tariff and not in the general tariff which would apply to the United States.
Marking and Valuation
I shall come shortly to the details of what we propose in that direction. Meantime, let me say that there are some other features to which I wish to call attention. The budget of last year introduced a number of features which, though I am sure they were well intended by the minister who introduced them, did not work out well. They have proved to be unsatisfactory, and I think there is no question about that now. One of these provisions was an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act providing that all goods that were imported should, where possible be marked, stamped, branded and so forth, and penalties were imposed for failure to do this. The government which passed that regulation evidently had occasion to reconsider their judgment on the matter; at all events they Were reluctant to enforce it. The law required that the act should take effect on the 31st of October, 1921, I think it was; but when that date arrived, the then government decided that they would not enforce the act, and they gave notice by Order in Council that its enforcement was postponed until the 31st of December. When the 31st of December came, another Government was in power by one day-it got in on the 30th1- and the Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue of the present Government shortly after advised that the thing was unworkable and that it be postponed until the present Parliament should be consulted. We are now in a position to determine what to do. Our opinion is that, as a general law, this provision should be repealed. We propose, in any particular case of an exceptional character, when there are reasons why articles imported from abroad should be marked, that we should have the right by Order in Council to deal with the matter; but we propose that, as a general law, this provision shall be repealed.
Another provision of that kind was with regard to the valuation of goods. The time-honoured system of Canada was that the value of goods for customs purposes was the fair market value in the country of production. That has been our custom for ages. A proposal was made last year to enact that the customs officer must determine the value; that the value for duty must be not less than the cost of production in the country which produces the goods, plus a fair profit. How an unfortunate customs officer, any one of the hundreds scattered throughout Canada, was going to be able to determine the cost of production of these things in a far-away country, I cannot readily understand, and still more would be his difficulty to determine what, under all the circumstances, was a fair profit. However that may be, we are of opinion that that also is an unnecessary interference with trade, and we propose to wipe it out.
Another regulation of a somewhat similar character dealt with the question of depreciated currency. The German mark, for example, is normally worth nearly twenty-four cents; it is actually worth today one-third of a cent. The act of last year provided that in no case should depreciation of currency be recognized below 50 per cent. That is to say, in the case of German trade, whatever might be the value of goods for customs purposes, the mark was to be declared worth 50 per cent of its original value; that is, roughly
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
speaking, it should be worth about 12 cents. The normal value of the mark is 24 cents; it is declared to-day to be worth 12 cents, whereas, the actual value to-day is one-third of a cent. What you do by this is really to multiply the duty by a fictitious value, to multiply it by 36 times to-day. That is to say, the thing which is worth only one-third of a cent, you say shall be worth 12 cents. That multiplies its value, as I said, 36 times. So, while you keep up the pretence of a duty of 35 per cent, you are actually taxing those goods 1,000 per cent. If you want to say that German goods shall be prohibited, say so; if you shrink from saying that in such a direct way, then put on the 1,000 per cent duty; but do not humbug the world at large by pretending that we have a duty of 35 per cent when the real duty is about 1,000 per cent.
Another feature of the matter to which I should like to draw attention is this: The design, no doubt, was to give an enhanced protection to some industries which desired it; but what was the effect? The late government have not succeeded in shutting out German goods. What they have succeeded in doing is in shutting out the Canadian merchant from an opportunity of doing direct trade and in obliging him to pay tribute to somebody else. For example, if a merchant in Holland buys goods in Germany, takes them to Holland and then sells them to a merchant in Canada, the invoice is expressed, not in German marks, but in the currency of Holland which is not depreciated. The Hollander is allowed to purchase the goods at their real value, and the Canadian merchant can go to Rotterdam and buy the goods; but he has to pay the real German price plus the cost of transportation to Holland, plus the Holland merchant's profit-that is, the invoice price of the goods. The Canadian merchant can bring the German goods into Canada in that way; but he cannot bring them in direct. He can do better than that: he can go to England, where there is no duty. The English merchant can buy the German goods at the real value of the mark; he takes them to England, and he sells them to the merchants in Canada at an English price. The merchant in Canada still gets the goods; he is getting them to-day; but he has to pay tribute to the merchant in Holland or in London, and the real effect of this is to prevent the Canadian merchant from doing * a direct trade and to oblige him to pay 
tribute to somebody else. We propose to abolish the whole thing.
Another regulation at that time-it was a busy time in the Budget last year-contemplated the establishment of commercial agencies abroad and the requirement that a commercial agent of Canada should have his certificate attached to every invoice of $100 or more. It could |be seen at once that if that was to be effected, we would have to have a large army of commercial agents, scattered throughout the wide world. After adopting that, the government seem to have had some hesitation in applying it. They did not bring it into force at once. They provided that it should be brought into operation by order of the Governor in Council. They have never brought it into operation. To-day it is a dead issue and we propose to make it doubly dead by wiping it out.
We are making a numerous list of reductions. I shall not detain the House by giving every one. My recollection is that there are forty-nine or fifty items in the tariff that are affected. The resolutions to be placed on the Table immediately will give them all in detail. In the meantime I can state some of the particular items. Last year an arrangement was made whereby the duty on alcohol was increased to a very high figure. It is now $9 per proof gallon. Provision was made that in the case of men engaged in the making of pharmaceutical preparations, where they are largely engaged in the business, and are put to the expense of keeping a bonded warehouse, they are allowed to get alcohol at $2.40 per proof gallon as against the rate of $9 charged others. Now, the druggists of Canada, a very large and respectable body, require alcohol in the making of various preparations, and they are obliged to pay a duty of $9 per proof gallon for it, while the man who has a big warehouse and does business on a large scale pays only $2.40. We think that is inequitable. It was a great mistake on the part of the late government to adopt that scale, and we propose now that the druggists of the country shall be allowed-and we think we can devise a scheme whereby this can be done-to obtain alcohol for their own legitimate purposes, for the manufacture of the preparations they make, at the same rate enjoyed by the large manufacturing concerns. Of course, it is a matter that might easily lend itself to abuse. I realized that, and my

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
first thought was that there might 'be a danger of that kind. The druggists of Canada, however, are a most respectable body. They are, as a rule, among our foremost citizens, being organized under provincial laws, and I do believe that they will be only too anxious to see that this privilege is not abused. We believe, at any rate, that we can surround it with devices that shall make it absolutely sure that the druggists will use the alcohol only for their legitimate purposes and in no other way. We are doing this in order to meet what we feel to be a reasonable demand on the part of a large section of the Canadian people.
Now I shall give an intimation of some of the reductions in duty that have been made. We are making some changes in the law respecting tobacco, and these I may as well mention. It is proposed to change the duties on cigarettes and cigars and on Canadian raw leaf tobacco when taken into a licensed tobacco or cigar manufactory. The excise duty on all weights of cigarettes is increased $3 per thousand. The present rate is $6 per thousand for cigarettes weighing not more than 3 pounds per thousand, and $11 on cigarettes weighing more than 3 pounds. It is proposed to increase the rate in the customs tariff on imported cigarettes from $4.10 per pound, and 25 per cent, to $5.25 per pound and 25 per cent. It is estimated that the increase in both excise and customs tariff will give an additional revenue of over $5,000,000 per annum, after allowing for a reduction of 10 per cent in the consumption owing to the increased rate. The consumption of cigarettes has grown to immense proportions in Canada, the number consumed last year being equal to 267 for each man, woman and child in the country. It is proposed to readjust the duties on cigars. This will have the effect of reducing the duties on the low priced, and increasing it on the higher priced, cigars. The intention is to impose a graduated rate according to the value of the cigars. At present there is a tax of $6 per thousand irrespective of the value or character of the cigar. We want to introduce something like the principle of ad valorem, so that a cigar of medium character will still pay about the same rate, while the more expensive cigar will pay a higher rate. We think it is only reasonable that the cheaper cigars should be allowed to come in and be sold at a lower rate than the expensive cigars, and one effect will be to 135
increase largely the consumption of Canadian native leaf.
Then with regard to the duty on raw leaf tobacco. There is a duty of 5 cents per pound on raw leaf tobacco. At present raw leaf tobacco is of very low value. I was told the other day

possibly the case was an extreme one-that the value in some cases is little more than the tax, and therefore the tax seems to be a heavy burden. We propose now not to abolish the duty altogether, but to abolish it when the tobacco is taken into a licensed tobacco or cigar factory. We think that in that way it will lead to ah increased quantity of native tobacco being used in the cigar factories, and when the tobacco is used in the factor ies we shall get the duty of 20 cents pei pound. This, therefore, is a move that is intended to help the native tobacco industry, which we all desire to see flourish, while it will not involve us in any considerable loss of revenue.
Reductions and the Industries
There are some reductions in duties to which I desire to draw attention. These reductions of duties will benefit the several industries on the following articles. First, I take the farming industry, in relation to which reductions include:
Per cent
Mowing machines, harvesters, binders
and reapers, reduced under the general
tariff	 2i
Cultivators, harrows, horse-rakes, seed drills, manure spreaders and weeders, reduced under the general	tariff....	2J
Ploughs and threshing machines, reduced
under the general tariff	 2J
Milking Machines, reduced under the
general tariff	 5
Vegetable grading machines, reduced under the general tariff	 5
Nearly all other agricultural implements are reduced under the general	tariff.	.	5
There is a corresponding reduction on these articles under the British Preferential Tariff, but practically all are imported under the General Tariff. Tractors for farm purposes valued at $1,400 or less and parts thereof, are now free by Order in Council: It is proposed to make these articles free by Act of Parliament. Wrought iron tubing four inches and under in diameter is reduced five per cent under both preferential and general tariffs. Wrought iron tubing over four inches and not over ten inches is reduced five per cent under the preferential tariff. Tools are reduced five per cent under the preferential tariff. Harness is reduced 21 per cent under the pre-
[Stage Direction]


Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
ferential tariff. Farm waggons are reduced 5 per cent under the preferential tariff and 2i per cent under the general tariff.
For the dairying industry a reduction is made on paper milk bottle caps of 7J per cent under both the preferential and general tariffs.
Glass Milk Bottles are reduced 5 per cent under both tariffs.
Dairy tin hollow-ware and cans for milk and cream are reduced 2i per cent under the preferential tariff and 5 per cent under the general tariff.
Milking machines are reduced 21 per cent under the preferential tariff and 5 per cent under the general tariff.
In regard to the fruit-growing industry, fruit-grading machines are reduced 21 per cent under the preferential tariff and 5 per cent under the general tariff.
In the lumber industry there are several reductions. Machinery for saw mills is reduced 21 per cent under the general tariff. Wrought iron tubing 4 inches in diameter or less is reduced 5 per cent under both tariffs. Tools and cantdogs are reduced 5 per cent under the preferential tariff.
For the mining industry. Porcelain parts of pumps are reduced from 20 per cent preferential tariff and 30 per cent general tariff to free under all tariffs. Wrought iron tubing 4 inches and under in diameter is reduced 5 per cent under both tariffs; and tubing over 4 inches and not over 10 inches is reduced 5 per cent under the preferential tariff.
For the fishing industry; Gasoline over .725 specific gravity and not exceeding .750 is reduced from 21 cents per gallon to 1 cent under the general tariff. Manila rope not exceeding 11 inches in circumference is made free of duty to all fisheries,-under the present tariff it is free only for holding traps used in the lobster fisheries. Oiled clothing is reduced five per cent under both tariffs. Oiled hats are reduced 21 per cent under the preferential and 5 per cent under the general tariff.
The plumbing Industry benefits by the reductions already stated on wrought iron tubing and tools.
For the general public there are a number of reductions. Certain liquid medicines, non-alcoholic, are reduced 35 per cent under the preferential tariff and 20 per cent under the general tariff. Cocoa, unsweetened, is reduced I cent per pound under the preferential tariff; cocoa, sweetened, one-half cent per pound under the preferential tariff, and

cocoa in powder form five per cent under the preferential tariff; and preparations are reduced 21 per cent under the preferential tariff. On refined sugar the preference is increased from one-quarter off in the general tariff to practically one-third off.
Other reductions include the following:
Per cent
Enamelled ware reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 21
Window shades reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 2i
Cotton fabrics, gray, bleached or dyed reduced under the	Preferential Tariff.. 21
Corsets and cotton clothing reduced under
the Preferential Tariff	 21
Flannels, lustres, mohair reduced under
the Preferential Tariff	 21
Alpaca and Italian linings reduced under
the Preferential Tariff	 21
Woollen fabrics, woollen clothing, cloths, doeskins, cassimeres, tweeds, coatings, overcoatings, and felt cloth, n.o.p. reduced under the Preferential Tariff.. 21 Rubber clothing reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 21
Knitted goods reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 21
Boots and shoes reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 21
Collars and cuffs reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 5
Blankets, cotton, reduced under the Preferential Tariff	 21
Clothes wringers-21 per cent, reduction under both Tariffs.
Dairy tin hollow-ware reduced 21 per cent, under Preferential Tariff and 5 per cent under General Tariff.
Automobiles are now entitled to be entered as settlers' effects by farmers only. It is proposed to admit automobiles valued at not more than $1,000 by other settlers as well as by farmers. It is also proposed to admit boats for fishing purposes by settlers as settlers effects.
This is a long list, Mr. Speaker, and one which I hope will find favour with the House.
I have already intimated that while we could with our present taxation system meet what might be called ordinary expenditure, we are not content to do that. We could with our present sources of revenue probably meet what is called ordinary expenditure, possibly even some of our capital expenditure, but it is quite certain that if we do not adopt some other method of taxation we should be adding enormously to the public debt, and I think I speak the wish of the House when I say that that is a course to he guarded against. So we are proposing some new rates of taxation.
The sales tax we propose to increase by 50 per cent. We propose that automobiles up to $1,200 shall pay a trr of 5

____________Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
per cent, and those above $1,200, 10 per cent. On confectionery we propose a tax of 5 per cent; on ale, beer, etc., 15 cents per gallon; on mineral waters and other soft drinks, 10 cents per gallon. Cheques now pay 2 cents. We maintain that 2 cents up to $50, but we impose a tax of 2 cents on each additional $50. We propose a small tax of 5 per cent on certain classes of insurance premiums which are not at present reached. We propose that telegrams and cables, which are now taxed 1 cent shall hereafter pay 5 cents. On transfers of stock which now pay 2 cents per $100 share, we propose 5 cents. Beet sugar is to be subjected to an excise duty of 49 cents per 100 pounds.
The beet sugar industry is in a very fortunate position. The ordinary refiner imports his material from abroad and pays duty on it. The value he gets in the way of protection, if you call it such, is the difference between what he pays on his raw material and the duty fixed on the refined article. But in the case of the beet sugar refiner he has no duty to pay on his raw material at all, and therefore when the duty was increased, as it has been increased largely on sugar, he is getting the full benefit to an extent which he really does not need. We think he can well afford to pay a duty of 49 cents per 100 pounds, almost half a cent a pound on beet sugar made .in Canada. This will not affect the price of sugar because the price is governed by the duty on the refined article, and that is not increased.
These taxes are all to be made under what is called the Special War Revenue Act excepting beet sugar which will be under the Inland Revenue Act.
I have already explained the change we propose in the cigar duty.
Last, but not least, we .are going to ask the banks to bear some share of these new burdens which we all have to shoulder. There is at present a nominal tax of 1 per cent on the circulation of the banks, but when you come to the income tax you find that whatever the banks have paid as tax on their circulation as deducted from the income tax. We propose to abolish the exemption and say that the 1 per cent tax on circulation shall be paid and shall come into the revenue of the country. As the circulation in the beginning is really supplied by the Government-by the people of Canada, who give the .banks large privileges in this way, we think this demand
135i
they shall pay us 1 per cent tax on the circulation in not unreasonable is these hard times.
Financial Situation
I am not going to detain the House by referring to all the items dealt with. I shall lay the resolutions on the Table, and they of course will be scanned carefully by hon. members as opportunity occurs.
I have deemed it proper in this address to present very clearly what I regard as the gravity of the financial situation. I would not, however, have any one draw the impression that I have a gloomy view of the future. There is, happily, a brighter side. I have unbounded faith in the resources of our country and in the intelligence and patriotism of the Canadian people. The worst of the commercial and industrial depression is, I believe, over. Already the sun of better times is beginning to shine. I do not look for any rapid restoration to prosperity, but I believe that from this time forward there will be a quiet and steady improvement. Everywhere there seems to be hope and confidence that such improvement is coming. That hope and that confidence will ' have much influence in bringing about a better day. If Providence sends us a blessing of good crops this year, we may look for the beginning of the prosperity of former times. While we have diversified industries, all of them entitled to careful consideration, we shall do well to remember that agriculture is and will continue to be the occupation of the largest class of our people and the industry that has the widest influence on general prosperity.
No nation in these days liveth to itself. Whether we like it or not, every country is in some degree dependent upon events in other countries. It has been a topsyturvy world that we have been living in, and we cannot look for satisfactory conditions until the world generally recovers in some degree its balance. In our own country, if one thing more than another is necessary, it is the establishing of better relations between labour and capital.
Admirers of the British constitution claim as a virtue for it that wherever a grievance exists a way of relief can be found. Why should it not be so with labour and capital to-day? In nearly every relation of life we are obliged to submit to the judgment of authority. Why cannot labour and capital agree upon tribunals to which disputes can be referred? The lockout and the strike of to-day are evidences that our so-called civilization is
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
still far from perfect. Why should either labour or capital deem it necessary to resort to force? The general public, whose interests are so often affected by the conflict, have a right to expect that both capital and labour will endeavour to find a better way of settling their disputes. If labour at times seems to be unreasonable, let us not forget that in the days that have gone, too often the workingman, so-called, did not receive a fair share of the wealth which his labour created; too often he saw his employer grow rich and prosperous while the workingman had little more than an existence. There has been a happy change in this respect. We cannot return to pre-war conditions. The workingman's position has advanced. His standard of living has improved. He is unwilling to go back to pre-war conditions, and nobody should expect him to be content to do so. He has a right to expect better conditions for himself and his family than in former days. But he has duties to perform on his part. Labour has come to a sense of its power. Has it come to a sense of the responsibility and duty which should always accompany power? We cannot doubt but the mass of the working men, as we call them, wish to be good citizens of Canada. They hold interests in common with other classes of the community. They have wives and mothers and children and homes to protect, and protection for these can only come when law is upheld and order observed. There are so-called labour leaders who, unfortunately, preach the doctrine that the employer is the enemy of the workman. They preach the doctrine that the workingman should play an entirely selfish part, that his duty is to get all that he can in the way of wages and give as little as he can in the way of labour. Such men are a menace to the true interests of labour as well as to the interests of society generally. There are in Canada many labour leaders who refuse to preach these dangerous doctrines and who, while zealous in defending the interests of labour, are no less zealous in maintaining the interests of society. Let us pray that on this vital question capital and labour may alike recognize their responsibilities, that they may put aside every temptation to play a selfish part, and co-operate in efforts which will mark Canada in the eyes of the world as a land of peace, and progress, and prosperity.

[Stage Direction]
I beg to give notice that upon the House resolving itself into committee I shall move the following resolutions:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Customs Act and Amending Acts, including the Department of Customs and Excise Act (Chapter twenty-six of the Statutes of 1921), as follows :-
1.	By repealing section six of the Department of Customs and Excise Act, being Chapter twenty-six of the 'Statutes of 1921, and amending section thirty-one of the said Customs Act accordingly.
2.	By repealing section seven of the Department of Customs anid Excise Act aforesaid, and amending section forty of the said Customs Act accordingly.
3.	By amending section fifty-nine of the said Customs Act, as follows:
(1)	By striking out subsection three thereof, and substituting therefor the following:-
"(3) Whenever the value of a currency has not been proclaimed, or whenever there is no fixed standard value, or whenever from any cause the value of a currency has become depreciated or appreciated, there shall be attached to the invoice of the goods imported the certificate of some Consul or Canadian Trade Commissioner, resident in such place or country, or the certificate of a Bank, showing the extent of such depreciation or appreciation, or the true value at the time of the exportation of the goods of the currency in which such invoice is made out, as compared with the standard dollar of Canada : Provided that the Collector of Customs and Excise may compute the value for duty at the rate of exchange certified (by the Bank through which the same is drawn as current at the time and place when and whence the goods were exported to Canada."
(2)	By amending subsection four of the section fifty-nine by adding after the word "Consul's" in the second line thereof the words "or Canadian Trade Commissioner's".
(3)	By repealing section eight of the Department of Customs and Excise Act aforesaid and amending said section fifty-nine accordingly.
Resolved, That any enactment founded on the foregoing resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
1. Resolved, That The Customs Tariff, 1907. be amended by reapealing section 12A, added thereto by section 5 of The Customs Tariff Amendment Act, 1921, and by inserting in place thereof the following section.
12A. The Governor in Council may from time to time as he deems it expedient, order that goods of any description or class specified in such order, imported into Canada, shall be marked, stamped, branded or labelled in legible English or French words, in a conspicious place that shall not be covered or obscured (by any subsequent attachments or arrangements, so as to indicate the country of origin. Said marking, stamping, branding, or labelling shall be as nearly indelible and permanent as the nature of the goods will permit.

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
All orders made by the Governor in Council under this section shall have effect from and after the day on which the same are published in The Canada Gazette, or from and after such later day as is appointed for the purpose in such orders, and during such time as is therein expressed, or if no time is expressed for that purpose, then until the same are revoked or altered.
Provided that all such goods imported into Canada after the date of the coming into force of any such order of the Governor in Council which do not comply with the requirements of such order, shall be subject to an additional duty of ten per centum ad valorem to be levied on the value for duty purposes, and in addition such goods shall not be released from Customs possession until they have been so marked, stamped, branded or labelled under Customs supervision at the expense of the importer.
Provided further that if any person shall violate any of the provisions so established relating to the marking, stamping, branding or labelling of any such imported goods, or shall deface, destroy, remove, alter, or obliterate any such marks, stamps, brands or labels, with intent to conceal the information given by or contained in such marks, stamps, brands, or labels, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars, or to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.
The Minister of Customs and Excise may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of this section and for the enforcement thereof.
^ 2. Resolved, That schedule A to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter twenty-six of the statutes of 1914, by chapter five of the statutes of 1914 (second session), by chapter seventeen of the statutes of 1918, by chapter forty-seven of the statutes of 1919, by chapter twenty-seven of the statutes of 1921, and by Orders in, Council be further amended by striking thereout tariff items:-20, 21, 22, 23 134, 143, 208, 219a, 220, 326, 398, 399, 427, 445, 446, 446b, 447, 448, 517, 520, 521, 522, 523, 565, 566, 567, 568, 575, 591, 611, 611a, 612, 619, 621, 631, 638a, 657a, 660, 682, 705a, the several enumeration of goods respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite each of said items and to repeal section (b) of the Orders in Council, P.C. 2654, dated twenty-seventh day of November, 1907, designated as item 715 of The Customs Tariff, section 2 (b) of Orders in Council, P.C. 16/1556, dated fifth day of June, 1912, designated as item 762 of The Customs Tariff, P.C. 224 and P.C. 2/233, dated thirtieth day of January, 1919, and P.C. 383, dated twentieth day of February, 1919, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of duty be inserted in schedule A:-
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff	Intermediate Tariff	General Tariff
				
20	Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste oi "liquor", not sw'eetened, in blocks or cakes, pei pound	3 cents	4 cents	21	Cocoa paste or "liquor" and chocolate paste 01 "liquor", sweetened, in blocks or cakes, not less than two pounds in weight, per pound	4 cents	cents	22	Preparations of cocoa or chocolate in powder form. ...	22) p.e.	27) p.c.	23	Preparations of cocoa or chocolate, n.o.p., and confectionery, coated with or containing chocolate, the weight of the wrappings and cartons to be included in the weight for duty, per pound	T| cents.	H cents	I3 centsand	20 p.c.	27) p.c.	134	All sugar above number sixteen Dutch standard in colour, and all refined sugars of whatever kinds, grades or standards, not covered by tariff item No. 135, when not exceeding eighty-eight degrees of polarization, per one hundred pounds	$1.33	$2.00	$2.00when exceeding eighty-eight degrees but not exceeding eighty-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.35	$2.03	$2.03when exceeding eighty-nine degrees but not exceeding ninety degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.37	$2.06	$2.06when exceeding ninety degrees but not exceeding ninety-one degrees, per one hundred pounds... .	$1.39	$2.08	$2.08when exceeding ninety-one degrees but not exceeding ninety-two degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.41	$2.12	$2.12when exceeding ninety-two degrees but not exceeding ninety-three degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.43	$2.15	$2.15when exceeding ninety-three degrees but not exceeding ninety-four degrees, per one hundred pounds.. .	$1.45	$2.18	$2.18when exceeding ninety-four degrees but not exceeding ninety-five degrees, per one hundred pounds... .	$1.47	$2.20	$2.20when exceeding ninety-five degrees but not exceeding ninety-six degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.49	$2.24	$2.24when exceeding ninety-six degrees but not exceeding ninety-seven degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.51	$2.27	$2.27when exceeding ninety-seven degrees but not exceeding ninety-eight degrees, per one hundred pounds.. .	$1.53	$2.30	$2.30when exceeding ninety-eight degrees but not exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds...	$1.59	$2.39	$2.39when exceeding ninety-nine degrees, per one hundred pounds	$1.59	$2.39 1	$2.3£
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
Tariff Items	British Preferential Tariff	Intermediate Tariff	General Tariff143	Provided that refined sugar shall be entitled to entry under the British Preferential tariff upon evidence satisfactory to the Minister of Customs and Excise, that such refined sugar has been manufactured wholly Tom raw sugar produced in the British colonies and possessions, and not otherwise. Cigars, the weight of the bands and ribbons to be	3 90	$3.90	$3.9025 p.c. $5.25	25 p.c.	25 p.c.143a	Cigarettes, the weight of the paper covering to be	$5.25	$5.25197a	and Machine finish book grades of paper, not. coated, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals printed, published	25 p.c. 12* p.c.	25 p.c. 22b p.c.	25 p.c. 25 p.c.198a	Coated or super-calendared newsprint paper, coated or super-calendared book grades of paper, when used exclusively in the production of magazines, newspapers and periodicals printed, published and issued	17* p.c.	321 P-C.	35 p.c.199a 208	15 p.c. Free 15 p.c.	25 p.c.	271 P-c-Boracic acid and borax in packages of not less than twenty-five pounds weight; hydro-fluosilicic acid; oxalic acid; tannic acid; ammonia, sulphate of; sal ammoniac and nitrate of ammonia; cyanide of potassium: cyanide of sodium and cyanogen bromide; antimony salts, viz.:-tartar emetic, chlorine and lactate (antimonine); arsenous oxide- oxide of cobalt; oxide of tin; bichloride of tin; tin crystals; oxide of copper; precipitate of copper, crude; sulphate of copper (blue vitriol); verdigris or subacetate oi copper, dry: sulphate of iron (copperas); sulphate of zinc; chloride of zinc; sulphur and brimstone, crude or in roll or flour; cream of tartar, in crystals or argols; tartaric acid crystals; iodine, crude; bromine; phosphorus; sulphide of arsenic; carbon bisulphide	Free 17b p.c.	Free 17b p.c.219a	Non-alcoholic liquid preparations for disinfecting,	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	20 p.c.220	All medicinal, chemical and pharmaceutical preparations, compounded of more than one substance, including patent and proprietary preparations, tinctures, pills, powders, troches, lozenges, syrups, cordials, bitters, anodynes, tonics, plasters, liniments, salves, ointments, pastes, drops, waters, essences and oils, n.o.p.:-	20 p.c.	25 p.c.	25 p.c.(6) Liquid, when containing not more than two and	25 p.c. 60 p.c.	40 p.c.	40 p.c.60 p.c.	60 p.c.236a	Provided that drugs, pill-mass and preparations not including pills or medicinal plasters, recognized by the British or the United States pharmacopoeia or the French Codex as officinal, shall not be held to be covered by this item; . . Provided, also, that any article in this item, containing more than forty per cent of proof spirit shall be rated for duty at	Per sail01 and Paper refills for sputum cups; paper pocket sputum	$3.00 30 p.c. 121 p.c.	*3.00 30 p.c. 171 P-c.	$3.00 30 p.c. 20 p.c.272a	Gasoline -725 specific gravity and heavier, but not heavier than -750 specific gravity at 60 degrees	M \ cent	i cent	1 cent326	Glass demijohns or carboys, bottles, n.o.p., decanters flasks, phials, glass jars and glass balls, lamp chimneys, glass shades or globes; cut, pressed moulded or crystal glass tableware, decorated 01 not; blown glass tableware and other cut glass	20 p.c.	30 p.c.	32£ p.c.15 p.c.	25 p.c.	271 p.c.344a	Dairy tin hollow-ware, including cans for fresh minor fresh cream; kitchen tin hollow-ware, no painted, decorated or japanned	12£ p.c.	171 p.c.	20 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
Tariff	British Preferential	Intermediate	Genera 1Items	Afariff	Tariff	Tariff399	Wrought or seamless iron or steel tubing, plain or	galvanized, threaded and coupled or not, ten inches	15 p.c. 20 p.c.	27* p.c. 27* p.c.	30 p.c. 35 p.c.427	Agate, granite or enamelled iron or steel ware	445	Mowing machines, harvesters, self-binding or without	binders, binding attachments, reapers, and complete parts thereof, not including shafting or	malleable iron castings	V) p.c.	10 p.c.	10 p.c.446	Cultivators, harrow's, horse-rakes, seed-drills, manure	446b	spreaders and weeders and complete parts thereof..	10 p.c. 10 p.c.	12£ p.c. 15 p.c.	12* p.c. 15 p.c.447	Portable engines with boilers, in combination, horse-	powrers and traction engines for farm purposes,	12* p.c.	17* p.c.	17£ p.c.447a	Gas or gasoline traction engines for farm purposes,	valued at not more than fourteen hundred dollars each, and parts thereof for repairs: traction attachments designed and imported to be combined with automobiles in Canada for use as traction engines for farm purposes and parts thereof for repairs	Free	Free	Free447b	Wind-stackers, and threshing machine separators,	including baggers, weighers and self-feeders therefor,	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	15 p.c.448	Fruit or vegetable grading machines, incubators for hatching eggs, brooders for rearing young fowl, pruning hooks, pruning shears, hay loaders, potato-diggers, fodder or feed cutters, grain crushers, fanning mills, hay tedders, farm or field rollers, post hole diggers, snaths, and other agricultural implements, n.o.p., and complete parts of articles specified	
10 p.c.	15 p.c.	15 p c.
448a	Milking machines, milking machine attachments,			
	centrifugal machines for testing butter fat, milk or cream and complete parts of articles specified in			
	this item		10 p.c. 12£ p.c.	15 p.c. 20 p.c.	15 p.c. 20 p.c.
448b	Street or road rollers and complete parts thereof				
453 b	Machinery for sawing lumber, up to but not including			
	the point of planning, and complete parts thereof,	15 p.c.	22* p.c.	25 p c
454a	Adzes, cleavers, hatchets, metal wedges, sledges,			
	hammers, crowbars, cantdogs and track tools; picks, mattocks, and eyes or poles for the same; tools of			
	all kinds, n.o.p		15 p.c.	27* p.c.	30 p.c.
460a	Plungers or valves made of porcelain for pumps to be			
			Free 30 p.c.	Free 35 p.c.
517	Window shade or blind rollers.		20 p.c.		
520	Batts, batting and sheet wadding of wool, cotton or			
	other fibre, cotton w'arps and cotton yarns, dyed or	15 p.c.	22* p.c.	25 p.c.
521	Gray cotton fabrics and fabrics of flax, unbleached,			
		125 p.c.	22* p.c.	25 p.c.
522	White cotton fabrics, and fabrics of flax, bleached,			
	n.o.p.: tailors' hollands of linen and towelling of linen or cotton in the web, coloured or not		15 p.c.	22* p.c.	25 p.c.
523	Fabrics of cotton or flax, printed, dyed or coloured,			
		22* p.c.		32£ p.c
543a	Linen yarn, when imported by manufacturers of tailors' hollands of linen, for use exclusively in the			
*				
	manufacture of tailors' hollands of linen in their own	Free 22a p.c	Free 30 p.c.	Free 35 p.c
565	Blankets of any material				
566	Flannels, plain, not fancy; fabrics of wool or of cotton			
	and wool, commonly described and sold as lustres,	20 p.c.	30 p.c.	35 p c
567	Fabrics, manufactures, wearing apparel and ready-			
	made clothing composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the goat, or other like animal, n.o.p.; cloths, doeskins, cassimeres, twreeds, coat* ings, overcoatings and felt cloth, n.o.p		27* p.c.	35 p.c.	35 p.c.
568	Knitted undershirts, knitted drawers and knitted			
	goods, n.o.p		20 p.c.	30 p.c.	35 p.c.
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
Tariff Items		British Preferential Tariff	Intermediate Tariff	General Tariff
				
575	Embroideries, n.o.p.; lace, n.o.p.; braids, n.o.p.; tapes of cotton or linen not over one and one-quarter inches in width, not including measuring tape lines; fringes, n.o.p.; cords; elastic, round or flat; garter elastic; tassels; handkerchiefs of all kinds; lace collars and all manufactures of lace; nets and nettings of cotton, linen, silk and other material, n.o.p.; shams and curtains, when made up, trimmed or untrimmed...	25 p.c.	325 p.c.	35 p.c.575a	Corsets of all kinds; linen or cotton clothing, n.o.p. ..	225 p.c.	325 p.c.	35 p.c.575b	Oiled clothing and oiled hats made from cotton or linen	20 p.c.	30 p.c.	30 p.c.581a	Silk cloth woven in the gum, not boiled or bleached, measuring not less than twenty inches in width, when imported for the purpose of being dyed and finished in Canada, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise	10 p.c.	175 p.c.	30 p.c.590a	Aeroplanes and other aircraft and complete parts thereof, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise	Free	25 p.c.	275 p.c.And on and after July 1, 1923	15 p.c.	25 p.c.	27| p.c.591	Farm wagons and complete parts thereof	10 p.c.	15 p.c.	175 p.c611	Boots and shoes, pegged or wire fastened, with unstitched soles close edged	15 p.c.	22* p.c.	25 p.c.1611a	Boots, shoes, slippers and insoles of any material, n.o.p	17| p.c.	275 p.c.	30 p.c.612	Harness and saddlery, including horse boots	175 p.c.	275 p.c.	30 p.c.619	India-rubber clothing and clothing made water-proof with india-rubber; rubber or gutta percha hose, and cotton or linen hose lined with rubber; rubber mats or matting and rubber packing	20 p.c.	30 p.c.	35 p.c.6211	Window shade cloth in the piece; window shades, cut to size or hemmed or mounted on rollers, n.o.p	20 p.c.	30 p.c.	35 p.c.631	Collars and cuffs, of cotton, linen, xylonite, xyolite or celluloid	20 p.c.	35 p.c.	37^ p.c.657a	Cinematographs or moving picture films, positives, one and one-eighth of an inch in width and over, per linear foot	1* cents	3 cents	3 cents '657b	Special parts, in the rough, when imported by manufacturers of cameras, for use only in the manufacture of cameras	5 p.c.	75 p.c.	75 p.c.660,	Clothes wringers for domestic use, and parts thereof..	20 p.c.	30 p.c.	32| p.c.682	Fish hooks, for deep-sea or lake fishing, not smaller in size than number 2-0; bank, cod, pollock and mackerel fish lines; and mackerel, herring, salmon, seal, seine, mullet, net and trawl twine in hanks or coil, barked or not,-in variety of sizes and threads,-including gilling thread in balls, and head ropes for fishing nets; barked marline, and net norsels of cotton, hemp, or flax; and fishing nets or seines, and manila rope, not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference, when used exclusively for the fisheries, not to include hooks, lines, nets or rope commonly used for sportsmen's purposes.	Free.	Free.	Free.705a	Settlers' effects, viz.:-Machines, vehicles and implements for agricultural purposes, moved by mechanical power, and motor vehicles, valued at not more than one thousand dollars, and boats for fishing purposes if actually owned abroad by the settler for at least six months before his removal to Canada, and subject to regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise. Provided that the said machines, vehicles, implements and boats may not be so entered unless brought by the settler on his first arrival, and shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of without payment of duty until after twelve months' actual use in Canada	Free.	Free.	Free.
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
3.	Resolved, That schedule B to The Customs Tariff, 1907, as amended by chapter forty-seven o<f the statutes of 1919, be amended by striking thereout tariff item 1026, the enumeration of goods, and the rate of drawback of customs
duties set opposite to the said item, and to provide that the following items, enumerations and rates of drawback of customs duties be inserted in said schedule B:-
Item No.	Goods	When subject to drawback	Portion of Duty (Not including Special Duty or Dumping Duty) Payable as Drawback
1026			
		goods enumerated in tariff items 446, 446b, 447b, 448 and	40 p.c. 30 p.c.
1027 1028	Materials, including all parts not finished		When used in the manufacture of goods enumerated in tariff items 447, 448b, and 591		
		goods enumerated in tariff	99 p.c.
1029	Hatters' plush of silk or cotton; hatters' bands (not cords) bindings and hat sweats; hatters' tips and sides when cut to shape; and cashmere when cut to shape for underbrims and hat	When imported by hat and cap manufacturers and used in the manufacture of hats and caps	
			99 p.c.
1030			
		surgical trusses, suspensory bandages and elastic hosiery..	50 p.c.
4.	Resolved, That schedule C (prohibited goods) to The Customs Tariff, 1907, shall be amended by adding the following:-
1214. (a) Common mongoose (Herpestes griseus.) or mongoose of any kind;
(b)	Common mynah, Chinese mynah, Crested mynah, or any other species of the Starling family (Sturnidae) ;
(c)	Java sparrow, rice bird, nutmeg finch, or other species of the weaver bird family (Plo-ceidae) ;
(id) European chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) ;
(e)	Great titmouse (Parus major).
5.	Resolved, That any enactment founded on the foregoing resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the foregoing resolutions imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have also applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
1.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act, as amended by chapter six of the statutes of 1914, and chapter twenty-eight of the statutes of 19'18' by repealing sub-sections (e), (f), (g) and (h) of section two hundred and seventy-nine thereof and sub-section three of section three hundred and twenty-eight A., and substituting therefor the following:
279- (e) On cigars of all descriptions, made from raw leaf tobacco, three dollars per thousand;
(f)	On all cigars when put up in packages containing less than ten cigars each, four dollars per thousand;
(g)	On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing
not more than three pounds per thousand, nine dollars per thousand ;
(h)	On cigarettes made from raw leaf tobacco or any substitute therefor, weighing more than three pounds per thousand, fourteen dollars per thousand.
3281 A. (3) There shall be levied, collected and paid an excise duty of five cents per pound on all tobacco grown in Canada for consumption therein, except when such tobacco is taken into a licensed tobacco or cigar manufactory.
2.	Resolved, That any enactment founded on the preceding resolution shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
3.	Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Inland Revenue Act as amended by chapter six of the statutes of 1914 and chapter thirty-four of the statutes of 1921, and to provide:
That when any druggist is licensed by the Minister of Customs and Excise to prepare prescriptions for medicines and pharmaceutical preparations in the manufacture or preparation of which spirits are used, where such spirits are purchased for such purposes by a druggist so licensed the following duties of excise shall be imposed, levied and collected, that is to say:
On spirits testing not less than fifty per centum over proofs in such limited quantities as may be prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise-
(a)	When the material used in the manufacture thereof consists of not less than ninety per centum, by weight, of raw or unmalted grain, or when manufactured from sugar, syrup, molasses or other saccharine matter not otherwise provided for, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
dollars and forty cents and so in proportion for. any greater strength than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon:
(b)	When manufactured exclusively from malted barley, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or excise has been paid, or when manufactured from raw or unmalted grain, used in combination, in such proportions as the department prescribes, with malted barley, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs or of excise has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty two cents, and so in proportion for any greater strength .than the strength of proof, and for any less quantity than a gallon;
(c)	When manufactured exclusively from molasses, syrup, sugar or other saccharine matter, taken to the distillery in bond and on which no duty of customs has been paid, on every gallon of the strength of proof by Sykes' hydrometer, two dollars and forty three cents, and so in proportion for any greater strength than the strength of proof and for any less quantity than a gallon.
(d)	Where such spirits are purchased from a government vendor or other person lawfully authorized to sell the same and where the duties imposed by law have been paid thereon, the said druggist may be entitled to a drawback of all such duty in excess of the rates of duties set forth in this resolution.
4.	Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that no person shall receive spirits under the preceding section without a license of the Minister of Customs and Excise, that there shall be payable for such license a fee of two dollars per annum and that a license shall not continue beyond the end of a fiscal year unless renewed; and to provide that a licensee shall jointly with a guaranty company approved by the Department enter into a bond to His Majesty in the sum of one thousand dollars which bond shall be conditioned that the licensee shall use all spirits specified in these resolutions exclusively in the preparation of prescriptions and pharmaceutical preparations on his own premises and that he shall keep books and accounts and make such entries and returns as are called for by the regulations of the Department and to faithfully comply with all the requirements of such regulations; and to provide that a person who violates any of the provisions of these resolutions or of any regulations of the Department made thereunder shall incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars recoverable in the manner prescribed for recovery of penalties in the Inland Revenue Act and that in addition he may incur other penalties under the provisions of the said act; and also that if a licensee is convicted for any violation of these resolutions his license shall be cancelled and shall not be renewed within a period of two years from the date of conviction; and to provide that the Minister of Customs and Excise may make such regulations as are deemed necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions.
5.	Resolved, That any enactment founded on the preceding resolutions numbered three and four shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
6.	Resolved, That it is expedient to am' nd The Inland Revenue Act, chapter fifty-one of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and amended by chapter six of the statutes of 1914 and chapter
[ Mr. Fielding. ]	.
thirty-four of the statutes of 19 21 by adding the following:
There shall be imposed, levied and collected on all sugar produced in Canada from sugar beets, the following duties of excise:
Sugar, sugar drainings, melado, sugar concrete and molasses testing over fifty-siz degrees and not exceeding 'seventy-five degrees of polarization.
per one hundred pounds	25 cents
and for each additional degree over seventy-five degrees
per one hundred pounds	1 cent
provided that fractions of five-tenths of a degree or less shall not be subject to the tax and that fractions of more than five-tenths shall be subject to the tax as a degree. Provided that such duty of excise shall not be payable when such sugar is exported.
7.	Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that no person shall produce sugar in Canada from sugar beets without a license and that a fee of two dollars per annum be paid for such license and to further provide that all the provisions of Part 11 of The Inland (Revenue Act respecting licenses and the obligations of persons holding them, the keeping of books or accounts, the payment of duties and making returns and the general regulations as to bonding and warehousing, so far as applied by departmental regulations, and all provisions respecting penalties, so far as applicable, shall have full force and effect with respect to the manufacture of sugar made from sugar beets.
S. Resolved, That any enactment founded on the preceding resolutions numbered six and seven shall be deemed to have come into force on the. twenty-fourth day of May one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
Resolved, That It is expedient to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, as amended by chapter forty-six of the statutes of 1918, chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 1920 and chapter fifty of the statutes of 1921 and to provide:
1.	That sub-section two of section five of the said act be amended by removing purely mutual companies from the class of companies exempt from the tax imposed by said subsection, and by adding to said section five the following sub-sections;
(11)	Every person resident in Canada, who insures his property situate in Canada, or any property situate in Canada in which he has an insurable interest, with any British or foreign company or British or foreign underwriter or underwriters, not licensed under the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1917, to transact business in Canada, or with any association of persons formed for the purpose of exchanging reciprocal contracts of indemnity upon the plan known as inter-insurance and not licensed under the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1917, the chief place of business of which association or of its principal attorney-in-fact is situate outside of Canada, shall on or before the thirty-first day of December in each year pay to the Minister for the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in addition to anv other tax payable under any existing law or statute, a tax of five per centum of the total net cost to such person of all such insurance for the preceding calendar year, and for the purposes of this section every corporation carrying on business in Canada shall be deemed to be a person resident in Canada.

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
(12)	Every person to whom this section applies shall on or before the thirty-first day of December in each year make a return in writing to the Superintendent of Insurance stating the names of the companies, societies of underwriters or associations with whom the* insurance was effected by him or on his behalf, the amount of such insurance and the net cost thereof in each case.
(13)	Every such person who fails or neglects to make such return or pay to the minister within the time limited by subsection (11) hereof the tax hereby imposed, shall incur a penalty of fifty dollars for each and every day during w'hich such default continues.
2.	That sub-sections two and three of section eight of the said act be amended by providing that the tax imposed on cable companies and telegraph companies shall be increased from a sum equal to one cent upon each despatch or message therein mentioned to a sum equal to five cents upon each such despatch or message ; and that every company may charge the five cents to and collect the same from the person paying or liable to pay the regular charges for the transmission of the despatch or message.
3.	That section twelve of the said act as amended by chapter seventy-one of the statutes of 19*20 be amended by striking thereout subsections two and four and substituting the following:
(2) No person shall issue a cheque payable at or by a bank unless there is affixed thereto an adhesive stamp or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die a stamp of the value of, if the amount of money for which the cheque is issued
(i)	does not exceed $50.00.. .. two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50.00, for every
$50.00 or fraction thereof. . two cents and every adhesive stamp affixed to a cheque shall be cancelled by the bank at which the cheque is payable at or before the time of payment.
(4) No person shall sign a receipt for money paid to him by a -bank chargeable against a deposit of money in the bank to his credit until he has affixed to the receipt an adhesive stamp or unless there is impressed thereon by means of a die a stamp of the value of, if the amount of the money for which the receipt is signed
(i)	does not exceed $50.00'. . two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50.0*0, for every
$50.00 or fraction thereof. . two cents and every adhesive stamp affixed to such receipt shall be cancelled by the bank at the time the money is paid ; and that said section twelve be further amended by providing that wherever sub-sections three (a), three (c), three (d), and three (f) of said section twelve provide for payment of a tax at the rate of two cents for every one hundred dollars, the said sub-sections be amended to provide that the tax shall be at the rate of two cents for every fifty dollars of the bills, notes, advances or overdrafts therein mentioned and by providing that sub-se«tion thirteen of said section twelve be amended by increasing the tax imposed on sales or transfers of stock or shares of any association, company or corporation from two cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof to five cents for every one hundred dollars or fraction thereof of the par value of the stock or shares sold or transferred.
4.	That section thirteen of the said act be amended by striking thereout sub-sections two and three and by substituting the following:
(2)	Every express company carrying on business in Canada shall before the issue of a money order or traveller's cheque affix thereto an adhesive stamp of the value of, if the amount of money for which the money order or traveller's cheque is issued
(i)	does not exceed $50.00i.. .. two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50.00, for every
$50.00 or fraction thereof.. .. two cents and the company may charge the amount of the stamps so affixed to and collect the same from the purchaser of the order or cheque or from the payee thereof. The company shall before delivery of the order or cheque cancel the stamp by writing on or across the stamp - initials or other identification of the company together with the date of the issue of the order or cheque.
(3)	No money order shall be issued under the provisions of the Post Office Act until there is affixed thereto or to the relative advice a postage stamp of the value of, if the amount of money for which the money order is issued
(i)	does not exceed $50.00.. .. two cents
(ii)	exceeds $50,0*0, for every
$50.00 or fraction thereof. . . . two cents to be paid for by the purchaser of the order. The postmaster or other officer of the Post Office Department issuing the order shall cancel the stamp by impressing thereon when affixed the date stamp of the post office at which the order is issued.
5.	That sub-section one of Section sixteen A of the said act as enacted by chapter forty six of the statutes of 1918, be amended by adding thereto the following:-
Provided that when matches are put up in packages containing not more than sixty and not less than thirty matches each, the tax shall be payable at the rate of one-half of one cent for each package, and when matches are put up in packages containing less than thirty matches each, the tax shall be payable at the rate of one-fourth of one cent per package.
6.	That section nineteen A of the said act as enacted by chapter forty-six of the statutes of 1918 be amended by adding thereto the following:
Provided that in computing the "duty paid value" of tea purchased in bond in the United Kingdom the amount of the customs duty payable on tea for consumption in the United Kingdom shall not be included in the value of such tea for purposes of this act.
7.	That Order in Council 2031 dated the thirteenth day of June, 1921, shall cease to have force or effect and that sub-section one of section nineteen BBB of the said act as enacted by chapter fifty of the statutes of 1921 be struck out and the following substituted therefor :-
(1) In addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under this section, or any other statute or law, there shall be imposed, levied and collected an excise tax of two and one-quarter per cent on sales and deliveries by Canadian manufacturers or producers, and wholesalers or jobbers, and a tax of three and three quarters per cent on the duty paid value of goods imported, but in respect of sales by manufacturers or producers, to retailers or consumers, the excise tax payable shall be lour and one-half per cent and on goods
[Stage Direction]
Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
imported by retailers or consumers the excise tax payable shall be six per cent on the duty paid value.
Provided that in respect of lumber an excise tax of three per cent shall be imposed, levied and collected on sales and deliveries by the Canadian manufacturer and of four and one-half per cent on importations, and that no further excise tax shall be payable on re-sale.
Provided also that the taxes specified in this section shall not apply to sales or importations of:-
Bread; flour, oatmeal, rolled oats and corn-meal ; rolled wheat, buckwheat meal and pea meal; animals living; live poultry; meats and poultry, fresh; milk, including butter-milk; cream ; butter ; cheese ; oleomargarine, margarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter; lard, lard compound and similar substances, made from animal or vegetable stearine or oils; eggs; vegetables, fruits, grains and seeds, in their natural state; bran, shorts, middlings, alfalfa meal; oil cake, oil cake meal; grains mixed or crushed for cattle or poultry feed; hay; straw; hops; nursery stock; chicory, raw or green ; bees ; honey ; sugar ; molasses ; salt; other farm produce sold by the individual farmer of his own production; ice; fish and products thereof not canned or medicated; ores of metals of all kinds; fuel of all kinds; gold and silver in ingots, blocks, bars, drops, sheets or plates unmanufactured; British and Canadian coin and foreign gold coin ; logs and round unmanufactured timber; fence posts, railroad ties, pulpwood, tan bark, and other articles the product of the forest when produced and sold by the individual settler or farmer; newspapers and quarterly, monthly and semimonthly magazines and weekly literary papers unbound; materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships; ships licensed to engage in the Canadian coasting trade ; calcium carbide ; radium ; electricity; gas manufactured from coal, calcium carbide or oil for illuminating or heating purposes; materials for use solely in the manufacture of oleomargarine or any substitute for butter or lard; artificial limbs and parts thereof; artificial eyes ; donations of clothing and books for charitable purposes; settlers' effects; War Veterans' badges; memorials or monuments erected in memory of soldiers who fell in the Great War; articles imported for the use of the Governor General; articles imported for the personal or official use of Consuls General who are natives or citizens of the country they represent and who are not engaged in any other business or profession; Bibles, missals, prayer-books, psalm and hymn-books, religious tracts, and Sunday school lesson pictures; articles admitted to free entry under Customs Tariff item 682 ; manila fibre for use only in the manufacture of rope not exceeding one and one-half inches in circumference for the fisheries; boats bona fide purchased by individual fishermen for their own personal use in the fisheries ; articles and materials used in the manufacture of boats bona fide built for individual fishermen for their own personal use in the fisheries; fibre for use only in the manufacture of binder twine; job printed matter produced and sold by printers or firms, whose sales of job printing do not exceed three thousand dollars per annum, and the Governor in Council shall have power to add to the foregoing list of articles exempted from the excise taxes on sales, as he may deem it expedient 
or necessary to exempt from the said excise taxes.
Provided further that the excise taxes specified in this section shall not be payable on goods exported, or on sales of goods made to the order of each individual customer by a business which sells exclusively by retail; and provided that the tax as specified in this section shall be payable on sales of goods manufactured for Stock by merchants who sell exclusively by retail.
A drawback may be granted of ninety-nine per cent of the said taxes paid on materials used, wrought into or attached to articles exported, provided that payment of a specific sum in lieu of such drawback may be authorized by the Governor in Council in cases where specific rates of drawback of Customs duties are granted under the provisions of section 288 of the Customs Act.
8.	That there shall be imposed, levied and collected upon goods enumerated in Schedule I to this part, when such goods are imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse on and after the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, on the duty paid value in addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, or any other statute or law, the rate of excise tax set opposite to each item in said Schedule I; and there shall also be imposed, levied and collected when any such goods are manufactured in Canada and sold on and after the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, in addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, or any other statute or law the rate of excise tax set opposite to each item in said Schedule I on the price for which the same is sold.
There shall be imposed, levied and collected upon all goods enumerated in Schedule II to this part, when such goods are imported into Canada or taken out of warehouse or when any such goods are manufactured in Canada and sold on and after the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, in addition to any duty or tax that may be payable under The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, or any other statute or law the rate of excise tax set opposite to each item in said Schedule II.
Where the goods are imported such excise tax shall be paid by the importer and where the goods are manufactured and sold in Canada such excise tax shall be paid by the manufacturer ; provided that if an automobile is, on the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, in the hands of a dealer and not sold to a bona fide user the tax shall be paid by such dealer when such automobile is sold.
The minister may require every manufacturer to take out an annual license for the purposes aforesaid, and may prescribe a fee therefor, not exceeding two dollars, and the penalty for neglect or refusal shall be a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars.	.
Provided that such excise tax shall not be payable when such goods are ^nanufactured for export, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs and Excise.
Provided further that the value on imported cigars shall be the duty paid value as defined in section 19A of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915 ; the value on cigars manufactured in Canada shall include the amoun- of the excise duty payable thereon.

Budget Speech-Mr. Fielding
9.	That section 19D of said act as enacted by Chapter forty-six of the Statutes of 1918 and subsection four of section three of chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1920 be struck out and the following section substituted therefor:
(19D). Every person, who being thereto liable, neglects or refuses to pay any war excise tax imposed by part four of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty of not less than fifty dollars and not exceeding one thousand dollars.
10.	That, notwithstanding the provisions of The Bank Act and The Bankruptcy Act, or any other statute or law, the liability to the Crown of any person, firm or corporation, for payment of the excise taxes specified in the said Special War Revenue Act, 1915, and amendments thereto, shall constitute a first charge on the assets of such person, firm or corporation, and shall rank for payment in priority to all other claims of whatsoever kind heretofore or hereafter arising save and except only the judicial costs, fees and lawful expenses of an assignee or other public officer charged with the administration or distribution of such assets.
11.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on paragraphs numbered five, six, seven and eight of the preceding resolutions shall be deemed to have come into force on the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, and to have applied to all goods imported or taken out of -warehouse for consumption on and after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that date.
12.	Resolved, that any enactment founded on paragraphs numbered two, three and four of the preceding resolutions shall come into force on the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
Schedule I.
Automobiles adapted or adaptable for passenger use, valued at not more than twelve hundred dollars each	
Automobiles, adapted or adaptable for passenger use, valued at more than twelve hundred dollars each	
Confectionery which may be classed as candy or a substitute for candy	
Schedule II.
Ale, beer, porter and stout, per gallon	fifteen cents.
Beverages when containing not more than two and one-half per centum of proof spirits, in casks, bottles or other closed containers, as follows:
Beverages derived wholly or in part from cereals or substitutes therefor; unfermented fruit juices and imitations thereof; carbonated beverages or aerated waters; all other compounded or mixed soft drinks, per gallon	ten cents.
Cigars made from raw leaf tobacco:-
(a)	Valued at not more than forty dollars per thousand, per
thousand	fifty cents.
(b)	Valued at more than forty dollars per thousand and not more than eighty dollars per thousand,
per thousand	three dollars.
(c)	Valued at more than eighty dollars per thousand and not more than one hundred and forty dollars per thousand, per thousand	seven	dollars.(a) Valued at more than one hundred and forty dollars per thousand and not more than two hundred dollars per thousand, per thousand	ten	dollars.(e)	Valued at more than two hundred dollars per thousand, per thousand	sixteen	dollars.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend subsection five (a) of section four of The Income War Tax Act, 1917, as enacted by chapter fifty-five of the (Statutes of 1919, by (providing that the provisions of the said subsection five (a) shall not apply to a bank as defined by section three of The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York) :: Mr. Speaker, I intend to avail myself of the usual custom and to move the adjournment of the debate before attempting to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) at length. Not having knowledge of the resolutions-indeed, not having heard theim -I could not be in a position to discuss the matter in detail. Perhaps, however, there are one or two things to which I ought to allude before moving the adjournment.
My hon. friend has referred to the question of loans, and he has given us particulars as to loans made, either railway loans or government loans. Of course, the question of the rate at which you should put out your securities, depends entirely on the state of the market at the time the issues have to be made. Let me say to my hon. friend at once that he chose a rather favourable time for his large issue in New York when he chose the date he did. But I was sorry, and I am still sorry, that my friend went to New York for the purpose of getting that money instead of getting it at home. He points out that to-day we have not the urge of war and the whip of necessity on our people, and that there might be difficulty in getting the money in the domestic market. Sir, I do not anticipate any such difficulty. The urge of war was over in 1919, when we raised a very large sum of money and had a very successful taxable issue. My hon. friend has referred to costs. Well, I think I should also refer to the question of costs in connection with these loan issues.
I would like to contrast the cost of doing business in our own country with the cost of doing business in New York, and to point to the advisability of raising money in our own country, thus saving the additional cost, except, of course, where the money has to be spent in the foreign market. To-day we have no maturities ip
five per cent.
ten per cent, five per cent.
2128	COMMONS
The Budget-Sir Henry Drayton
New York; our next maturity there, if I remember rightly, is in 1926. The money, therefore, was not required for New York purposes. Well, we raised $100,000,000 in 1915 at a total cost to the country of .425 per cent, considerably less than one cent on the dollar-less, indeed, than one half cent on the dollar. In 1916 we raised another $100,000,000 at a cost to the country of .797 per cent, again less than one per cent. The third war loan of 1917 cost .888 per cent. The Victory loan of 1917, when there was a most intensive organization and a tremendous amount of work was done, and when the amount of $397,591,200 was raised, cost us 1.185 per cent. The Victory loan of 1918, when we raised $638,176,250, again cost less than one per cent- .903 per cent. The taxable issues of 1919, involving an amount of $607,691,300, cost us 1.061 per cent.. I point out also to my hon. friend that over and above all the considerations that he has mentioned in favour of a domestic loan as against a foreign loan, there is the further circumstance that when the loan is domestic we get a return in income taxes on the interest which we have to pay, and that is a very substantial amount.
The minister has referred to commissions paid on other issues. Well, Mr. Speaker, commissions that are paid, as well as rates that have to govern, depend on the state of the market. Where the risk is small, where the olferings of money for investment are great, money can be raised more cheaply from the point of view of interest as well as from the point of view of commissions to be paid. In the present year, as everybody knows, we have had a culmination of the collection of gold in New York; we have had an accumulation of idle money which cannot to-day be used in American commerce, and is awaiting investment.
I am not going to make a comparison of the values of our own issues at different times, but let us take the issues of Great Britain sold in the New York market. In 1917 Great Britain issued twenty-year bonds at 51 per cent, payable in 1937. The obligations were issued at par, with a commission cost to the British Government of 4.4 per cent. In 1919 sales were made of this issue as low as 93; in 1920 the issue sold down to 811, and in 1921 to 831. On April 25 of this year, when our $100,000,000 loan was marketed, that issue sold at a premium of 103, 191 points higher than the low of 1921-that is, there was a difference between the time our loans
{Sir Henry Drayton.]
were brought out and the time the $100,000,000 loan was made of 191 points-and 211 points higher than the low of 1920, a rise of ten points as against the low of 1919.
In 1919 an issue was made through the Morgan house by the British Government of 5i per cent ten-year bonds. The issue sold on a basis of 961, yielding over 6 per cent. In 1920 these bonds sold as low as 83i; in 1921, as low as 881. On the 25th cf April of this year, when the large issue was made, this issue sold at a premium, the price being 1071, an increase of 191 points over the low of 1921 and of 231 over the low of 1920. A further issue of three-year notes was also made by the British Government in 1919 and marketed at 98, yielding 61 per cent. This sold down in 1920 to 90J, and in 1921 to 941. On the 25th of April of this year that was up to 1071, an increase of 121 points over the low of 1921 and an increase of 16i over the low of 1920.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is as I say, in making loans questions both of commission and of cost are matters which have to be governed by the rates obtaining and the scarcity or plenty of money available at the time. I think it will usually be found that the smaller the issue, the less difficulty there is in placing it, and my hon. friend is entitled, of course, to consideration upon that point. I would point out that he has had two loans in this very good period. As to his first loan, of $11,000,000, he disposed of that on a cost basis of .59 per cent, a little over half of one per cent. There he is approaching something like the cost of domestic loans, a little lower than some of them, perhaps lower than most of them. A very short time afterwards, however, when there was still a bull market, he pays two and a half per cent on a loan of $100,000,000. That was the only matter that I ever questioned at all one way or the other. There is no doubt, as I said, that it was a good time in which to get the money. Other people also found it was a good time. This issue is costing us to-day, with all the costs incurred, something like 5.20. If I am wrong, my hon. friend will correct me. At that same time, the Greater Winnipeg Water District sold on the New (York market, according to the New York press, bonds to yield 5.1. The City of DesMoines, Iowa, sold their bonds at a price to yield, 4.2. The New York issue of $45,000,000, which came about the same time, was sold to the syndicate that took it over to pay on the basis of 4.12 and it was offered to the

Supply-Mounted Police
public to yield 4.06. The only profit there on a transaction of $45,000,000, going through on the 25th of April, was the difference between 4.06 and 4.12.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are difficulties in connection with all these matters, and on the whole I think my hon. friend went at the right time for his money, and possibly got just what he was entitled to: I do not think he got any more. I do not think, these other issues I have referred to are of such a character as to make us feel that we have got the best of the New York investor upon this issue. Why at that very time, the province of Ontario had bonds offering in New York to yield on the basis of 5.05.
I do not think I should at the present time offer any further observations, and I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) in the Chair.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $2,991,599.11.
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) :: We are asking this year for a vote of $2,991,599.11, which shows a
5 p.m. decrease as compared with last year of $5,335,971.64. The estimate is based upon a strength of 1,559 as compared with last year's strength of 1,725 men, or a decrease of 166. While we have a decrease of only 166 men we have a reduction in the cost of over $500,000. The cost per capita in 1921-1922 was $2,044.37, and the estimated cost per capita in 1922-1923 is $1,918.92, a reduction
of $125.45. The items are as follows:
Pay of force	$1,456,532	00Maintenance	
844,297	50Clothing- and equipment	
107,100	00Transportation	
177,110	00
Contingencies; Printing and stationery, criminal investigation
branch	
$185,000	00Buildings	
216,559	61Compensation	
5,000	00
Which gives the total I have already mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister mentioned an item for "buildings"?


Lomer Gouin: That includes
heating and repairing, and everything concerned with the lodging of our men.


Hugh Guthrie: The minister does not contemplate the erection of any buildings?


Lomer Gouin: Not in this estimate; if there is anything of the kind it will come under a later vote.


Arthur Meighen: There is a reduction in the strength of the force from 1,700 odd-I do not remember the exact figures.


Lomer Gouin: A reduction from 1726 to 1559.


Arthur Meighen: A reduction of 167.


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: When was the reduction made?


Lomer Gouin: It has been taking place gradually from April 1 last year until now. The strength is down to the latter figure now.


Arthur Meighen: There is really no
change of policy at all?


Lomer Gouin: There is no change of policy but we intend to decrease the number. We are informed by the chief of the branch that we can do that, and we intend to do it gradually.


Arthur Meighen: That is not a change of policy, it is just the same as our policy in decreasing the army after the war. I do not know whether the minister has read the flaming speeches of the Prime Minister in regard to this vote, how he contrasted in the language of terror, the vote for the mounted police last year and the year before with the vote some ten years ago and claimed they should be alike. The minister, I understand, does not agree with that doctrine at all?


Lomer Gouin: I will not undertake to pronounce on that point.


Arthur Meighen: The estimates are the pronouncement.


Lomer Gouin: The number of men engaged in the force in 1904-5 was 810; in 1906-07, 684; in 1908-9, 649; in 1910-11, 649; in 1912-13, 654; in 1914-5, 1268; 1916-17, 797; 1919-20, 1600; in 192021, 1671; and in 1921-22, 1628. I must say that we intend to decrease the number gradually and we hope to arrive at the figure 1200.


Arthur Meighen: The minister would
agree that there is not nearly the need to-day that there was, say, in the year 1919?


Lomer Gouin: In the year 191819 we had only 483 men.


Arthur Meighen: No, no, not in 1919.


Lomer Gouin: Yes in 1918-19 we had 483. I understand many of our men were overseas. In 1919-20 we had 1600.
Supply-Mounted Police


Arthur Meighen: If men were at the front others were employed in their places. The minister read the figures a minute ago year by year?


Lomer Gouin: Most of the force were at the war in 1918-19 and-the strength of those at home was 483. In 1920-21 the number was increased to 1600.


Arthur Meighen: Solely by the return to their positions of the men who had been in the service before. The minister would not suggest for a moment that we should not hold their positions for these men when they came back from the war?


Lomer Gouin: They came back and were given their positions.


Arthur Meighen: The minister will admit that was the right course to take? I am sorry the attention of the minister was not directed to the subject earlier because he might have rebuked his leader for taking an opposite course.


Mr. JACOBS:: Would the leader of the Opposition divide the House against itself?


Arthur Meighen: I do not need to do that. That is done frequently enough without my assistance.


Samuel William Jacobs: By whom?


Arthur Meighen: Sometimes by the hon. member himself, I am informed. I notice some reduction in the second item. How much of that is accounted for by a reduction of costs?


Lomer Gouin: Let me give my hon. friend a statement showing the expenditure in connection with the maintenance of the force:
Year	Average strength	Expenditure estimated	Per capita rate	1905-6 ..	. . 748	$1,004,079 19	$1,342	361910-11..	. . 638	710,663 45	1,113	891914-15..	. . 1,055	1,549,144 42	1,468	381919-20..	. . 1,537	3,384,389 26	2,201	491920-21..	. . 1,841	3,081,438 08	2,092	231922-23..	.. 1,559	2,991,599 11	1,918	92
Now as to Forage, Fuel and Rental of Buildings:
Rental of buildings per
Tear.	Forage.	Fuel month.Hay	$32 00	Coal	$12	50Oats	1 10	Wood	8	001921-22-	Hay	$30 00	Coal	$12	00Oats	,80	Wood	8	25
In 1922-23, we estimate coal at $11 per ton and wood at $8.75 per cord1. Rental of buildings per month Is about the same. In 1920-21 it was $55 per month for each building; in 1921-22, it was $55 per month, and for 1922-23, we estimate it at $50 per month. There is no change in the pay. The cost per ration in 1920-21 was 63 cents; in 1921-22, it was 67.5 cents, and the estimate for 1922-23 is 41 cents. The cost of stabling has decreased from $1.25 to $1.15 per diem.


Arthur Meighen: I gather from the minister's figures that the great part of the reductions in this estimate is due to reduced cost of subsistence, and I understand his answer is in the affirmative. I should have asked this question at the same time: Is it not also a fact that the Dominion Police were incorporated' in the Mounted Police between 1919-20, and that that accounts mainly for the increase then as well as the men returning from the front?


Lomer Gouin: They were incorporated in 1920. We had, I understand, in 1920, 200 men in the Dominion Police and an average of 800 men in the Mounted Police.


Mr. WARD:: I think, if we are to be expected to respect the minister's statements and to take them seriously, there should, in all fairness, be a substantial reduction in this estimate. The minister advised us that he intended reducing the force to the lowest possible point, and to confine it as far as possible, to what we might call the unoccupied areas of Canada. If he carries out that policy, I imagine that we could surely reduce this estimate by at least the $456,000. I do not think we have had from the minister a satisfactory statement as to the need for the $1,456,000.


Lomer Gouin: I intend myself to propose a reduction of $150,000, $75,000 for pay of force, and $75,000 for subsistence.


Arthur Meighen: What was spent on the whole last year?


Lomer Gouin: For the year


Arthur Meighen: That is the estimate?


Lomer Gouin: In 1921-22, the expenditure was $2,874,197.59.


Arthur Meighen: That is less than the minister proposes to spend this year and, with the $150,000 off, almost equal to what he proposes to spend.

Supply-Soldier Settlement


Lomer Gouin: I understand there is a balance not spent of over $300,000.


Arthur Meighen: More than that. I do not want to starve the Mounted Police at all; but I think the minister could stand a little larger reduction than the one he has mentioned and continue the policy which he found in vogue when he took office.


Lomer Gouin: I do not think we shall need the full amount that I have mentioned, even with the reduction of $150,000; but, as I say, we cannot say exactly at what date we shall bring down the strength to 1,200 men. Last year there remained a balance unspent of $300,000. I hope the committee will give me the same confidence, and I do not see why an ' one should believe that we would spend money if it was not necessary to spend it. I move that a reduction of $75,000 be made in the first item and a reduction of $75)000 in the second item. That makes a reduction of $150,000.


Mr. KNOX:: Not wishing to delay the passage of the item in any way, I want to speak to the last part of it, namely, the item of $5,000 to compensate members of the Mounted Police for injuries received while in the performance of duty. There are some members of the force who saw duty many years ago and who are to-day suffering from the performance of that duty, but who are not recompensed to the extent that I feel they should be, and I am sure many other hon. members feel the same. This matter has been brought up in this House on a number of occasions, on one occasion by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), at another time by the hon. member for Victoria, Alberta (Mr. Lucas), and I have discussed it myself. These men never had an opportunity of building up homes for themselves or of providing for themselves in any way. They spent many years on the force in the early days when the pay was so small that, as a consequence, the pension which they are today receiving is totally inadequate to keep, I might almost say, body and soul together. Many of them are receiving pensions which would not provide more than one meal a day, and I personally know some of them who are not able to earn a day's pay. I am sure it was not the intention of the government or of the country that these men should be left in that state. I know it would be objectionable to open up the pensions question, but
these men could be provided for in some other way. I would ask the minister to look into the matter and if possible make some provision for them, so that they may not suffer. They deserve everything that can be done for them, for they have done their best for the country.


Lomer Gouin: If we were to
pay the bonus proposed it would represent some $14,000 a year. If we were to pay them as we have paid our men since 1913 it would mean an increase of over $30,000. I am considering the question, and if it is possible to do anything for these men I can assure the committee that I am favourably disposed towards them.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Soldiers' Land Settlement-Advances to soldiers settling upon the land and cost of administering the Soldier Settlement Act, including salaries, $12,000,000.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil, Minister of the Interior) :: I have to confess that there is a good deal of information that I am not in possession of with respect to this vote. Like many of the new members of the House, I have been looking on with considerable interest to see whether or not the land settlement scheme would prove successful. I do not care to discuss that particular phase of the matter, inasmuch as the committee is now dealing with matters of recommendation for improvements, etc., in connection with the working out of the scheme. I have a good deal of information with respect to what has been done. I have had some figures prepared which I thought would be of interest to the committee. This year we are asking for $12,000,000 based on the estimate in connection with the men who are in training and who have made applications not yet dealt with. The board estimates that this amount will be required. I have learned that while there are a very considerable number of what might be described as failures, and while I am unable to assign the cause of these failures, there are at the same time a vast number of these men who are doing remarkably well. They are not confined to any one province. I notice in the perusal of the work of the board that a very large proportion of the soldiers have been settled in western Canada. I have heard that a great many of them will not succeed and something will have to be done in respect of them. I shall not take up that aspect of the question, because the whole



Supply-Soldier Settlement
matter is before the committee, who no doubt will be prepared to make recommendations to the Government. I have a statement with regard to what has been done in connection with the abandonment of farms by the soldiers, or their failure to make good. That statement, I think, will be of interest to the committee and I shall
therefore read it:
1.	(a) Total abandonments as at
January 21, 1922	 2,352
(b) Total amount of public
moneys invested therein. .$9,889,535 02
2.	(a) Total number of cases completely foreclosed	 567
(b) Total number of completely foreclosed cases on which financial statement has been received	 532
(c) Amount invested in land and perm, improvements. . $1,651,237 79 Amount received for land and permanent improvements.. 1,852,334 58
Capital appreciation....	201,096 79
Amount invested in stock and equipment	 $539,853 77
Amount received for stock and equipment . .	376,466 95
Deficit	 163,386 82
Capital surplus		.. $	37,709	97
Less refunds repayable	to		
ex-settlers			73,240	22
Net capital deficit (532			
cases)		.. $	35,530	25
Average capital deficit,	per		
case			66	79
That, of course, leaves a very large pro-, portion of the claims still to be settled. I have given those cases that have been adjusted up to date. There are a number of other figures but as they are hardly relevant to the question before the committee I do not think I shall read them. I shall content myself with answering any question hon. members may ask.


William Alves Boys: Of the appropriation of
$35,017,000 last year, how much was actually spent?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I had better give the total spent year by year:

Fiscal year	Expenditure
1917- 18	$	3,733 201918-	19	
1,637,310	381919-	20	
47,220,145	551920-	21	
36,964,129	071921-	22	
13,268,623	66


Mr. WARNER:: Is it intended to have a revaluation of these properties in view of their deflated values?


Charles A. Stewart: That
matter is before the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Committee.


Robert Alexander Hoey: What percentage of the $12,000,000 is required for administration?


Charles A. Stewart: These are
the details, based on 1922-23:
General office expenses	$ 225,000
Travelling expenses of inspectors, appraisers, officials, field supervisers
and adjusters	 265,000
Salaries of commissioners and staff..	1,100,000
Legal expenses and disbursements..	30,000
Printing and stationery	 20,000
Motor cars and accessories	 45,000
Advertising	'	 5,000
Miscellaneous expenses	 50,000
Total	$1,740,000


John Evans: What is proposed to be done with those men who have had to abandon their homesteads? Some of them I know who had homesteads before they went to the war took advantage of the aid given by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Board and borrowed money on the security of their homesteads. Those men have lost all they had. I do not think our obligation to them ends there. What is proposed to be done?


Charles A. Stewart: Was that the case in which the homestead was pledged as security for a further purchase, and now both are gone?


John Evans: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I have noticed that that is the case in several instances where adjustments have been made. 1 suppose much the same policy would be pursued as in the case of an ordinary foreclosure, that any balance left over would go back to the individual. Your statement that that leaves him in a very bad position is one that, during my short tenure of office, I have not had occasion to give any consideration to as yet. I presume that that will need consideration.


William Alves Boys: Is the security held by the department?


Charles A. Stewart: In every case it is held by the board.

Supply-Soldier Settlement


William Alves Boys: I do not understand what the minister means by saying that any balance would go back to the individual.


Charles A. Stewart: The security being held by the board, the individual would not receive any of the proceeds of re-sale until the encumbrances had been discharged.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How many salvage cases have you had where the settler has been reimbursed the money he put into the venture?


Charles A. Stewart: We have not those figures at hand. Noticing the few cases as they pass through my hands day by day, I have been struck by the fact that the land is selling for almost the amount of the purchase price. That may be because that is the very best class of security the board holds. But that is not true so far as the stock is concerned.


William Alves Boys: How many forced sales have taken place during the past year?


Charles A. Stewart: Forced sales?


William Alves Boys: As I understand, when the settler is in default the department seek to recover the money advanced on the security of the land. How many cases are pending in which proceedings are being taken by the department against defaulters?	.


Charles A. Stewart: I am told five hundred cases out of some twenty-three hundred.


William Alves Boys: That means defaults?


Charles A. Stewart: No, cases in which proceedings have been taken.


William Alves Boys: As many as that up to date?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think the minister missed the point of my question. Does he mean that in the cases that have been salvaged enough money has been realized to discharge the indebtedness to the Government and also to reimburse the settler the money he originally put into the land?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This is what I am anxious about. I am told that a great many settlers will eventually lose all the money they put into their homesteads, due not to the failure of the scheme in the first place, but because the farms, stock
and equipment were bought at a time of inflated prices. Now that prices have gone down I fear that these soldiers will lose all their original investment. I should like to know how many have been salvaged in which not only the Government received the amount of the mortgage against the property, but the settler has received all that he has sunk in the venture.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed there are very few such cases. I judge from the report here of the five hundred and twenty-three odd cases I mentioned as being held for final adjustment, that that is with a view of distributing any balance among these men. The case mentioned by my hon. friend in which the homestead or other property was pledged, is quite a different case from one in which no property was pledged, or from the purchase of both land and equipment without any other property being pledged. In that case I am free to say I doubt if the settler would get any return; the government, owing to the inflated values at whfch this property was purchased, would, I think, lose on it. I am also informed that no action has been taken by the board w'here there is any possibility of the settler making good. I am hopeful that the recommendation of the committee will be such as to give those men a chance to make good if there is any possibility of their doing so.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I feel that the soldiers should not bear the whole burden of the deflation of prices. The committee will admit that it is a pretty serious situation for the soldier who comes back from overseas, goes into a venture that looks good to him at the time

that possibly looked good to us all-pays ten per cent down on his property and later makes further payments, and then, because he fails to meet subsequent payments, is sold out and loses not only the money he has put into it- amounting in some cases to quite a considerable sum-but one, two or three years of his time, as the case may be. He is turned out on the road, possibly with a family of small children to support-absolutely destitute. The situation is a serious one, and I think the Government has responsibility in the matter. Just how far the Government realize that responsibility is what I would like to know. In reading the report of the chairman of the board, I find, although it is a very full statement- no reference to this aspect of the question. The report is a very rosy one; it shows that

Supply-Soldier Settlement
the Government has realized more money out of these properties than it invested in them, but there is no mention of the soldier or how he is going to come out financially on the venture. That is the feature which,
I think, we must consider.
There is one other thing I would like to mention to the minister. I have had a number of letters from assessors and tax collectors all over the province of New Brunswick inquiring what they are going to do about collecting the taxes on farms which were formerly occupied by soldier settlers. I believe that invariably the Government has refused to pay the taxes on these farms. It is well known that Dominion lands are not taxable, and it is open to question whether or not that principle is a correct one to follow. But in the case of these farms, there should be no question whatever. The soldier settler who has been operating the farm has been paying the taxes on it; he must furnish his tax receipt to the board every year. But when he leaves that farm-and I know one or two cases of this kind-and the farm is leased, producing a larger return annually than would have been obtained from the soldier settler by way of rent, the Government refuse to pay the taxes. In some cases the result is to cripple the school district. There is one such case of a small district adjoining mine, a district which is having a hard struggle to keep the school running. There is only one farm in that district, fortunately; had there been three, it would have meant the closing of the school. I imagine that other districts are affected in the same way. I think, therefore, that this is a situation that Parliament must deal with. Certainly the Government should pay the taxes on these farms. They are very different from wilderness lands which have never paid taxes.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I had intended to direct this matter to the attention of the minister. I do not think it is necessary to say very much to the minister on this subject, because he knows as much about it as we do. Last year I was secretary and treasurer of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities. I sent a resolution on this subject to the minister, to the leader of the Opposition, and to all the western members. I do not think I got the courtesy of a reply from many of them, though I did get one or two. The difficulty is more apparent in the Western provinces, I think, than it is in the East.

We have several school districts where as many as four different quarter-sections, on which taxes have been paid for thirty years, have been thrown up. Debentures have been issued and money borrowed on that security; those debentures have to be met and the school taxes have to be paid. The government has refused to pay those taxes. In many cases these soldier settlers-and my sympathies go out to them -have not paid taxes during all the time they have been on the land. I believe the arrears of taxes have been paid by the government, but they refuse to be responsible for them after the soldier leaves the land. I think something ought to be done to remedy that condition.


John Livingstone Brown: This whole subject will be discussed in the special committee that is dealing with the matter, and when their report is brought in we can deal with it fully. But I assume that part of this amount of $12,000,000 will go to the further extension of the scheme that has been followed. How many applications are in hand from those who wish to take advantage-for it was supposed to be an advantage-of the scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I can answer that question best by giving the hon. member the following statement:
Certificates of qualification, entitling the holder to participate in the benefits of the act, have been granted to ,23,786 returned soldiers who have not thus far received any loan privileges. There is no way of estimating exactly how many of these men may be applicants for loans, but a considerable number will undoubtedly desire to be established on the land. Loan applications have been received from 576 men during the month of April, and inspection of the land is under way. Advices from district offices indicate another 700 as pending. In addition, there are 416 men in training, who must be provided for. Provision must also be made for additional loans for settlers only partially established in previous years. Loans authorized during the past year have in some cases been unexpended as yet, and provision must be made for meeting the requirements of the settlers concerned. The estimate of $10,260,000 for loans must cover all these requirements, and with the utmost care in administration and in the granting of loans, the appropriation will barely cover the applications already in hand and pending, and the settlers in training.
As to the question of taxation of these lands when they fall into the hands of the board, and therefore become Crown lands, I may say that this matter will be further discussed in the committee. I have a great deal of sympathy for the school boards and municipalities concerned; for I have some knowledge of the effect of

Supply-Soldier Settlement
such conditions in our school districts in western Canada, having had to deal with the exemption of the railway lands in our own province. It would be hoped that the period during which these lands are in that position would be short. But as I say, the matter will come before the committee and I should like to attend its meetings when that discussion takes place. We may then be able to learn what is the general concensus with (respect to this matter. Therefore, I am not to-day taking any definite stand in connection with this . particular matter.


Arthur Meighen: I have some interest in the Soldier Settlement Board and its work still, and I am anxious if it is within my power to make any suggestion that may be of value. I am glad for my part that if this important trust is to be committed to hon. gentlemen opposite, it is in the hands of the Minister of the Interior. He understands as well as any other member of this House general farming conditions in Canada, and particularly in those provinces where the great body of soldier settlement is. I am glad that he has found the general policy, the general features of the enterprise, and the general organization efficient, and that he is proceeding along the lines we pursued. I would not be disposed at all to suggest a reduction in the appropriation that he asks for, in the face of the statement he has just read to the committee. I am surprised rather that there should be so many applicants yet seeking to come in under the plan. I thought by this time the number would have been much more reduced. That information is to me encouraging, and I am sure is to the minister as well.
As to the matter of taxation, there is something to be said for the relief asked for. I know there is danger there, just as there is in meeting the request of the hon. member for Brandon, but because there is danger, it does not mean that a distinction cannot be drawn in such a way as to place the department safe. I do not purpose, however, to make now any specific suggestion in that direction. As to the complaint raised on behalf of the settler himself, there are of course some who have failed in the work. Their number is small in proportion and is mainly due, no doubt, to the reversal in prices of lands and products that has been general throughout the whole farming community of our country, and indeed has had its repercussion in every other calling in life. We ought rather to be surprised that the
number of failures is as low as it is, and that the consequences of failures to the government at least have been so slight. The difficulty is to meet such a situation in a manner that will not involve further insurmountable obligations all down the whole line of the returned soldier list. I know that difficulty because I have faced it myself. If the soldier who fails is to be regarded as still in a sense a government cestui qui trust, a man to whom the government owes special obligation because of his failure, that doctrine has very far reaching implications and would carry the liabilities of our country to a prodigious extent.
This suggestion I offer as a commence, ment. In the case where the soldier, being a homesteader either prior to the war or after the war, enters into obligations and as a consequence loses his homestead, say, in the case where he buys another piece of land and mortgages his home, and then because of that obligation finds himself submerged, there might, it seems to me, be a rule that the board should hold that his homestead right was not exhausted and that he could come in under the class of cases that homesteaded before 1894 and have the right to homestead again. It seems to me that would only be an extension of the principle of aiding in the development of cultivation, by giving special assistance for the purpose of securing more cultivation, more farming in this country.


Edward Joseph Garland: If you give the right to the soldier to take up another homestead, how would you finance him until he got a start?


Arthur Meighen: I had not made any suggestion in that direction. The government, of course, ordinarily does not finance a homesteader, and I did not suggest financing him if he is given the right to homestead again. I am afraid to do so would carry our obligations very far. But put him in the same position as though he never had entered at all. It would not, of course, be a restoration of the man to the position he hoped to be in; I know that; I do not pretend it is doing a great deal for him, because good homestead land now is very hard to secure. If the government found it in their power to do more, no one would be more pleased than I, but it seems to me it could safely do that much. If there are difficulties in the way they do not occur to my mind at present.
Of course, hon. gentlemen to my left must bear in mind that a new day has just

Supply-Soldier Settlement
dawned for the farmers of our country. A new light, a "larger liberty", a "new freedom" has dawned to-day for Canadian agriculture. No doubt the returned soldiers, when they know that the duty on their implements is to be reduced by two and a half per cent, will take new heart and courage. They will hereafter see in their balance sheets at the end of the year, no doubt, a vastly improved return. Even those who have abandoned their farms, will at this encouraging news surely make haste to return and take up the pursuit of agriculture once more.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would suggest that this item stand over until the sub-committee that is considering land settlement have reported, because I know a number of hon. members who do not wish to discuss this item until that report has been made.


Charles A. Stewart: I might remind the hon. member that passing this item would make no difference to any recommendations the committee might make. The committee can make any recommendation at all, and when that report comes down this whole matter could be discussed.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Eecess
The Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William John Ward: Mr. Chairman, representing as I do a constituency which, I think, has the second largest number of returned soldiers settled under the Land Settlement scheme in the Dominion, and having observed to some extent the conditions surrounding these settlements, and the effect the present scheme is having not only upon the soldiers themselves but upon the country as a whole, I must say that I am absolutely opposed to another dollar being spent for the encouragement of new settlements under that scheme. I do not, however, wish to be misunderstood in making such a statement. I do not for a minute accuse the Soldiers Settlement Board, or the late government, of insincerity. I believe they both started out in all sincerity, believing they were going to do something really effective for the returned soldiers. Unfortunately the moral status of the human race has not developed to a stage where selfishness does not enter into these 
matters. Consequently the moment the board came into being, it became surrounded with a group of land speculators, grafters and job seekers, whose operations defeated the very purpose for which the board was created.
The conditions surrounding these soldiers are such that unless immediate steps are taken to relieve the prevailing economic conditions under which they are labouring, a very large percentage of those in my constituency will be forced to leave their farms. It is humanly impossible for them to continue operations if they are to pay the inflated prices at which these farms and equipment were bought. As we all know, in the years 1919, 1920, and 1921 the prices of materials of all kinds were at the peak. In some cases those prices were inflated to a figure many times beyond their real value; inflation was witnessed to an extent we had never before seen in western Canada. Unfortunately too, we have had, as yet, no definite statement from the minister, nor from the committee that they are considering this question, as to what is proposed to be done with these returned soldiers that are now settled on the land.
I have visited a great many of these homes and made a personal inspection of their conditions and I am convinced that if a practical man were sent in to re-value this land the valuation would be reduced by at least 200 per cent in many cases. It has been suggested that the interest paid by these men might be withdrawn for three or four years. Even if that were done it would only be deluding the settlers with false hopes, because where the land has been bought for 200 per cent above its fair value it is not humanly possible for the returned soldiers ever to make good. In many cases they bought binders at $330, waggons at $150, horses at $450 a team, and cows at $100 a piece. Burdened with such overhead charges as these even the most experienced farmer could not achieve success. In the area known as the lake Manitoba district, which is possibly the largest district settled by returned soldiers in Western Canada, the land is only of third class quality; and yet many of these quarter sections were bought for sums approximating $2,500,$3,000, and $3,500. There is not a man in this House would value those farms at a price exceeding eight or nine hundred dollars if he knew anything at all about farming.
I think, therefore, we should have some

Supply-Soldier Settlement
definite announcement from the minister as to what he intends to do with the settlements that have been made in the West under such conditions. If he will give an assurance that full recognition will be given to the claims of these soldiers before entering upon any fresh scheme of settlement I am perfectly willing to support the voting of any amount of money deemed to be necessary for the maintenance of our returned men, who are now settled on the land. But I certainly am opposed to another dollar being spent under the old scheme, because I think it is physically impossible for that scheme to be a success. If the minister can give us a suggestion along those lines, I would be perfectly willing to allow this item to pass; but if he cannot, I certainly am opposed to any further settlement being made under such a scheme that ties the soldier up financially, morally, and every other way.
I may say that I never was in favour of the soldier land settlement scheme, not because of any prejudice against the government or the board or anyone else, but simply because I believe that it was humanly impossible for such a scheme to be worked out satisfactorily, and I think my fears have been quite borne out. I have in mind at the present time several cases. For example, I know of a young man who had clerked in a store all his life. He and a farmer's son enlisted together from my district in the fall of 1914; they went over to France, and after serving about three and a half years in France, they were fortunate enough to come back. The government said to the boy who had been reared as a farmer and who was inclined to go on to the land: "We will lend you four or five thousand dollars to go on the farm." On the other hand, they said to the other boy who had clerked in a store and who was inclined to go back to his old job: "We will not give you anything."
I am inclined to ask why discrimination was shown, and I am convinced that the majority of the people of Canada will bear me out in this, that had the late government made some sort of a cash settlement, if it had been only $500 apiece to the returned soldiers, it would have cost the taxpayers much less and been more satisfactory than the settlement that was made. I have seen people throw up their hands in horror and say: "Where would you have got this money to make a settlement with the soldiers?" I ask: "What would have happened had the war gone on for another
year?" Would the soldiers in France have thrown down their arms, or the people of Canada withdrawn their sympathy and their money? Of course, they would not. The war would have gone on just the same; it would have been won just the same, and it would have cost the people of Canada probably another billion dollars.
In all fairness to the returned soldiers, it is up to the government to take off the farms at the government expense those men who are facing impossible conditions of which there are many, and to repudiate their debts and at least set them free. A large percentage of them are facing an impossible proposition; and while in some cases probably the soldiers may make good, every case should be considered on its merits, and a revaluation made of the land and equipment, and the returned soldiers given a fair show to make good. I have had it said to me: "If we had made a cash settlement with the returned soldiers, they would all have gone broke in a short time." Well! If they had gone broke, that was their own business, and they would have been dealing with their own money. But I have too much faith in the men who went over to France, who endured what they did there and who saved this country and helped to save the British Empire, to believe that a large percentage of them would have squandered their money in any such manner. If they had been given a cash gratuity, a much larger percentage of them would have made good than is making good as under the present scheme, and would have done just as well as any other class. All we have to do to-day is to give the returned soldier a fair show, and that is something which he has not had in Canada up to the present time.
I do not wish to open up a new question; but I cite this merely to point out that, when many of these boys came back from France, they were single men on their own resources, and if they had squandered their money, they had nobody dependent upon them and nobody to blame but themselves. In what situation do we find them to-day? We find them away out on homesteads today absolutely stranded; their hope is gone; their morale is wrecked; and when these principles are lost you have lost about all there is in the human life. Many of them have now a wife and a family of small children. Nothing is left for them to do but to drift back to our towns and cities and fill up the bread line. Is that what the people of Canada want t ohand out to the

Supply-Soldier Settlement
returned soldiers? I think not. That is exactly what is being done in my constituency, although it may be the only constituency in Canada in which that treatment is being meted out.
I therefore could not allow this estimate to pass without registering my protest against conditions that now surround the returned soldier settler. I should be glad if the minister would give us a statement of what he intends to do in the future and how rigidly he intends to examine every settlement that is made. It may be said that the soldiers have the privilege of going out and examining these farms before purchasing. That is very true; but in my district there are very few farmers' sons who, after they examined the soldier settlement scheme, would take land under it. It was only the men and boys who did not understand farming or conditions surrounding the primitive stages of agriculture, who took land under that scheme. That proved that had the scheme been a good one, the farm boys would have taken land under it; but they simply would not take the risk. If I to-day were given a choice between stepping into the shoes of some returned soldiers in my district and spendig the rest of my days one one of their farms, and undergoing a term in a penitentiary, I would prefer to take a term in the penitentiary. I would then know when it ends. I trust the minister will make some definite statement in regard to this matter.


Charles A. Stewart: Many
members who are present to-night were not present when I made my explanation before the committee rose at six o'cloc.k I said then that I had to accept the Soldier Settlement Board as I found it. I say now that I cannot very well give any explanation of what is past. My hon. friend is dealing very largely with past history in regard to the Soldier Settlement Board, and I thoroughly agree with him in his statement that the purchases were upon inflated values; but they undoubtedly were the prices prevailing at the time the purchases were made for livestock, implements and land. I am not going to argue with my hon. friend as regards his statement that land purchased in his locality was purchased at too high a figure, even under inflated values, because I do not know anything about that. But, for the future, there will not be so much difficulty in that regard, because if we admit that livestock was inflated in value at the period when 
most of these men were re-established, that is not the case to-day, and one would not have that difficulty to encounter in reestablishing men on the land at the present time. Something might be said still about the price of implements, and to come to the main question, that of the purchase of land, I think a great deal of care should be exercised with respect to the settlement of the man upon the land and the price that is paid for the land. I do not wish to be dragged into a general discussion of this matter; but so far as I am able to influence the board and its officials, my elforts shall be to the end that every purchase of land that is made for the re-establishment of a soldier may be made at a rock-bottom price. There are two reasons. First, it will be necessary that the security of the Government in that land be maintained; and, secondly it is desirable to give to the man himself the most favourable opportunity possible to make good.
Now, as to the general question raised by my hon. friend as to what we are to do in the present circumstances, that is a matter which I trust will be thoroughly threshed out by the committee who are dealing with this whole subject, and who will recommend to the Government what, in their opinion, is the best method to be pursued in order to meet a very difficult situation. I do not think there can be any difference of opinion on the fact that the deflation in values has left not only these men, but every man who is engaged in agriculture, in a very difficult position; but more particularly has it affected these men who are just only entering into agriculture on their land.
I hope the committee will give this matter their very serious consideration. I am anxious to co-operate with them when the question is being discussed, because I fully appreciate its importance, and the difficulties it presents. I do not want to go minutely into the matter to-night. There are a great many phases of it that will have to be carefully considered by the committee before any conclusion can be arrived at as to what will be the best course to take. As to the future I can assure my hon. friends that the greatest care will be exercised. When I say that I fully realize that the difficulties that existed in the years just passed will not be so great henceforward. The situation will not be as difficult as it was at the time when so many of the men were being settled on the land.

Supply-Soldier Settlement


William John Ward: Many of the returned soldiers who settled in the locality between lake Dauphin and lake Manitoba did so in the expectation that the Rorketon line of the Canadian Northern would be built. In fact it is only reasonable to suppose that the board made this promise. The grade is already completed from St. Rose to Rorketon. Many of the soldiers are between 15 and 25 miles distant from the railway and it is not reasonable to expect that they will remain on the land unless they are afforded transportation facilities. I am sorry that the Railway Department cannot see its way clear to relieve the soldiers of the handicaps to which they are subjected, at least to the extent of laying the steel on the line between these two points. To delay this- work is simply breaking faith with these men, and the Government may rest assured that they will not remain in that district much longer unless this line is built in the very near future.


John Millar: I do not feel like blaming the late government, as some do, for the course they took. It was a sincere effort to meet a difficult s'tuation. I cannot, see that the officers of the government could foresee the deflation in prices that would follow the establishment; of the board and the attempt to place soldiers on the land. I know that there are few business men who could have foreseen it, at least to the extent to which it occurred. But I should like to say a word or two in regard to the men who were chosen to appraise the land. Now, I will not repeat the rumours I have heard, but I will give two instances to show the importance of the greatest care being exercised in the choice of the men who carry out the scheme, if it is the intention to purchase more land. There is quite an impression throughout the country that those who have been sent to appraise land have, in some cases, got a little rakeoff themselves. I am not prepared to prove the assertion in any case and therefore I will not repeat the rumours that have come to me. I will, however, mention two cases as matters of fact.
The land belonging to a certain man was to go to a returned soldier who had been working for him and in whom he was keenly interested. After the appraiser had looked it over he got the seller by himself and asked him: " How much is there in it?" The seller of the land is quite convinced that the question that was really implied, although the actual words were not uttered, was: "How much is there in it
for me?" He replied that there were 320 acres. In another case a certain man told me he had driven one of the appraisers signed a receipt for $12 but got only $6. Of course, if there are only one or two isolated cases of that sort they are hardly worth mentioning; and I cannot say whether or not there are more. But it just goes to show the importance of being exceedingly careful in choosing men who will do the honest thing.
I have no doubt that care was taken in the choice of these men. I do not suppose that the late government picked up anybody and everybody; but there is an impression in some cases that farms that were suitable were turned down by the appraisers in favour of poorer farms. That would be a great injustice to the soldiers who were to occupy the land. As I say, I cannot give any actual proof.
I had thought that when money was expended to place soldiers on the land and assist them, the scheme might have gone a little further and given assistance to men who wanted to engage in mercantile business or in any other occupation for which they were fitted by previous training. While it is a difficult matter to deal with, some re-adjustment of values ought to be made, and land, implements and horses bought at inflated prices should be re-valued in order to give the returned men some chance of escaping from the burdens they are carrying at present. According to what has been said, some of them cannot possibly, under the most favourable circumstances, throw off the burden. That, I believe, is quite true. Many of these men, if compelled to pay a hundred cents on the dollar would, I doubt not, go to the wall, and the most careful consideration should be given them. I realize that the minister has been in office only a short time,-in fact, too short a time for him to be able to map out any policy that can settle the matter immediately. I feel willing, therefore, to allow the item to pass in the hope that he may find a way out of the difficulty.


Arthur Meighen: The member for
Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar) ought to give by letter, to the minister the facts upon which he bases the statement he has just made as regards the two officers of the board. I personally would ask, no matter who appointed them, that the member give the facts to the minister and that the minister investigate each case and deal

Supply-Soldier Settlement
mercilessly with the individuals if they are found guilty.
In this connection I may say that in the three sessions that passed during which I came before the House with estimates for the Soldiers' Settlement Board, I heard only three hon. members criticise the honesty and fidelity of officers of the board, either in relation to valuations or to services of any other kind. In each of those three cases I had the chairman of the board communicate directly with the member, earnestly asking him to give the name of the officer, the description of the lands, and such other facts as would enable identification, and promising definite and immediate investigation. In each case the member declined. In each case we pursued the matter, pressing to the utmost to get the facts, but never were we able to secure any. One of the hon. members I refer to is to-day a member of the Government. Now I hope the minister will press that the facts be given in this case, and if they are-and I do not wish to intimate that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle will decline to furnish the required information- I ask that a searching investigation be made and the result reported to the House, and that if any party is guilty he shall be punished. As respects remedying these matters, I do not know anything to hinder the minister doing so. He has been in his office four months, this is not an arduous task, all the pioneering work has been done, the trail is blazed, and it is merely a matter of pursuing a definite policy, which I have confidence the minister is quite able to do. If there is anything waiting to be done I for one ask him to get busy and have it done.


John Millar: I am not at all unwilling to give the names of my informants, provided I can secure their consent. I shall try to do so.


Charles A. Stewart: I might as well say here and now that so far as I am personally concerned, whether a member of Parliament or any one else raises any question with regard to the honesty of officials in any department over which I have charge, if he will give us any evidence upon which we can work, a thorough investigation will be held at once. I have heard very frequently statements made that too high a price has been paid for the land upon which these men have been settled. Members of Parliament can help the board very considerably by at once 
bringing to our attention any such cases and I shall welcome their co-operation.


Arthur John Lewis: I do not know what method was in force in other constituencies, but in my constituency it was generally the returned soldier that endeavoured to make the bargain in the first place. He looked over what he considered would be a suitable farm, then he inquired the price, and later on he made application to the Soldiers' Settlement Board, and the board as far as possible acquiesced in his wishes. 1 do not know of any case where the board authorized a higher price than the soldier wished to give. I think the same is true m regard to implements and other things. But at the same time it must be remembered that these farms and implements were bought at inflated prices, although they were generally recognized as being fair at that particular period. I do not know whether the minister has under favourable consideration a revaluation or not, but in view of the serious conditions, and of the charge made by my hon. friend on my left, I would ask the minister if he could tell us what percentage of money has been repaid to the department by the returned soldiers, as that would give us some conception of their success or failure on the land.


Charles A. Stewart: The
money received in payment on contracts?


Arthur John Lewis: Yes, which is paid back.


Charles A. Stewart: These are the repayments on principal account:
On land

From commencement to March
31, 1921	
Tear 1921-22	
On stock and equipment-
To March 31, 1921	
Tear 1921-22	
Total	
Repayment of Interest on land-
To March 31, 1921	$
Year 1921-22	
Repayment interest on stock and implements

To March 31, 1921	$
Year 1921-22	
Total	
. ?	1,625,596	83
	614,246	62
. $	2,239,843	50. $	1,175,316	91913,466	77$	2,088,783	68$	680,312	8!740,452	83$	1,420,765	72t $	10,690	7340,612	78$	51,303	51
Supply-Soldier Settlement
Refunds-
On fire losses	$	370,512 81
On stock and equipment. . . .	599,690 74
On initial payments (Ten per
cent deposit of soldiers). . $ 5,114,881 49
Total	$11,885,781 45


Arthur John Lewis: What percentage of success does this $11,800,000 represent?


Charles A. Stewart: I think that in fairness you should separate the initial payments and payments for fire losses from the other items mentioned, in order to get the actual return made by the settlers upon the land.


James Joseph Hughes: What was the total
amount paid out by the department under this scheme?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If the minister would give us the respective percentages of the soldier settlers who made their due payments in full, the percentage who have made part payment and the percentage who made no payment after the initial payment, we would get a better idea of how successful the scheme has been.


Charles A. Stewart: Of total payments due, thirty-five per cent was received up to April 30 of last year.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is, thirty-five per cent of the money due has been paid; but what percentage of the settlers have made their due payments?


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Perhaps it would be in order for me to say a few words on this matter, because I am, perhaps, as deeply interested in it and possibly as conversant with the facts of the case as most of the hon. members here. I had not proposed to speak on the subject to-night; as chairman of the special committee which has this matter under consideration with a view to bringing forward recommendations, I felt it would be out of place that I should speak now, preferring to reserve anything I had to say until our report was laid on the Table and opportunity for a full discussion could be afforded. But in view of the line of debate that has been followed and in view of some of the statements which have been made, it might be of interest to the committee if I should give them an idea of the activities of the special committee which is dealing with this matter. I shall not go into detail, nor shall I anticipate the report. I simply wish to say, in all justice to the minister, that he has placed the matter entirely in the hands of that special committee; and he is 'deferring any action until its recommendations are forthcoming. The matter was turned over to that committee in its entirety; there were no strings on it. We were told to go ahead; we were given free access to all books and the right to call any witnesses we wished to examine and to question the officials of the department; then to make up our own minds and submit our recommendations to the House. I am fully cognizant of the condition of the returned men on the land at the present time; I think I can say so, because I believe I was the first man in the House to advocate this measure of revaluation. We are fully cognizant, I say, of the condition of the returned man, and we are giving it full consideration. At present all I can say is this: When our report is brought down we shall have done what we could to alleviate his condition and, I believe, will be able to have considerably improved his prospects for the future. I am expressing only my own opinion, but it seems to me that further discussion on the policy to be pursued might more profitably be carried on when our report is brought down and hon. members know just what our recommendations are.


James Joseph Hughes: If the minister has the
information for which I asked him, I should be glad to have it.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
already given that; it is on Hansard.


Mr. KELLNER:: If I understand this
resolution correctly, it is the intention of the Government to spend about $1,500,000 in connection with the duties of the board and about $10,500,000 by way of loans. I would like to ask the minister if that is the intention. The statement was also made that the difficulties in the past had been greater than they would be in the future; and the minister has been the recipient of a bouquet or two from across the floor of the House. I would like to ask him if in his opinion he does not think that as soon as conditions improve, fifty per cent of these soldiers will vacate the farms they are now on? If he is to come on the floor of the House as a judge in this matter, he will be able, no doubt, to give us an intelligent idea of whether or not that is to be the case.


Charles A. Stewart: The
hon. member (Mr. Kellner) has asked a very difficult question. I made it clear to the committee before six o'clock that I was

Supply-Soldier Settlement
not here in the position of a critic of what had heretofore been done. When I came into the department I accepted things as I found them. Prom that date forward, of course, I shall have to be responsible for the department. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) has just covered the whole ground, in my opinion. If the soldiers are to remain upon their land; if they are to make a success of agriculture, there is no doubt that some remedy, some relief, will have to be provided in respect of the conditions which exist. But the whole matter is to he discussed by the special committee who, we hope, will recommend a solution to the Government; and I think I am safe in saying that we will do our very best to carry out the recommendations of that committee. It has been pointed out that anyone who wishes to make representations to the committee will be given a full hearing, and I shall be glad if any hon. members who have recommendations to make in the matter will attend the meetings of the committee and make them there.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: This vote is for the cost of administering the Soldiers' Land Settlement Act. We have had a good deal of information as to the repayment of loans by the soldiers. I should like to know what the cost of administering this act has been from the beginning to the present. That is an item, I take it, that is not taken into account in the statement of the standing of the Soldier Settlement Board, as that statement deals wholly with loans to the soldiers and their repayment.


Charles A. Stewart: The total cost of administration up to the end of last year was $7,751,074.20.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: From which there
has not been, and will not be, any return.


Charles A. Stewart: (Argenteuil): I do not know how we could ever get a return from that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: With regard to the statements made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I am not at all surprised that in an organization of this kind there may be an occasional crook, or a man who will fake his expense account. However, I have had a very close connection with the work of this board in New Brunswick since the work first started, and I just want to say this: I wish I had the same faith in all departments of government that I have in the Soldiers' Land Settlement Board,
r.Mr Charles Stewart.!
both as to its honesty, its selection of suitable officials, and so forth. There is no doubt they will get a crook once in a while, but so far as New Brunswick is concerned, I think the men who valued the farms there were the best men that could have been got in the province. I think-no, I will say I know-that we bought these farms cheaper in New Brunswick than private individuals were able to buy the same farm for in many cases. Sometimes we refused to buy farms that we did not think were value for the money asked, and within two weeks the owner would sell to a private individual at the same price we refused to pay. I say "we" because I was on the loan committee that bought the farms the first summer, and was also chairman of the qualifications committee that judged of the men's qualifications for holding, so I was in a fair position to judge of the ability of the men who valued these farms, and I think that the work was well done. The men who went out and bought the stock, say, a team of horses, did not handle the money, but they made the deal and bought the team for the man, the bill was sent to the superintendent of the Soldier Settlement Board, and the cheque was sent direct from the board to the man from whom the stock was bought. The procedure was the same in buying farms. The committee, of which I was a member, which bought the farms did not handle any money, but they put the deal through, and the money was paid by the officials of the board direct to the owners of the farm. I think the scheme was well conceived and well carried out. I have no doubt there were some cases of faking of accounts, but from my experience of the board, in any case of this kind that was brought to their attention the culprits would get short shrift.


Thomas George McBride: I had not intended to say anything about this matter, as I think it is only a waste of time to discuss it until the committee's report has been brought down. However, I will say this. During the campaign I heard a great number of insinuations against the officers of the Soldier Settlement Board, and after the election campaign was over I 'spent the greater part of my spare time until I came down to Ottawa sifting these matters out. There was not one insinuation that I heard of before the election that I did not try to follow up after the election in order to get the facts. In some cases I asked for an

Supply-Immigration
affidavit from those who made the charges, as I thought I was entitled to that before bringing the matter up on the floor of this House. I might say that
9 pan. in every case they refused to make an affidavit. I do not think insinuation's should be made against officers, especially on the floor of this House, unless there is a good foundation for them backed up by an affidavit. I am not by any means satisfied with the officers as a whole, who are looking after the returned soldiers, and I intend to have a good deal to say about that when the report comes up for discussion. In the meantime I will reserve my remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Immigration and Colonization-immigration outside service, salaries, $640,000.
Charles A. Stewart: When
the civil government immigration estimates were up, I promised that when the general estimates were under consideration I would have something to say about the policy to be pursued in connection with immigration for this year at least. One cannot say very much about immigration without taking into consideration the condition in which Canada finds herself at the moment. During the past winter this committee has had evidence with regard to conditions in this country in the amounts they are being asked to vote, and will be asked to vote in the future, for unemployment relief, from one end of Canada to the other. Furthermore, in what we fondly call these reconstruction days, we find a great many people apparently dissatisfied with conditions as they find them, a great many who'are loath to engage in enterprises that will provide employment, and on the part of labour we find no desire to accept a reduction in wages and thereby help us to get back to normal times. These conditions have been fairly general from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Then when we look abroad to the countries from which we hope to secure immigration, we find that by far the larger proportion of the people who would be willing to emigrate are men desirous of obtaining employment. They constitute by far the greater proportion of those who are willing to settle in Canada. Of course, there is a fairly large number of people who are anxious to change their home and would be willing to come to Canada, who are in a better position and have the necessary funds to establish themselves here. I hope I am not too pessimistic when I make the assertion that probably not for some time to
come shall we be able to receive all those who would be willing to come to Canada and who would make desirable citizens, and by that I mean those who are mentally and physically fit and are desirous of finding employment here and becoming Canadian citizens.
I think at the moment it would not be wise to encourage, or to invite, any large numbers of people who have to maintain themselves particularly by manual labour, but I do hope that that period will pass very rapidly. That is the condition of affairs we must face. With respect to our policy for immigration, and the amendments made to the Order in Council dealing with-the subject to which I will allude later, some criticism has been offered inasmuch as we apparently have been closing the doors to all but people with means to purchase or to become agriculturalists, agricultural labourers, and household workers. But taking into consideration the situation that I have outlined, these apparently are the only classes of individuals that we can absorb in Canada at the moment, and therefore any amendments to the Orders in Council in existence have been made with that object in view.
I do not think it is necessary to touch upon the question of oriental immigration at this moment. Let me say to my hon. friends from British Columbia that I am endeavouring to find a solution that will meet, in a large way, the desires expressed by those gentlemen the other evening. Let me also say, in passing, that I sympathize very much with them in their desire to have a larger percentage of the population in British Columbia of the white race.
It being a fact that we can only absorb the three classes I have mentioned at the moment, I have endeavoured to organize the forces we have, for the purpose of securing for Canada its fair share of those classes both in the Old Land, in the United States in Scandinavia and to some extent upon the continent of Europe. One matter that I would like to speak about, an allegation that frequently appears in the press of Great Britain, is that we in Canada are setting up too rigid an inspection of the immigration that would come to us. It has been frequently stated that has been, and still is, the attitude of the department. Well, Mr. Chairman, clearly there is no use in augmenting the ranks of the unemployed. As I said to you a moment ago, we could undoubtedly get a great number of people who would come to Canada and would go to swell the ranks of those who
Supply-Immigra tion

are ,out of employment at the moment; but we are making the endeavour to get every agriculturalist from Great Britain that we can induce to come to Canada. That work is being carried on there by our agents, and through the medium of lectures and advertising, we are endeavouring to reach all of that class of people that it is possible for us to reach. The same may be said of agricultural labourers and household workers.
Before I leave the subject of immigration from Great Britain, I want to mention one other class of immigration that has been found very desirable in the past, and that I think we can very well encourage to the fullest extent-that is the child immigration coming to this country. I was astounded the other day, when discussing this matter with Mr. Smart, who is in charge of this work, to hear from him that last year 1,500 children were brought to Canada, and that there were applications for 15,000 more. In other words, the department could have placed 15,000 children in the homes of Canadian citizens. There seems to be a wide field there; and the policy of the Government will be to secure a larger proportion of the "teen-age" boys and girls who would come to Canada and fill this demand that appears to be prevalent for those children. Mr. Smart is about to leave for England on this mission, to see if we cannot, in a larger way, secure those boys and girls.
Australia has become a very strong competitor with Canada, and South Africa as well, for the immigration of adults as well as of children. Ever increasing inducements are being offered for British immigration to go to those two countries; and, in some measure, we will have to meet that competition. It is possible, therefore, that I will ask for increased grants for the purpose of encouraging the assistance of the people who are engaged in this class of work in the Old Land. Before leaving this question I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a class of immigration I think it is very desirable we should get to Canada. It is the class that appeals to me very much, because these children will go to our Canadian homes, grow up in our schools and become thorough Canadians if we can express the sentiment in that manner. Of course they are British stock but, I think, will turn out to be settlers much more desirable than persons more advanced in years. And I say that I am rather keen on the question of securing for 
Canada all of the child immigration that it is possible for us to obtain.
In the countries of Scandinavia and Iceland-indeed in Holland and in Belgium as well-although I am told that a year ago immigration and immigration propaganda were not looked upon with favour we to-day find that condition changing. I am hopeful we will get from Iceland this year a fair amount of the Icelandic people who, it is needless to say, make splendid settlers upon our western lands. We also entertain the same hope with respect to Scandinavia which has also furnished many fine settlers to western Canada. In these countries there is an ever increasing interest in immigration and I believe the authorities there will be willing to consider allowing their citizens to leave their homeland for Canada. In Holland we have a complete change with respect to immigration to Canada. Whereas a year, or a year and a half ago, the Dutch government were unwilling that their people should leave that country and come to Canada, to-day they are anxious to assist, and are assisting us in a very large way in bringing a splendid class of people to this country, and we are working that field for all it is worth.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the minister permit me a question? Can he say why it is that the Dutch government are so anxious to have their people leave Holland in order to settle in Canada? What is the reason of it?


Charles A. Stewart: One of the reasons, perhaps, is that they have more people than they can absorb at home; I am speaking now purely and simply of the agricultural class; I am not referring to any other class of citizens.


Daniel Webster Warner: They are all right; let them come.


Samuel William Jacobs: But Holland has its own colonies to which it can send its people, and in that way they would not be lost to the home land. Why have the Dutch shown such a strong desire to settle in the West at the present time? Is it because they have heard, from the remarks of the farmer members in this Chamber, of the splendid conditions there?


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I should like to draw the minister's attention to a letter which I have just received from one of my constituents and which bears upon this very matter. He encloses a clipping from a Re-

Supply

I mm ig ration
gina paper showing a despatch dated May 4, to this effect:
The provincial Government, in co-operation with the federal Department of Immigration, has made arrangements to bring contingents of farm labourers from Holland, it was announced officially to-day.
My correspondent says in part:
I might say that the people of your constituency are not in favour of voting money for agricultural purposes, nor are we in favour of spending money to bring in immigration, as it is almost impossible for the people who are here to make a living.
In December last, there were 246 quarter sections of land sold for arrears of taxes in this municipality, a total in this and the two adjoining municipalities, of 846 quarters, 137,160 acres in all.
I very much question the wisdom of bringing in immigrants at the present time, when it is, as this correspondent says, and it is undoubtedly correct, impossible for the people in that district to -make a living.
In that connection also, I might say that when we are inducing immigrants to come to Canada, we should at least -endeavour to give them a square deal. I have a matter that I have been dealing with and corresponding with the department over for some time, the case of a Highland Scotch family, who sold their home and their few chattels in May, 1921, preparatory to coming to Canada. They purchased their tickets, and they were all ready to sail, when the doctor passed on a little girl of the family as feeble-minded. The family were left in a very awkward position. Their baggage had already come forward to Canada, and it had to be returned. They were left in that way for nearly a year, and they spent almost the last cent they had. In fact, when they came to Canada just recently, it was only through their relatives sending them money that they were enabled to continue the voyage. They were held up for a whole year on account of something that, I think, is radically wrong in the Department of Immigration. I will read just a statement from the report dealing with the explanation given recently why these people were held up for a whole year. The report reads:
This decision was conveyed to the Superintendent of Emigration, in London, by letter of November 16, and on January 25, he replied, by cable, to the effect that the medical officer of the Health Department recommended the admission of the girl and, moreover, was of the opinion that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health would understand that the girl was a characteristic Highland country girl and not feeble-minded.
I would ask hon. gentlemen and particularly the minister if he can see any connection between a normal Highlander and something that is feeble-minded. I appealed to the department to give justice to this family, at least to do something for them to help them to come to Canada, in view of the fact that it was carelessness on the part of the officials that was responsible for their being held up for a whole year and being compelled to spend their last dollar. But nothing was accomplished, and it was only through the charity of some of their friends that they were enabled to come to this country. If we induce people to come to Canada, we should at least give them a square deal.


Charles A. Stewart: When my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) interrupted me about immigration from Holland and the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) ihterrupted me in connection with the matter in which the medical examiner appeared to have been in doubt or to have made a mistake, I was endeavouring to cover the field in a statement of what we hoped to do in connection with immigration into Canada. Before I have finished, my remarks, I will deal with some of the matters raised by my hon. friend.
I wish to make my statement as brief as possible, and yet I want in a fairly comprehensive way to cover the field. From Poland we hope to get and I think we undoubtedly will, a large number of people who will go upon the land. That fairly well covers the field in Great Britain and on the Continent. In the Scandinavian countries outside of Iceland we are not permitted, as I said before, to canvass or to advertise for settlers, and we have newspaper advertisements appearing in Iceland at this moment. As regards the Continent, We have taken three of our best trained men, one from Vancouver, one from the central office and one from Niagara Falls and sent them over to Mr. H. M. Mitton, who is the agent at Antwerp. Our idea in doing that is to endeavour to avoid some of the difficulties that have resulted from having to send back a considerable number of people who arrive at our shores. I can scarcely concei /e of any people with Scotch blood in them not being mentally sound, but there might be an odd case. If there is, however, it is important; and if my hon. friend knows anything about conditions in the Western provinces where a large percentage of immigration that has come to Canada has settled, he must know that too large a percentage of people who are mentally unfitted to come to this countrr
Supply-I immigration

have been allowed to enter Canada. I mentioned that the other day, and I know whereof I am speaking, because our mental hospital in Alberta has had too large a percentage of people allowed to come into Canada who were mentally unfit.


Mr. SPENCER:: Were the majority of
those people who were mentally unfit drawn from country or from city life?


Charles A. Stewart: Far too
large a percentage of them came from our homesteads in the earlier days.


Arthur John Lewis: Was that due to their
mental deficiency in the first place, or to the terrible conditions that exist on the farms in the West at the present time?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friends who have settled in Western Canada and gone through homesteading experience know very well that if one was not sound in body and mind-and this was the case particularly with women who went through the trials of early settlement- very frequently when there was a weakness, one broke down under the strain.


Thomas Sales: And when there was not
a weakness. My wife spent six months one winter without seeing a woman whom she could speak to. If that is not enough to drive a woman crazy, I should like to know what is.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Sales: I do not exactly see the
reason for the laughter. Perhaps, I am a little Scotch, but that does not mean that I am feeble-minded. From a woman's standpoint, lack of social life is important. What would some hon. members do if for six months they did not see a man to speak to? Some hon. members might be all right.


Milton Neil Campbell: My contention was
that the feeble-mindedness was on the part of officials of the department and not on the part of immigrants.


Charles A. Stewart: I know a great deal of criticism is levelled at the officials. I am not making any defence of them; I am speaking simply of conditions as we are facing them to-day, and, indeed, in my short tenure of office, I have had the most strenuous representations made to me, after medical inspection, that individuals should be allowed to enter Canada, it being represented that otherwise families would be separated and also that these individuals

would be able to maintain the members of their families who were living under very severe conditions; and I frankly admit these things do appeal to one. But after all, one must do his duty. One must keep in mind the fact that every time one of these individuals gets into the country he too frequently becomes a public charge on the community. Undoubtedly mistakes will be made, and I anticipate that perhaps at the next session of Parliament, if I am here occupying the same position, there will be innumerable cases in which hon. members will be able to criticise me severely. But while I am prepared to deal with these cases from the most sympathetic standpoint, we must remember that we are trying to build up a strong and virile race in Canada, and it is necessary that we should keep that ideal constantly before us.
I do not expect that we shall get a large number of people of the character and class 1 have mentioned to come to Canada; I mean agriculturists from Great Britain. I think, however, that it is our duty to get as many of these people as we can possibly secure from the Motherland. I am not unmindful of the fact that some of the people whom we call alien enemies to-day, who have come from countries that were our enemies in the Great War and are now settled in western Canada and elsewhere, have made splendid settlers and have been successful on the land. There is no doubt about that; I do not think that any one who has lived among them will deny the fact. It is said that they are not accustomed to the comforts which we find indispensable, and that they will put up with more hardships than we do. That is true. Some of the people whom we are endeavouring to get from the Highlands of Scotland are coming in at present. Some are settled in Ontario and they will undoubtedly make splendid settlers. They are hard workers and will do well on the land, probably they will be satisfied with very much less in the way of returns than the people coming from the United States or those people of the Old Country who were in much better circumstances before moving here. I am not suggesting that we should get that class of people, because I realize that it is difficult to make a livelihood on the land. Before concluding I shall deal with the question which has been raised with regard to the difficulty of living on the land. I think I know something about the question.
I want to deal for a moment or two, however, with -the possibility of getting im-

Supply-Immigration
migration from the United States. We are trying to get as many as we can of the Canadians who left Eastern Canada, particularly Quebec and the Maritime provinces, who are now settled in the New England states, and are showing a desire to return to this country, to come back and once more take up farming in the Dominion. In the central states, also, our agents are busily at work. Many of them are on the way at the moment owing to the conditions that have arisen there. During the war land and the products of the land became so inflated, and such high prices were paid for real estate, that the people in the United States, in common with the farmers of Canada, now find themselves in a difficult situation. Many of them are forced to surrender their lands and are looking for some place in which to make a fresh start. Our propaganda has evoked a counteracting campaign on the part of the central states which are making a great effort to hold people. Montana and the more northerly states are making a great effort to hold their population. I feel confident, however, from the reports I have just received from the superintendent, that a very large number of desirable farmers who know the conditions in western Canada will cross the line and take up land there this year.
Let me deal with the question as it affects us in western Canada. I quite agree that farming was never more unprofitable than it was in the past year, and probably we never suffered to such a serious extent as we did during last year and the year before. One farmer will blame one set of conditions, while another will attribute the trouble to other causes. We have had adverse weather conditions on top of a falling market, and all our difficulties seem to come at one time. We had taken on very large obligations in the hope that the inflated prices of live stock and farm produce would continue as they were; and as every one knows, those prices dropped over night and left us in a precarious financial situation. But to say that because of the inability of the people to pay their taxes, and because of the difficulty that our farmers find themselves in to-day, it is unwise to place more agriculturists on the land in Western Canada and in other parts of the Dominion is, I think, a mistake.
While admitting all these difficulties, Parliament is asked to vote large sums of money to carry on the National Railways, part of which money is for deficit in operation, to say nothing about interest charges
that are accruing from year to year and that undoubtedly must be taken into account and paid from revenue, seeing that it is doubtful whether they will ever be paid by the operations of the railways. Within twenty miles of practically all these lines of railway that are now in operation to-day, with school houses built, with towns established, and with all the facilities for carrying on business, it will be admitted that there is indeed a very sparse population. We do hope that conditions will change and that agriculture will be made at least reasonably profitable, because, if that hope is not fulfilled, there will be very little done in any other line of business in Canada. If we cannot place the people on the land and assist in production so as to create business generally in the Dominion, if we cannot fill up these vacant spaces, all within twenty miles of railways, then we have a very dreary outlook indeed in Canada. I am not suggesting for a moment that these spaces are immediately to be filled up; we cannot fill them up in a hurry. But I should like to see policies adopted that would make possible a genuine success on the land throughout the country. While perhaps we have not been as prosperous on the land as we should like to have been, and while we may not have made all that we had hoped to make by reason of the inflated values of farm land, it must be remembered that other businesses in Canada, although they may have had prosperous days, are probably themselves in a rather difficult situation to-day.
In bringing immigrants in I think it is a mistake to tell them that the moment they get upon the land they are going to be prosperous. Speaking of my own experience in western Canada, I know it was a few years before I began to get prosperous at the homesteading game; but I am not going to say that I did not make a considerable amount of money out of farming in Alberta. I am not afraid of the future of western Canada so far as agriculture is concerned. I know that the difficult situation depicted by many of my hon. friends opposite is absolutely true, but I may refer the committee to a period in our history, 1892 and 1893, when I was farming in the old province of Ontario. In those days prices for produce dropped very much lower than they have dropped at the present time. You will retort by saying: But living conditions were very different then. I reply that they were not so very different from the conditions under which we are living to-day, bearing in

Supply-Immigration

mind the prices we were receiving then compared with those we are receiving now. We survived that trying period, and the farmers of Ontario are perhaps richer today than they were in those days, having made more money perhaps because they were established more firmly than we were. But I do say, through the mouths of our immigration agents both in the United States and Great Britain, where we are seeking to get settlers upon our vacant lands, that while this is not a country in which immigrants can pick up gold on the streets, yet it is a country where they can do as well as, indeed better than, in any other country that may invite them. I hope I shall not ba misunderstood as holding out glowing hopes for settlers coming here under present conditions, but I do say that if we are to be successful we must get more people on our vacant land. I am not going to deal with the question of how greater success can be attained; that will be dealt with at another time.


Arthur Meighen: What other time has the minister in mind?


Charles A. Stewart: There
will be a discusion on the Budget, mentioned by my right hon. friend to-night, and perhaps we will then have an opportunity to discuss that matter. Let me deal for a moment or two with the question of regulations. There was a regulation in force providing that each immigrant must be in possession of at least $250. We have not altered that provision in so far as it affects oriental immigrants, but we have removed what is claimed to be to a certain extent a disability in another connection. We are anxious to let all people-except of course orientals-into Canada who can maintain themselves. There is a class that I have mentioned, the labour class, and similar people without means who are desirous of obtaining employment, but we cannot permit them to enter at the present time. We do hope by the establishment of agents on the Continent and a more rigid inspection of intending immigrants before they leave home, to avoid some of the unfortunate incidents that have happened. Such incidents will perhaps happen again, but by viseing of passports by our own agents we hope that when people sell up their homes on the other side and embark for Canada there will be the least possible difficulty in their passing the test at our port of entry. In the changing of these regulations that is the principal feature I had in mind, so that many of the hardships complained of may be eliminated.

I think I have covered the ground sufficiently, Mr. Chairman. Possibly hon. members will be desirous of asking a number of questions.


Edward Joseph Garland: Where do the homes exist for the 15,000 child immigrants?


Charles A. Stewart: In Ontario and the eastern provinces.


Edward Joseph Garland: In what sort of homes?


Charles A. Stewart: Largely farm homes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the children be adopted or merely engaged as helpers?


Charles A. Stewart: In some cases they will be adopted, in other cases they will be taken for a certain term.


Robert Forke: I was rather pleased, Mr. Chairman, with the remark the hon. Minister of the Interior made that, "they were all right when you caught them young." Unfortunately I was not caught very young, but I have done the very best I could since I came here to make good.
Now, I do not know if I am going to talk in a strain that will be very pleasant to some of my friends on this side of the House; I am going to speak very much along the same lines as the minister in regard to the necessity for further immigration. I think we all recognize to-day that the greatest difficulties we have to meet in business, on our farms, or in any other calling are our large overhead expenses, the rate of taxation, and our railway deficits. I believe I mentioned once before that if we could double our population we would halve our difficulties in that respect. I know agricultural conditions are unsatisfactory at the present time, but I believe that point of view has been stressed quite enough. I will, however, read a very short extract from a communication received from a private association which has been looking toward Canada as a field for immigration. This is the extract:
It is our considered judgment that while the serious condition of the agricultural industry may have been exaggerated in some quarters, its position is nevertheless sufficiently grave to justify reasonable measures to improve the lot of the settler now on the land. The prosperity and happiness of the people already in the country is basic to the success of any great immigration movement.
As I have already said, I think perhaps we have stressed that point enough. I do

Supply-Immigration
not know what its effect may be outside, but I am sometimes just a little afraid of the psychological effect it is haying upon ourselves. We are looking upon the black side so much that probably we are beginning to lose heart at the very time when we ought to take courage and move forward resolved to do better in the future.
Of course, it may be asked: Why invite more people to come to this country when conditions are not satisfactory for those who are already here? I should like to point out some of the remedies that I think might help to mitigate the evils under which we suffer. It has been mentioned frequently that we have gone through a series of bad seasons. But we believe things are mending. Already the weather is making a decided improvement in that respect, and we hear nothing but glowing reports from the western prairies these days about the conditions under which the seed is being put in the land, and that dried out districts are getting a good wetting. Consequently I am looking towards the future with renewed hope. However, I believe that we can have better marketing conditions in the future than we have had in the past.
There is another matter I would like to speak of, and that is the question of the distribution of our labour and our goods. I believe that we can obtain greater benefit from satisfactory distribution than can be obtained in almost any other line of business. The question of distribution has not been sufficiently considered in our economic life. We have specialized and specialized until we find that in every line of business there is over-specialization. I want to mention a circumstance in this connection; it is of a personal character, but I think the committee will pardon my referring to it. During the campaign this fall I had the pleasure of staying at a very humble home-and I think it was a happy home. The head of the household had a few sheep, and I found that the good wife was carding the wool, spinning the yarn, knitting the stockings to supply all the members of the household, and selling her surplus stock at $1 a pair. At the same time, I, who had a large flock of sheep, had them shorn and shipped the wool, did not get enough money to pay for the cost of the sheep-shearing and the transportation of the wool to its final destination. Now, there is a case of difference of method. I am not advocating that we go back, to the old system where the blacksmith and the millwright did all the
work in the village, but I do believe we have over-specialized in a great many ways; it takes too many men to do a single job. I was told the other day that when the headlight on an engine goes out of repair-and I want my labour friends to pay attention to thi-s-it takes six men to repair it, whereas a few years ago one handy man could have done the job. That is the result of specialization. We have distributed our labour into too many quarters, and it is costing too much to run the machine. I believe that farm life and the distribution of our goods can be improved very largely in this respect.
Then, we are going to have cheaper transportation; we see signs of it coming. In regard to our markets, I think we are waking up to the fact that we must seek for markets in all directions. Of course, we realize the difficulties that we have to meet so far as our neighbours to the south are concerned, but there are markets and plenty for the produce of our farms over in Europe, when they are in condition to buy them. I think I mentioned this once before-and I am speaking only of the Prairie provinces, because it is with the conditions there that I am most familiar and of which I am, perhaps, best able to speak. But I believe that the day of large farms has passed and that we have come back to smaller holdings and more intensive cultivation. I think that the practice of holding large tracts of land is one of the great mistakes we have made during the last few years. When we first went to those prairies we went not so much to establish a home as to grow thousands and thousands of bushels of wheat, to make a fortune and to retire, wealthy men, in a very short time. That idea has passed away; what we are looking for to-day more than anything else is to establish comfortable and happy homes out on these prairie lands.
We hear a great deal to-day about the trekking to the cites. I think I know something about city conditions. I had the honour and the privilege of serving on the Public Welfare Commission for three years in the city of Winnipeg. Evidence was placed before that commission from all classes in the city, including philanthropic and benevolent societies, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I came to know something about the seamy side of city life. I know that all is not gold that glitters and that the city has its troubles as well as the country. Now, I am not
Supply-Immigration

one of those who believe that every boy and every girl should be kept on the farm. If boys or girls show an aptitude for certain lines or display ability in matters pertaining to business vocations and other lines of life, by all means let them go. But I would like to see the conditions made such that all our bright boys and bright girls should not leave the farms for the cities.
One of our troubles to-day is not so much over-production as it is under-consumption. We find our warehouses full of goods; we find people without clothes. There is something wrong, something has to be made right. I wonder who is going to solve the riddle? What is the trouble? What is the matter?
Now, I believe we can better our conditions by having more people on the land.
I realize the importance of industrial Canada. Some of our friends seem to think that we farmers do not realize the importance of industrial life. I think we do;
I for one am proud of any implement, well made, when I find it has been manufactured in Canada. And I want to make the statement here, Mr. Chairman, that I have farmed for forty years and I do not know that I ever bought an implement that was not made in Canada-and I am a bit of a free trader, all the same. Now, coming to immigration:	Where are we
going to seek for immigration, and how are we going to get it? The minister has dwelt on this matter to some considerable extent. We can look towards the United States, and I believe that in that country can be found the very best class of people we are likely to get, because they understand the conditions and can adapt themselves readily to our social and political conditions. Not only that, but I believe we should do everything possible to bind ourselves to those people on the other side of the line; the more we encourage a friendly feeling towards them, the better it will be for Canada as well as for the United States. Then, we may look to the British islands for immigration. Unfortunately, Britain is an industrial country. Her agricultural population is not very numerous, and most of them can find employment at home if they wish it. At the same time, I know exactly what it means: to the agricultural labourer or to the small farmer who is paying a large rent for land over in the Old Country, the idea of owning a farm of his own makes a very strong appeal. I think quite a large per-
centage of immigration can be got from the British islands if we go the right way about it.
The minister spoke to-night about the efforts Australia was making to get British immigration. I do not know whether sentiment is a thing that goes very far in this House, but it is a fact that you cannot lose sight of sentiment; it has a great deal to do with human life, with human affairs, with everything with which humanity is concerned. And when you come to deal with British immigration you are dealing with something upon which sentiment has an important bearing. When a man decides to leave England, do you not think it means something to him that the old flag flies over the public building's of the Dominion of Canada? I think that gives Canada an advantage to begin with. It may be said that Australia makes the same appeal to his patriotic feelings. But I would like to point out the difference so far as distance is concerned. Those who leave the British islands to go to another country always have the feeling that they will go back either for a. visit or, perhaps, to remain there altogether. We know that as a matter of fact they do not go back. If they do return for a visit, they realize, much as they love their native land, that it is not their country; that Canada, after all, is their home and their country. Nevertheless, as I say, when they leave home first they imagine that some day they will go back. Canada is only seven days from Great Britain, but to go to Australia means a long sea voyage-and that militates to a large extent against Australia and in favour of Canada. Canada appeals to British people in many ways. The part we played in the war, the close contact which took place on that occasion between Canadians and the British people-for a great many reasons, there is nothing but the most friendly feeling towards Canada over in those British Islands. I believe if we go about it in the right way we can get a jgood many people from the British Islands, especially from Scotland and the north of England. From those places and from the north of Ireland you will get the very best class of settlers for Canada. Not that I have anything to say against the south of England or the other parts of the British Islands, but the climatic conditions of those sections to which I have just referred are more like those which prevail in Canada, and the people who come from that part of the Old Country can, perhaps, adapt

Supply-Immigration
themselves more readily to the circumstances than those who come from other districts. Very many splendid people have come here from all parts of the British islands and have been successful.
The minister spoke of the countries of Europe, of France and the Scandinavian countries, of Iceland, and Holland. There are no better people than these, and we should try to get them. I think we can get them if we try. They would be only too glad to come here and make a success. Some other parts of Europe have been mentioned and the inhabitants of those parts severely criticised, sometimes rigntly and sometimes not. I do not know if they deserve all the criticism that has been levelled against them. I met a Canadian Pacific Railway land inspector the other day, who had been inspecting land away up northeast of Edmonton and he said he had found in that rough country, settled on quarter sections of land, Ruthenian people who were hewing down the wood and cleaning up the land and making a success of farming. They were happy and contented, and raising families who are going to be farmers for the next three and four generations. That is worth remembering. Perhaps their idea of comfort is not the same as ours, but they are bringing into cultivation land that our people would not touch under any circumstances, and I would think twice before I condemn these people. They are creatures of circumstances, to a very large extent. I wish to quote a short extract from the literature of an association for the encouragement of immigration. In speaking of the Ukrainian people in the cities, it says:
There are, for instance, in the city of Winnipeg many hundreds of hardy Ukrainians, who came to Canada direct from the soil of eastern Europe, and who have saved a few hundred dollars, and who with a little direction and assistance would "make good" on the land. The fact is, that the majority of continental Europeans, now resident in Canadian cities, migrated to the Dominion with a view to tilling the soil. By force of circumstances they have drifted to the urban centers, and many of them would gladly return to the occupation from whence they sprung if they only knew how.
I believe it was the force of circumstances that brought these people into our cities and that has been responsible for a great many of the troubles they have caused, owing to the conditions under which they lived. I would not advise bringing in too many of these people. We should be very careful as to the numbers admitted, because their circumstances and way of living are so different from ours. All the same, I do
not like to hear them condemned offhand. Let me point out that 18 per cent of the students in the University of Manitoba today are of foreign extraction, and they are taking the highest places in the university. They are going to make good Canadians.
Coming down to Ottawa for the first time, for the opening of the session, as we passed at dusk through that rough country north of lake Superior it was snowing heavily, and the country looked very wild.
I went on the rear platform and
10 p.m. saw the men who were patrolling the track; they were the men with the skeepskin coat that Sir Clifford Sifton speaks about. Mr. Chairman, we can go into the pullman and tuck ourselves into our berth and feel quite safe and contented, and yet the very men who are patrolling the right of way and ensuring our safety are those despised people whom we are told it is not safe for us to trust. While we do not want too many of these people in our country, at the same time we should not despair of those we have here, if they are treated properly.
I am going to say a few words now on the immigrant and his welcome to this country. A great deal depends on first impressions. Perhaps there are a few in this House who can understand the feeling of an emigrant as he stands on the deck of the westbound steamer and takes a last look at the receding shores of his native land. I do not blame him if emotion surges over his soul and he feels a little bit downhearted. But "Hope springs eternal in the human breast, man never is but always to be blest." He turns his face westward, looking with hope towards this new land. I had an opportunity along with other members from the West to visit the city of Quebec some little time ago, and we all enjoyed the beautiful scenery and the splendid harbour, and looked with interest on the historic places that are so numerous in and around that city. We enjoyed the hospitality of that fine people. I had the opportunity on the same occasion of visiting the immigration buildings at Quebec. I have no word of criticism to offer, no fault to find, but at the same time I could not help thinking of the immigrant's feelings as he disembarked from the ship and came up that gangway and into those buildings. I am not criticising at all, but I want the minister to realize just what an effect it has upon the people who are coming into this country. I think we should adopt a sympathetic attitude towards these newcomers, the glad hand should be extended
Supply-Immigration

and a welcome given. It will go a long way towards helping these newcomers to get a right start. I am not criticising the immigration buildings at Quebec; I think they are splendid, but they are in an unavoidable condition. I have no doubt the attendants there are courteous and kind, and we know that the officers of the railway company as a rule are very good in looking after the immigrants and seeing them to their destination. Nevertheless, it needs courage, and courage of the best kind, to face a new life in a new country, and the Government has not done its full duty, it has not gone to the end of the story or fulfilled its duty to these immigrants until it has followed them up.
I am ready here to-night to pay a tribute to the Canadian people. They are a kindly people. Perhaps this comes with tetter grace from me than from many other members of this House because as you know, Mr. Speaker, I had attained the age of manhood before I came among the Canadian people. My heart warms to them to-day. I am one of them. Never for one moment has my birth on the other side of the water militated in the least degree against my advancement in any waik of life in this Dominion. I point to that with pride, because I think it is one of the advantages we have to offer to the immigrants who come to our shores, but unfortunately, in this very imperfect state of human affairs, there are exceptions everywhere, and all Canadians are not of the type of the great majority in this country. I think it is the duty of the government to see that incoming immigrants shall not be taken advantage of through their ignorance of conditions here. They should rather be assisted and looked after. The new settler should1 be helped and guided towards the vacant land adjacent to the railways that can be had for a moderate price. I for one believe that land that can be got at a moderate price within a few miles of the railroad is a very much cheaper proposition than a free homestead away out in the wilderness. I do not think I would be at all inclined to advise any one, except perhaps these settlers who come with the sheepskin coat, to settle any distance from the railroad, if they are going to make a success of farming under present conditions. I have been told that the Canadian Pacific have some five million acres of land, the Hudson Bay railroad something like three million acres, and the Canadian National railways eight hundred

thousand acres. I do not know if these figures are correct, but I believe they are approximately so. I have no doubt the railway companies themselves, including the National Railways, will do something towards colonizing these lands, but we have still twenty million acres of land held by speculators along the line of our railroads in western Canada.
Now I want to say a few words about the speculator. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when the word " speculator " had very much the same effect on a western farmer as the holding up of a red flag to a bull. But conditions have somewhat changed. I am going to speak more particularly for the province of Manitoba, because I know the conditions that exist there to-day. All land in Manitoba today is assessed by unprejudiced valuators at its actual valuation, and there is also a wild land tax such as they have in the other Western provinces. Now no speculator is going to hold land very long and pay the taxes that he has to pay at the present time; he will be willing to sell if he can at a fair valuation. But there is a point worth considering-and I want the minister to pay attention to this: I believe that a lot of land held by speculators and offered for sale ought to be fixed at a special price for a certain number of years so that if we had an influx of settlers it would not immediately raise the price of that land, as we know often occurs when the demand increases.
Now I do not know that I have very much more to say. I am not going to elaborate any plan of settling those lands. There is an association at the present time that is willing to undertake some of the work. I cannot say much as to the capabilities of the promoters; perhaps the minister will look into that matter and see whether or not the scheme is worth putting through; but I do know there is such a corporation or association making an attempt to settle vacant lands at the present time. I hope the government will devise some well considered scheme whereby the settler who is seeking land will obtain land that is suitable for him, and get every chance to make good under proper conditions. I believe in the future of this great land. I know that the people on our side of the House have stressed, and naturally perhaps, the hardships and the vicissitudes, to a very large extent, of farm life. I know the conditions which have existed and I can appreciate the suffering,

Supply-Immigration
and perhaps hardship, which has prevailed during the last few years; but I can look back and recall that we have had good times in the three Prairie provinces. As I have already said, I am speaking for the Prairie provinces because that is the only part of Canada I am well acquainted with. Let me say that I believe there is a great future for this country of ours. We have a virile and energetic population, we have great natural resources; and the climatic conditions, with all its faults, are just as good as are to be found in the great majority of other lands. Then why should we lose hope? I for one intend more and more to look with hope to the future, believing that there are better days in store, and that some of us who are now living will yet see good and prosperous times in this Dominion of Canada.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I really think that immigration to Canada has now reached the point where it is no longer a question of getting people on the land but a question of keeping them there. I, for one, do not favour the sort of immigrant who wears a sheepskin coat unless he has a better one some place else. Of course, we have to have sheepskin coats and we all wear them at home sometimes; but by that reference I mean the class of people who go upon the land, but whose standard of living is lower than that of others who are already located there, and that is low enough. Such a policy would be a good thing for Canada rather than one of an opposite nature that would work to her final detriment. Because my own opinion is that the difficulty with the Canadian farmers has been that their standard of life has not been high enough. They have been willing to work long hours and to receive from their investment far less return than any other class of people; and if those immigrants who come to Canada are willing to work longer hours and receive less pay than the existing farmers are, then the condition of affairs instead of being improved will rapidly be rendered worse.
The minister has spoken in favour of bringing a large number of children to Canada; he has pronounced himself in favour of further developing child immigration. If those children were very carefully selected and came from the rural parts of the Old Land there might be something to be said in favour of such a policy, but in the past a great many children that have been brought from Britain have come not from the country but from the city,
and they were not always carefully selected either. They were brought out here and placed in homes where sometimes they did not have a very nice time but where, on the other hand, they did not return very much value for their keep. The result in most cases has been that between the ages of seventeen and twenty they have drifted into the cities and, not being experts or skilled in any certain line, and not having a very excellent education-possibly not as much as, or at all events not any more than, any other class-they have helped to form bread lines when such were needed; and then the country that helped to bring them out here has had to keep them. It would seem that we have come to a time in the history of our country when we must be very careful about further immigration. Agriculture is no longer an occupation that poor people can afford to engage in. Many people would like to farm but cannot afford it; it is too much of a luxury.
Do you know that old Ontario, with which I am quite familiar-it is the only part of Canada with which I am familiar- is losing its rural population at a truly alarming rate. The condition is one that we should all try to understand if we love Canada. Many a time in the past I have wondered, when we were spending thousands and hundreds of thousands-yes, millions-of dollars to bring immigrants from the Old Land and settle them in the West, why that same encouragement was not held out to the young men and women of old Ontario, to say nothing of the young men and women of Quebec and the maritime provinces. Why were they not given the same opportunity as that accorded to those who came from other countries? Do you know that in my own riding of Southeast Grey and the ridings that touch upon it- South Bruce, Wellington, Dufferin and North Simcoe-we have lost from the farms over 18,000 people since 1911, and so it would seem to me-


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. member
permit me to ask a question?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not possible those people went to the Northwest, because, as I understand it many of the people have come from the various districts to which the hon. member has alluded?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is quite likely that before 1911 a number of them did; but
Supply-Immigra tion

western conditions have not been so splendid for farming: that there has been a very-great trend from the East to the West. Rather is it a fact that those who were lucky enough to leave the West have come back to the East. And so I think my hon. friend's explanation is scarcely applicable this time; I think they have not to any con-sirable extent gone upon the land elsewhere. This I know to be true. I went to some little trouble to find out how many women and children used to live on a tract of 2,000 acres of which my father's farm of 150 acres forms a part, and fifteen years ago there were sixty-five women and girls on that much land. To-day there are about twenty-three and of the number mentioned only about four or five live on land elsewhere. Taking that as a guide I would say that not a very great number are living on the land in other places. Rather than spend any lavish sum of money to bring other people to Canada it would be well for this Parliament to bend every energy it has towards making farming conditions liveable for its own citizens.


Joseph Henry Harris: I am afraid the minister who has charge of the immigration policy of this country has laid down for us only half a policy. He has outlined the course the Government is going to pursue with regard to the encouragement of further immigration to Canada; but I failed to gather from his remarks that he had any very definite plans with regard to the discouragement of undesirable immigrants. I have, perhaps, more particularly in mind a movement on foot by our transportation companies to bring large immigration into this country. Mr. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific, on May 3 urged that greater immigration should start forthwith. As he is a transportation man, to my mind, his only motive for urging this would be, of course, to get transportation, and, perhaps, it would not worry the Canadian Pacific very much what class of immigration came to this country, provided that the Canadian Pacific got the fares.
As hon. members are well aware, we have in our large centres many people who come from central European countries, and at the present time a large number of people in central European countries want * to come to our shores. I disagree with the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) in his view that these people want to come to Canada to settle on the land. My experience has been that they drift very

quickly into the large centres, and the result is that they take hold of the rougher class of work in those centres and deprive our English, Irish and Scotch Canadians of the opportunity of doing that work. They are able to do this largely because their mode of living is so much cheaper than is the mode of living of the average Canadian, and to my mind, it is going to be a question with the average Canadian labourer whether or not he is going to get down to their standard of living if he is going to compete with them on the labour market of Canada.
What do you find in the city of Toronto -"Toronto the good", as it is very often called? You find that 50 per cent of the cases that are in the municipal wards of our hospitals are those of people of foreign extraction who have no intention of staying in this country. We also find in our jails and penitentiaries not quite that percentage of people of foreign extraction. I would like very much to have heard from the minister some concrete suggestion or policy on the part of the Government towards the discouragement of this class of immigration.
A month or so ago when we were discussing the Speech from the Throne, I made some suggestions in this House in this connection, and with your permission, Sir, I will repeat them now. We recognise that the average English, Irish or Scotch Canadian labourer is, as a rule, a man who wants to have a stake in the country, who intends to stay here and to raise a family. In my riding, which, perhaps, contains the largest number of the class of people I have in mind, these people out in the suburbs of our great city are working nights, holidays, Saturday afternoons and sometimes Sundays in order to build a little two or three-roomed shack to cover themselves, paying for the lot; and when they go back to their day's work, what do they find? They find that they have to compete with these aliens, and at the end of the year they have to face a tax in this country for the little bit of land and the house that they have. They find also, if they are moderately prosperous, that they are subject to a provincial and, perhaps, even a federal tax. The same condition does not obtain with the foreigners right in the centre of our large cities, for this reason. They, as hon. members know, herd together in houses. I have known houses to contain upwards of twenty of these people, and their conditions of living are such that they are not under the

Supply-Immigration
same expense as are our Canadian labourers.
During the discussion on the Speech from the Throne, I suggested that it might be tvell, if it were at all possible, for this Government to bring down legislation which would tend to tax transient aliens who want to come to our shores and stay here for a little while until they make a little money on which they can return to the countrv which gave them birth and, perhaps, spend the rest of their days there. If they intend to stay here, I would gladly welcome them; but if they intend to stay here, they must become Canadians. On the night that it was reported that Lord Kitchener was drowned, I remember seeing twenty or thirty of these people-and this will give the committee an idea of the British spirit imbibed by these Serbians, Bulgarians, Albanians and Greeks -who immediately they heard the news, rushed out and procured three kegs of beer, and they had a celebration because Lord Kitchener was drowned.


Samuel William Jacobs: All of these people were supposed to be in Kapuskasing camp and other places. Were they not interned? How could they possibly be in Toronto at that time when the law declared that they had to be interned?


Ernest Lapointe: They were interned in Toronto.


Joseph Henry Harris: The hon. gentleman, (Mr. Jacobs), I think knows a little more about conditions in Canada at that time than to suggest that. Large numbers of them were not interned. Our alien enemies, I will admit, were interned; but does my hon. friend contend for a moment that Serbians were alien enemies at that time?


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. gentleman, I think, referred to Bulgarians.


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, I referred to Bulgarians but many Bulgarians were not interned. It was only the dangerous ones who were interned at that time.


Samuel William Jacobs: They were interned in Toronto.


Joseph Henry Harris: Perhaps, if they had been in Montreal, they would have run a little more rife than they did in Toronto. The point that I had in mind was that some sort of drastic tax should be imposed on these people if they do not intend to become Canadian citizens. If they intend to become Canadian citizens, to secure a stake in this country, to stay here, to work on our farms
or in our large centres, if they intend to raise families here and will assimilate, let them come; the more of those that come, the better I shall be pleased. But if they are going to be only transients, I would say: "Tax them to the hilt." I am glad the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is in his seat at the present time. He was in a bad way this afternoon wondering whether or not this Budget which he brought down would provide sufficient money wherewith to run this country. Let him tax these people. From my experience with them-and I have had considerable experience with them- they would be submissive to this tax; they would still come to our country and work in our factories and pay this tax and, perhaps, be glad to do so. That might be a suggestion, although only a small one, for the Minister of Finance in regard to taxation. To-day I received a resolution passed by the Union of Canadian Municipalities at their 1921 convention, and with your permission, Sir, I should like to read it because it is thoroughly in accord with my ideas in this matter. The resolution reads:
Whereas representations have been made to the Union of Canadian Municipalities that an apparently organized campaign of propaganda is now under way with the obvious purpose of resisting public objection to foreign immigration and alleging that the restrictions upon immigration by the United States of America provide a golden opportunity for Canada to increase its population ;
And whereas the reasons which impelled the United States to impose almost prohibitive restrictions upon intending immigrants to that country apply with equal if not added force to conditions in Canada ;
And whereas it is not seemly that Canada should receive as future citizens persons of foreign birth, who are considered undesirable by a neighboring country, especially in view of the unfavourable experience of our larger cities with the disproportionate foreign population which they already have;
Be it resolved that the Union of Canadian Municipalities regards with serious apprehension the efforts of transportation interests to encourage the immigration into Canada of persons of alien birth more particularly in view of the unemployment problems now confronting this country, and directs that a petition be addressed to the Federal Government asking that the Immigration Act be amended to prohibit further immigration of aliens for urban occupations and to ensure that such aliens as may be admitted to Canada shall be bona fide settlers on the land and capable of successfully establishing themselves in that capacity, and that the official, medical and other examination of intending immigrants be made at the port of embarkation, instead of the Canadian port of entry as at present.
I might add that I have had a resolution from the Ontario Convention of the Great War Veterans' Association along the same line, more particularly with regard to the
Supply-Immigration

taxation of transient aliens. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister who has charge of the Immigration Department (Mr. Stewart) whether he cannot give us a little clearer idea as to the policy of the Government with reference to the suggested discouragement of transient alien immigration.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The subject of immigration is a very large one, and not only is it exceedingly interesting, but it is natural that there should be, in this House as well as out of it, a variety of views as to the best methods and, indeed, as to the desirability, of promoting it, as well as concerning the sources from which immigrants to Canada should be drawn. I have frequently stated that in my judgment immigration to Canada is needed, and badly needed, and I cordially support the minister (Mr. Stewart) and the Government in the efforts they may make to bring to our shores immigrants of a desirable type who will go on the land and in time become adapted to our Canadian institutions, get our Canadian spirit, and be assimilated into this Dominion as good citizens of it. I do not think that we can have too many immigrants of that type. In the discussion this evening a good deal has been said regarding the need of adding to our agricultural population, and, in order to do that successfully, of improving the conditions surrounding agriculture. To my mind that is a very essential thing in connection with the whole subject of immigration. Without doubt at all, the best immigration officer, the best immigration agent you can have in the Dominion is the contented settler whom you bring to these shores. Experience, I believe, has shown that. If we bring to Canada the Scotsman, the Englishman, the Irishman, the Scandinavian, or the man from the United States, when he comes here and gets located and finds conditions onerous, when he finds he is not accorded the welcome which perhaps he thought he should have, what is the effect upon him? He writes home to his friends and gives them the impressions he has formed of the country to which he has come. He recounts to them the experience he has had in Canada, and they are influenced accordingly. Consequently I say that the best immigration agent you can have in Canada is the contented, happy and prosperous settler. For that reason, the conditions that make agriculture prosperous and that enable those who are engaged in it to succeed are of 
the very highest importance. The minister and the Government will be taking altogether too narrow a view of the question of their energies and efforts are confined alone to the expenditure of so many hundreds of thousands of dollars in this or that country for the purpose of inducing people to come to Canada. That is altogether too narrow a view to take up this important question. I believe that efforts directed within the Dominion along the lines I have indicated, as well as along the lines suggested by a good many of my friends from this side of the House, are just as important and essential to a successful and practical policy of immigration, as is the securing of good agents and sending them abroad. There has been a good deal said in the House by some of my hon. friends around me as to the dreadful condition that agriculture is in to-day in this country. It may be that some hon. members think the picture is overdrawn, and perhaps at times we are inclined to stress that aspect too much. But the facts that were pointed out by the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) to-night should not be lost on the Government or on the House. It is a fact that in the finest agricultural counties of the province of Ontario there has been an actual and very serious decline in the rural population in the last ten years. Indeed, not only in the last ten years, but in previous decades, has that occurred. My hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) suggested that possibly those farmers descended of sturdy Scottish stock, in the old counties of Ontario, the Bruces, the Middlesexes, the Hurons and the Greys, had gone to Western Canada. Some of them have gone; but that does not account by any means at all for the decline in the population there. And I will make this prediction to my hon. friends from the province of Quebec, that as time goes on they will find the same condition obtaining in that province. We have had a tremendous growth in our city population in the last decade. There are certain causes that conduce to that. I am not at present going to discuss the fiscal question, but I do hold most firmly that the fiscal policy of Canada, the policy of protection that we have practised in this country, has been the greatest single agency in retarding the development of agriculture in Canada. If you are going to make agriculture prosperous you cannot igiore these facts. We have proceeded in Canada on the assumption that we should be largely an industrial

Supply-Immigration
people, and our policy for the last forty years has been directed to that end. What are the fruits of that policy? What are the fruits of it in Ontario, where it has been in full bloom and effect? Its fruits have been a tremendous increase in your city population and a decline in rural population; and that will foil''- inevitably in a cauntry such as Canada is, at this stage of its development. I know that the conditions in the West are in many cases onerous and difficult. We may a's well frankly recognize the fact that there are difficulties and handicaps to the success of agriculture in Western Canada, although it has progressed with tremendous development in the last thirty years. But let me point out to hon. members that the greatest single factor in promoting the development of agriculture in Western Canada in the last thirty or forty years, and in attracting people to that part of the country, were the cheap fertile lands available there. The people were looking for cheap lands. Our immigration agents could go to Europe, to the United States, and advertise the fact, as they did: You can get 160 acres of the finest land you wish to fix your eyes upon in Western Canada for $10. That was the lodestone that drew people to Western Canada. What are the conditions to-day? Our homestead lands are practically a thing of the past, and the immigrant to-day to that portion of the Dominion must pay from $10 to ,$25 an acre for land. Consequently that has narrowed the area from which our immigrants can be drawn.
The questions of freight rates and tariff as far as the West is concerned, Mr. Chairman, are pressed upon the House and the country by my hon. friends around me not because of purely selfish local reasons, but because the proper solution of those questions is essential to the development of our agricultural industry; and I would point out to my hon. friends from Ontario, and particularly to the hon. gentleman who preceded me in this debate, that if your factories there are to be kept running you must have a market for their output. When did our manufacturing industry develop at its greatest speed, when did it find its greatest prosperity? When people were flowing into western Canada by the hundreds of thousands and that country was opening up at a rate never known before. If our manufacturing industry is to continue to develop, you must lay the foundation and create the conditions that will keep the country prosperous.
What is the position of western Canada so far as its products are concerned? We are fortunate at the present time in that Russia, that great competitor of ours in supplying wheat to Europe, is out of the market. Bad for Russia, but good for us. In 1914 Russia exported 175,000,000 bushels of wheat to the western countries of Europe. And Russia will again be a factor in that market. Therefore I say to the House and to the Minister of Immigration that to have a permanently successful policy of immigration one of the vital factors is to reduce our cost of production in agriculture so that we may successfully compete with other countries in the markets of the world. Consequently in this whole question these issues to my mind are involved, and they are vital issues.
A good deal has been said to-night about our immigrants from central Europe. I wish to say a word for the people whom we brought from that part of the world fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years ago. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) informed the House that 18 per cent of the undergraduates in the University of Manitoba were of foreign birth. Without doubt in twenty-five years' time the de-cendants of those people who came from Europe in their sheepskin coats twenty-five years ago will be among the leaders in our professional life. Is that an undesirable type of settler to bring to this country? I submit not. The Slav is one of the most adaptable of our immigrants. He can be assimilated as quickly at any rate as the immigrant of any other nationality, for his temperament is such that he quickly responds to his environment. While I agree with the observations made by some hon. members that it is unwise to open our gates full width to these people, I do submit that we can take a considerable number of wisely selected settlers of that type and they will prove a useful asset to the Dominion. I hope my hon. friend, the minister, will not overlook that in his plans for promoting immigration. Without doubt we can also secure settlers of a very desirable type from the Scandinavian countries, from the Old Land and from the United States.
But when we bring those people to this country, let us do a little bit more for them than we have done in the past in holding out the hand of welcome to them. That is a suggestion I would offer to the minister. I do not know what plans he may have to carry out that idea, but I do
Supp ly-Immigra tion

know it has often happened in the past that we have brought immigrants from the United States and from Europe who naturally were entirely unacquainted with conditions here, and far too frequently they have been the prey of the exploiter who has traded upon their ignorance in order that he might enrich himself.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that what we need is more population. It is the only way by which our taxation and our railroad problems will be ultimately solved. The Minister of Immigration has a position of the greatest responsibility in that respect. I am glad to say, Mr. Chairman, that knowing the minister as I have for a great many years, I have full confidence in his ability, his desire and his intention to make a success of this very important work.
There is one other suggestion I have to make to the minister. Our immigration statistics give a very full record of the number of people who come to Canada but we have no record, so far as I am aware, of the people who leave Canada and where they go to. I am informed that for the expenditure of a few thousand dollars a year this information could be secured, and in view of the importance of the question I would impress upon the minister the desirability of his department taking the necessary steps to secure such records. If we study the census statistics for the last decade we find that something like a million and a quarter people have gone somewhere who should be in this Dominion. Where have they gone, and why have they gone? Are not these questions of the greatest importance if we are going to handle this problem in an intelligent manner?
Like my hon. friend from Brandon, I have great faith in the future of Canada. We have a great country, but in order to assure its complete development there must be the fullest co-operation among all sections of our people, and if we work with determination for that goal there is little doubt that success will be ours.
This vote is probably as important as any in the whole department that the minister presides over. I trust that when he comes back to the House another session he will have a year of progress to report, and that in the meantime his department and the Government will make every honest legitimate effort possible to bring to our shores the class of people that we stand so badly in need of to-day.


Henry Elvins Spencer: We have heard a great many facts during the debate this evening,
[Mr. Crerar.J
but there are a few that have not been touched upon. This question goes back a great many years. We have been trying to build this Canada of ours for some twenty years, but during that period we have increased our population only by a little over 3,000,000. During the last ten years, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has just told us, we have lost 1,500,000 people. Now, from what part of the country have those people gone? They have gone from the land. The whole policy for years past has been to people the land; the whole cry has been "Back to the land." And what do we find at the present day? In Ontario, the province of mixed farming, the province nearest the home market, there are no less than 5,000 vacant farms. I would be the last to try to stop immigration into this country when we are ready for it; when we can welcome it; when we can find a place for it. But what is our position? Never before in the history of our country has our financial position been so difficult; never before has there been so much unemployment. I want to point out that there is a very close relationship between unemployment and the condition of the farms. If the conditions on the farms were economically sound there would not be enough men in the ranks of the unemployed to go round. The whole trend of our immigration policy has been to bring people into the country to go on the land, but what is the good of bringing them in and having them go on the farms if they do not stay there? One would think, from some things that are said, that the people on the farms and those in the city belong to a different class. If the conditions are better in one place than they are in the other, the people will naturally drift from one to the other. I would like to make mention, for a moment of those people from Central Europe who were mentioned by an hon. member here a moment ago. It has often occurred to me that when these people are brought into Canada to go on the land they are good Canadian citizens, but when they drift into the cities they are usually termed enemy aliens. Yet they are one and the same people; and I assure you that no one knows the value of the dollar more than they do; when wages are good they will ask for the higher wage just as quickly as anyone else.
Just before this debate started we were given some figures in regard to the cost of soldiers' settlement. Now it has always appeared to me that instead of being known as a soldier settlement

Supply-Immigration
scheme it should have been called a land settlement scheme, because there was no attempt to settle the soldier who did not go on the land. It has cost this country, I understand, a little over $7,500,000 to administer the land settlement-money that will never come back. We also find that some 2,352 of these soldiers who went on the land, with government assistance, have failed, and abandoned their farms. We have to-day over 200,000 unemployed in Canada. I say again that there is a close connection between our unemployed and the state of agriculture. We also have marching on Ottawa at the present time some 3,000 unemployed soldiers. If conditions on the land are such that we need to have all our newcomers make their homes there, why should we to-day have 3,000 unemployed returned soldiers marching on Ottawa? We are told that the immigration from the old land is some 60 per cent less than it was last year; the reason is because the people who have come from the old land are so discontented with the present conditions that they are writing to the people they know and warning them about coming here. The only sane way of bringing people to this country is, in my opinion, to make the actual conditions in this country such that they will be the source of attraction, not the advertising medium on the other side.
We find that no less than 28,000,000 acres of arable land within 15 miles of railway in western Canada are held by speculators. We also find that there are just about as many farmers living in districts from 15 to 100 miles from the railway as there are farmers who live on lands close to the railway. Demands are continually being made for extensions of railway lines-extensions that have been promised for the last ten, twelve, or fourteen years. The people have asked for these railways; their construction has been promised, but has not been carried out. This year the Government, in their wisdom, say they are not going to spend any money cn construction. Can we, in the face of that-knowing full well that the people in the West are dependent upon railway facilities; knowing that hundreds of men are ready to pick up their belonging and leave, because of their being cut off from transportation-can we honestly ask others to come to share their fate?
I was just looking up some figures in regard to the amount of grain produced in this country per head of population, and I find that in the year 1871 we produced
some eight bushels per head; to-day with our improved machinery, we are producing no less than 42 bushels per head; yet we find the conditions of agriculture so bad that we have a continual drift from the country to the city. If that is the state of agriculture, one at once asks: who is getting the extra profit arising from that increased production?
The census that was taken last year was in many respects very complete. I noticed that the questions asked went into detail as to what was in the country in the way of stock, land, fruit, grain, poultry, and everything else, and the result was to show that the country has enormous wealth. But although they showed the enormous assets of the country, they did not show a single liability. I would like to have seen these questions asked: How much is owing to the banks? How much is owing to the mortgage company? How much is owing to back payments to the Canadian Pacific Railway? How much is owing in back payments on the school lands? If we had these figures, the people of this eastern country would be surprised to learn how little of the great wealth of western Canada is owned by the people on the land. I do not want the Minister of the Interior to think that I am criticising his position. I have a great deal of sympathy with him; I think he has one of the hardest positions to fill of any minister. But if conditions are not altered on the land so that people when they come to this country will be induced to stay on the land, then whatever plan the minister brings forward, however many people he brings to this country, his scheme is doomed to failure. There is no one who does not see the great possibilities and the enormous potential wealth of this country, but we must pay more attention to the building up of homes in this country so that the people will stay, and until we do that, it is not much good trying to bring more people here.


Mr. LUCAS:: I see in the Edmonton
Journal of Friday, May 19, this headline: "Four Hundred Thousand Settlers for the Prairies, Shandro's Plan." Mr. Shandro, who I know has been in close touch with the minister for some time, states that the minister has given this plan very serious consideration. I should like to know if it is the minister's intention to bring in these 400,000 settlers from Galicia and Buko-wina, and if Mr. Shandro is to be employed for this purpose.
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Shandro has been in my office half a dozen times. He has also been to see the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with reference to bringing in a great number of settlers from his home land. The great difficulty is, of course, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Marquette, that these people have little or no money. When they came in before there was any amount of free land. Anyone who was in Alberta in those days will remember that although they are a splendid class of settlers and have done well on the land1, not very many of them have money when they come to this country, and consequently they would not be in a position to buy land. Mr. Shandro is not in the employ of the Government, and the Government have no intention of employing him. Any statement he made was without consulting me at all.
Answering my hon. friend from East york Mr. Harris) the alien enemy is taken care of by legislation and regulations. With reference to the other point raised by an hon. member as to records of the people leaving Canada, the idea rather appeals to me, because we ought to know why people are leaving the land. It is my intention, if I can interest the provincial governments in the matter to the extent of appointing officials who will assist to some extent in a follow up policy with regard to the people who settle upon the land, to assist in inaugurating community clubs for the purpose of endeavouring to settle people in congenial surroundings. By that I do not mean colonies of any particular nationality, but that the people shall get into congenial surroundings where possible, and that a real interest will be taken in trying to make things as comfortable as possible for them in a social way.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister say whether or not he has made any arrangement or come to any understanding as to the admission of Hutterites into this country?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say that the law and the regulations in that regard stand just as they did when this Government came into office?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, they do at the moment, although I cannot very well see why the law should be continued against the Hutterites and the Mennonites.

However, the law has not been changed up to the moment.


Arthur Meighen: Is that law being enforced?


Charles A. Stewart: You
mean, for the absolute exclusion of these people?


Arthur Meighen: Is the law being enforced-the law that is now in effect?


Charles A. Stewart: The law as it stands shuts them out absolutely, Mennonites, Hutterites and Doukhobors. That was done by Order in Council; I do not know just what the date was. I would not say that a few Mennonites have not entered Western Canada.


Arthur Meighen: Recently?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, by the permission of the minister.


Arthur Meighen: The law is not being enforced at all as respects Mennonites?


Charles A. Stewart: Not to
their absolute exclusion.


Arthur Meighen: Is it as respects Hutterites?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no recollection of anyone making application under the name of a Hutterite.


John Evans: What is the objection to the Hutterites?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know of any particularly, but I suppose there were reasons at the time the Order in Council was passed.


John Evans: Just during war times?


Charles A. Stewart: No, because the Order in Council is dated later than the war.


Arthur Meighen: There was an Order in Council passed, I do not know the exact year, but shortly prior to 1900, which gave special privileges to Hutterites entering Canada in the way of immunity from war service. That Order in Council was repealed by the late government, but before its presence was discovered a
11 p.m. number had entered this country, and the fact that they were allowed to enter was one of the chief campaign cries utilized against me in my former constituency,-the admission of those Hutterites, though it was under an Order in Council of a previous government.

Supply-Immigra tion


Samuel William Jacobs: It's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.


Arthur Meighen: It was just of a piece with most of the cries that were used in the campaign.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as Hutterites and Mennonites are concerned, I see no reason why they should not enter Canada, but I can see good reasons why they should be subjected to all the obligations of citizenship. They should not be allowed to come in under any promises of immunity from service or anything else that a Canadian citizen may be called upon to do.


Arthur Meighen: The minister knows they are conscientious objectors, and no matter what he may do they would refuse to serve.


Charles A. Stewart: I have made my statement, and it is my intention to submit the matter for the approval of the Government. I have not done so as yet.


Mr. COOTE:: I want first to show the minister that he has my sympathy, and next to assure the House that I do not intend to inflict on them any speech. Any thunder which I had has been stolen already. I rise simply because of the old saying that silence gives consent, and because one thing has been said here tonight to which I take objection. It is said that we are going to spend money to bring children from Great Britain to this country. I think it is a shame to bring out these young people, because I do not think they realize what they are going to be up against when they get here. I have seen some very sad cases of children who have been brought here from other countries and put out with people who had no children of their own, or if they had, had driven them away from home, and did not know how to use them. I want to register my protest against any such policy.
There has been a good deal said here to-night about the class of people we should encourage to come to this country. I must confess that this immigration problem and the advice offered upon it is certainly inexplicable to me. A couple of weeks ago we discussed in this House for a whole day the question of excluding two races of people from this country. I gathered from the debate that the chief objection to these people was that they were too good workers, and that Canadians could not compete with
them. That advice came chiefly from our friends from British Columbia. Now, I think there is no class of Canadians who have advocated the exclusion of that class of immigration to a greater extent than the people in Vancouver. I have here a clipping from the Vancouver Sun, and I anl totally unable to understand why that newspaper should have given utterance to such expressions as it has. It says:
What Canada needs is a tremendous influx of broad-backed, short-legged people who can get close to the work of digging a living out of the ground; and who will be satisfied with just whatever kind of a living they can dig, until, as the result of their own industry and economy they climlb up to better things.


John Frederick Johnston: Beavers.


George Gibson Coote: If there are any hon.
members in this House who know exactly what class of people is referred to in this excerpt I will be glad to be enlightened. We have on the prairies an animal that is very short-legged, and is a good digger, but he is not popular with the people there; we call him a badger. I wonder if the editor of this paper expects the class of people he is going to bring in to dig holes for themselves to live in like badgers; it almost sounds that way. The last part of the editorial is the worst part; it is the cruelest cut of all, as we say. It reads thus:
Our present stock of Bachelors of Arts and Students of Botany can keep the Chautauqua tents well filled all summer without any assisted additions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of the Interior told us to-night, and he spoke from his own experience, that a great many people on the prairies had been driven to the state where they had to be put into homes for the feeble-minded because of the lonesome conditions on the prairies. When the prairie people try to mitigate that condition and hold Chautau-quas for the entertainment of the people that is the kind of drivel we have from the Vancouver Sun. Now for the enlightenment of the committee let me state that the Premier of Alberta had a statement prepared last year showing the amount collected in amusement taxes in the cities, towns, villages and rural districts of the province, and this will show just how much amusement the people in the rural districts get. In the cities the per capita tax collected was 92 cents; in the rural districts it was 6 cents. Is not that a sufficient answer to the Vancouver Sun?
Supply-Immigration


Robert James Manion: I wish to point out to the minister the fact that some two or three weeks ago I took the liberty on two occasions, I believe, of requesting him when he was going to bring forward his immigration estimates to let me know. I told him at that time that there were two or three members who were expecting me to tell them because they wished to say something upon this question. My hon. friend promised to do so, ibut he either forgot that promise or did not have the courtesy to adhere to it.

now for some six sessions and have never during that period seen the estimates go through as quickly and with as little obstruction and opposition, as they have this session. I do not believe that at any previous session we have had such a large proportion of the estimates passed at so early a period as we have had this session; and I wish to remind the minister that if he and his confreres expect to get estimates through in the future they will need to not forget a promise of that kind. Because, let me tell the minister, it puts me in the position of not informing my friends and induces some of us to feel like doing a little obstructing on our own account.


Ernest Lapointe: Everybody should be here when the business of the House is going on.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from Quebec made some remark which I did not catch, hut I can very well remember him, and many of his friends, obstructing the estimates on different occasions without any reason at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: In fact last year, I may say for the information of hon. members to my left, the closure had to be enforced in order to get estimates through at all. This session there has been no sign of obstruction, and I merely wish to express the hope to the minister that he will in future recognize the courtesy we are showing him. Because of his failure to do that I am going to ask him not to insist that this vote shall go through to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


Robert James Manion: As far as I am concerned I am not ready to have the vote go through. There are some remarks I desire to offer and I do not wish to talk at this late hour. I think that the House-bearing in mind that we have heard the budget speech and allowed the Soldier s Settlement estimates to pass-has done a good day's work and the minister ought not to insist upon these estimates passing tonight.


Charles A. Stewart: I regret very much that my hon. friend did not

Supply-Immigration
raise this matter before six o'clock. I must frankly confess that I had forgotten the promise to notify him.


Robert James Manion: How could I have raised this question before six o'clock when I did not know the minister was going on with his estimates?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend was in the House before six o'clock.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but we were not dealing with the immigration estimates before six o'clock but with the estimates of the Soldier Settlement Board.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; he is right.


John Millar: I have been up and down so often that I am a little bit like the young Scotchman who came from the Old Country. His first experience was not very good, and he worked about fifteen hours a day. On one occasion, he said he was going upstairs, and he was so sleepy that he fell against the stairs and relapsed into slumber. On awaking he did not know whether he was going to bed or getting up. At this late hour I am not going to make any extended remarks on this important question, save as to foreigners and the kind of settlers they make. I would like to speak briefly on that subject. Those who have had experience of the settlers coming from European countries, as well as those coming from the United States, must have been struck with the fact that they are splendid settlers. Allusion has been made to some foreigners who, it was said, appeared to be disloyal at the time Lord Kitchener was drowned. I can refer to a case where a number of young children of foreign birth, having a new teacher come to their district, after a few days went to him and said they had been accustomed to sing "God Save the King" when the school was opened. That was the kind of new settlers they were. Just one more reference to that. Some two or three years ago, I believe it was, a very important educational conference was held in the city of Winnipeg, and there were brought from the United States two of the greatest educational experts in the land. One of these was an Italian who had come to the United States some twenty years before with his father and mother as an Italian immigrant. That shows the progress that some of these people will make.
In the budget speech this afternoon, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made a
remark that struck me. During this session I have been watching to see whether this House fully realises the seriousness of the condition of agriculture, and I was struck by his remark to the effect that he was afraid that the country did not fully realise the seriousness of our financial situation. In answering a question, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) stated that those whom he thought of bringing out would be settled in eastern Canada. I just wondered, and I feel like asking now what kind of settlers the minister proposes settling in western Canada. I differ with some of my colleagues in their attitude towards bringing immigration to western Canada. Conditions in the West are as bad as has been stated, and while I am not going to harry the House by reiterating them, I will say this. While some have prophesied that some farms are going to go back to grass; that they will cease to be cultivated, in the main that is not so. Those farms must be cultivated. Many of those who are on the farms at the present time must give up farming. Some gave up last year; some will give up this year; nothing that this Government can do will save them; but those farms are to the speculator, to the incoming settler, to those who have money, a very desirable purchase. Think what it means to see a farm that could have been sold for $60 an acre two years ago, offered for $30 an acre to-day. That is the case however, and a man who has the money will buy such a farm, and it will be worked. Even though it may not be profitable this year, it will be cultivated and kept up. That is one reason why I would urge upon the minister the necessity of bringing in, as far as he possibly can, settlers who have money. That is one class of settlers that the West needs. Another class is the class to which he has referred. Many farmers in the West are short of help, and yet they cannot afford to pay the wages of the men who are available and of the girls who are available for housework. Help in the house is undoubtedly very hard to get and very high in price when obtained. If girls, as well as boys, of, say fifteen years of age, were brought to Canada they would be well and gladly received, and they would be a great help in developing the West. Reference has been made to the bad treatment that some of these have received in the past. I have no doubt that occasionally such may have occurred; in fact, I know of some cases where it did occur; but in the main, they would be well treated; the boys would be given an opportunity of learning farming, and in u



Supply-I mmigra tion
few years when conditions became better, they would become farmers themselves and would be very desirable farmers.
In these times of economic stress, I think I might strike a hopeful note in this. The financial and industrial greatness of Great Britain was laid in a time of low prices, a time which we are now approaching, just after what were called the Napoleonic wars. The United States had the same experience, their greatness was laid after the Civil War. We are coming to that time; the price of farm products has gone down very materially and other prices must come down. Therefore, while conditions are very bad, we cannot afford to lie down on the job. Agriculture must proceed.
While I had a few other points on which I wished to speak, as the hour is getting very late, I will not speak further to-night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) is quite in earnest about not wishing to proceed any further?


Robert James Manion: Absolutely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are two items in connection with Immigration, which have been held,-this one for $640,000, and an item for contingencies amounting to $1,170,000. Perhaps, the hon. member would not object to our passing the first.


Robert James Manion: Provided that we can speak on any branch of the subject on the item for contingencies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish my hon. friend (Mr. Stewart) to misunderstand me. I endeavour to show courtesy to the other side on all occasions, and I appreciate what the minister has said; but I do not think it was quite right for him to forget the conditions. I do not consider I am so important or anything of that sort; but as we usually show courtesy to each other, we expect courtesy in return, and I think cn all occasions our side has endeavoured to show courtesy. I do not wish to appear unreasonable; but a number of members wish to speak on this matter, and as I happen to be one on this side of the House who was more or less in charge of this subject, I, therefore, wish this to be held up in order to give those hon. members an opportunity to speak. It will not be held up for any length of time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the committee will allow this item to pass, there will
I Mr. Millar 1
be the item of immigration contingencies on which it will be possible to discuss any phase of the question. The Government does not wish to press unduly the matter of hastening through the estimates; but I think all hon. members are anxious that the session should be brought to a close as quickly as we can bring it, and there are certain evenings when we can make a little more progress on the estimates than others. If we could spend another half hour on the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, leaving out all the contentious items, we might make more progress to-day; but if hon. members feel that they have sat late enough, I do not ask them to stay. Perhaps every member present will feel that, if we can get through some more of the non-contentious items and hold in each case an item for discussion at a later date, we might make a little more progress.


Robert James Manion: On this side of the House we are quite willing to go on for another half hour with some other items, and we are willing to let this particular item go through. The hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Baxter) would like to ask a few questions on this item.


Charles A. Stewart: I should like my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) to understand that I personally absolutely forgot the promise made to him that these estimates would be held.


Robert James Manion: I do not dispute that.


Charles A. Stewart: Four or five members came to me and asked me to notify them when these estimates would be brought up, and I certainly was quite convinced that I had covered the whole list. 1 am sure my hon. friend understands that I would not have in any way endeavoured to deceive him.


Robert James Manion: I do not doubt the minister.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There is one phase of this subject in reference to which I should like to say a few words. I cannot profess to give this committee any real information upon the subject of either agriculture or immigration, and I do not intend to do that; but there is one matter in reference to immigration to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister and also of the members of the committee. I do not start with the least bit of faultfinding in regard to the devotion of the energies of this country towards filling up

Supply-I mmig ration
the great West. The policy has been a good one, a necessary one, and I am in entire accord with the remarks made recently in the House by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), when he spoke of immigration placed along the lines of our western railways, affording, at least a partial solution of the very grave question which confronts the country at the present day.
At the same time, I think the House will be broad enough in its view to realize that some consideration ought to be devoted to the provinces down by the sea. I do not feel that members of the House will consider that we are obtruding our views on the country, but will rather receive any remarks made on the subject in the light of a presentation of the hopes of those provinces that they may yet be admitted to share in the prosperity which we hope will ultimately come to this country, as a result of wisely selected immigration. Will hon. members consider for a moment that immi-' gration to the maritime provinces is almost nil. In my own province there is immigration of a valuable character. In the northern part of the province, where the forest has been invaded and replaced by settlers, we are adding to our population. That applies to several counties. That immigration has given settlers of a fine type who are splendid agriculturists. But they are simply coming over the line from the province of Quebec. We are glad to have them, of course; they are adding to our population. But as hon. members will see, that represents no addition to the population of the Dominion. It is only, so to speak, a shifting of ballast. Whether they are in the province of New Brunswick or in the province of Quebec, they are doing equally valuable work; but they do not add to the productive power of the country. There is only a change in location.
We have running through the province of New Brunswick, almost diagonally, the Transcontinental Railway. That railway, from Edmundston down to Moncton, runs through what is practically nonproductive territory. I will not say that none of the land in that territory is occupied, but a very large part of it is not. Rails have been laid there at great cost and are not affording any local development. There are certainly in the province districts much more fertile, I believe, than that territory to be. But you must realize that every question of immigration in New Brunswick is practically met by conditions that
138i
differ from those in the West, and are more difficult perhaps to deal with. In the West, as I understand it, there is no clearing of the land to be done. The land has to be broken, but not cleared. In the maritime provinces, on the other hand, you have to clear the land; and when you ask a settler to go there, though he travels a shorter distance to reach that part of the country, he is faced with a greater immediate task in turning the portion of land he settles upon to profitable use. It is not all settlers that can come with money enough to buy farm land that has already been worked. Many of them, a quite desirable class, will face difficulties and hardships; but having broken up the land, in time they can make use of its latent fertility.
I want to suggest two things to the minister. One of them is that it might be found worth while to give to the proper class of settlers some sort of bonus for settling in Eastern Canada. Some compensation might be given them for bringing-land into such a condition as will make it equivalent to the state of the land in Western Canada. I do not think that this is unfair, because, unless we are to have our population greatly increased in the maritime provinces, I fear we shall gradually dry up. I do not think that we shall altogether blow away, but at all events there will be no growth there. It is desirable to promote and stimulate growth in the maritime provinces, because they are useful, in the things they possess, in the rounding out of the whole Dominion. In the second place, that policy might be considered from the standpoint of the railways, in which the Government has so largely invested in that part of the country. It is worth while to settle people along these lines of railway and thereby add to their earning power in that quarter.
What I have to say is not affected in any degree by considerations of political partisanship. I can, I think, quite fairly include every preceding government in about the same condemnation. Every government in its immigration policy has seen only the western part of Canada and no other portion. As I say, I do not altogether complain, nor do I wish to rob the West of anything. The East does not wish to do that; but we do say that the immigration policy ought to be for the whole of the Dominion, and that Eastern Canada should not be neglected or overlooked. I would ask the minister to pay some special attention, through his agen-
Supply-Immigration

cies overseas, to the end of securing for the Eastern provinces, not the whole of the immigration that is coming, of course, but a reasonable percentage of it. Let us help all the Dominion and in doing so realize that population is just as valuable in the East as it is in the West. And considering the history of Canada, considering the growth of the Western provinces, and the fact that, judged by the scale of representation in this House, the West is going ahead magnificently while the East is not able to hold its own, I think the question is well worth the careful attention of the Government if bringing to Eastern Canada some relief from the unfortunate condition into which it is falling for lack of population. The class of people required for the East would, of course, be different from the class that can be assimilated and probably be made happy in some portions of the West. For the East we must have people who are either accustomed to farming or else are of such an age that they can be broken into farming. And we must have them either of the English or of the French type. It is no use asking the East, with its slender population, to assimilate a large population from Central Europe. I would suggest immigrants from France, Great Britain, or the Scandinavian countries.


Samuel William Jacobs: Do you object to German immigration into New Brunswick?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: My hon. friend can have the German immigration and the German measles together. We want none of them in New Brunswick.


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely the grand old United Empire Loyalists stock would stand up against German immigration.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am glad my hon. friend has such confidence in that stock, but perhaps he would be surprised to discover how few of the original settlers of New Brunswick are now represented in the public and the commercial life of that province. The stock has gone to the United States and to the West of Canada and has done very good work. But it is not a question of old or young Loyalist stock. We do not want Germans. We shall do very well without them. It has cost the life-blood of 60,000 Canadians to prevent them from dominating the world, and we shall extend no invitation to them to settle in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians and fisheries patrol service, $683,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister assure us that even if this item does carry a general discussion may be permitted, at a later date? I am not particularly interested, but my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Maybee) and hon. members from the Pacific coast who are interested are not in the House.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, there will be some supplementary estimates which will afford an opportunity for general discussion.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Has the hon. minister
given any consideration to the advisability of putting the fisheries under a deputy who will have sole charge? It is a subject of very great importance with us in the maritime provinces and with our friends on the Pacific coast, and it seems to me that the country cannot give too much intensive consideration to the development of our fisheries and to the marketing of our fish. A predecessor of my hon. friend, now the Chief Justice of New Brunswick; did much during the war period to have people, as far west as Toronto at least, taught to consume more of the products of our fisheries. Fish is a good, palatable, wholesome food, and it seems to me much may be done by providing the means of transportation to bring the fish to our people inland while it is still fresh, and so teach them to rely on it as a substitute for other forms of food which are more expensive and cannot really replace fish as a diet for mental and bodily efficiency. To do that it seems to me you need to appoint an official who can devote his whole time to the fisheries alone as a separate department.


Ernest Lapointe: Since I took
charge of the department I have received many resolutions from associations and individuals making the same suggestion. Of course, I have not had sufficient time to make up my mind as to the desirability of the suggested change, and, furthermore, as strict economy has to be practised, the formation of another department might involve expenditure which would not be altogether welcome. But the matter is engaging my attention.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I am very glad indeed to hear that the hon. minister is interested in this subject. The fisheries on both our coasts are of great importance. As has

Supply-Fisheries
already been pointed out, the fishermen on the Pacific coast have long felt that the fisheries there would be much more rapidly developed if a separate department were created and placed under a deputy minister. I am sure the minister will find on further investigation that the little extra expenditure required will be well spent and give excellent returns.


Ernest Lapointe: I must admit that
this suggestion seems to have the support of all those who are interested in our fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $40,000.
Mr. MILNE:: I come from an inland district where probably we do not have a chance to buy the excellent fish that is obtainable along the coast. However, we have fish commonly called suckers that come up our streams in the spring. While the water is cold they are somewhat of a delicacy to people who have never had an opportunity of tasting other fish. I live on a little stream called White Mud river, and on it there are two dams, one in the neighborhood of Gladstone and the other in the neighbourhood of Westbourne, built by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in order to hold back the water for their railway tanks. For the last eight or ten years at least we have been trying to get fishways in those dams so the suckers may get upstream to the shallow water and spawn as nature intended. While the war was on I myself sent two or three telegrams to the food controller and the fisheries department, but by the time any move was made it was too late. The fish come up to those dams and in a short time most of them die, the survivors returning to the lake. We were assured that before the next fishing season the necessary slides would be put in. That has been the promise year after year, and I am informed that this season the fish have died in large quantities and the stench along the river is almost unbearable. There is no reason why those fish should not be allowed to get up into shallow water, and there is no reason why the settlers along the streams should not get the benefit of this fish diet. While the water is cold the settlers eat large numbers of these suckers. I would impress upon the minister that we want those fish to come up our streams. We do not see any reason why the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should have the privilege of erecting dams to the detriment
of the fish and of the settlers who are thus deprived of what is a very valuable article of diet.


Ernest Lapointe: I may inform my hon. friend that under the law it is possible to compel the owners of such dams to provide fishways, and if they fail to do so we can perform the necessary work at their expense. I can asure my hon. friend that the matter will be considered by the department, and if possible something will be done.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In this connection
there is a matter I have already called to the attention of the minister, and I cannot help but think that his information in regard to it is not correct. It is with respect to a dam on the Salmon river, so-called, in my riding in Victoria county, New Brunswick. This river derived its name from the fact that so many salmon used to go up it. I am advised there is a dam on that river at the present time with no fishway. The former dams that went out with the spring freshet were provided with proper fishways. I received a reply from the minister that this river dries up in the summer. If it had not been such a serious thing I would have been amused, for I know the river well. It is navigable for lumber drives for at least fifty miles, and I could not imagine there was ever a time when the water would be so shallow that the largest salmon could not come up stream. There might be times in a very dry summer when the water would get low, but at such times the water is very low in all our rivers. However, I cannot believe that the information is serious; I cannot believe that the water gets so low in the Salmon River that the salmon cannot go up. Of course, the mill owner, the man who builds the dam to hold the water, does not like to put in a fish-way. In order to do that, he must waste a certain amount of water. I think, however, the regulations might be such that when the water is very low this fish-way might be closed. It is when the water is high in the spring that the fish go up. I would strongly urge on the minister the necessity of putting a fish-way in this dam on the Salmon river. As I say, the mill owner will put up all kinds of objections; but the statement that the river goes practically dry is too absurd to be entertained.
Supply-Fis heries


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that
there have been fish-ways in that dam for many years, but that no salmon have been going up.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I can hardly credit
that, either. I have no doubt the minister has that information, but I cannot help thinking it has been given to him by some interested person. This river was called the Salmon river because of the fact that at one time it was well stocked with salmon. It is a tributary of the St. John river. There is a hatchery near the mouth of this river which we are maintaining at large expense for the hatching of salmon fry to supply these streams with fish. I believe that a quantity of these fry have been put into the Salmon river. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of making a thorough investigation and getting information upon this subject from a reliable source.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be glad to do
anything in that respect.


Robert Forke: I would call attention to
the fact that these fish chutes do not fill the bill, if I may use a colloquial expression. I have received complaints from the reeve of a municipality out west; it is evident that the conditions are such as have been described by the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne). Thousands of fish are unable to get up and die at the bottom of the chute. I remember writing to the game guardian about the matter, and the reply I got was that the Canadian Pacific had fulfilled all the conditions of the law. I think something more might be done if the minister could point the way toward making these fish chutes more easily ascended by the fish. These prairie fish do not jump like the salmon, as you can readily realize; and that is one of the difficulties they have to contend with. Th"-are good food; they are relished by the people of the prairies, and it is a pity that so many of them die every spring, being unable to get up over these chutes.


William John Ward: We have the same complaint to make against the Canadian National at Dauphin. There is a dam across the river there which the fish are unable to get over. Several requests in regard to the matter have been made at the Department at Ottawa, but nothing has ever come of it. When the minister is looking into this matter, I hope he will not forget Dauphin.


Ernest Lapointe: We will at least make the Canadian National railways observe the law.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. I know that the provisions of the Canadian law with regard to the pollution of streams by mill owners with sawdust and other refuse material are very well enforced. That is the case in Carleton county, and the minister assures us that steps are being taken to have the law observed by the mill owners in Victoria county. What jurisdiction have we over the mills situated on the American side of the St. John river where the St. John is the boundary between the United States and Canada?


Ernest Lapointe: We have no authority there.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What are the regulations in the United States.


Ernest Lapointe: The authorities in the United States take action only upon petition signed by a certain number of citizens in the locality asking for it. I understand that the regulations there are very inadequate.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The petition must be signed by residents of the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then we have no recourse?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is there not an international fisheries commission which could take up a matter of this kind?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no such body at the present time.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is an international joint commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but that does not apply to fisheries.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to see something done in this connection. While our fishery guardians are enforcing the law on the Canadian side, the mill owners on the United States side are dumping sawdust in the river, and there is little to induce our own mill owners to observe the law. In fact, the sawdust floats down and destroys the salmon fishing in that river. If there is any possible way of taking the matter up with the United States with a view to concerted action, I would urge that that be done.

Supply-Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: The department is in communication at the present time with the American authorities on the subject. Item agreed to.
Fisheries-to assist in the conservation and development of deep-sea fisheries, and of the demand for fish, $25,000.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: May we have a brief explanation of that item?


Ernest Lapointe: A publicity and marketing division of the department has been established. A press bulletin is prepared monthly and distributed to the newspapers throughout Canada. Specially illustrated articles have also been supplied to household periodicals. As a result, the press has never been so much alive to the great asset Canada has in her fisheries. There are competitions in writing articles on the fisheries, engaged in by the school children of the country. Photographers are engaged to picture the Atlantic fishing industry. The vote is to cover work along these lines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $370,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister
give some explanation of this vote?


Ernest Lapointe: The increase is due to the necessity for extending the ponds for rearing young salmon in British Columbia and the Maritime provinces, and for the establishment of a retaining pond for parent salmon on the St. John river.


Edward Joseph Garland: What value is there in this work? If I remember aright, some criticism was made by some hon. members during this session to the effect that this work was of no value whatever.


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that this is the only way to improve our fisheries. The result of the work of the department does not indicate that my hon. friend is right in the view which he expresses. It has been a great source of developing the fisheries. As a matter of (fact, those who are interested in the industry are asking for new hatcheries in almost all the provinces.


John Millar: I live within twenty miles of one of these fish hatcheries and I never heard any complaint of its being useless. I know the lakes nearby are pretty well provided with fish, and that the hatchery is appreciated by the people.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: There is a fish hatchery in the county I represent, and we believe that if it were not for that, the salmon would be depleted very rapidly. I am glad to find the increase in the vote is for the development of fish hatcheries. I do not know whether the minister has any information on the subject, but I understood there tvas a still being run in connection with one of the hatcheries in the province.
1 did not know but that the $5,000 was to provide for the still.


Ernest Lapointe: I am surprised there would be such a thing in my hon. friend's riding.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did not say it was in my riding, but in the province. I did not say it was not, either.


William John Ward: The hon. member for Lunenburg made the statement some time ago that he would be in favour of abolishing the hatcheries entirely. I agree with that myself. Now we have another hon. member coming forward and upholding the hatcheries. Personally, I think we could very well expend more money in connection with the development of our fisheries, but I do not see very much sense in doing so if we do not get greater returns than we have in the past. I would like to see the Fisheries Department protect our fisheries a little more than they have in the past. I think the sum of $370,000 is a lot of money to spend on the development of hatcheries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $114,810.
Ernest Lapointe: The expenditure last year was $104,178.13. The increase is accounted for by the annual statutory increases and the appointment of two stenographers, one at Collingwood, Ont., and the other at Victoria, B.C., at $960 and $1,020 respectively.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are any fees collected for this service? Is the service self-supporting?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a scale of fees for this inspection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the maintenance of the Sorel shipyard, comprising offices, shops and labourers, $90,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is this for?


Ernest Lapointe: This is to provide for the maintenance of the shipyard at Sorel,
Dominion Steel Company

where the government boats, the dredges for the deepening of the channel, and so forth, are repaired.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39 (from the Senate), for the relief of Georgina Gibbings.-Mr. Mac-Kelvie.
On the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
Friday, May 26, 1922