1923-03-06

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the name of Mr. Gauvreau be substituted for that of Mr. Cardin on the joint committee of both Houses on the printing of parliament, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.
That the name of Mr. Cardin be substituted for that of Mr. Gauvreau on the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: With
the consent of the House I would move:
That the special committee to whom was referred Bill No. 15, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons, be given leave to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the consent of the House, I beg to present the first report of the special committee on Bill No. 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 46, respecting the Community, General Hospital, Alms House, and Seminary of Learning of the Sisters of Charity of Ottawa. -Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 47, respecting a certain patent of Clarence P. Landreth-Mr. Maclean (Halifax).
Halibut Fisheries Treaty

Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):: By leave
of the House, I beg to move:
That the first report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Can
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) kindly give the House any information as to when a "bill dealing with the revision of the Bank Act will be brought down?


William Stevens Fielding: If not this week, in the early days
of next week.



HALIBUT FISHERIES-TREATY WITH UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I desire to answer
a question that was asked last night just prior to adjournment by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), concerning the treaty that was signed at Washington on March 2. This treaty is for the preservation of the halibut fisheries in northern Pacific waters, including Behring sea. It provides for a close season from November 16 of each year to February 15 following, both dates inclusive. It provides for certain dispositions to enforce that restriction. It provides also for the appointment of a commission composed of two members from each country, to investigate the life history of halibut and to make a report to both governments as to the best means of preserving those important fisheries. The treaty is for a term of five years, to be continued thereafter until two years after either party has notified the other that it wishes to put an end to the treaty. It will be printed in due time, but in the meantime I desire to lay on the Table of the House a typewritten copy of the treaty.


Mr. DUFF:: Who signed the treaty?


Mr. MACLEAN (South York):: As
regards the negotiations in relation to this treaty, was there any change in the status of Canada in connection with the British Embassy at Washington?


Ernest Lapointe: I will answer the question of my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and perhaps the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) will draw his own conclusions. The

treaty was signed by the United States of America, Mr. Charles Evan Hughes, Secretary of State for the United States, acting as plenipotentiary for the President; and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada, acting as plenipotentiary for His Majesty the King.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I understand that neither the name of the British Ambassador nor that of anyone representing Great Britain appears in the treaty, nor was any representative of the British government consulted as to its negotiation.


Ernest Lapointe: The treaty is signed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, having full authority from His Majesty the King, to sign it as his plenipotentiary.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there any
change in the status?


Arthur Meighen: Were the contents made known in any way to the British government prior to the execution of the treaty?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Then my hon. friend agrees that there is no change in the procedure.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, my right hon. friend may draw his own conclusions.


Arthur Meighen: I certainly will draw mine, but I was asking the minister what his were.


Ernest Lapointe: This treaty will be considered by a committee of the House and by the House itself, and when that is done I think it will be ample time to discuss the merits of the treaty and even the phase of the subject raised by my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I have another question to ask regarding the subject. Will my hon. friend tell us upon what decision of this parliament the treaty was negotiated?


Ernest Lapointe: The treaty provides for certain dispositions which were recommended in 1918 by the International Commission appointed by both governments-by the government of which my right hon. friend was leader and by the government of the United States. Among man}' other recommendations, a treaty had been prepared at the time in regard to the salmon fisheries of the Fraser river, and it was signed but was never ratified by the American Senate. Another treaty had been prepared but was not signed, and one of its dispositions was the very one which is now agreed to in the present treaty. That treaty, I say, was never signed; but it has been

Supply-Defence-Drill
unanimously recognized by the experts of the Departments of Marine and Fisheries of both' countries that it was highly desirable to enforce the close season, to say nothing of the other dispositions which had been recommended by the International Commission. I may say also that this disposition has been recommended unanimously by the members of the parliamentary committee which was appointed last session to investigate the subject of the fisheries in British Columbia. As to the question which my right hon. friend raises, I do not know of any treaty which was discussed in parliament before being negotiated. The discussion always takes place afterwards.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. minister. I should like the minister, before he comes to the discussion of the bill itself, to be good enough to look up some of his own speeches and those of his leaders on the subject of secret diplomacy


Ernest Lapointe: I do not like to read my own speeches; I enjoy much more the reading of my right hon. friend's.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Hon. members had better reserve any further remarks on this subject until the question comes up regularly before the House.



JAPANESE STOWAWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I ask the government whether
an investigation will be held into the circumstances surrounding the landing at Vancouver a few days ago of the Japanese freighter Taibu Maru with 29 stowaways, and also into the escape of six of these stowaways from the detention sheds at Vancouver? This is a very illuminating incident.


Hewitt Bostock: No comment can be made at this stage on such a question which has reference to matters of fact. I would suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
National Defence-militia services-annual drill, $1,050,000.
William Findlay Maclean: Are these estimates based on any commitments of Canada in regard to any war, actual or contemplated,
in Europe? I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made the statement that the policy of his government now is not to engage in any future war, especially in Europe, without consulting parliament. The House, therefore, ought to know whether or not these estimates have been prepared with a view to any commitment in regard to participation in or preparation for war on the American continent or outside of Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am not
aware of any commitments other than such as have been customary in the past.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What part of this vote was expended last year?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of National Defence):: 
Hugh Guthrie: What training was done?


George Perry Graham: The number authorized to be trained for periods of nine days and twelve days last year was 33,900. The number trained up to January was 24,531, and it is expected that the balance will be in by 31st March. . Some of the headquarters and unit training is not yet completed.


Mr. HANSON:: How does the number of day's training per man compare with that in previous years? I understand the men were trained eight days last summer.


George Perry Graham: They were trained nine days at local headquarters and twelve days at camp.


Mr. MEWBURN:: How many men trained in camp under canvas, and how many at local headquarters?


George Perry Graham: I will get that information. I would imagine that a greater number trained at headquarters in previous years.

S up-ply-Defence-Drill


Hugh Guthrie: Take the ordinary military summer camps, how many were held last year, and where?


George Perry Graham: There were trained at local headquarters for nine days 22,000 men, other than artillery.


Hugh Guthrie: I mean summer camps.


George Perry Graham: There were trained in camp 8,851.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What infantry regiments were trained under canvas, and at what camps? I am under the impression that there was no infantry training at any camp last year.


George Perry Graham: The statement by districts is rather lengthy, but I will give the committee particulars for military district No. 1. They are as follows:
Unit	Period at Local Head- quarters
1st Hussars, London Ont		9
9th Grey's Horse, Wingham, Ont		
11th Brigade, C.F.A.- Hdqrs., Guelph, Ont		X 6 6 9
29th Battery, Guelph, Ont		
16th Battery, Guelph, Ont		
No. 1 Signal Company, London, Ont. Corps of Guides-	
1st Infantry Brigade- Hqrs., London, Ont		
The Middlesex Lt. Infantry- 1st Bn. (185th Bn. C.E.F.), Strath-roy, Ont		
The Perth Regiment- 1st Bn. (110th Bn. C.E.F.), Stratford, Ont		9
The Huron Regiment- 1st Bn. (161st Bn. C.E.F.), Clinton, Ont		
The Western Ontario Regt.- 1st Bn. (1st Bn. C.E.F.), London,	9
The Bruce Regiment- 1st Bn. (160th Bn. C.E.F.), Walker-ton, Ont		
The Oxford Rifles- 1st Bn. (71st Bn. C.E.F.), Woodstock, Ont				9 9 9 9
The Highland Light Infantry of Canada- 1st Bn. (34th Bn. C.E.F.), Galt, Ont		
The Wellington Rifles- 1st Bn. (153rd Bn. C.E.F.), Guelph, Ont		
The Elgin Regiment- 1st Bn. (91st Bn. C.E.F.), St. Thomas, Ont		
The Lambton Regiment- 1st Bn. (149th Bn. C.E.F.), Sarnia, Ont		
The Essex Fusiliers- 1st Bn. (18th Bn. C.*E.F.), Windsor, Ont		9 9 9
The Kent Regiment- 1st Bn. (186th Bn. C.E.F.), Chat-	
2nd Canadian Machine Gun Brigade, London, Ont		
1st Divisional Train- No. 1 Co., London		
Period at Local Camp
Period
at
Practice Camp Det. only
Camp
Port Elgin. Petawawa.
Carling Hgts...
Carling Hgts..
Carling Hgts..
Carling Hgts..
Numbers Amount Trained Paid
$ cts.
217	2,736 65
260	8,921 88
30
16
1,518 36 372 27 450 60 305 70
4,002 24
168	2,618 17
152	2,852 48
3,885 48
3,726 40
Not yet paid
170	2,341 84
164	2,16387
.... Not yet
paid
1,779 27
Not yet paid
({
2,112 11
Not yet paid

No. 2 Co., Guelph 

Supply-Defence-Drill
Unit	Period at Local Head- quarters	Period at Local Camp	Period at Practice Camp Det. only	Camp	Numbers T rained	Amount PaidNo. 15 Field Ambulance, London,	9	$ cts. Not yet jaid 38 25 652 29 78 50No. 1 Mobile Veterinary Section,	No. 1 Section, C.A.V.C., London,	2 44 9	
Western University Contingent, C.O.	12					
						
					2,327	40,556 36 15,272 76
Total expenditure for District to						
						55,829 12
						
x As specially authorized.
Those are the particulars for only one district. There are thirteen districts.


Hugh Guthrie: How many men were at the annual camp at Carling Heights-a thousand? -two hundred and fifty? Jt was a very small camp.


George Perry Graham: I will have to get those figures for my hon.. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like similar figures for Aldershot and Camp Sussex, I understand there were very few men at either place.


Hugh Guthrie: The comment that one hears in regard to the annual drill as performed in Canada last year is that the million dollars which parliament appropriated for that purpose was very largely wasted. Very little drill has been performed. The camps are hardly recognizable compared with the camps that were held in years gone by. A system has been established, and perhaps a good one too, of drilling volunteer units at their local headquarters. Instead of turning them out to annual camp they are permitted to do their annual drill periodically throughout the whole year. That no doubt is a good system. But wherever I have been, and particularly in Ontario, the comment I hear on every hand is that the old time enthusiasm for militia service is, not gradually but rapidly, disappearing, and that little or no encouragement has been given to it by the government. There is no doubt, from the comment we hear in this House, that if the service were to be blotted out altogether a number of hon. members would applaud the proposal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Now, that is not my view of the situation, and I am satisfied that it is not the view of the vast majority of the people of the Dominion.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are mistaken.


Hugh Guthrie: But in regard to militia training we have started to go down hill, and during the past twelve months we have gone down so rapidly that it now becomes a question whether the expenditure of a million dollars of the people's money on such training as was given last year is not an absolute waste. There come times, even in the history of this peaceable land, when we call on the militia; in fact, only a few months ago this government had to call upon the militia in various parts of Canada and send them down to the Maritime provinces to preserve law and order. They were not able to get a sufficient military force in Nova Scotia; they came up to Montreal, to Kingston, to Toronto, to London, before they could get enough men to send to the Maritime provinces.


Mr. POWER:: Does the hon. gentleman think that if training had been going on in the immediate vicinity of Sydney at the time of the strike, it would have been judicious for the government to send men from that training camp to the scene of the strike?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any reasoD why they should not do so.


Charles Gavan Power: WTould the hon. gentleman himself have done it?
Supply-Defence-Drill


Hugh Guthrie: The militia of Canada is essentially a loyal body of men who are in favour of the preservation of law and order. It has been for that purpose very largely that the militia of Canada has been maintained since Canada became a country. The minister to-day comes forward and asks for $50,000 more to continue his annual training. Last year his first proposal was to have $1,400,000 appropriated for this purpose, but a disturbance arose among his followers on the question and he moved a reduction of $400,000. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) was himself active last session in endeavouring to bring about a reduction of the vote far below the million-dollar point, but-probably after a caucus or a conference of some kind with the minister-he yielded and the amount was allowed to stand at $1,000,000. For anything that is before the House to-day, and for all the training that took place in Canada last year, $1,000,000 should be ample. The minister has not, in my hearing at all events, justified his proposal to increase the amount this year by $50,000. It is apparent to anybody who goes about Ontario-I do not speak for other provinces-that there is a lack of enthusiasm among militiamen themselves in regard to military training and military organization; they feel that instead of being encouraged they have been discouraged by this government. That may be the will of this House of Commons, but in my judgment it is a great mistake. We should keep up an establishment at least equal to that which we maintained in pre-war days. In those days there was no charge in this country of militarism; I never heard it, if there was any. If we keep up the same establishment and give the same class of training as we did three, four or five years before the war, the military spirit will be maintained and the enthusiasm of the militia organization stimulated. But you have not that condition to-day; the manner in which the subject has been handled by the government and by this House has brought about a reduction of enthusiasm and a depreciation in the value of our military organization. We find ourselves, as we did last fall, in this pass: that where trouble of any kind is threatened, even on a minor scale, it becomes necessary to scour the country as far as London to get a handful of men to send to the East to quell a disturbance, or at least to keep the peace. If the old spirit existed; if the old militia units were organized and received proper training and encouragement, men would have been available in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick for all necessary purposes. Let us get back to the old basis of

training. The minister says he trains 33,000 men. That is a fair number, if the training amounted to anything. But the men come in in small driblets, a few at a time; they turn out at local headquarters and indulge, I suppose, in a good time for an hour or two and report it as drill. It is the best they can do. The men cannot be got; they cannot be induced to enlist in the various units; consequently the units are far below strength and both officers and men are discouraged. Unless the minister takes some steps to bring about changed conditions, the whole military spirit in the country is going to die out.


George Perry Graham: There is something in
what my hon. friend says; the amount now asked is smaller than the appropriation in prewar days. But ,1 would point out that we are asking for an amount which is within $109,000 oi the amount spent in the last year my hon. friend was in office. The reports from my officers indicate that the training last year was just as perfect as it was the year before. The cost of living may be going down a bit, and that may account for the decrease. I must take exception to my hon. friend's statement that the militia men are not enthusiastic; unless the officers all over Canada are deceiving me, the condition is very much the reverse. I visited a good many of the headquarters this year and I found great enthusiasm prevailing. The majority of the officers understand that we have to get back to pre-war conditions, that we have to cut down the expenditure in this connection as in connection with all other services; and I feel that in doing that I am serving the country and not neglecting any interest. My hon. friend referred to the fact that the department had to go to London and elsewhere to get troops for a certain occasion. The law provides that in a case of that kind you must take the permanent force. If we train a million men in the volunteer force they are not, under the act, to be called on, except for the time necessary to replace them by members of the permanent force. On that occasion we called on none of the volunteers; we strictly followed the act and called on members of the permanent force. If he were dealing with the numbers in the permanent force, my hon. friend's criticism might be applicable, but the act does not provide that the volunteer force shall be called out, except in an emergency, and even then it is to be replaced as rapidly as possible by the permanent force. Section 81 of the Militia Act, dealing with aid to the civil power, says:
The district officer commanding in any locality, if he is present in the locality and able to act, or if he is not so present, or from sickness or other cause is unable to act, the senior officer of the active militia

Supply-Defence-Drill
in any locality, not from sickness or other cause unable to act, shall call out the active militia, or such portion thereof as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing or suppressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, when thereunto required in writing by the civil authority hereinafter designated in that behalf: Provided that so far as the permanent force is available, a sufficient number of the force is to be employed upon the duty of preventing or suppressing such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance before recourse is had to other militia corps, and shall replace such other militia corps if so called out upon duty so soon as and to the extent the permanent force shall thereafter become available.
So, as a matter of fact, the permanent force is the force that the department, under the act, is supposed to call on in such cases.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend surely has not understood that from the section. It says, in substance, "Shall call out the active militia, to be replaced so far as available by the permanent force." Only to the extent that the permanent force exists is it to be called on. If there is not sufficient permanent force in the district, then the active militia is allowed to remain. The active militia is available there above and beyond the permanent force for the purpose of quelling a disturbance. It has been so used time and again.


George Perry Graham: I am not so informed by the officers of the department.


Arthur Meighen: The law is there.


George Perry Graham: The law is quite plain.
If you have a permanent force available, you are to use it, but if it be not available, in other words if it be not in the district or close at hand, you can use the active militia until such time as you can replace it with the permanent force. That is as I read the act.


Arthur Meighen: And to the extent the
permanent force is there. If it is not there to sufficient extent, you may use the active militia. This goes only to confirm the point made by my hon friend for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that the active militia is available for these purposes. The permanent force referred to is the permanent force of the district; if not, why is the district officer commanding mentioned?


George Perry Graham: The district officer commanding is in that locality. The officers of the department, and the act bears them out, I submit, are my authority that we are to call out the permanent force if they are available. If they are available, it does not make any difference where they are available so long as we can get them, but if they are not immediately available, we can call out the active militia until such time as we can replace them with the permanent force.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Reference has been made here on two or three occasions to the occurrences last summer in the Maritime provinces, especially in Cape Breton. I think that in view of the panic that seemed to strike some people down there in the island of Cape Breton, some explanation is due the House and the country as to the circumstances under which the permanent force or that portion of the active militia, whichever it was that was called out, was called out. Why was there any necessity at all of having a large number of troops rushed into Cape Breton before there had been a single overt act of violence so far as I am informed-and I followed the newspapers pretty carefully at that time. Was there any panic on the part of the officials of the British Empire Steel Company? Did they ask for the militia, or who was it that was responsible for calling out these men? How many men were called out, and who is going to pay for them? I think all these are very pertinent questions, and I should like to hear something from the Prime Minister on this point as well as from the Minister of National Defence, because I remember last year when a discussion was going on in this House with respect to the Mounted Police, the Prime Minister expressed a very pointed opinion that only in the very greatest emergency should the active militia be called out to maintain the civil authority in Canada. There was so far as I am aware absolutely no excuse, no justification whatever, for calling out the permanent force in Cape Breton last summer. I believe it was an abuse of the powers given under the Militia Act.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend about the Militia Act. I did not anticipate this matter coming up to-day, though it is perfectly in order, because I have to ask for a supplementary vote this present year to pay the expenses of the troops that were called out. When that item comes up I shall have all the information here, and if my hon. friend would let the discussion remain over until that time, it will be only a few days before we can have a thorough discussion of it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite agreeable.


Mr. LOVETT:: Why was the 95th Regiment in my constituency of Digby-Annapolis, ordered out under canvas at Aldershot last summer and a few days later the order countermanded? I would also like the minister to favourably consider giving this regiment drill this summer.


George Perry Graham: I have not the details with me but I will venture the answer, and I think
Supply-Defence-Drill

it is probably the correct one. It is the custom in the department at an earlier date than the estimates get through the House to notify the units that are to train, but last year the estimates were cut down to such an extent that many units were unable to train. I think that is the answer. I shall be glad to give consideration to what my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. SHAW:: Would the minister tell us what proportion of the amount last year was expended on drill for infantry units, and then indicate the amount that was sent for drill purposes among artillery units, machine gun units and other branches of the service?


George Perry Graham: I can get that information for my hon. friend. The details I have here are not separated in that way.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I wanted the information for a specific purpose. I find myself in hearty accord with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for South Wellington. I do not agree with him, however, in his view that a larger amount of money should be expended for this particular purpose. I think that this money is largely wasted. In order to determine the value of this training I think you have to take into consideration the different branches of the service that are trained. As I recall pointing out last year, the value of this annual drill so far as infantry units are concerned is practically nil. I think it is of very little value. If you consider the training given you must necessarily come to the conclusion that so far as infantry training is concerned, it has two specific purposes. It is either training men for war purposes, or training them so that they will be able to cany out any functions they may be called upon to perform under the provisions of the Militia Act in aid of the civil power. That latter, fortunately, very seldom becomes the unpleasant duty of any militia unit in this country.
With regard to training men for war service, the important thing is the physical training. It is conceded, and was conceded last year, that it takes a period of six months to train a man for war. Now all the training any infantry unit needs for that service can be acquired certainly within a month. The great essential is to put the man in proper physical condition. That cannot be done in a matter of a week; it cannot be done in a matter of nine days; it cannot be done short of the six months required. It seems to me that under these circumstances the training for infantry units of the character which is car-
ried on is practically valueless. However, with regard to the machine gun and artillery units and other technical branches of the service, this annual training may have some special value.
Let hie indicate what happened last year, and I simply cite this to show that the training is not carried on economically. Last year artillery units were brought from the city of Vancouver for the purpose of firing a few rounds at Sarcee Camp in Calgary, a distance of 640 miles. Artillery units were brought from Saskatoon, and I think from Edmonton, for the purpose of discharging a few shots, and getting a certain amount of training, after which they went home again. That is not training men economically for these technical branches of the service. I am relying for my information on the newspaper reports, which I presume are correct. .1 see no reason why the man at Vancouver cannot take out the gun which he brings with him to Calgary, and fire a few rounds in some selected spot there, and the same with the man from Saskatoon. Why should it be necessary to bring these men at great expense over long distances, bringing their artillery equipment with them, and I have no doubt their shells also, just to spend a little time at the camp and then go back home to their usual vocations? It does appear to me, therefore, that it can be charged with truth that this training is not economically performed so far as the technical branches of the service are concerned, and that so far as the infantiy is concerned, the training is practically valueless. It is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I desire to know from the minister the amount of this vote which would, in the ordinary course, be expended for the special technical branches. It was my purpose to move that the balance be eliminated from the vote altogether.


George Perry Graham: I can give my hon. friend the figures in numbers of men as I did a few minutes ago. I gave him the number of artillery men-


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want the figures in terms of money.


George Perry Graham: I do not think I have that.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Could the minister state the amount approximately?


George Perry Graham: I will have to have a calculation made. As to the number of men in training the figures are: Infantry trained in camp, 8,851; men trained at local headquarters, including those trained in machine guns, 22,011; artillery trained at local head-

Sup pi y-Dei enee-Drill
quarters, of which 2,329 attended firing practice in camp for 6 days, 3,038. That would hardly bear out what my hon. friend said that the artillery men were simply firing a few shots when they were in training for six days.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Of course they were not firing every day.


George Perry Graham: I suppose they were firing every day when the weather was favourable.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Before this item is voted I desire to offer a few remarks intended not for the committee alone but for the country as a whole. I am not of the same opinion as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the former Minister of Militia, who stated a few minutes ago that the present Minister of Defence should go further and spend more money for militia purposes. I do not agree with that hon. gentleman; I ask the Minister of Defence, in the interest of the people, to spend less money for this purpose.
It will be remembered that last session I expressed opposition to the vote then asked for of $1,400,000. The Minister of Defence had to suspend the consideration of his estimates for about two weeks and then was obliged to reduce the amount asked for. That action on his part was not satisfactory to me nor to many of the people of this country, but I thought that this year the minister would do better. Under the circumstances I am surprised that the minister is asking for such a large amount; it is altogether too much. It is all very well for volunteers in the cities to go in for drill and to receive pay for it; but I do not see why young men in the country districts should at great expense be carried from one part of the country to the other for a period of nine days. For what purpose is it? Really to have a little fun-that is what it amounts to-at the expense of the country. It is claimed that it takes six months' training, at least to fit a soldier to go on the firing line. Well, if the young men are only trained for six days a year-although I have not made up the calculation-it seems to me that it would take practically a century before they could become qualified soldiers. Therefore, I am opposed to such a scheme.
I am a man of peace, as you know, Mr. Chairman, I have always been a man of that type, and as I am getting older from year to year I shall continue in that frame of mind. It is hard for me to realize that all the members of this House are in favour of training our young men to engage in some future European war. Such an idea is repugnant to
the majority of our people, except perhaps the politicians. Is it not admitted by almost everybody that we have been virtually ruined as a result of our engaging in the last European war? I think we occupy to-day a very unenviable position, bearing as we do such an enormous burden in connection with our National Railways and having to support such an immense debt as a result of the
4 p.m. war. For my part I do not see how we are ever going to get out of these difficulties. Therefore, when men say, in this House and outside of it, that we should prepare ourselves for a future war I do not accept such advice, neither do the people of the country. It is altogether opposed to common sense, in view of our past experiences and present conditions, that anybody should suggest our going ahead and training men and spending more money for some war in the future. That is my point of view.
I know very well that the so-called big men in the militia want money voted from year to year for military purposes and for the training of the militia. They want to demonstrate to the people that they are doing something, otherwise they would lose their jobs.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who are those men?


Roch Lanctôt: They are the brigadier-generals, the colonels, the majors and the officers of other ranks. Now the minister is asking for $50,000 more than we voted last year for annual drill, and $100,000 more for the cadet services. Will this expenditure be to the benefit of the country? I say, no. Whenever the need arises to maintain the peace in Canada we have to call upon the permanent force. If I am not mistaken the minister told the committee a moment ago that he had to despatch troops from the permanent force to Cape Breton when a disturbance occurred there. Why, I ask in the name of my electors, is it necessary to spend nearly $13,000,000 this year on the militia, the navy and the mounted police? After the recent war was brought to a close we were told that the last war had been fought, and that we were through with war forever. In spite of that we are still being called upon to vote these large expenditures for military purposes, at a time when the people are being taxed in so many different ways. Let me say, for example, that it will take a great many two-cent stamps to even begin to pay the $13,000,000 referred to. Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that the time has arrived when this government should say: We are going to have a rest now in the matter of military expenditure; we are going to cut

Supply-Defence-Drill

by one-half these expenditures for at least five years to come; and if in the future some of our boys want to go and engage in European wars let them go on their own account and let those who foster such action help to bear the expense? That is my opinion. In future, if I am still a member of the House and if anything of this kind is proposed either by my party, or by the Tory party, or by the Progressive party, I will tell you frankly where I shall stand-my policy shall be "Not a man, not a dollar." I move that this item be cut in two; that is to say, that instead of $1,050,000, one-half of that amount should be voted.


The CHAIRMAN:: The amendment requires to be in writing. If the hon. member will present it in writing, it will be submitted to the committee.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would gladly support some such amendment as that moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Lanctot), not because I want half that amount expended, but because this seems the only way possible to protest against the larger expenditure. As representing a Canadian constituency and a rather important one, I must protest against expenditures for military purposes. I think I may speak, not merely for one constituency, but for a large section of the labour people across this country from coast to coast, who almost unanimously protest against continued military expenditures. I notice that the items for militia, the naval service and the air force, amount to nearly $13,000,000. If we add to that the estimate for the mounted police force, which is more or less a military police force, although it is under another department, we have the enormous sum of over $15,000,000 which is being expended in this country for preparation for some future war or for some possible disturbance at home.
We ought to ask ourselves very definitely, as I said last yfear, against what enemy we are proposing to go. Are we proposing to keep down by military force any rebellion at home? What province in Canada is regarded as disloyal; what section of the community is regarded as disloyal, that we need to maintain a large military force in order to quell any possible rebellion? To-day we have had called to our attention the fact that the permanent force was used in the Cape Breton district during the past summer. I wonder whether that was a wise movement or not. I happened to be down there a few months after the occurrence, and not merely the labour people who were immediately involved, but business men, editors and others in that district were unanimously of opinion, as far as

I was able to gather, that this was a very unwise move. I wonder if the committee is aware that the military were sent down there in spite of protests of mayors of the towns involved. Is the committee aware that a force of some 1,500 returned men lined up in opposition to the military, and it was only the restraint, alike of the returned men and, I am glad to say, of the officers commanding the forces that were sent down, that prevented a fearful tragedy in that district? Was it wise that men from Ontario and Quebec should be sent down to Nova Scotia to try to subdue a number of the very best citizens of Scotch extraction, resident for several generations, of Canada? Surely, there are some other means of settling our industrial disputes in this country than by sending our militia from one province to quell a rebellion of Canadian people in another province.
Are we preparing against any other foe at the present time? I would like the government who are responsible for bringing in these estimates, to tell us whether they contemplate any action against the United States to the south of us-we with our eight or nine million people and over one hundred million on the other side. Could we make any defence there, if defence had to be made by means of military force? Are we proposing, as the last speaker said, to take part in any future European conflict? Whether or not members of the government or members of the committee know this, a vei-y considerable proportion of the people of Canada will not again stand for that kind of thing. It is all very well from time to time in this House to utter praises about loyalty to Empire and so on. Some of us claim to be as loyal Canadians and as loyal British subjects as there are anywhere; but we do not believe in some of the policies that have been pursued in the past in the name of the British Empire or in the name of the Canadian people, and the number of those who hold that opinion is rapidly growing. Are we preparing for any European conflict? We may well pause and ask ourselves such questions.
Probably we are going along simply on the old principle that preparedness is the best way to avoid war; that preparedness is a sort of insurance against war. That doctrine has been proved absolutely false by the events of the last few years. Preparedness carries with it no guarantee whatever of peace, and I take it that the big thing we have to learn these days is that the guarantees of peace do not consist of large armies, or of a large naval force or of an air force or anything of that kind. The guarantees of peace are altogether

Suppl y-Defence-Drill
different. We have been told by leading thinkers in nearly all countries that we have entered a new age. We have been warned that if we pursue the old methods, we are inevitably bound for catastrophe. I take it that we in Canada are at this time in a peculiarly favourable position to begin to work our way out into new methods for ensuring and perpetuating peace. We are on this North American continent side by side with a friendly nation to the south of us. We are eloseley united by ties of blood with Great Britain, France, and I am glad to think also, through a considerable part of our population in the West, with large numbers of European peoples. We have no hereditary enemies; we have no enemy that stands at our gates. Under such circumstances, I should like to think that we would .cut down these expenditures and take our part in showing the world a better way. I notice that we are not asked to make this year any grant to housing, for which last year we paid $10,000,000 or about that sum. We are not asked to make any grants to the unemployed. Many of these unemployed are men who in the last war were called to serve our country, yet to-day are walking our streets without work. We should take care of the wrecks of the last war before we begin to train our boys for the next war.
There is another item on which I do not intend to speak, but it is closely connected with this. I refer to the training of cadets. Here again, the same question arises. Are the people generally anxious to maintain the enthusiasm which some hon. gentlemen in the House would like to see maintained for military things? From all sections of this country, from grain growers' locals, from labour bodies, even in some instances from bodies altogether outside of this kind of organization, we have resolutions edming in asking that anything like a glorification of militarism should be put down. All sorts of international bodies are meeting in Europe asking that we should join in a campaign against militarism. It is no use our talking about disarmament or declaiming against great military establishments in Europe unless at home we begin to put our theories into practice. We have a far easier task in Canada than is the case in Europe. We have not the animosities and standing armies they have in Europe. We have not the old established systems nor the military caste that they have in Europe; It is easier for us to begin the task here. I will gladly support any motion looking towards a reduction of our military estimates with a view to eliminating them altogether just as soon as possible.
55J
Mr. MEWBURN; I must take exception to the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Woodsworth). I congratulate the minister on having increased the vote by $50,000; indeed, I think it is hardly enough. The country decided many years ago to have a militia force in Canada and it will be time enough to cut down the estimates when that decision is reversed. I agree with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), however, that some of the $1,000,000 voted last year was wasted. I do not wish for one moment to be understood as criticizing the very highly experienced officers, whose technical knowledge is of such considerable value, whom the minister has on his general staff. I do not believe that any better officers can be found anywhere. They were handicapped, I believe, in their endeavour to train the militia of Canada last year by reason of the reduction in the vote. But I do think that some of the money that was spent might have been devoted to better advantage in concentrating on certain units in the country. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) that with the artillery, machine gun and other technical units a greater effort should have been made to train the men in camps and to concentrate in the work carried out. As regards the infantry, I believe that better results could have been obtained had the whole of the force been trained at local headquarters, and I refer particularly to the city corps. I realize the difficulties the rural corps have, possessing no local headquarters. But as regards city corps in all our cities, I must say that these men have been in the past and are to-day, a wonderful credit to Canada. Of the small pittance meted out to them for training during the maximum of nine days provided for, I think I am safe in saying that not one cent went into the pockets of the individual officers, non-commissioned officers or men. These men are endeavouring to build up their units, a good many of which are up to the old peace establishment; and they cannot do this without expenditure of money. As I pointed out, these corps, previous to the war, augmented their regimental funds by husbanding their resources, and the money that was given for training was put back into the units for the purpose of increasing their efficiency. I know that the city corps spend in training, a good many more than the nine or twelve days that they are paid for. They train all winter; the non-commissioned officers hold classes of instruction; and there is rifle shooting practice throughout the summer. This work is very commendable. But I think it was an error to have small spasmodic camps throughout the
Supply-Defence-Drill

country Where a few hundred men were assembled, and from which they could not get any material benefit. I have great pleasure in supporting the vote and am delighted that there has been an increase in the expenditure for cadet service. If we want to build up the patriotism which we need in this country we must devote our energies to the young men who engage in the cadet service. My friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) objects to the militia and the mounted police; I daresay he speaks from some experience. But we know what advantage there was in having the mounted police and the militia during the late trouble in Winnipeg, and it is a credit to the country that we had men who were loyal enough to stand by the nation at that time.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I do not know that under the present system the annual drill could be carried on at all if the estimate were cut in half. Is the past system in connection with the annual drill to be continued or not? I understand from the minister that there are thirteen military districts in Canada, and I think I am right in saying that the province of Manitoba comprises one, Saskatchewan one, and Alberta one. I had a conversation with a military man before leaving the West and he informed me that negotiations were under way towards amalgamating these three districts into one, the headquarters- to be either at Winnipeg, at Regina or at Calgary. I do not know, of course, whether that is correct or not., but I had that conversation with a lieutenant-colonel who, I presume, had some information on the subject. But assuming that these negotiations are under way, would not that be a fair way to reduce the expenditures in connection with the annual drill? As this gentleman pointed out to me, if you decrease the number of military districts you will decrease the number of staff officers who draw the large proportion of the money we vote annually for drill. The minister might say whether there is any truth in that rumour and whether such a system is to be put into force in the Dominion, of reducing the number of districts.


George Perry Graham: That matter has been
under consideration, but I would not say in negotiation. Only yesterday I handed to my chief of staff, Genual MacBrien, than whom there is no more efficient officer in Canada, a letter that I had received and requested his opinion on it. In reply I got from him a letter which unfortunately I have not with me, and in which he is very much averse to amalgamating these districts, for reasons which he stated. He thinks the
[Mr. Mewburn.l
training would not be as efficient as under the present system, would be less practicable, and more cumbersome.


Hugh Guthrie: How many military districts are maintained now?


George Perry Graham: I said thirteen before; I
ought to have said eleven.


Hugh Guthrie: They were numbered one to thirteen, but two, I understand, were never in existence.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is the men trained
under this item who were actually sent to quell the apprehended riots in Nova Scotia. I think the committee should now be told upon whose authority they were sent; who were sent; what expenditure was incurred; whether that expenditure has been collected; if not, what steps have been taken to collect it, or whether the government intends to take action in the matter.


George Perry Graham: An hon. member asked
me practically the same question a few moments ago and he was satisfied when I suggested that that discussion be reserved until I bring down an estimate for the payment of these expenses, Vhen I shall give all the details in regard to the units that were sent.


Arthur Meighen: The estimate is not in
these items; I was looking for it. Does the minister say that we shall have to pass these estimates and wait for a supplementary estimate before we can get an explanation of so important a matter as that which is connected with this very vote now before the committee?


George Perry Graham: I do not say anything of the kind. I say that I shall have all the details when I bring down the estimate. I can give at the present time a general explanation, and I should like my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. W'oodsworth) to listen to what I am about to say. Under the act the Defence department has no alternative but to send troops, when they are properly and legally requested, to any place where law and order are likely to be violated or where the good government and peace of the country are threatened. The Militia Act distinctly says that the troops so sent are in aid of the civil power. In some of the municipalities where trouble was threatened last year the mayors made no requisitions, but the Militia Act provides that in such a contingency the county court judge may take action. In this case Judge Finlavson, a county court judge, made the necessary requisition

Supply-Defence-Drill
according to law, and thereupon units of the permanent force were sent from Ontario and Quebec into that section to the number of between 900 and 1,000. The expense was approximately $60,000. Under the circumstances it is difficult to say who shall pay this expense. The municipalities did not requisition the troops; the county court judge did. Up to date, speaking from memory, no municipality has been billed for this expense. What action will be taken in the future I am not prepared to say.


Arthur Meighen: In respect of what municipality or municipalities did Judge Finlayson make his requisition?


George Perry Graham: He is the county court judge for the county of Cape Breton.


Arthur Meighen: There must be a municipality affected, and the county court judge must requisition in respect of that municipality.


George Perry Graham: Glace Bay is where the trouble threatened. So far as I know Judge Finlayson complied with every requirement of the act in making his requisition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did I understand the minister to say that under the act the Minister of Militia had no option but to send troops when requisitioned?


George Perry Graham: When properly requisitioned it is the duty of the Defence Department under the law to send units of the permanent force for the preservation of order- not to supersede the civil power, but in aid of that power.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then why were such troops not sent to the town of Sydney Mines, Dominion and New Waterford when they were requisitioned for these places?


George Perry Graham: The troops were concentrated at one point under the district officer commanding. The details as to placing the troops would be under his charge.


Mr. BOYS:: Was the place in question municipally organized?	*


George Perry Graham: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That being so, it seems to me that under Section 84 the county court judge would have no jurisdiction.


George Perry Graham: I am informed that under the act he has jurisdiction.


William Alves Boys: Section 84 provides:
If the place where such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated is not municipally organized, the county or district court judge, or one of the county
or district court judges, having jurisdiction in such place, or if there is no such county or district court judge, then any judge of a superior court who has jurisdiction in such place may make the requisition.
But it seems necessary that the territory should not be municipally organized to give the county court judge jurisdiction.


George Perry Graham: I think if my hon. friend would read Section 82 he would find that it covers the point he has in mind.


Arthur Meighen: Section 82 provides that the first duty to make a requisition shall be on the mayor or some substitute, but if he refuses then the county court judge may act. Section 84 provides that if the place is not municipally organized the first duty is on the county court judge. As the minister defends his action on the ground that the law gives him no option, will he not say to the House that he approves the act as it stands. Or, if not, why did he not recommend that it be amended last session? Or does the government intend to amend the act this session?


George Perry Graham: The question of amending the Militia Act has never come before the government. If it were to be amended I presume I would make the suggestion; I have, not done so.


Arthur Meighen: The Militia Act in that regard, then, is satisfactory to the government?


Mr. KYTE:: I do not think I should permit this discussion to terminate, Mr. Chairman, without adding a word, as I am in possession of local knowledge which does not appear to be enjoyed by other members. The strike was declared in the district of Glace Bay without the usual formalities which are generally regarded as essential. The mayor of Glace Bay is a member of the miners' organization and a prominent and active member of the United Mine Workers. He refused to be a party to calling out the militia. Therefore nothing was left for the citizens of Glace Bay to do, if they were to get that protection which they were entitled to under the law, but to go to the county court judge for the municipality, who resided in Sydney. This requisition was not made until grave acts of disorder had been committed by the strikers. Ihe men were called out and the officials were left in charge of the mine. The strikers picketed the mine and refused food and other refreshments to be taken to these officials. Subsequently they made a threat to withdraw the pump men and thereby destroy millions of dollars' worth of property,- a threat that has not been usually resorted to heretofore in this
Supply-Defence-Drill

country. The fact that the Grand President of the United Mine Workers, Mr. Lewis, repudiated the strike, upon the ground that the strikers had no authority and no jurisdiction for withdrawing the pump men, goes to show what a serious condition existed in the community. Troops were called out at the request of the citizens of Glace Bay, who were not concerned as respects the quarrel between Jbe mine owners and the workmen, but who were concerned in the preservation of law and order so that life and property might be protected in the community. I repeat, the mayor of Glace Bay being an official of the striking organization, and having refused to requisition the troops, the only thing to be done was to get Judge Finlayson to act, and it was upon the authority of the citizens that he acted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What evidence is there before the committee or the department that the mayor of Glace Bay refused to act? We should have that evidence.


George William Kyte: The minister-


Richard Burpee Hanson: While I am on my feet, may I ask, was it ever the intention of parliament that the Militia Act should be invoked unless riots were anticipated in a community? I do not understand that riots were anticipated in Cape Breton. What was anticipated was damage to the company's property by. reason of the pump men leaving their posts,-something that might be very likely to occur and which the company ought to have foreseen.


George William Kyte: That was not the only thing that happened.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the main thing.


George William Kyte: My hon. friend for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) was many hundreds of miles away from the scene of disorder and therefore he cannot possibly have local knowledge of what happened. It is my fortune, or misfortune, to represent that constituency in this parliament, and it was my business to know what was going on. Therefore, I informed myself, and I now state upon the authority of that knowledge and upon my honour as a member of the House that, judging the situation from every point of view, having regard to the menace that was offered to the life and property of the citizens of Glace Bay, there was no alternative but to call out the troops. If the citizens had waited until the mayor made the necessary requisition, the pump men would have left their posts and the mines would have been flooded.


Arthur Meighen: I do not say the strikers were justified in threatening to call out the pump men. I do not say the whole strike was
[Mr. Kyte.l
justified. That is not the question. The question is whether or not conditions arose which, under the act, justified the sending of the militia. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kyte) is a lawyer; he surely would not argue, merely because damage might be caused to property owned by the company through the pump men going out, that that would be apprehended "riot" or "disturbance of the peace" within the meaning of the Militia Act. Not at all. The Militia Act does provide for aid to the civil authority upon requisition, but only where there is apprehended riot or breach of the peace which it is beyond the power of the civil authorities to control. Upon that being certified by the proper authority, then the government sends the active militia. I would like to ask the hon. member, what was the apprehended "riot"? What was, as the act reads, the "disturbance of the peace" that actually existed or was anticipated as likely to occur? There are the words of section 80; these are the words of the subsequent section. What was it?


George William Kyte: I stated that the mayor of Glace Bay, having been appealed to by the citizens of the town to call the troops, refused.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the point.


George William Kyte: They went to a judge of the county court, and he signed the order. The breach of the peace consisted of assaults committed upon the officials who were remaining in the mine for the purpose of protecting the property. There is where the breach of the peace commenced, and it was to prevent further breaches of the peace and futher disorder, that the troflps were asked for.


Arthur Meighen: Were individual assaults in a mine or so beyond the power of the civil authorities to control?


George William Kyte: They thought so when they applied to the mayor for protection, which he refused to give them.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not be likely that the mayor was right? The mayor would look at the act and say, "Is there anything here in the way of breach of the peace or anticipated breach of the peace on a scale beyond the power of the civil authorities to control?" If the mayor felt that there was not, it would be his duty to refuse to requisition. I must say that the facts as given in the newspapers at the time did not disclose to my mind any such breach of the peace. If the hon. member knows of anything more than an individual assault or two, I would like the committee to be informed of it.

Supply-Defence-Drill


George William Kyte: Individual assaults and the apprehension of more extended assaults and riots is what moved them to ask for protection.


Arthur Meighen: What were the reasons for the apprehension?


William Duff: I rise to a point of order. This discussion is out of order. If there is to be any discussion on the Cape Breton situation it must come under another vote, not under this one. It should come under the estimates for the permanent force or for the payment of the expenses of those troops.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know where it would come under the estimates for the permanent force when it is the active militia that was called out.


George Perry Graham: It was the permanent force that was called out.


Arthur Meighen: There was no active militia called out at all?


William Duff: No.


Arthur Meighen: Well, there should have been. If any were called out under the act, the active militia should have been called, to be supplanted later by the permanent force.


William Duff: Order.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Marcil):: Rule
13, subsection 5. reads as follows:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictljr relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I do not think that this discussion is relevant.


Mr. CANNON:: Before I give my vote on the amendment I would like to have certain information from the minister which might direct me one way or the other. The item is for $1,050,000 for annual training. What amount will be used for annual training in cities and what amount for annual training of rural corps in summer camps?


George Perry Graham: I gave a while ago the information with respect to the summer camps and the training at headquarters. The amount for permanent force training out of this vote is $45,000; miscellaneous appropriations, $14,000; transport of artillery and so on, $100,000; schools of musketry, $16,000; [DOT] schools of signals, $10,000. I will give the expenditure by districts.


Charles Gavan Power: Could we have it according
to battalions?


George Perry Graham: It is not given according to battalions. The amounts were estimated
by the Chief of Staff who works out the details himself.


Charles Gavan Power: Surely he must know.


George Perry Graham: He might know the details, but they are never given, to my knowledge, in the estimates. The amounts for the respective districts are as follows: Military District No. 1, $77,000; No. 2, $148,000; No. 3, $87,000; No. 4, $98,000; No. 5, $58,000; No. 6, $69,000; No. 7, $40,000; No. 10, $67,000; No. 11, $61,000; No. 12, $62,000; No. 13, $53,000.


Lucien Cannon: The minister says that $58,000 will be spent in Military District No. 5, which includes the city and district of Quebec. How much of that amount will be spent for the training of the 8th Royal Rifles and the 9th Battalion, and how much for units like the battalions from Dorchester county or Quebec county?


George Perry Graham: The details as to the
different battalions have not yet been worked out. I gave information as to the battalions trained last year. I pointed out to the hon. member for Digby and Annapolis (Mr. Lovett) that his regiment had been notified early in the year but had not been trained. Notifications to the different regiments will go out in a few weeks, but until the estimate is passed there is no money available on which the commanding officers of the districts may work. With respect to Military District No. 5, the details for last year were as follows: 7th Hussars, 9 days at local camp; 11th Hussars, 8 days at local camp; 13th Brigade, C.F.A., 57th Battalion, 6 days at local headquarters, 6 days at Petawawa; 82nd Battery, 6 days at local headquarters, 6 days at Petawawa; 6t.h Regiment, C.G.A., Headquarters, Levis, 8 days at local headquarters and 4 at Halifax; No. 1 Company, Quebec, 8 days at local headquarters and 4 at Halifax; No. 2 Company, Levis, and No. 3 Company, Levis, 8 days at local headquarters and 4 at Halifax; 5th Divisional Engineers, Headquarters, Quebec, 9 at headquarters; 15th Field Company, 9 at headquarters; 6th Field Troop, 9 at headquarters; No. 5 Signal Company, 9 at headquarters; 4th Signal Troop, 9 at headquarters; Montmagny Regiment, 1st Battalion, 9 at local camp.


Lucien Cannon: What was the amount for that?


George Perry Graham: It was $1,474.55. Le
Regiment de Beauce, 1st Battalion, 9 days at Levis.


Charles Gavan Power: How much was that?
Supply-Dejence-Drill


George Perry Graham: It was $1,489.65. Fusiliers du St. Laurent, Rimouski, 1st Battalion, 9 days at Levis, $1,656.95; Le Regiment de Levis, 1st Battalion, 9 days at Levis, $1,603.20; Canada Quebec, 1st Battalion, 200 men trained at headquarters; Quebec, 1st Battalion, 9 days at headquarters; Les Chasseurs Cana-diens, 9 days at Levis, $1,516.45; Les Franc-Tireure du Saguenay, 1st Battalion, Chicoutimi, 9 days at Levis, $1,699.45; Laval University, 12 days at headquarters; 5th Machine Gun Brigade, 9 days at headquarters.


Lucien Cannon: The reason I asked the
question is this. I favour annual training in the cities, but I am strongly against wasting money on annual training outside the cities, on what is called the rural training camps. I do not know much about the results obtained in other sections of Canada, but I know that in our own district the results from these rural camps have been absolutely nil; it has been a waste of money. I do not wish, either, to embarrass the minister. His goodwill has been shown in many ways. He has endeavoured to administer his department in such a way that public moneys are not wasted on military adventures which are of absolutely no use to our country. Last year the estimates were considerably reduced. This year they have not been increased, except by a very small amount.


George Perry Graham: They are reduced on the whole.


Lucien Cannon: Reduced on the whole,
but there is an increase in this annual training item. The amendment suggested by my hon. member (Mr. Lanctot) to cut in half this item might be good if it would mean the wiping out of the annual training at the rural camps, but, should it hamper the annual training in the cities, it ought not, I believe, to command our support. I should like to know from the minister whether it would be possible if this item was cut in two,. to give the city corps proper training, and if not, what amount would be necessary for that purpose. I am perfectly willing to vote that amount, or on the other hand if it were possible to find out exactly what the rural training is costing, I would be one of the first to support any amendment to deduct that amount from this item.


Mr. McBRIDE:: I for one would certainly take exception to training being given to people in the cities and not to people in the country districts. The people who want it most are the young men in tfie country. In 1921 we had the pleasure of having a camp out our way. When these young men some

fifty-four of them, went in to camp they had no training whatever, they were just like a crowd on the street; but in two weeks' time every man knew his place and it was a pleasure to see them come in, unsaddle, and clean their horses and turn them out. When going to camp they knew nothing about it. If there is any class of people who need the training, and are taking an enthusiastic interest in it, they are the people in the country, and not the city people.


Charles Gavan Power: I wish to make some references to the remarks of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). When he was discussing this matter he intimated that I was reflecting on the loyalty and honesty of the militia of Canada. I asked him a certain question, and I had a purpose in mind in asking that question. I expected to get an answer, but I did not get one. However, I wish to call his attention to the fact that I had no intention of attacking the militia of Canada, either the rural or the city battalions. I simply wished to find out whether he himself, would, as Minister of Militia make himself responsible for sending untrained troops to the scene of a riot. I am under the impression and I firmly believe I am right, that five, six or seven days' training at a rural camp does not fit a man for military duty. It has been said time and again in this House that it requires at least six months' training to make a soldier, and a man who is not perfectly disciplined is the last man to whom we should entrust the use of death-dealing weapons. We had some experience in the city of Quebec during what was called the conscription riots. At that time the government of the day sent down to Quebec thousands of untrained troops in order to quell the so-called riots which the newspapers had advertised all over the country. Troops were sent down to Quebec who had never handled a rifle, and some of them, I am sure, had never seen a rifle before. On the evening of the day when they disembarked, they were lined up in front of the Canadian Pacific railway station at Quebec, handed loaded Ross rifles, and sent out to keep peace and order in the good city of Quebec. The result, as every one knows, was that a large number of these men, already inflamed by the stories which they had read, and probably by some of the violent denunciations of the province of Quebec which they had heard from some of my hon. friends, were so excited that within a very short time when the first few snowballs were thrown at them they opened fire and a considerable number of people were wounded and some, unfortunately, killed. I submit to my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Guth-


Supply-Defence-Drill
rie) that troops of that character should certainly not be sent into any disturbed district. Troops who have been trained for only eight or nine days, no matter how good they were when they entered upon their military career, have not had sufficient discipline, cannot be sufficiently well controlled by their officers to be sent out on any such expeditions. I submit that for the consideration of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia. I hope he will take it into consideration and not think that I was attributing to the militia of Canada any disloyal or selfish motives.
With regard to the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Lanctot) I would suggest that he reduce it somewhat. As nearly as I could figure from the answer given by the Minister ot National Defence, the expenditure on the rural corps is about one-fifth of the total. While the minister was giving us these details I added the amounts expended on six rural corps; they amounted approximately to $10,000. That, on a total of $58,000 for the particular district with which I am familiar, would be probably about one-fifth. So, if my hon. friend (Mr. Lanctot) would ask that this amount be reduced by one-fifth, I think he would be carrying out his own views and would probably meet with the approval of a large number of hon. members. I understand that very many hon. members opposite see no reason why there should be a distinction between rural and urban corps. There is this difference. There may be some reason for training urban troops; personally I do not see it, but I am told that there is. If there is, it is because these soldiers of the city are close to the scene of their operations; they can very easily repair every night to the local drill hall and carry on their training work; and they can meet outside the time allowed for drill, and so can cultivate esprit de corps-they can have a real militia organization of some kind. On the other hand the young men from country districts often live too far apart from one another to maintain any permanent organization of any sort. As a rule it takes them one day to get to camp and one day to return, and another day of the camp period is Sunday; so that they have but five or six days a year at most at camp, and the training given to them is, to my mind, utterly useless; it is of no value whatsoever.
Apart from that, I do not consider that at the present time we require any military camps, a matter upon which I have already expressed my views to this House. We have in Canada a sufficient number of trained troops for any eventuality which may arise. It is true that last year some hon. members
said that those who had taken part in the last war should not be forced to go to the next outbreak of hostilities. Great commiseration was expressed for those who had participated in the great struggle which began in 1914, and certain members were horrified to think that these veterans might be called upon to go to another war. But it will be remembered that during the course of last summer, when a little scare arose throughout the country, the first to volunteer for active service overseas were veterans of the last war, in fact the government was deluged with offers from them. Now, I stated last year, and I repeat-without fear of contradiction this time because the facts have borne me out- that in the event of another war breaking out in the near future, the first men to volunteer and the first men to go will be those who took part in the last great struggle. Taking that, for granted, and I think every hon. member must agree with me, we have in Canada three to four hundred thousand trained troops. And we do not need any more; in that number of trained men we have an ample force to protect us in case of any trouble arising. Let us, then, consider why we should have any training at all. I have already said that in my opinion we should not have any, but apparently I do not seem to be able to find a sufficient number of members here to support my views on this matter. However, I am prepared to go to the length of meeting the committee a little more than half way, and to ask the minister to reduce his estimates by the amount which he has included for the training of rural battalions.


George Perry Graham: I think if my hon. friend proposed to break up the militia that would be the easiest way to do it. It would be easy to say that in Canada we were going to make a distinction, as to the young men that we allow to join our militia or to have any training, between the cities and the country. That would be a mistake from the militia standpoint, I think. It may be true that in the sections named by my hon. friend the rural units do not train to such an extent as the city units do; but in many parts of this country the rural units are more enthusiastic than the city units are, and some of the best officers in the militia belong to rural units. I imagine that such a distinction as my hon. friend proposes to make could not be seriously entertained. Think of the effect it would have all over the country.
The hon. member (Mr. Power) has referred to the fact that many men who had
5 p.m. been overseas were enthusiastic in volunteering their services once more
Suppl y-D ejence-Drill

last summer. That is true, but is it fair, bearing in mind the sacrifices which they have made to take this stand? "You say you will go again. Hurrah! The rest of us will stay at home including the young men, who are just as anxious to go as those who have already served overseas." I am not a militarist or anything of the kind, but as I have already said, if there are to be wars we must have a militia. The Dominion of Canada unanimously agreed years ago to take over the militia from Great Britian. We have had a militia force ever since that time, and it is our duty to maintain such a force of reasonable proportions at an expense that will not be too great.
I have been asked whether these units could be trained for less expenditure. They might, but I think I should not be asked-and'if I were I could not consent-to make any distinction between the rural units and the city units so far as the expenditure of money for the training of our young men is concerned. This amount of $1,050,000 is less than it was n pre-war times, notwithstanding that the lost of maintaining the militia is at least from 50 to 75 per cent higher than it was then. Personally I could not recommend to the House that we should reduce this item at all. I believe the people of Canada will be with us in endeavouring to maintain a militia force of respectable proportions at as cheap a cost as such a force can be maintained for in this country.


Mr. GOOD:: Would the minister tell us what the effect of reducing last year's vote was?	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: The effect of the reduction last year was-I am not making a comparison with the year before because I think the training was practically as good as it was the year before, but with previous years-that a larger number of men were trained in that the units were more nearly up to strength than they were years ago. In other cases some of the units were not trained at all. I may say that the Chief of Staff, in order to give full military training, asked me for a vote of $1,750,000, but the amount was reduced, with his full consent on discussion with him, to the present vote of $1,050,000. I think this is a very moderate estimate of the amount required for training.


William Alves Boys: With reference to Military District No. 2, which is Toronto, I would like to know what proportion of the allotment of that district was devoted to the rural battalions and what proportion to the city battalions. So far as my knowledge goes, and

I realize it is very limited, the battalion in my own county went to camp about one-half strength. They were anxious to go stronger, but the money was not available.


George Perry Graham: What one was that?
Mr. BO\S: The 35th Simcoe Foresters. I want to join with the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) in putting in a word for the rural battalion. If we are to have drill, we must have it in the country just as much as in the city, and if the battalions are to be cut right down to one-half or one-third strength, I do not believe you will get satisfactory results. Before I cast a vote, I should like, if possible, to know what the ratio of expenditure was last year, and whether or not it is the intention to maintain that ratio for next year. If it is as low as has been suggested by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), namely about one-fifth, I would suggest that the amount that should be devoted to rural battalions should certainly be increased.


George Perry Graham: I think it is the intention of the Chief of Staff to spend a proportion of this $50,000 on rural units, as the city units have every facility for training at home. They can select their time of year for training and they do not have to leave their vocation to do any training. They can attend to their regular work in the day time and train at night. My idea-and I think this is the view of the Chief of Staff-is to increase the amount for the rural units rather than to reduce it.


William Alves Boys: I am glad to hear that. Can the minister give me the actual expenditure for the ten months gone by?


Hugh Guthrie: It must be borne in mind that in recent years the number of rural battalions is very much less than it was heretofore. Many battalions which were formerly rural have, in the last three or four years, become city battalions for the very purpose of allowing them to train at their local headquarters instead of going to camp. But there are some very valuable militia units yet which are rural battalions. The one referred to by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) is one of them; the York Rangers is another; the Huron Regiment is another. All of these, I have been informed, could have gone to camp last year, at almost full strength; but through lack of money for the purpose of drill or training, they were not permitted to go at full strength. There is not, however, to-day the same proportion between rural and city units that there was four years ago. The rural units have become

Supply-Defence-Drill
very much reduced in number, because so many of them have now; by their own desire, and at their own request, become city units.


Mr. BALDWIN:: While I do not wish to embarrass the minister in any way, I cannot refrain from making a few remarks on this most important subject. Probably there is not a member in this House or a man in this country who would use cold steel or cold lead more quickly than I would to put down any mob or rebellious crowd in Canada. By the cutting down of the estimates last year the minister won great credit throughout this country and great approval by the electors. There has been in the past an enormous waste by these annual drills, and this has been set forth very forcibly by the remarks of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw). Many years ago these annual drills were in the month of October, which was the season of the year when these drills did not interfere with agricultural work. But since these annual drills have been held in that beautiful month of June, when the crops grow fast and the weeds grow faster, when the bugs are trying to destroy our fruits and the vegetables of our land, it is a crime to call the farmer and his sons from the soil to go through these drills in the heat of the roasting sun.
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Oh, oh.


Willis Keith Baldwin: There is a good deal of laughter, but I want to tell hon. members who are laughing that this is no minor affair. If hon. members were called to drill in the scorching sun of June, they would see those soldiers blistered almost from head to foot. The officers have to call them off and to give them only a very few hours' drill a day, or some days no drill at all. I can assure hon. gentlemen that I am against this attempt to make soldiers, men to defend our country, by giving them a few days' drill at such great waste of our public money. It has been well said in this House to-day that we have some 400,000 soldiers who have returned from the great conflict, who will have discipline enough in their craniums to serve for a generation yet. We know that great conflict cost this country the appalling sum of about $2,000,000,000. We know that the taxation of this country is enormous. I come from a rural community and I know what the rural people think; I know what the boys and the men who go, think-they think this is a waste of public mono}7. I agree with what has been said as regards the large communities. There is where the pugnacious people, the warlike people and the strikers are. In the rural sections there are none of those warlike individuals, and I am sure you cannot take th* farmer and his sons and his horses away to quell riots at Winnipeg or Glace Bay or any large riotous community. I am in favour of a standing army large enough to quell the riots of these great centres. The great American republic have not had this annual drill. They have had a standing army quite sufficient to quiet any trouble in that great country. I would not object to voting money that is imperatively needed to keep soldiers who are trained, and well trained, to cope with any element that might rise against the state.
Let me tell some of the ridiculous things in connection with this waste of money on annual drill. Probably these estimates would go through fully as easily if the two ex-Ministers of Militia were less conspicuous in these debates. How attentive they were in their seats last year and how they beat the drum, and how they made it appear so imperatively needful for us to keep up the estimates or even give more! They thought that these estimates should all be increased. Let me say- and I presume there are scores of others in this House who know of the appalling waste of money-I will not use this locally-but there are certain grafters amongst captains^ majors, colonels, and those higher up. They go to the veterinary to help them and say: "Have you some old horses that look fairly well, that are about ready to die? Can you not buy up a few old plugs at $25 a head? You have been with us for many years and although you are crippled and no good, we would like to keep you. Get the best old nags you can	and	get	themthrough at $175 or	$200 a	head."
These horses are subjected to rough treatment and sometimes, being hitched by the feet they contract acute bronchitis! They are given such drastic medical treatment that in a short while they simply cease to exist. Then there is the chesty, stiff-necked fellow that buys the hay, and oats, and feed. If I were to tell all that I believe and know it would appal the committee. Although I was never a soldier, I have it from their mouths that this sort of thing was done to rob the country in pre-war days, and that being the case I can assure you that I am for cutting down the estimates. That nation is the happiest whose people do not engage in wars. Our sons and daughters are leaving this country to go to the peaceful land to the south of us, notwithstanding all that we are doing. I regret the fact, but I think we ought to devote some of the money to a real effort to retain our own people. Surely no enemies are threatening us. Certainly there are none to
Supply-Defence-Drill

the north, I am sure there are none to the south of us, and neither east nor west have we anything to fear. The Monroe doctrine would protect us from foreign invasion.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear, hear.


Willis Keith Baldwin: It is laughable and yet serious. Are we going back to the aboriginal age when the savages used war paint and devoted their time to the extermination of one another? Yet, when we spend all this money on war wherein do we differ from the savages? Have we no implicit confidence in our own people and our neighbours? Wherein is the difference between the mothers of this country who are proud to bear sons for a sacrifice in European wars and those mothers who cast their children into the Ganges or the Euphrates? Some people suspect that there is an enemy behind every post and pillar and under every woodpile and under everything that can conceal a possible enemy. It was with much regret I heard so many hon. gen-, tlemen advocating a year ago the expenditure of money for the furtherance of war enterprise. First, last and all the time I am a pacifist. But I am not enough of a pacifist not to fight to the last ditch if my personal rights or the national welfare be encroached upon. I do not wish to embarrass the minister, and while I might not go the length of voting for the amendment that is now before the committee, I do say that there should be less expenditure in this murderous, slaughterous game in which there are so many grafters and spendthrifts who are enriching themselves and wadding their own pockets. The civilized world is looking to disarmament, and I do not think that we should spend money in training our young men to take part in war. I do not think we should raise money-I was almost going to say, by extortion-from the pockets 'of the people when the farmers of the country are in such deplorable straits, when they have to pay such high taxation, such exorbitant prices for everything they get, and when they receive such unsatisfactory prices for the commodities they produce. If there is anything we can do, however small, towards paying off public debt we certainly should do it; and one way is to prevent the squandering of public moneys. Possibly anything I may say in the way of reducing the estimates will be futile, but undoubtedly in my opinion they should be reduced, especially in regard to something that only tends to build up a war machine for which there is no necessity. OUr population is not increasing and there' is no enemy in sight. And Heaven knows we do not want to mix up in European troubles, because those untold millions would absorb withfMr. Baldwin.]
out very much trouble the comparatively small number of young men we could equip. Let me conclude by hoping that the minister will not be influenced too much by the two exministers of militia who sit opposite.


Mr. IRVINE:: What did the minister
mean by saying that we could not have a country without a militia?


George Perry Graham: No nation is properly equipped that has not a defence force.


William Alves Boys: Will the minister give me the information I asked for?


George Perry Graham: Fourteen units went into camp; the unit to which my hon. friend refers, which camped at Borden, being 160 strong.
Mr. BOY'S: What I want to know is the amount of money devoted to the rural and city battalions respectively, and the number of men who went from those battalions.


George Perry Graham: I shall get that information to-night.


Roch Lanctôt: I regret that my hon.
friend (Mr. Baldwin) did not say to what extent he wanted the item reduced.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Ten per cent.


Roch Lanctôt: In view of the attitude of some of my hon. friends I would amend my motion by substituting $210,000 for $525,000 or one-fifth of the estimates. That would be more reasonable and it would test the feeling of the committee.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot) moves that resolution 88 be reduced by $210,-
000.


Mr. SPENCE:: Every hon. member should be in real good humour now, and I would suggest that this is the proper time to take the vote. I hope the hon. minister will get this item through without any reduction whatever. Last year he very liberally allowed his estimates to be cut down, and he has since found that that was a mistake, as he has had insufficient funds to maintain the militia at the proper standard of efficiency. He has learned from experience that he needs this money, and I hope every hon. member will give him every dollar he wants.
Amendment (Mr. Lanctot) negatived on division: Yeas, 33; Nays, 77.
Item agreed to on the same division reversed.


George Newcombe Gordon: It has been called
to my attention that the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) has not voted.

Supply-Defence-Cadets


Mr. MARTELL:: I beg to differ. I voted
against the amendment.
Cadet services, $450,000.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the reason for the
increase in this item?


George Perry Graham: I want it to be understood that I am more interested in this vote than perhaps in any other that may come before this committee. It is not true that the cadets are trained as soldiers, although part of the training may be of a military character. I maintain that the training given to these boys in their tender years is doing a wonderful work in building them up physically and making real men of them. I supported this vote enthusiastically for years when I was in opposition, and I have regretted on many occasions during the past twelve months that it was reduced last session. These boys in large numbers are given a summer outing with training that goes to make them real men in miniature. I have had some experience of the value of cadet training in my own family, and consequently I speak with some knowledge of the subject. Boys who are inclined to be weaklings, physically after going through the course of training for two or three years develop into fine young fellows and become straight physically, mentally and morally. I admit that I was humilated last year when the city of Toronto had to organize a tag day in order to provide the funds to give their boys cadet training. I helped the boys out in an indirect way by lending them whatever camping equipment they required. I am strongly in favour of this physical training for boys. It is given in the schools throughout our country. A boy can go through the course and be really made a man and yet never be a soldier at all, although I admit that a young fellow who is a graduate cadet makes the best military man you can get anywhere because he has the physique to start with. It has been said that this training is onlv taken advantage of in one or two provinces. The province of Quebec has a greater number of cadets than any other province, and this year they carried away the trophy.


Mr. BUREAU:: And Three Rivers did it.


George Perry Graham: A small place called Three Rivers got this trophy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Perry Graham: -and I might go further and say that they did their training with rifles supplied by one, Bureau, and presented to them by himself personally. I will give the committee the enrolled strength of cadet corps at January 31st, 1923, by provinces:
Ontario: London, 6,841; Toronto, 16,976; Kingston, 6,836; Total, 30,653.
Quebec: Montreal, 32,214; Quebec, 13,432; Total, 45,646. Nova' Scotia, 4,329; New Brunswick, 1,587; Manitoba, 10,376; British Columbia, 5,838; Saskatchewan, 3,959; Alberta, 5,453. Total, 107,841.
These cadets are spread all over the whole Dominion. Last year we did not have enough money to give the boys their training camps, and I think we did an injustice to them from the physical standpoint. I am solely responsible for this additional $100,000, and I think the money cannot be spent in any better way than by training our young men and so improving them physically, mentally and morally.


Mr. HOEY:: Is this work undertaken in conjunction with the provincial Departments of Education, or is it under the direct supervision of the militia authorities? My contention is that the physical development of the boy is part of his education, and that it shpuld be fundamentally the duty and the privileges of the provincial Departments of Education to undertake this work. Therefore I should like to know if this work, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, is wholly detached from the Department of Defence as such, that is, as a military organization.


George Perry Graham: These cadet corps can be organized only with the full consent and approval of the educational authorities in each province. The Defence department, out of ' this vote, sends physical instructors wherever they are wanted, in order to give the training. Loans are made for rifle practice and so on.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think all will agree that the young men and the young women should receive in our schools the best possible opportunity for physical development. A great many people, however, do object strongly to the effort made-shall I say?-to camouflage military training under the guise of physical training. As the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) has stated, physical training is carried on in every school in Alberta, the teachers being trained to give the best physical instruction to the children under their charge. Then, in addition, there are the cadet corps under the jurisdiction of the officers of the military district in which the school happens to be located, and this military training is earned on in addition to the physical training which is given in the schools.
I repeat that physical training is highly desirable, but I think it should be given as such, for that purpose and that purpose alone. May I, under this item, direct the attention of the minister to a resolution adopted by a com-
Supply-Defence-Cadets

mittee of students at the University of Toronto? It says:
Inasmuch as the Dominion of Canada is a member of the League of Nations which has been created to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security, we, the students of the universities of Canada with a view to promoting the ideals of the league by bringing Canada into closer contact through intellectual co-operation with the nations of the world, and in the belief that only through the development of a mutual understanding between races and nations can war be eliminated as an agent of settling international disputes, go on record, through our representative organizations as in favour of the forwarding of a resolution to His Majesty'8 government of the Dominion of Canada, requesting:
That the government of the Dominion of Canada set aside annually a sum of money sufficient for the purpose of awarding scholarships to the countries and in the manner as hereinafter set forth:
1. TwenCy-two scholarships to be awarded to graduates of the universities of Canada for the purpose of pursuing post-graduate studies at any university in any country chosen by the students elected to these scholarships.
(a) The distribution of these scholarships as between universities to be based upon the enrolment of students in the universities of Canada.
(2)	Seventeen scholarships to be awarded among the members of the British Empire excluding Canada, not more than two scholarships to be awarded at any one time to any one British dominion or colony except that five be awarded annually to India and that two be awarded annually to native African students.
(3)	Sixty-five scholarships to be awarded on the following basis: South America 5; China 4; Japan 4: Russia 5; Korea 2; Hungary 2, Austria 2; Czechoslovakia 3; Spain 2; Italy 3; Bulgaria 2; Roumania 2: Turkey 2; Greece 2; Portugal 1; France 5; Germany 5; Holland 3; Denmark 3; Norway and Sweden 4; Finland 2; Poland 2.
The suggestion of this student body is that the government might take out of the moneys which otherwise would be devoted to militia purposes a sum sufficient to provide scholarships in order that Canadian students might go to some of these foreign lands and in order that students in foreign countries might come to Canada, the result being the promotion of a real spirit of international fellowship. I suggest that instead of promoting military affairs by the expenditure of vast sums of money at this particular time in our history, when these moneys are so urgently needed for other purposes, it would be advisable to consider the allocation of a substantial sum to meet the suggestion made in this resolution. I commend it to the minister as something that would make for that for which we are all striving-a better spirit and better fellowship among the nations.


Jacques Bureau: How would these scholarships be awarded? Would it be done through the provinces, or through the various educational institutions?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The resolution outlines in detail the scheme which the students sug-
[Mr. Shaw.1
gest. They provide what is called an allocating board to allocate these scholarships.


Jacques Bureau: Who would select the allocating board? When the federal government begins to interfere with educational matters, the thing becomes quite complicated.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Probably it would not be as difficult as it might appear. The resolution suggests:
That an allocating board be set up for the purpose of receiving the applications of those students elected to scholarships in Canada from their respective countries, for the purpose of allocating these students to the different universities in Canada according to course desired and the academic standing of the student.
It goes on to say that the board should consist of nine members, and there is reference to the manner in which its personnel is made up. There might be some difficulty in working out the details of the scheme. I simply present the suggestion made by these students as one which would be well worthy of the best consideration of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. STANSELL:: With most, if not all, of what the minister has said with regard to this vote I find myself in hearty accord. I would like however, to ask a question suggested by the stand taken by certain hon. members in connection with another vote, namely, that there should be a separate vote for rural and urban districts in matters such as these. I do not find myself in accord with that suggestion. I believe that all laws should be designed to give equal opportunities to all, so far as that is possible, and I am not at all in sympathy with any suggestion that there should be a different standard for rural and for urban residents. What I want to know is this: how far has it been found possible to extend the benefits of this training to the rural districts? I can understand that it might be more difficult to extend it to the rural districts than it would be to apply it to the urban centres, but I would like to know just how far it has been found possible to make its benefits available to the boys in the rural districts.


George Perry Graham: The benefit to be derived by the rural students would be this: the department has instructors who instruct the teachers. Last year there were I think, five thousand in line for instruction. These, in turn, instruct the cadets and can give the physical training in any school in the Dominion.


John Lawrence Stansell: To what extent have the rural districts availed themselves of it?

Supply-Defence-Cadets


George Perry Graham: In forming separate cadet corps, perhaps not to a very great extent. But in many of these schools there are little companies of cadets, and owing to the training given by our officers the teachers are able to give the necessary instruction to both boys and girls.


Mr. MacLAREN:: In supporting this vote for the cadets-a work which, I am satisfied, is accomplishing a great amount of good- I would suggest to the minister for his consideration that it would be of great advantage to absorb some of the other boy movements that now exist in this country, more particularly the Boy Scouts. I think there is loss of energy and of organization between the Cadets and the Boy Scouts. I believe it would be very much to the advantage.of the Boy Scouts were they absorbed into the Cadets. It would increase the number of the Cadets very largely and would avoid the present division. I think that under the recognized discipline of the Defence department there would be considerable advantage to this country and to the Boy Scouts themselves by their absorption into the Cadets.


Mr. ROBINSON:: The trouble with the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) is that a boy can join the Boy Scouts when he is eight or ten years old, but he cannot become a Cadet until he is sixteen. I think you will find that in most towns the Boy Scouts ultimately join the Cadets when they are old enough.
In reply to the hon. member who spoke about the cadet movement in rural districts, I may say that the cadet movement is usually in connection with schools, and the children in rural schools-I am speaking more particularly of Nova Scotia-are mostly young; that is, if they want to go beyond a certain grade they have to go to the towns, and there they come in touch with the cadet movement. The physical drill is taught in both rural and urban schools. You could not very well have a cadet corps in the remote rural sections because there are not enough boys who are old enough to form a good cadet corps. I think it will be found, however, that the Boy Scouts generally do join the Cadets when they become old enough.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I think the age given by my hon. friend is hardly correct. The cadet age, I think, is from twelve to eighteen. You cannot merge the Boy'Scouts and the Cadets. I do not think that there is an effort made as my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) suggested to camouflage militarism in the cadet movement.; and in proof of that let me give
just one illustration. Of the 6,800 Cadets in this district around Ottawa and Kingston, only 2,080 took rifle training, and that was voluntary on their part. There is no effort made to impose military training on them at all.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Are not these cadets trained
in all the military manoeuvres and in military drill?


Arthur Edward Ross: Only so far as marching goes,
and that is not military drill in the sense of rifle shooting and so on. Physical drill is a part of military training, but has only lately been absorbed in the cadet movement as a result of the Great War that is done to harden a man. Physical training was a school preparation. I do not think any person connected with the cadet movement has camouflaged militarism, and when you consider that of the 6,800 Cadets in this district who took physical training, marching and such drilling as the teachers could give them, only 2,080 took rifle drill, I think you have the answer to that suggestion. I think that is worth bringing up.


Jacques Bureau: With reference to the remark made by my hon. friend from Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) I would like to say a word. It was my privilege some time ago to attend the presentation of a trophy to a cadet corps. The general of the division, General Ami-, strong I think, was represented at that presentation. One of the speakers spoke from a military point of view, but the general's representative- said that the object of the training was first physical training, and then moral training. It was to teach the boys discipline, and he laid down this principle, and it is true I think, that a man cannot command if he does not first know how to obey, and the first thing a boy had to learn was to obey.
But apart from the physical training, the moral training I think is .very important. We talk about developing citizenship in this countiy. We know-I am talking to men of experience-that human nature is pretty selfish, and that if you were to boil down almost any kind of man, 95 per cent of the whole thing would be selfishness. That is the individuality of the man, and the idea of individuality is opposed to the idea of collectivity. Now in any well organized community what we want to do is to develop the idea of citizenship. I might be asked how I connect that up with the cadet movement. Well, as I was telling the boys in my town, "When you were training and marching and drilling, you never thought of Tom, Dick or
Supply-Defence-Cadets

Harry. You were thinking of the school you belong to. It was your Alma Mater you thought of, and you forgot yourself. When it came down to competing with the other, you thought about your corps, and not about yourself." That is the idea to develop in the child if you want him to grow into a good citizen. Teach him to forget himself a little bit and think of others. That is what makes a good citizen, to get rid of the selfishness, and think not so much of the individual good as of the collective good, and because of the moral results we get in this cadet movement I am wholly in favour of it. I think the minister is not doing too much. I think he did well to take it upon his own initiative to put this amount aside.
Physical training is also a very good thing. If you want to be a man, you want to be able to walk alone and defend yourself. That gives a man the idea that he is something, and when you get a boy to respect himself, he respects other people too, and respects property. No man has a right to ask his neighbour to respect him unless he first sets the example and respects himself, and I think this is a great school in which to teach the boys to be proud of their persons, and to learn respect for themselves, respect of other persons and of property. I think this vote ought to go through, and if all the other votes that come before us for consideration were the same as this, I would be happy to sanction them and to give them my support.


William Irvine: I would ask the minister who just spoke how he expects to train a boy to respect himself if he trains him to forget himself.


Jacques Bureau: I have never preached in any church, Mr. Chairman, but I think that the greatest virtue of all is self-abnegation, and that is what I mean when I say that the boy is taught to forget himself. It may be that my English is defective, but if the hon. gentleman knows so much and cannot understand me I can tell him in French what 1 mean, in which language I can command all the words I require. If my hon. friend who is a former preacher cannot forgive a man for misusing a word in a language that he did not learn at his mother's knee, I can use French; I have enough of it.


William Irvine: I do not think there is
any necessity for the minister to get a little warm simply because I asked a question arising out of his own discussion. I was trying to get at the basis of this training of the boys. He tells us that first of all they are trained to forget themselves. I am not saving
TMr. Bureau.!
that is a bad thing or a good thing. I merely wanted to get at the gentleman's philosophy. Then he says, after they have been trained thoroughly to forget themselves and practise self-abnegation they are trained to respect themselves, and I merely wanted to find out how it was possible for a man to know what he was at all after he had forgotten himself. And, having thus forgot himself, how he could respect himself is difficult for me to understand. I want to make my protest, Mr. Chairman, against the passing of this item, and I quite realize it will only be a protest. I want to make it along the lines that have been laid down by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) I believe that this movement constitutes a recruiting ground for the militia, that it is one of the means of instilling the spirit of war, the narrow spirit of nationalism, the spirit of conflict in the young generation. In short it is one way of instilling the spirit of militarism, the thing we have been trying to get away from. I repeat that it is a recruiting ground for the militia, although the minister tells us that the training given is not a training for soldiers. If it is not a training for soldiers, if that is not the fundamental purpose of this cadet movement, then why not allow this matter of training in physical form and so forth, to be given over to the public schools as suggested by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey)? We were told when the House was discussing the motion of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) on race track betting that it was not the function of the government to moralize or demoralize the corfimunity. In that case why should the government take this matter up so strenuously ? If it is moral training you want it is not the business of the government, we understand, to do that. If physical training is desired that is not the business of the government either. If this is what the Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham) says it is, viz: not training for soldiers but training for mental and physical development, that belongs to other departments and can be done more efficiently by them. This government has no business to do anything along that line, and no appropriations for such purposes are in order under militia estimates.
I believe this vote may be successfully opposed on the ground of liberty. While our boys are not compelled to enter the cadet movement yet we are compelled to pay for the cost of the training, and there are great numbers of people who are very much opposed to this thing being thrust upon the community. In spite of that opposition they are not allowed to get rid of paying for it, they are compelled to nay their share of the cost. In

Supply-Defence-Cade ts
that way it is an interference with human liberty to compel taxation for that which is not sanctioned by the community. The community would vote the cadets down if they had an opportunity, and I would challenge the minister to submit this one question alone to the people of Canada through a referendum. It would not be carried; the people would not have it, they do not want it. We have other bodies doing the work of mental, moral and physical development. Every public school is carrying on physical training; the Boy Scouts do physical training. Why should we subsidize this, a governmental, paternal thing, to deal with the morals, the mentality, and the physical condition of our boys when other institutions are already attending to these phases of collective responsibility? I base my opposition to this vote on the ground that it is camouflaged militarism as the hon. member for Calgary West stated, and because other institutions are already doing the work to which it is said to be related and doing i;t in a better and more efficient way.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Mr. LEWIS:: I wish to assure the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Graham) of my sympathy and support, and I do not think his position is a very enviable one when we are discussing the estimates of Militia or National Defence; but I am very glad to say that I feel in my heart that he is not afraid of the situation and that he is able to meet the arguments that are presented in favour of a decrease in our national defence. As regards the item that is before us, the minister is to be commended for increasing this amount for the development of the health of the youth of our country. I myself have had an opportunity for a number of years of being with the young men of my community and taking them out for two weeks' training. I feel assured that it is of great benefit to the boys in my community to undertake this training, this mental and'moral discipline. But there is one phase of the matter that I feel somewhat detracts from the movement, and that is this. I quite agree that it is advisable in the interests of the* health of our young people, that this cadet drill should have all the encouragement that it is possible to give it. I do not altogether agree with the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) who suggested that this parliament has nothing to do with the health
5G
of the people of this country. The health of the boys and the girls of a country is one of the greatest assets of that country, and nothing that can come before us at the present time is of more importance than the physical and mental well-being of our boys and girls. There is a great deal of good in this movement for which we are asked to vote the sum of $450,000. It will develop, not only what we believe to be the health of the boys, but also that which is so essential to national life- I like to call it the "gang spirit." In this movement, there is the spirit of emulation, the spirit of discipline, and when the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau), commenting upon this situation said "The boys are able to forget themselves," he spoke one of the noblest truths that enter into our modern civilisation. I do not altogether see the point of the statement of the hon. member for Calgary East that he did not see the connection between forgetting yourself and this movement. As far as I have been able to study philosophy, I think one of the greatest teachers said that the greatest freedom that a man could enjoy was when he forgot himself and when he willed the moral and social good of other people. The spirit of emulation and discipline which is found in the physical drill in the cadet service, is one of the finest things to help in making good men and good citizens. But there is one point that seems to find disfavour to a large extent with the people of our country, and that is the feeling somehow or another, whether it be right or not, that there is an attempt to introduce in this service the militaristic spirit that is prevalent. Personally, I am not at all afraid of the word "military" or "militaristic." I myself am the father of five boys, and if the time ever came when it was necessary for those boys to be called upon to defend their country, I should think that I had been lacking in my duty and that there had been something wrong in the training in the home if those boys did not respond. Yet at the same time I do not think this should be connected with what is called the cadet movement for physical training. It is the duty of the state to train men in a threefold way: physically, mentally and morally. This physical training, I believe, comes within the province of the state. But if in some way this federal government could cooperate with the provincial authorities, who have to a large extent the supervision of the education of the youth of the land, and if this government could assist them financially so that the boys and girls could receive the necessary physical instruction which is required

Supply-Defence-Cadets

to develop them, without fear of the suspicion that in some mysterious way the boys are being trained into soldiers, I do feel that the government w'ould have the approbation of all [DOT] the people of Canada. As matters are, however, it seems that this work must come under the Department of National Defence.
Now, as regards physical training under the direction of the provincial authorities, it is well known that every teacher is not qualified to give boys and girls physical instruction. In my own district there are men who are physically unfit to give proper commands and demand discipline; and in other ways it would be impossible for the average school to send its boys for two weeks' training on the camp ground. But if the Department of National Defence would limit its supervision to giving military instruction to the teachers, providing a course for them, or lending them tents or other necessary equipment, without in any way imparting a military taint to the assistance it gives, I believe the department would be doing one of the finest things for the boys in Canada to-day. I should be delighted if some measure could be conceived whereby the same privilege could be afforded the rural boys. I live in a rural constituency and when I come to Ottawa and see the boys in the public schools here getting physical training and the moral discipline that necessarily goes with it, it does seem to me that we in the rural parts of the country are handicapped. And that is why I am pleased to take thirty boys to camp two weeks every year. The member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) submitted a proposal this afternoon which I feel that I could support, but not at the expense of this item. I think that the suggestion that comes from Toronto University is a good one, that we should have international scholarships by means of which educated people and ambitious boys and girls from various countries could meet us on a common plane and become acquainted with us, discussing our ideals of citizenship and our traditions, while we might learn something of their traditions and their outlook on life. That would be one way by which we could get into closer friendly relations and a better understanding with other nations; and to the extent that we understood them we should remove the fear of war. I should be quite willing to support the minister if he set aside a sum of money [DOT] for that good purpose; but I would not support it at the expense of the physical training of the youth of the land, for I believe that such training is one of the greatest assets we have in building up a virile citizenship.
	*


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Under our constitution the subject of education rests with the provincial governments, no matter whether it be physical, mental or moral education. How then does it come about that a vote which the minister justifies on the ground of education, and apparently on that ground alone, has come to be a matter for disposition by the federal government? I want to know the legal basis upon which this vote is asked?


George Perry Graham: If we adhered to the strict interpretation of the British North America Act, there are many activities which the federal government now engages in that could not be carried on. For instance, we are dealing with technical education federally.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: That is perfectly clear; you are giving a grant for that purpose, which is to be used by the provincial governments in some particular manner.


George Perry Graham: We give the grant on a fifty-fifty basis. The federal government sent a commission of investigation all over the world where technical education was carried on to any extent to gather information on the subject; and a lot of money was spent for this purpose out of the technical education vote. The idea is that where possible the federal government should work in harmony with the provinces where it is thought that some mutual good can be accomplished. Take the question of agriculture. The federal government conducts a system of experimental farms. But strictly speaking, according to my hon. friend, that is really education,-agricultural education,-and the federal government should have nothing to do with it. On the contrary, we work in harmony with the provinces in that matter. They have agricultural schools and we conduct experimental farms all over the country giving agricultural education. Then there is the question of good roads: We join with the provinces in the construction of good roads. True, we give a grant, but it is subject to approval by our engineers; and we have a staff in connection with the Railway department looking after the construction of roads in the various provinces in order to ensure that they are up to standard. The housing scheme also might have been relegated to the provinces themselves from a technical point of view; but the federal government passed a vote and took a hand in the attempt to solve the problem. The simple fact is that w'e cannot draw too fine a line. The object of the government, I take it, is to develop the citizenship and resources of the whole Dominion; and the greatest of these resources is found, not in the bowels of the

Supply-Defence
earth, not in the timber, nor the lakes nor the streams of the country, but in the boys and girls who are growing up. And if, by avoiding rigid technicalities, we can join forces with the provinces for the development of all the resources that we possess I think we are doing a good work. Nor do I believe that we are violating the spirit and the real intent of the British North America Act.


William Charles Good: There is in my judgment very much to commend itself to us in this vote. The work which is being undertaken by those who have charge of the cadets is an important, a desirable and a necessary one. But in my opinion it is unfortunate that it should be carried on under the auspices of the Department of National Defence,-unfortunate be-' cause that supervision seems to create a suspicion that the boys who are being trained are subjected to a militarizing process. While I am disposed to support the vote, it does seem to me that some attention ought to be given to the problem of shifting the supervision from the Department of National Defence to our educational authorities. In all the schools now we have physical instructors who are doing very necesary and good work; and I think it is highly desirable that this work should be linked up a little more elosely with our educational system, with the Boy Scout movement and things of that kind, as something separate and distinct from the activities of the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Defence-militia services-clothing and necessaries, 1300,000.
Arthur Meighen: I suppose the reduction of $40,400, is due to the lower costs prevailing now?


George Perry Graham: In a measure. This vote fluctuates. We had a lot of material left over from the war. One year we may run out of the regular size of caps and clothing and these deficiencies have to be supplied, while perhaps another year we may run out of some other size, and the vote will be a little higher.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Arsenal, Lindsay, $9,000.
Hugh Guthrie: How is it proposed to spend this $9,000?


George Perry Graham: In caretakers' salaries, fuel, light, etc. These are the particulars:
Salary of chief caretaker, $1,008; salaries of three other caretakers, $2,860; allowance for one caretaker in lieu of quarters, $180; cost of water, fuel and light, $1,830; rental of railway siding, etc., $3,000.
56J


Mr. CHAPLIN:: There was some talk last year that the Lindsay arsenal was to be sold. What has been done in the meantime?


George Perry Graham: The property is now in the hands of the Public Works department for disposal by lease or sale, and they are in touch with the authorities of the town of Lindsay, who, I believe, have been discussing the possibility of securing an industry to rent a portion of the property.


Hugh Guthrie: What has become of the machinery?


George Perry Graham: It is all there.


Hugh Guthrie: What is proposed to be done with it?


George Perry Graham: A good deal of the special machinery has been sent to the Quebec arsenal. There is other machinery there that I think could be Used by an industrial concern.


James Dew Chaplin: Has all the cartridge-making machinery been removed to the Quebec arsenal?


George Perry Graham: Not all of it.


James Dew Chaplin: How much has been removed?


George Perry Graham: I am informed that quite a substantial part has been moved to the Quebec arsenal, which can be used there and for which there is room.


Mr. BOA  S@: The policy of the department, I presume, is to discontinue the Lindsay arsenal and confine ammunition manufacturing to the Quebec arsenal?


George Perry Graham: That is the object. The Quebec arsenal can produce more than all the ammunition we may need in peace times.


James Dew Chaplin: Does there remain at Lindsay a full unit for the manufacture of cartridges?


George Perry Graham: I am not quite in a position to give that information. It is not the intention of the government at the present time to manufacture any more ammunition at Lindsay. That will be borne in mind whatever machinery may be taken away.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: It is evidently the intention of the government to close the arsenal at Lindsay and dispose of it if possible. What has been the cost to the country of establishing this arsenal?


George Perry Graham: When the policy was announced last year of closing this arsenal-* and it was closed a year ago-I gave all

Supply-Defence
that information in detail. I regret that I have not it at hand now.


Arthur Meighen: I remember when some particulars were given, and I remember as well that the hon. member for the district at the time stated to the House some things that he evidently believed to be facts, going to show that there were shady, or perhaps improper, circumstances connected with the purchase; in fact he intimated that the purchase was not made on the square in the interests of the country. I happen to know that he has since received all the facts, proving fully, that the greatest care was taken in regard to the purchase and that it was honest in every detail to the last cent. I hope he will now be good enough to give those particulars to the House.
Mr- BUREAU: How do you happen to know?


Arthur Meighen: I know; I have seen them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Arsenal, Quebec, $390,000.
Arthur John Lewis: What is the reason for the $15,000 increase in this item considering that the cost of labour and materials has decreased?


George Perry Graham: The cost, of course, depends on the amount of material produced. Formerly we had two arsenals; this year all the work is being done in one.


Arthur John Lewis: Is it small arms ammunition
that is made in this arsenal?


George Perry Graham: Yes; and we make up to
as heavy as 18-pounders.


Arthur John Lewis: It was stated last year when we were discussing a similar item that we already had in Canada a great many of the larger shells-enough to last at least a year or so. I was wondering whether shells of this kind were being made, or whether the arsenal was turning out small ammunition only.


George Perry Graham: The amount of gun ammunition to be manufactured during the coming year is 500 rounds of 18-pounder and 500 rounds of 4.5 howitzer.


James Dew Chaplin: How many rounds of
ammunition were manufactured last year?


George Perry Graham: The estimated production of the Dominion arsenal at Quebec last year was as follows:
Cartridges, S.A. ball .303"-7 millions.
Cartridges, S.A. Ball .303" for D.R.A. 200,000.
Cartridges, S.A. Ball .303 tracer mark VII, 10,000.
Cartridges, S.A. dummy .303" 500,000.

Boxes, ammunition .303" 7,710.
Bandoliers, .303" ammunition 144,000.
Chargers .303" cartridges, 1,540,000.
Cartridges .22" long rifle 9 millions.
Boxes for .22" 900.
Cartridges, S.A. pistol .455" 300,000.
Cartridges, blank, pistol .455" 50,000.
Boxes for pistol ammunition 840.
Puffs, powder, 4 drms. R.F.G. 2, 1,000.
Puffs, powder, R.L.G. 2, 1,000.
Puffs, powder, 4 oz. 500.
Puffs, powders, 2 oz. 500.
The total estimated cost was $425,000.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has simply
read the estimate of last year. I did not ask him for that information. I want to know what was actually manufactured and how near it would be to that estimate. If he cannot give me that information, will he be kind enough to tell us how many rounds of ammunition were used last year in the different camps and elsewhere? The minister told us last year that we had in stock about 45,000,000 'rounds of ammunition, but that that was not enough; and we were to make another
10.000.	000 rounds last year. Unless we know how much has been used we are not able to see whether or not it is necessary to keep this institution going. We have reduced the number of men who are to use this ammunition, and it seems to me that the amount used last, year must have been less than in former years.


George Perry Graham: It is impossible to state the amount of ammunition of every kind used by the militia and by all the rifle associations. Aly hon. friend asks how much we manufactured. The returns will not be in until 31st March, but it is expected that the amount estimated will have been manufactured by that time.


Hugh Guthrie: Can the minister tell us how much small arms ammunition he has on hand now?


Air. GRAHAAI:: I have not that information.


Hugh Guthrie: It is strange that we are asked to vote $390,000 for ammunition and no information is forthcoming as to what we have on hand, what was manufactured last year, or even what ivas issued by the department last year. I notice what appears to be a clerical error in this estimate; the amount of Mark VII to be manufactured is given as 40,000,000. I fancy that should be
4.000.	000.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And so all the way down the column; two figures have been added at the end which I fancy are clerical errors. There is provision for a large quantity of

8S5
Supply-Defence
small arms ammunition in this estimate- more, I think, than there was for last year.
I doubt whether* as many men were trained last year as there were the year before, or whether as much ammunition was actually used. I see further down that it is proposed to manufacture 500 high explosive 18-pounders. May I ask whether the supply of 18-pounders which was brought from England at the close of the war, and which caused so much talk at election time, has become exhausted, making it necessary to manufacture additional quantities of these high explosive shells?


George Perry Graham: I gave the statement a few moments ago about the 18-pounders. I will give the remainder of the statement, which comprises the information given to me by the technical officers of the department. The amount of ammunition on hand of these natures-that is, high explosives-represents less than 50 per cent of the equipment reserves required, based on pre-war scales. The amounts to be manufactured do not meet the current year's expenditure for practice and are barely adequate to ensure that the machinery and equipment for the manufacture is in order.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister please answer the other question: is the supply of 18-pounder high explosive shells which was obtained from England at the end of the war, and concerning which much comment was made during the last general election, now exhausted, so that it becomes necessary to manufacture more of that kind of ammunition?


George Perry Graham: I would not say the supply has been exhausted. The statement I have read is an answer to that question. It says, if it says anything, that even with the production which is proposed we shall have less than 50 per cent of the amount required to maintain our reserves.


Hugh Guthrie: It is quite clear, then, from the statement of the minister, that notwithstanding all the noise that was made during the last election concerning the alleged enormous quantities of high explosive shells that were "recklessly and extravagantly" brought into this country, the total supply of this ammunition in Canada to-day is only 50 per cent of what the reserves should be, according to pre-war requirements, and the minister finds it necessary to come to parliament to-day and ask for a vote to increase the store of these very shells by five hundred for the coming season, carrying out exactly what I and others on this side of the House
said, that we have only accepted from the British government material in the way of shells for the training of our own Canadian militia which will be used by the militia or kept in reserve. This ammunition is being used and the reserve to-day is only fifty per cent of what it was in pre-war times. It must be borne in mind that the shells which were brought into Canada cost this country nothing. Those who attended the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee last year-which did not report the facts to this House, by the way-will bear me out when I say that no better bargain was ever made than the bargain which was made by the Canadian authorities with the British government whereby all that valuable ammunition came to this country practically without the expenditure of a dollar. Unfortunately we did not get enough of it, and now we have to go on manufacturing five hundred additional for the present year.


George Perry Graham: I imagine that originally the cost was taken into account, so that the Canadian people would be charged in the final settlement.


Hugh Guthrie: You have not followed the inquiry.


George Perry Graham: Although we paid nothing,
I think you will find that originally the cost was taken into account.


Hugh Guthrie: General MacBrien says that it was practically a free gift.


George Perry Graham: I am explaining the conclusion I arrived at after looking into it. My hon. friend, I think, has lost sight of the fact that with that amount of ammunition we received also some gun ammunition, sixty-pounders, which has no connection with the eigh-' teen-pounders we are discussing. '


Hugh Guthrie: That was for Halifax.


James Dew Chaplin: I notice that the shells the minister has just referred to are costing $12 apiece. Would it not have been much better to have bought these shells than to have made them? You can buy them far cheaper than that.


George Perry Graham: Where?


James Dew Chaplin: In the Old Country. You could probably get them for nothing, like some of the other shells we got before. These shells did not cost as much in war time as they are represented to cost here. Twelve dollars apiece is a higher price than what was paid in war time for them. How are we to know whether the stock of small arms ammunition is enough or not unless we know
Supply-Defence

how much has been used during the past year? Last year the minister told us that we had so much in stock, but he is not able to give.us even that much information now. He also told us how much we had used during the year, but he cannot give us that information now. Surely the War Department, such as we have, must keep some account of what ammunition they give out to the different places. There is no ammunition being given out in cold weather. It is all used during the summer time, and it seems to me only reasonable that the minister should tell us how much was used during the last summer.


George Perry Graham: Conditions are a little different now from those existing when I gave that information last year. Last year, I think, it was in June when these estimates went through and we had full returns from the arsenals and from every district as to what had been used. These returns will not be in for some weeks. Consequently I am not in % position to give that information this year as it is not in the department as yet. As to the purchase of shells overseas, does not my hon. friend (Mr. Chaplin) know that there are many things in this country that we can buy cheaper in Europe than we can make here?


Robert Alexander Hoey: He is becoming a free trader.


George Perry Graham: A free trader in ammunition. As a matter of fact during the war, factories were going twenty-four hours a day, with three shifts, and producing an immense daily output. The conditions were far different from an arsenal where you have to keep up your organization, where you have your overhead and all that kind of thing, and only a limited production. I think my hon. friend will see, although I do not admit that this ammunition was produced very much cheaper during the war, that with that enormous production in war time, with the factories running twenty-four hours and turning out an almost unlimited quantity, the ammunition could be produced more cheaply than under the conditions prevailing here today.


James Dew Chaplin: I would remind the minister that the shells he speaks of were made during the war, when the rate of wages was twice what we should be paying now.


George Perry Graham: Wages have not gone
down as much as the hon. member imagines.


James Dew Chaplin: I question if there is any overhead in our case. These shells are made in a government institution, and there is no overhead at all. This is only the actual cost. fMr. Chaplin.]
The minister says that I am a free trader. I am, as far as ammunition is concerned. I tell him that as far as this ammunition is concerned we can get these shells practically for nothing. They have been dumped into the sea, lots of them, and a little more timely precaution might have secured us enough to last for a fpw years, instead of our having to manufacture a paltry number now. It is true that the shells cannot be made so cheaply in small quantities. But why make them in small quantities when we can get them for practically nothing?


Mr. VIEN:: In answer to the hon. member
I might point out what was disclosed at the Committee on Public Accounts last year with respect to the ammunition which came from overseas. When the hon. gentleman says that eighteen-pounder ammunition could be got for nothing overseas, he forgets that the figures for our requirements in respect of that ammunition were given by the late government to the British government. The ammunition was of such a character that it could not last beyond a definite period, and when it reached the port of disembarkation it was marked "Not good after" such a date.


James Dew Chaplin: Seven years.


Thomas Vien: I have seen the marks myself, and in many cases they were marked as good for not longer than three or four years. Moreover, this ammunition was taken by the various Dominions, and the rest of it, as the hon. gentleman has stated was dumped in the North Sea. That ammunition was not given for nothing, and hon .gentlemen who think that it could be stored in Canada for nothing are totally mistaken. It had to be brought over from the ammunition yards in England and on the Continent at a heavy expense. Those who know anything about the matter also know that for eighteen months shifts of men have been employed to put that ammunition in proper shape and make it safe. There are still many men employed at Levis at present in making these shells safe. As it is they are not in a safe condition. Safety pins have to be removed from the caps. These various shells have to be repainted and definite marks put on them. So, hon. gentlemen are totally mistaken when they say that these shells could be brought over at no cost at all to this country. The balances which were left in the hands of the British government were either destroyed or dumped into the North Sea, according to the information which was given to the committee last year. For these reasons I doubt very much indeed if any other ammunition was available overseas after

Supply-Defence
the requirements of Canada had been given to the British government by the officials of the late administration.


Donald Sutherland: Reference has been made to the debate which took place on the militia estimates a year ago. I have a copy of Hansard of the date upon which this matter was before the House and it is not possible to find there the record to which hon. members opposite have been referring for the reason that I find that seventeen pages have been omitted from Hansard as printed and distributed for the benefit of members and for record purposes. Now, if the information referred to is not in the records, and if seventeen pages are omitted from the Hansard which has only been distributed by the government since parliament met, I think it is a most remarkable thing. I have a very distinct recollection that when this item was up a year ago an hon. member who sits to the right of the minister got up and moved for a reduction in the estimate for the arsenal, but there is no record of that in Hansard. I do not understand how this omission of seventeen pages of very important matter occurred. I think it is somewhat significant, however, that hon. members opposite who were so loud in their protestations against voting moneys for anything of a military nature should be silent when an item such as this, calling for a large increase in the expenditure on the arsenal in Quebec is up for consideration. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) referred to the outcry which arose when it was found that shells were being brought out from the Old Country and unloaded at Quebec some time ago. Yet not a word is being heard to-day in reference to this matter from those who made that outcry. It would seem that you can reduce the militia estimates as much as you like providing the'expenditure on the Quebec arsenal is increased. That appears to suit hon. gentlemen opposite and not a word of protest is uttered; but if you do anything in the nature of training men to serve their country in an emergency there is a loud protest made by those hon. members and also by hon. members who sit to my left.
I regret very much many of the things that have been said this afternoon in regard to military training, particularly those criticisms offered as to the training of cadets. It is unfortunate, some hon. members say that the training of our cadets should be associated with anything of a military nature. The arsenal at Quebec is intended to supply ammunition for the training of men for military purposes, yet hon. members opposite and hon. gentlemen to my left have been protesting
against anything in the nature of military training. I could have wished that some of the things that have been said this afternoon could be omitted from the records as seventeen pages of the Hansard of last session have evidently been omitted. I think the latter occurrence should be inquired into, and that the House should be fully informed how such an omission took place.


James Dew Chaplin: In last year's estimates there is an item providing for nine million 22 inch cartridges for long rifle use. Can the minister state how many of these cartridges have been used?


George Perry Graham: As I pointed out a short time ago we have no returns from any of the districts and will not have until the end of the year. Last year we had all this information because the estimates were not before the House until June. The fiscal year closes on the 31st March, and we do not get these returns until after that date.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are there not monthly returns from the arsenals? Business houses would have such returns.


George Perry Graham: We do not get monthly returns.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It .seems to me there should be a monthly return from every arsenal showing the output, the quantity shipped, and the balance on hand. I have no doubt that if the minister would inquire he would find that monthly returns are available.


George Perry Graham: I am informed that such is not the case. Let me remind my hon. friend there is only one arsenal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Now.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister say there are no monthly returns-


George Perry Graham: I am informed not.


Arthur Meighen: -showing the output of and the stock on hand? I remember answers being given as to monthly returns in previous years.


George Perry Graham: I have looked through Hansard for several years and in one instance I find that my predecessor gave exactly the same answer with reference to a different branch of the service, that he had not the information desired. I am not surprised at that, because apparently it is not possible to get it.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I am inclined to think that if the minister made inquiry he would find that in the case of every military district
Su pply-Defence

they know exactly from day to day the amount of ammunition shipped and the amount on hand.


Charles Gavan Power: That would not be a monthly return from the arsenal, that would be simply a statement of what they have in store.


James Dew Chaplin: I find that last year in the estimates there were nine million cartridges to be made. This year only a million of the same class of cartridges are to be manufactured. It seems to me that fact is significant in itself; there must be a pretty big stock on hand or the number manufactured would not have dropped down to a million as compared with nine millions last year. It seems that we cannot get definite information from the minister, but somebody ought to be able to furnish it.


William Alves Boys: Up to date what amount of last year's appropriation of $375,000 has been expended?


George Perry Graham: About $300,000, to the end of January.


Donald Sutherland: I think we should have some explanation as to why 17 pages have been omitted from Hansard?


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his remarks are not relevant to the item under consideration. The matter he speaks of is one which should come before the printing committee of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like the hon. member to inform the committee what pages have been omitted from Hansard.


William Alves Boys: Could the minister tell us to what extent the shells, or other ammunition, received at Quebec, about which there was so much talk, have since been used for 9 p.m. practice or other purpose at the military camps? Even an approximate estimate will satisfy me.


George Perry Graham: I cannot give an estimate of what number of shells have been used. Of course a great number must have been used. The ammunition is distributed all over the country, and not stored at one place. So far as shells are concerned, even with this estimate we shall be left with not more than 50 per cent of the amount required in reserve.


William Alves Boys: Could the minister give the
committee any idea in dollars and cents as to the cost of manufacture? Would it run into thousands of dollars? Could he give even an approximation of the amount.


George Perry Graham: It would take some little time to make the estimate. We would have to get the sizes, quantities and all that kind of thing. That is a question my hon. friend surely would not anticipate would come up on the estimates.	,


Hugh Guthrie: I remember when I had
the honour of presenting these estimates to the House, my deputy was always prepared with a book showing exactly what the reserves of ammunition amounted to. We could tell what they were in small arms ammunition and in artillery ammunition. Perhaps, if the minister would inquire now, he would find in that book a page with that statement on it.


George Perry Graham: I have never been able
to find that information in any book of Estimates, either last year's, this year's or that of the previous year.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister gave that
information last year.


George Perry Graham: He gave it offhand.


Mr. STEVENS:: The minister was just
joking last year.


George Perry Graham: No, he was not.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister told us
on page 2086 of Hansard of last year just what the quantity of the reserves was.


Charles Gavan Power: Tear that page out too.


James Dew Chaplin: That is one of the pages that could not be torn out.


Donald Sutherland: I have been waiting patiently, fully expecting the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) to move to reduce this item. He did so a year ago and I am a little surprised, because I was criticised for some of the criticism which I offered, for it was stated that credit was due to the Minister of Militia in that he was reducing an expenditure which was to take place at Quebec. Surely, under present conditions, with the reductions which have taken place in many of the other items, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would not consent to this increase for the arsenal at Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Since my hon. friend
has informed the committee that those seventeen pages of Hansard have disappeared, I am losing all credit for that amendment of last year, and under the circumstances, I would not think of moving another one.


Donald Sutherland: If the minister was entitled to any credit, we would give it to him notwithstanding the absence of the pages from the record.

Supply-Defence


William Alves Boys: If the minister were given
an opportunity, I presume he could find out the value of the ammunition we are discussing, in other words, the ammunition which was received from Great Britain, about which there was so much discussion, and which has since been used-how much there was of it, and what it is worth according to the Canadian price of manufacture. I would like to have that information. If it cannot be got now, I would suggest that this item stand, because when that information is given, I wish to make two or three references to some of the evidence taken before the committee which dealt with that matter, which evidence,
I think, never reached the House. We are anxious that the House and especially the people of the country should know the facts regarding this ammunition. There are some illuminating and startling facts contained in the evidence of Col. Harrington and General MacBrien on this matter. When I get the information I am now seeking, I should like to make those references which, perhaps, would not be appropriately made without the information.


James Dew Chaplin: I think the request I
made, that the minister give us the quantity of ammunition that is being used in the country for practise purposes during the year, is a reasonable request and one in regard to which the information can be easily obtained, and that information should be brought down to the House at the same time.


George Perry Graham: All right; we will let
the item stand. [DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Sutherland) tell us what pages are missing from his Hansard? Every page of* the debate is in the copy of Hansard that I am holding in my hand. I do not know how my hon. friend got hold of that particular copy.


Donald Sutherland: I was ruled out of
order when I endeavoured to bring the matter to the attention of the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the copy of Hansard which my hon. friend has just handed me, it looks as if those pages had been cut out.
Item stands.
Grants to associations, etc., $100,000.


Mr. MILLAR:: What are the names of the associations that receive these grants and the amount given to each?


George Perry Graham: Services Association; Cavalry Association, Artillery, Infantry, Medical,
Engineers, Army Service Corps; Rifle Associations in the different provinces; University Rifle Association; local rifle associations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance, military properties, $250,000.
James Dew Chaplin: What is the reason for the increase?


George Perry Graham: Under the appropriation this year, certain services are placed, that heretofore have been under the engineering appropriation, such as $8,000, removal of snow from streets, grounds and roofs; $1,000 for power to be used, Connaught Rifle Range. There are several small votes of that kind that in other years we paid under the engineering appropriation.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister should have told us that, when we were considering the engineering appropriations, because it would
have shown an increase if those items had not been taken out.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Does this item include anything for repairs, extension or improvement of military properties at Brockville or adjacent thereto?


George Perry Graham: This is not really for repairs such as my hon. friend has in mind. That is rather for maintenance. I know what my hon. friend has in mind is the rifle range in the vicinity of Brockville. Last year some money was expended on that in the way of draining, which comes under a general vote, I think the engineering vote.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is in this item nothing for anything of this kind this year.


George Perry Graham: There is nothing specifically; but we have a general appropriation, and we treat these requests as they come up.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does this item include rental of buildings that would be used for headquarters of a military district?


George Perry Graham: The Public Works department looks after the renting of buildings.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Am I justified in saying that the expenditure indicated on this page of the Estimates is not the total expenditure for defence purposes?


George Perry Graham: In the same way that the total expenditure for post offices or any other public service never includes the amount of rental for the building, that matter being looked after by the Public Works department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Defence
[Stage Direction]
►
Ordnance arms, lands, etc., 160,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What does this item cover?


George Perry Graham: To a large extent it covers the inspection of munitions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pay of staff, $255,000.
Hugh Guthrie: For the year 1921-22 the vote under the head of Pay of Staff was $265,000, last year it was $255,000, and this year it is the same, a reduction of only $10,000. I was under the impression from the debate that took place last year that the Pay of Staff was an item that was to be largely reduced when the reorganization of the various departments took place, and all these departments were put under the head of National Defence. I do not know that I am disposed to criticize the item very much. I know I did defend it two and three years ago most strenuously, but the chief attack on that occasion was made by my hon. friend for Quebec South (Mr. Power).


Charles Gavan Power: He is of the same opinion still.
Mr. GUTHRIE1 He pointed out to the committee the tremendous number of high ranking officers which this country was maintaining. I forget how many generals and major-generals he stated.


Charles Gavan Power: Twenty-one.


Hugh Guthrie: And he argued that the pay of staff was entirely disproportionate to the force which we had in Canada. Now, I know of one or two changes that have taken place. I know that the Inspector-General has been retired on pension, and that pension does not appear in this item. He was drawing, I think, about $8,500. The department has saved that and perhaps another $1,500 in some other direction, because the saving apparently is $10,000. But the whole array of high ranking and high paid officers still remains. I always maintained that they were necessary to the service, I always maintained, and still maintain, that they were not overpaid, but, on the contrary, in many cases were underpaid. But I am waiting for my hon. friend for Quebec South to give the committee the benefit of his knowledge and to state his views in regard to this particular item, bearing in mind the attitude he took two and three years ago.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no doubt a large number of these high ranking officers have since retired, but that would not alter my
[Mr. Graham.)
views on the matter as expressed two years ago. I agree with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Graham) that we have too many high ranking officers. I do not think that those we have are overpaid, but there are too many of them all through the militia service of Canada. We have generals where we might have captains, colonels where we might have sergeants, and majors where we might very well have men of the rank and file. I think that the abuses which crept into the service during the term of office of my hon. friends opposite have been such that it has been almost impossible for anyone to get rid of these officers; and in spite of the well meant and strenuous efforts of the minister who now presides over the department, some of these men who were there during the time of my hon. friends across the floor are still there and apparently cannot be got rid of.


Arthur Meighen: That is pretty weak.


Charles Gavan Power: In many cases, as niy hon. friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) suggests, they themselves have not the virtue of resignation; and the minister when he took office found them so firmly entrenched in the positions they occupied during the war that it was impossible for him to get rid of them. I think the minister is doing his best. He has retired at least three that I am aware of, General Burstall, General Gwatkin-


Arthur Meighen: He was out long ago.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps-General Swift, and another whose name I cannot just at the moment recall.
Mr. MEIGHEN = Who took the places of these men?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know, really. If the leader of the Opposition is too shy to ask the question I will ask the minister for him.


Arthur Meighen: I have asked him.


Charles Gavan Power: I have known my right hon. friend and admired him a great many years and I never knew him to lack the virtue, of frankness in stating openly what he thought. But in his behalf I wall ask the minister to see to it that next year we have fewer of these highly paid officers and that an investigation be made in the department to see whether it is not possible in certain branches of the service to have officers of lower grades carry on the work which is now being done by those who are highly titled and consequently much higher salaried.


Hugh Guthrie: I sympathize with my hon. friend for Quebec South in the di-

Supply-Defence
lemma in which he finds himself. In the old days he was as bold as a lion in his criticism of this very item. He moved for substantial reductions and divided the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. member vote with me if I make a similar motion to-night?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I was not in sympathy with the motion.


Charles Gavan Power: I would move it right away if he would promise to support it.


Hugh Guthrie: I opposed it then and I would oppose it now. But my hon. friend is entirely wrong when he says that abuses crept in under the former administration. He knows why there are so many high ranking officers in the department to-day, but he has not told the committee. It is because of the war. These men obtained their rank, not here in the department but on the field of battle, and coming back they were not reduced, simply for the reason that they had attained their rank in the field.


Thomas Vien: Does the hon. gentleman not admire more those generals who served with great efficiency on the battlefield, and who, on returning, went back to their ploughs?


Hugh Guthrie: I admire them all. I admire all who served efficiently on the field, and I certainly would be the last one to degrade in rank a man who achieved that rank on the field of battle, no matter what his subsequent calling in life might happen to be. That is why these officers who are still attached to the department have their present ranking.


Charles Gavan Power: WThy not degrade them in pay? You did it to the junior officers throughout the service.


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Charles Gavan Power: How many junior officers holding the rank of major now serve as lieutenants in the regular forces? Why not apply the same principle to the generals?


Hugh Guthrie: There are only a certain number of offices to be filled. The government cannot employ all the deserving officers of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, that would be impossible. But where their services are required they have been retained, wherever possible in the ranks which they attained in the field. I quite see that the minister cannot disturb that arrangement. It would be most improper in my humble judgment to do so. But what strikes me as being odd is that our permanent force has been reduced since last year. It has been a
good deal reduced since my time. When I was minister we were reducing the permanent force. I notice the vote is reduced in these estimates, but the pay of the staff keeps up. That is the point I would bring to the attention of my hon. friend for Quebec (Mr. Power), who was bold enough three years ago to move for the reduction of this item when we had a larger permanent force, and who to-day is as mild as a lamb in the face of a minister friendly to his own cause, and humbly, to what three years ago he called an iniquity and an outrage.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What officers have been retired during the past year who are paid out of this item? And have any other officers been appointed in their places with or without pensions?


George Perry Graham: Speaking from memory,
and notwithstanding the statement of my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), General Gwatkin was not out of the service but was acting chairman of the Air Board. He has been retired, not with a pension, because he draws a pension from the imperial authorities. He was given one year's leave of absence, I think.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was his salary?


George Perry Graham: It was made up of what we paid him, added to his imperial pension.


Hugh Guthrie: I think $7,500 in all.


George Perry Graham: I think we gave him $3,500 or $4,000. General Burstall was retired, but is still drawing his pay during leave of absence.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will he draw that this year?


George Perry Graham: Up to October. Part of the remuneration of General Fiset, our deputy minister, is in this item. He is on leave of absence until next autumn. Then we had a reduction in the staff which perhaps accounts for a large portion of this decrease. When General Williams resigned in Toronto to take over the provincial police one branch of our department was abolished and the remainder of the staff were transferred, General Elmsley being sent to Kingston, General King to London and General Parry to Toronto. As a matter of fact, so long as the gentlemen whose names I have mentioned are drawing their pay on leave of absence the reduction due to their retirement cannot appear in the estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has anyone been appointed in the place of those who have retired?

Supply-Defence


George Perry Graham: No.


William Alves Boys: Were General Williams and General Fiset retired on one year's leave of absence with pay and also with pension?


George Perry Graham: They do not get any pension until after their leave of absence expires.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But they will?


George Perry Graham: Yes. General Fiset was retired on leave of absence on account of illness. So far as this vote is concerned, none of these gentlemen have been replaced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent Force, $5,290,000.
Hugh Guthrie: What does the permanent force consist of to-day?


Charles Gavan Power: Officers and their batmen.


George Perry Graham: The permanent force today is composed of the following:
Other
Officers	Ranks	TotalRoyal Canadian Artillery	67	616	683Royal Canadian Dragoons	20	250	270Lord Strathcona's Horse	18	187	205Royal Canadian Engineers.. ..	41	212	253Royal Canadian Corps Signal-	lers	6	45	51Royal Canadian Regiment	(Infty.)	38	353	391P.P.C. Light Infantry	34	226	260Royal 22nd Regiment	16	179	195Royal Can. Machine Gun Bde.	15	15Instructional Cadre	3	130	133Cadet Officers Specially Em-	ployed	8	8Royal Canadian Army Service	Corps	31	230	261Royal Canadian Army Medical	Corps	32	73	105Royal Canadian Army Ordnance	Corps	36	419	455Royal Canadian Army Veterinary	Corps	6	7	13Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps	21	67	88Corps of Military Staff Clerks	9	187	196General List (Officers)	*	26	26427	3,181	3,608
The number that this estimate provides for is 3,516.


Hugh Guthrie: What was it a year ago? I did not think it was 3,608 last year. It has gone up instead of down.


George Perry Graham: These are the figures:
1921-22, 3,978; 1922-23 , 3,608; this year, 3,516.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very small reaction. What was the figure for the Royal Canadian Dragoons?


Hugh Guthrie: The figure is 391.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that corps stationed at the Stanley Barracks, Toronto?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the policy of the department to keep the corps there? I think these men ought to be moved some distance away from an urban centre to give them an opportunity of indulging in proper drill and manoeuvres so that they may become more efficient. To-day their quarters are too restricted and they are not able to carry out' manoeuvres of any consequence.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is absolutely right. As a matter of fact we are at Stanley Barracks now on sufferance of the city of Toronto, our quarters at Rosedale Heights having been burned to the ground a few nights ago. The necessity of furnishing accommodation in Toronto has to be considered. To provide money for the purpose we have placed on the market through the Public Works department the St. Andrew's school property, purchased for war purposes, and the property owned by us at Rosedale Heights. If we could sell the St. Andrew's school property for approximately the amount it cost us the proceeds would go a long way towards establishing proper accommodation at Long Branch. There is sufficient land there to give all the necessary accommodation for training, and so on, and there are excellent barracks. The Defence Department hopes before long, with money obtained through the sale of militia property, to be able to work out a scheme to provide proper accommodation for the permanent force in Toronto at Long Branch.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In view of the suggestion that the department is over-officered, will the minister give us the number of men in the Strathcona Horse, and the number of officers and non-commissioned officers, with their respective ranks?


George Perry Graham: Eighteen officers and 187 men. The ranks of the officers are as follows:
1 lieutenant-colonel; 5 majors; 5 captains; 10 lieutenants; 2 warrant officers; 24 sergeants; 12 corporals; 11 lance-corporals.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The figures the minister give3 us are ample evidence in support of the charge that has been made. If my recollection is correct, on service that number of men would be in charge of 1 senior captain, 1 junior captain, and 4 lieutenants.


George Perry Graham: We are providing for 2 majors. 1 captain, 4 lieutenants and 175 other ranks.

Supply-Defence


Hugh Guthrie: How many members of the permanent force are in the military district which has headquarters at Halifax?


George Perry Graham: The number is 528.


Hugh Guthrie: What was the force there in 8ep1 ember last?	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: I should not think there would be much change. I have not the figures here.


Hugh Guthrie: Was there any part of the permanent force in the adjoining military district with headquarters at St. John during last September?


George Perry Graham: About 53, all ranks.


Hugh Guthrie: Then in these two military districts there were approximately 600 of the permanent force at the time of the unfortunate strike or disturbance that took place there a few months ago. I understand that at that time the permanent force alone was called upon in aid of the civil power. I also under stood the minister to take the view this after-, noon that the law was that the. permanent force in the first instance must be called on, and after that, if necessary, the ordinary volunteer units of the active militia.


George Perry Graham: I said the law provided that if the permanent force was available it would have to be used; if it was not available and there was an emergency, the volunteer force should be called upon temporarily, but to be replaced by the permanent force.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I intended to convey to the committee; perhaps I misstated the point. My view of it is that the Jaw does contemplate the calling out of the ordinary militia, the volunteer units, in the first instance. If language means anything, that is what the Militia Act of Canada provides. I just want to place the matter as it appears in the statute before the committee and let the committee judge for itself. This is a plain matter of fact and a plain matter of law. It will, I fancy, either now or hereafter have to be decided, and it is just as well that we consider it under this vote, which deals with the permanent force. Section 80 of the Militia Act is the law on the subject, it provides:
The active militia,-
That includes the volunteer forces of Canada as well as the permanent force.
-or any corps thereof, shall be liable to be called out, within or without the municipality in which such corps is raised or organized, for active service, with their arms and ammunition, in aid of the civil power, in any case in which a riot or disturbance of the peace requiring
such service occurs, or is, in the opinion of the civil authority hereinafter designated in that behalf, anticipated as likely to occur, and, in either case, beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress, or to prevent or deal with.
Now, the administration of civil and criminal law in this country is not left to the Dominion government; it rests with the provinces. A riot, a disturbance or breach of the peace, would constitute a breach of the criminal law of Canada, and it is the duty of the provinces, acting under the authority given them in the criminal law and under the constitution, to take cognizance of all such matters and deal with them. In other words, that is not the duty of this government or of this parliament; the province itself must take the responsibility and apply a remedy. The provinces have established municipal institutions; they have delegated provincial authority to the municipalities.


Charles Gavan Power: May I interrupt the hon. member? We had an unfortunate riot in Quebec in 1918. Why did the hon. gentleman, who was then a member of the Cabinet, not insist that the province of Quebec should take care of that riot?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, the circumstances were entirely different from those which prevailed in this instance. It was a time when Canada was actually at war and we had large military forces in the country, and it was-


Charles Gavan Power: Not openly at war with Quebec, was it?


Hugh Guthrie: No, no, not in Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: Not openly.


Hugh Guthrie: The disturbance there was in connection with a matter with which this government had power to deal; I assume that is the distinction. However, I want to state my case, and if my hon. friend does not-


Charles Gavan Power: The mayor of Quebec did not call on the federal authorities.


Hugh Guthrie: No, the federal authorities# acted on their own initiative and should bear the cost. I fancy they did bear the cost.


Mr. POWERS:: They have not paid the victims yet.


Hugh Guthrie: My only desire is to lay the facts before the committee and let the committee judge. The municipalities maintain a system, in their police forces, for carrying out the law. If under any conditions the provincial system of police is not sufficient, then any municipality, acting through its head, may requisition the active militia of Canada in
Su-pply-Defence

aid of the civil power. If the head of the municipality refuses to take action, then power is given to the county judge having jurisdiction in that municipality. It comes back to the municipality, you see. The municipality is the one specially affected. It is to the head of the municipality that power is first given to request the calling out of the militia; then to the local judge having jurisdiction over the municipality where the disturbance arises. So it was in this case. I am informed that the head of the corporation involved and the municipality refused to take action. It was open then to any inhabitant to go to the judge, and on laying the case before him the judge could take action. Following up the provisions of the statute, he would make a requisition in the form given in the Militia Act, which would be forwarded to Ottawa, and upon that the government would act.
Now, how should they act? What I submit was the first thing the government should have done on receipt of that requisition was to call out the active militia in that particular district, in that municipality or at least in that locality.


Charles Gavan Power: How does the hon. member read that in the act?


Hugh Guthrie: I am going to read the act now.


Charles Gavan Power: I thought he had read it.


George Perry Graham: He is trying to edit it.


Mr GUTHRIE:: Section 81 provides:
The district officer commanding in any locality, if he is present in the locality and able to act, or if he is not so present, or from sickness or other cause is unable to act, the senior officer of the active militia in any locality, not from sickness or other cause unable to act, shall call out the active militia, or such portion thereof as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing or suppressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, when thereunto required in writing by the civil authority hereinafter designated in that behalf: Provided that so far as the permanent force is available, a sufficient number of the force is to be employed upon the duty of preventing or suppressing such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance before recourse is had to other militia corps, and shall replace such other militia corps if so called out upon duty so soon as and to the extent the permanent force shall thereafter become available.
What I maintain in regard to that section is that the whole thing pertains to the locality. Any one reading that enactment which I have just read must come to the conclusion that it is the officer in the locality that can do it.


William Duff: It is the officer commanding the district.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us look at the situation. The government had between five and six hundred men in that particular district at the time of the strike at Halifax. Were they called out, may I ask the minister?


George Perry Graham: Certainly, but there were not five or six hundred men whom you would call fighting men.


Hugh Guthrie: They were available men for the purpose. Then the next step was to call out the active militia of Canada in that locality.


George Perry Graham: Not in that locality.


Hugh Guthrie: Why, if my hon. friend's contention was correct, the two or three hundred men he could call out in that locality would not be sufficient. He would have to scour the country and go to Vancouver to get enough men to put down a disturbance. The thing is preposterous.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that at all.


Hugh Guthrie: As a matter of fact, he did not have to go to Vancouver, but he did go from Halifax to St. John, and from St. John to Quebec, and from Quebec to Montreal, and from Montreal to Kingston, and from Kingston to Toronto and London, and all that time there was apprehension of a riot or disturbance in Cape Breton. The meaning of the law to my mind is as plain as plain can be. The officer in the locality is the one you should make your appeal to. He calls out the permanent force in the locality.


George Perry Graham: It does not say so.


Hugh Guthrie: Then his recourse is to
the ordinary active militia of the locality, but instead of that the minister, under some authority which I suppose he obtained from the Minister of Justice, some opinion which he obtained from the law officers of the Crown, scoured the country from Halifax to London, Ontario, to secure a Jorce of men, at a cost of some $60,000, to go down to Nova Scotia to suppress this apprehended strike. Now what did it all amount to? I take the statement of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Kyjte) this afternoon, the government whip in this House. There had been some little outbreak, some little breach of the peace, a blow or two had been struck. Someone became afraid. The mayor of the city was not afraid. He knew that under the Militia Act, if the military forces of this country were brought down there at his request the municipality would have to pay the cost. That has been the law for a very long time and has been enforced in this

Supply-Defen ce
country. If a municipality seeks to have the militia called out in aid of the civil power, the law says that it shall pay the cost.


George Perry Graham: It has not always been
collected.


Hugh Guthrie: It may not be possible
in many cases to collect a debt, but under the Militia Act, this becomes a debt due to the Crown. All that the government can do under the circumstances is to get judgment, and I venture to say that if the government press they will get the claim. After the permanent force is gathered up, and the active militia in the locality, and I have no doubt there were lots of them, enough at least to put down such a petty little disturbance as occurred in Cape Breton on that occasion-


George Perry Graham: Had the hon. member
been minister and under the act got a requisition duly signed by a man authorized to sign, and giving his reasons therefor, would he or would he not have complied with the act?


Hugh Guthrie: I would have complied
with the act to this extent. I would have utilized the permanent force I had at Halifax and the militia units in existence in that neighbourhood, and would have done the whole thing at one-quarter the expense incurred by my hon. friend, and I would have asked the municipality to pay it.


George Perry Graham: How would you ask the
municipality to pay it? If the hon. member will look at the records he will find that he and his government attempted to collect very few, if any, of such accounts.


Hugh Guthrie: I am talking about the facts of this case. I am not aware of the facts in other cases.


George Perry Graham: You should be. You were there.


Hugh Guthrie: But this case I tried to
.explain as I went along. Now they could not get the mayor to act. He understood the responsibility. But the refusal of the mayor, if the judge acts, does not relieve the municipality. The judge can bind the municipality, if he is the judge in the district in which the municipality is situated, just as firmly as can the mayor. Someone went to a judge, and to a county judge having jurisdiction over the area. Personally I do not know who it was. My opinion is-it may be only rumour-that it was someone who had to do with the British Empire Steel Corporation. There was a strike on at their works and some difficulty had arisen there. They became afraid of what might happen, and someone went to
the judge and persuaded him that conditions were such that he should request that the active militia in Canada be called out. I assume that when the minister brings the papers down, we shall find out exactly who did go to the judge. But somebody went who had an interest in the matter, because the mayor of the municipality had refused to interfere. Then the minister sets about to gather up the permanent force in this country from as far west as London, and to bring them down to Nova Scotia to settle what looks on the face of it to be either a small breach of the peace, a small disturbance, or perhaps something that involved some danger to the company's property. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South this afternoon led me to believe that if steps were not taken to prevent disorder, it might result in the men abandoning the pumps and refusing to permit other men to work at them, and that damage might ensue to the company's property.
Assume that all is correct; I assume it is. Suppose damage did accrue to the company's property. The company has the same remedies as a private individual to recover that damage. If damage, through the wrongful act of somebody else, occurs to my property, or to the' property of any hon. member in this House, the law is there: We must take advantage of it and recover the damage. We cannot in every instance, although we apprehend that damage will be done to our property, call out the militia of Canada to stop it. I submit that if all they feared was damage to property they had no right to call out the militia at all. They had only right to call out the militia in aid of the civil power "where," in the language of the statute, "a riot or disturbance of the peace requiring such services occurs or is, in the opinion of the civil authority hereinbefore designated at that district, anticipated or likely to occur." A riot or breach of the peace either in being or likely to occur, is the sole reason for calling out the militia. Now the government called the militia out. They gathered up the permanent force from half way across Canada and sent it down to Nova Scotia at a cost to this country.-I will not say yet to this country-of sixty thousand dollars odd. In the first instance the Militia Act provides that that money shall be paid by the government, and that the government shall have the right to collect it from the municipality. The municipality which seeks the aid shall pay the cost. That is reasonable, that is proper, I submit. At all events that is the law, and we cannot change the law unless we repeal the act under which this transaction took place.
Supply-Defence

Now I was somewhat alarmed this afternoon, as were other hon. members on this side, when the minister merely hinted that he proposed to bring in some measure-a bill or an estimate, or something of the kind- to saddle upon the Dominion of Canada the cost of taking the permanent force to Nova Scotia to stop this trifling disturbance which took place last September-that occurrence which some feared might result in a breach of the peace and others feared might result in damage to the company's property. The minister intimated during the discussion this afternoon that he proposed to bring in an estimate to pay that $60,000 out of the funds of the people of this country, when the law says it shall be paid by the municipality. The mayor says he did not request it, and would not, but the judge-he is above the mayor under this statute-having jurisdiction over that municipality said "We must have the military force of Canada," and he would bind the municipality to pay for it just as well as the mayor or the warden, the power being exactly the same. Now, I submit, with all deference to the opinion of others, that it will be going a tremendous distance if this country is to be saddled with the cost, to the extent of $60,000, of putting down a little disturbance in Cape Breton. Surely a couple of hundred men, which the'minister undoubtedly had at Halifax, would have been more than sufficient to quell that disturbance' or to have given security to the people that no great damage was going to be done to the property of that municipality. Failing that, in the locality, as stated in the statute, there were any number of militia men, any number of militia units that might have been called out. At all events sufficient men could have been procured for all practical purposes at less than one-half the cost which is fixed by the minister in his statement today as something like $60,000.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not
going to be allowed to mislead the committee-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Perry Graham: -unintentionally, because of the payment of $60,000. He has admitted that the country had to pay that in the first place. He knows, as an ex-minister of the Crown, that the only way that we could get the money, to meet the expenditure involved when there was no vote for the purpose, was by a Governor General's warrant. A Governor General's warrant was issued which was drawn on to the extent of approximately $60,000. That amount of money must be re-
[Mr. Guthrie.!
placed by a vote of parliament and for that purpose an estimate will be brought in to supplement the estimate for the present year. That course would have to be taken irrespective of the collection of the money from the municipality so the fact need not worry my hon. friend. A vote would have to be brought in regardless of the fact of whether the municipality pay the money in three months or six months in order ,to cover the amount of the Governor General's warrant.
Now as to the other point my hon. friend made, I am not going to quarrel with him about the law. I imagine that I got as sound advice as he could possibly give, although I respect his opinion. He was not the responsible man to interpret the law to me under the circumstances, and my legal instructions were that the Militia Act meant what it says: That in the first place if it were emergent the permanent troops available should be taken. If there w'as an emergency and the permanent troops were not at the moment available then we could call out the volunteers; but it is apparent that the act did not contemplate the volunteers being called out for that purpose when it says, in language as plain as the English language can state, that as soon as possible the volunteer force must be relieved and replaced by the permanent force. H the English language means anything the language of the act means that. Now that is what was done.
Another thing. My hon. friend says the cost would be very much less had what he suggests been carried out. But he forgets this fact: When you call out the volunteer force you have to pay the men on that force from $1.25 up to $10 per day, while the permanent force are under pay and get nothing extra for such service. Therefore if the cost of transportation was equal in both cases the expense for pay in the one case would be twice as much as in the other. So I think my hon. friend will find if he works the matter out and looks carefully at the law and what the practical result of each operation would have been that it did not cost the country any more to bring the permanent force to Cape Breton than if we had violated the law and called out the volunteers.


Mr. MANION:: In view of the minister's statement this afternoon that the cost to the country will be roughly $60,000 and that they may put in some claim to the municipality, if the facts are as stated and if the permanent force were called out by the government at the request of the judge, and the judge made the requisition for troops at the request, say, of the British Empire Steel Corporation-

Supply-Defence


William Duff: It is not fair to say that. It was not made at their request at all.


Robert James Manion: I have not made any
statement, I am saying-


William Duff: You say "at the request of the British Empire Steel Corporation." That is not fair.


Robert James Manion: I have not made any statement at all. I am saying that if the facts turn out to be that the judge requisitioned these forces at the request of the British Empire Steel Corporation-


An hon. MEMBER:: We will read you an
imaginary letter in a moment.


Robert James Manion: -is there any reason why the British Empire Steel Corporation should not be asked to foot this bill instead of the people of this country? That is what I should like to ask the minister. Is there any reason why the company should not be billed, if the militia or the permanent force were called out for the purpose of protecting their property, and according to the statement made here there was very little necessity for the permanent force to be called out for that purpose?


George Perry Graham: This is a hypothetical
case. In the first place the judge
10 p.m. is authorized by the Militia Act to say whether it is necessary to call out the force or not. It is not for my hon. friend or for any other member to say. The law provides that the judge shall say whether it is necessary. The judge said that the military forces were necessary and they were provided under the act. Now, let me ask my hon. friend this: Would he exclude from the citizenship of any place men who were even of the British Empire Steel Corporation?


Robert James Manion: No, I would not, but if it
turned out that the British Empire Steel Corporation asked for this force to be called out unnecessarily I think they should foot the bill.


George Perry Graham: The judge decides whether it is necessary or not. Perhaps hon. gentlemen will have a better chance of judging the facts in this matter when the correspondence is brought down, which will take place when the vote to which I referred is called. I do not think it would make any difference. No matter to what part of' the community a citizen belongs, if he is a citizen of a certain locality, if he is in the grocery business, the steel business, the law business, even the medical profession, he has a right to be protected. The fact that he belongs to some corporation is no reason why we should say that he should not have a right under the statute to call for protection.


Robert James Manion: I am not speaking of that at all. He would have a right to protection; but according to the statement made this afternoon, the threatened riot was of very small importance-


William Duff: That is not correct either.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman seems to be an advocate in this House for the British Empire Steel Corporation.


William Duff: That is not a fair statement and I will not stand for it. I will not allow the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) to say that I am an advocate of the British Empire Steel Corporation. He had better clean his own skirts first before he touches mine.


Robert James Manion: If the hon. gentleman's
skirts are as clean as mine, he will have no reason to complain.


William Duff: They are a great deal cleaner.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Lunenburg has been interrupting me at every sentence, on behalf of the British Empire Steel Corporation.


William Duff: The hon. member had no right to mention the British Empire Steel Corporation's name.


Robert James Manion: That is a question of
opinion.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River has the floor. T would ask him to address the Chair on the subject.


William Duff: Yes, and address it in the
proper way.


Robert James Manion: I have been addressing the Chair and I wish to go on doing so, if the hon. member for Lunenburg will permit me. If it should turn out that it was on the request of the British Empire Steel Corporation that the militia were called out, the British Empire Steel Corporation should foot the bill, and I have no reason for retracting that statement. Have any requests been made so far to the municipality or to anybody to foot the bill to replace the money that the government have had to pay out on that account?


George Perry Graham: I think I replied to that
question to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon. So far as I know, no.

Supply

 De fence


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear the reply; otherwise, I would have expressed the opinion I express now. This trouble occurred last autumn; we are now in the month of March, and I cannot understand how a matter would be allowed to stand so long. I presume by this time there will be another council, and the hon. gentleman will not be able to deal with the men who were members of the council at that time. The minister intimated this afternoon that inasmuch as the requisition came from a judge, there might be a difference as to responsibility. I do not know where he gets that idea. I venture to say that he did not get it from the Department of Justice. The statute is clear on all questions of dispute, and there is no doubt on that whatever. If the requisition was regular, it was under the act. It it was not, the government had no right to interfere at all. If it was regular, then the liability of the municipality is precisely the same if the requisition proceeded from the judge as if it proceeded from the mayor, warden, or other officer, as the case might be. On the question of liability there can be no doubt, provided that the government had the right under the act. The minister has said that they had. Still, we are now about eight months off and no assessment at all has been made against the municipality.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I rise to a point of order. This afternoon, Mr. Chairman, you ruled that the discussion must be relevant to the item under consideration. Surely this is not relevant to the item under consideration.


Arthur Meighen: Does that need a ruling, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: I will rule that the discussion is relevant and within the item that is being discussed by the committee.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the municipalities have protested that they did not requisition these troops; that they were not necessary; that order could quite easily have been maintained without them; indeed, that the disorder was due rather to the presence of the troops. I am not saying that they are right; but I say that if the government acted regularly, then the municipalities are liable, and the government can present to this House no excuse for not promptly assessing the municipalities in accordance with the law.
While I am on that point, let me emphasize this as well. I quite admit that if the requisition comes in the regular way and contains the proper assertions as provided in the act, it is the duty of the government, as is stated clearly in the act, to provide from the active

militia or from the permanent force, so far as it is available in the district and later from the permanent force, to supply the place of the active militia called out-it is the duty oi the government to provide sufficient troops to take care of such an emergency as is feared. But the extent to which the government provides militia is not something that is fixed by the act at all; that is entirely under the responsibility of the government. The government is the judge of the necessity as regards the extent to which it shall send militia to take care of the situation. The government is not the judge as to whether militia should go or not. The warden, or if he fails, the judge, has that responsibility. The government gathers militia from the ends of this country right up into western Ontario, and sends them down to Nova Scotia at a cost to the country of some $60,000, a cost that under the act the country is never intended to pay. I know that it must be paid first of all out of consolidated revenue, and it might be very likely that a vote would have to be asked. But it was the duty of the government to assess this amount, and it looks as if there had been something wrong in the matter, or the municipalities would not be defying the government, and the government would not be standing aside apparently afraid to send them a bill.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, the
amount of $60,000 named by me is an approximate figure. The bills for transportation are not all in yet. I agree with my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that the judge's jurisdiction includes the municipality. I hope I have not left the impression that the government does not propose to make any claim. The government does propose to make a claim as soon as it has all the bills in.


Arthur Meighen: How is it that it takes
eight months to get bills for transportation?


George Perry Graham: The are not all in.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister explain why they are not in?


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I do not intend to discuss the question whether or not the forces should have been sent to Sydney at the time of the strike. In my judgment it is an idle waste of time to debate that here, because it was absolutely necessary that the forces be sent to Sydney. That is the judgment of all people who know anything of the circumstances prevailing at the time. All of Nova Scotia, in fact, all of eastern Canada was interested in the matter of having troops sent there, I do not, however, rise to discuss that phase of the matter; but I wish to suggest the

Supply- -Defence
propriety of amending the law so that the cost of sending those troops to Nova Scotia in this particular instance should not be assessed against the municipalities. I do not think it is fair in the case of civil disorder in any part of Canada where troops are required to preserve peace or order, that the cost and expenses of the same should fall upon the municipalities. The statute is archaic in that respect; it should be changed, and the expense should be borne by the nation. Of course, troops should not be called out without grave necessity. There should be ample justification for calling them out.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the power of requisition should be in the hands of the municipality and the costs assessed against the Government?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the
power of requisition should be taken from the municipality, and I think it should in many cases. Having that power in municipal hands does not work out well, because, frequently, they decline to call out troops when they should be called out because they are alarmed about the contingent cost. I would suggest to the minister the propriety of submitting to his colleagues the question of amending the statute, so that the cost in such cases should be borne by the country and not by the municipality, and that they should also take into consideration possibly the question of placing the requisitioning power in other hands than those of the municipality.


Arthur Meighen: I would be the last to
deprecate any steps that are 'absolutely necessary in the interest of the preservation of law and order. As to the actual facts in Nova Scotia, others are better judges than I am; but I do not concur with the hon. member that, merely because there were certain fears of loss of property, not due to not or disturbance, there was a ground for sending the militia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was no question of fear; there was an actual danger of loss of property running into billions of dollars.


Arthur Meighen: Very good; the law is
the law. But the law does not provide against that; it only provides for the use of the militia upon requisition, such requisition to be based on the apprehension of disturbance or riot, and not upon any fear of the loss of property due to men leaving their work. That is not a disturbance or a riot. The hon. member says clearly that it was necessary to have the militia come from London. We had
57^-r
a disturbance in 1919 in western Canada, and I really think there was more apprehension and more cause for it at that time that there was in the case in Nova Scotia, but we did not use the militia. The municipalities never requisitioned the militia but the situation was taken care of by civil forces. It was quietly taken care of without very great expense, and a great emergency was met. The militia should be requisitioned only in very emergent circumstances indeed, and only when all other means have failed; and I should think it would be very serious to put it into the power of the government to decide when the militia should be used. 7'he responsibility for the preservation of peace and order is a local responsibility under our constitution, and it is well that it is so. If that were not the case, then the cost of the preservation of peace and order would be far greater than it is now, and the acceptability of the means of preserving it to the localities affected would be much less than it is to-day. Now, inasmuch as the responsibility is on the municipalities, on the various bodies constituted by the provinces, it cannot be in the power of the Dominion government to say whether or not these bodies are capable of carrying it out. If they will assert that they are not able to handle a situation that exists and therefore ask the higher power to intervene, then the Dominion government intervenes to the extent that it is necessary to do so. And the Dominion government must be the judge of that question. But the municipalities must first declare their inability to cope with the situation. It follows from this, that it would not be possible for the Dominion government to be the deciding authority as to when the municipality is equal to the occasion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I did not suggest that the Dominion government should have the power to decide that.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad I have got
the hon. member to that point. Once you get to the point that the municipality must decide when it is necessary to invoke the assistance of the militia-and I am glad that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) agrees that the municipality must be the party to decide that question-then you cannot possibly have them assess the cost upon the country. They will easily come to the conclusion that they need help, that they are not going to employ extra police themselves, that they are not going to take the responsibility of action and suffer the probable loss of popularity. They will readily come to that conclusion so long as they
Supply-Defence

can do so at the expense of someone else. And that is why it seems to me that suggestions such as the hon. member makes would not be in the public interest. I do not know of any better system than that which we have. Ufet the local responsibility stand, and let the local liability for its results be there just as it is in the law to-day. If this were regularly observed there could be no question as to where the liability rests in this case. I am not seeking to bring it back on the municipality; I know that the responsibility and the liability are both defined if things were regularly carried on. If' they are not regularly carried on, then it is this government that is responsible. And I do not understand why eight months should intervene between the sending of troops to Cape Breton and the ascertaining of what that expedition cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and wages, $250,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Is this the regular item?


George Perry Graham: It has become necessary
to transfer certain amounts totalling $28,990 required to pay the salaries of the engineering staff in connection with the Tuxedo barracks at Winnipeg. These buildings were originally a war hospital and were gradually taken over for military occupation.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not an increased expenditure?


George Perry Graham: No; there is really a decrease of $3,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Schools of instruction, $115,000.
William Alves Boys: Where are the schools of instruction, and what is the reason for the increase?


George Perry Graham: These schools of instruction are located in the centres of population, one of which is in Ottawa.


William Alves Boys: What work are they doing?


George Perry Graham: They train officers and noncommissioned officers. The chief of staff states that owning to the lack of funds in 1922-23 the pay of non-permanent active militia officers attending the schools of instruction was cut out and very few officers attended. There are 1,800 unqualified nonpermanent active militia officers chiefly young men who have not seen service overseas. The chief of staff is of opinion that these officers should attend the schools of instruction at
[Mr. Meighen.1
the earliest possible opportunity, as their number is increasing daily. The increase is really for the instruction of these 1,800 unqualified officers.


William Alves Boys: The minister refers to a lack of funds. Was there not a sufficient vote last year?


George Perry Graham: In the distribution of the vote last year they cut out this item to' which I have alluded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Warlike stores, $160,000.
Arthur Meighen: How is the large increase explained?


George Perry Graham: We gave a number of tents to the fire sufferers in northern Ontario, and although every person always promises to return what is loaned by the government, the Militia department is one place that is always forgotten by those who borrow. Then stores that we received from overseas having been depleted have had to be replenished. While this item is somewhat increased, it really fluctuates with the requirements, and this year it is heavy for the reasons I have given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Compassionate Grant to Miss H. M. May, $04.67.
Donald Sutherland: What is this item for?	*


George Perry Graham: A compassionate allowance to Miss May for salary during a protracted illness.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy. $1,500,000..
George Perry Graham: 
Arthur Meighen: This does not come under National Defence.


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: There is no notice given, and this huge item should not be entered on now.


George Perry Graham: Then we will take up item No. 5, civil government.


Arthur Meighen: That is better.

Supply-Defence


George Perry Graham: This item always goes with the militia items, but it is not part of our current expenditure, of course.
Item stands.
Civil government-National Defence-salaries, $712,681; contingencies, $50,000.


Hugh Guthrie: The details of this item I notice are to be found at page 6 in the Details of Civil Government Estimates which were recently brought down. The amount asked for this year is 8712,681.


George Perry Graham: That is a misprint; it
should be $762,681.


Hugh Guthrie: In the report that was
laid on the Table the total is given at page 7 as $712,681, against $701,797 last year.


George Perry Graham: It comes to the some
thing when we add the contingencies.


Hugh Guthrie: The result, as I have it
here, shows a proposed increase of about $11,-
000.	My reason for drawing this matter to the attention of the committee is that ever since the conclusion of the war the civil government vote has been rapidly decreasing. When the war ended the department was pretty heavily laden with clerks whose services were only requisite during the war and demobilization. It is rather disappointing to find that instead of a substantial decrease for the present year the minister is asking about 811,000 more. What is the reason of the increase?


George Perry Graham: The increase is more apparent than real; there is actually a decrease. The departments now constituting the Department of National Defence were amalgamated so far as the Canada Gazette was concerned, on January 1st. Now, there are two branches of civil employees,-one temporary, the other permanent. Under the new arrangement the department has been reorganized as to the permanent officials. As a matter of fact the estimates this year for the work to be done by the civil employees represents a decrease of $135,000 compared with last year. The apparent increase is $6,000 less than the statutory increases under the new classifications of the Civil Service Commission, which amount to about $18,000. So if we left it at that there would be a saving of about $6,000. Twenty-five members of the temporary staff -I speak from memory-are being made permanent, and 12 or 13 members of the permanent staff have retired, which makes an increase of 12. But the work will be done by the permanent staff and less than 100 temporary employees. Since December 31, 1921, the reduction in the amount paid to temporary employees-out of other votes, not out of the civil government vote-amounts to nearly $700,000; this year the reduction in other votes, will be about $135,000. So that what appears to be an increase is really in respect to what we call the permanent civil government staff, which will now include all employees but a comparatively few who have been paid out of other votes. There is, then, really a decrease instead of an increase.


Hugh Guthrie: The total increase for
civil government votes in the various departments as shown in these estimates is $265,-
000.	It would look to me as if the increase has been pretty general.


George Perry Graham: There is no increase here; there is a decrease.


Hugh Guthrie: Last year the minister
had 464 clerks; this year he has 476. Last year the vote for civil government in this department was $701,000; this year it is $712,000; yet the minister says the increase is apparent rather than real. We were told last lear that by the amalgamation of the Department of Militia and Defence, the Department of Naval Service and the air force, wonderful economies would be effected, but anyone who paid much attention to the glowing language of the minister when he predicted these great savings will be disappointed. Last year the vote for the air force was $1,000,000; for the naval service, $1,500,000; and for the militia, $10,788,000, a total of $13,288,000. The estimates the minister now brings down provide for the air force $1,250,000, an increase of $250,000; for the naval service, $1,515,500, an increase of $15,500; for militia $10,036,000, a decrease of about $750,000. Adding them all together, I find that the decrease for the three departments is less than half a million dollars- and all the militia estimates are not yet down. I do not believe that any great saving is going to be effected. In fact, you can save down to the point where your expenditure becomes practically waste. You can cut your naval, air force and militia expenditure down so far that it is a question whether your expenditure is worth making; whether it would not be wiser to wipe the slate clean and have no expenditure at all. If the minister intends to have any force that is of value, he cannot cut below his present estimates. I did not believe when he made his statements last year with respect to proposed savings that he was going to end the year with any very great reduction of expenditure, and I find on looking over the public accounts and on examining these present estimates that no
Supply -Defence

very serious saving has been effected. During the trying period of demobilization following the war there was some excuse for rather high militia expenditure, but we are getting pretty far from that day now, and I am sure it is disappointing to those who took the minister at his word last session to find that notwithstanding the amalgamation of all these services the reduction proposed by his estimates is less than half a million dollars.


George Perry Graham: I am surprised at what my hon. friend says; he either did not hear my explanation, or he says it is untrue.


Hugh Guthrie: I am only taking the figures in the estimates.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman knows where this saving is; having been in the department, he is familiar with the matter, as some other hon. members may not be. The saving from December 31, 1921, until the end of this year in respect to temporary employees will be $679,000.


Hugh Guthrie: From what vote have they been paid?


George Perry Graham: A great many of them
were paid from the war demobilization vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I am discussing the votes that are before the committee.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend forgets
that these hundreds of employees were paid out of other votes. We are now going to run the department with very few temporary employees; the staff is practically all included in this civil government vote. I have pointed out that last year and the year before, an amount of $670,000 was paid out of some other vote, and there is a saving to that extent. Let me give these figures again. On December 31, 1921, the total salaries were $1,449,156; on April 1, 1923, the amount will be $770,051, a saving of $679,105. In the reorganization we are making permanent all employees whom the commission thought should be made permanent, and these are included in the vote. I have stated that there will be a saving of $135,000 in the coming year over the amount paid out last year-from other votes, not from the civil government vote, In militia and defence on April 1, 1922, there were employed in permanent work, but not paid out to the civil government vote, 402 persons, whose salaries amounted to $600057. There were employed on war or other temporary work, 281, at a cost of $276,969. That makes a total of 683 employees, involving an expenditure for salaries of $877,026. In the naval service, 82 were doing permanent work, costing $119,700 ; 31 were doing tempor-

ary work, costing $20,130; total, 113, costing $139,830. In the air service, 92 were doing permanent work, costing $128,276; these were paid out of the general fund of the Air Board. These items make a total salary expenditure of $1,145,132. That was on April 1, 1922. The personnel this year for the Department of National Defence is 476 permanents, as against 576 in the three departments last year, and 48 temporary employees as against 312 last year, or a total of 254 employees as compared with 888 last year. The salary list this year is $770,051, a saving from the previous year of $375,081.
Let me point out in connection with the permanent work that there are 100 fewer employees doing permanent work now, or soon will be, than a year ago, although they are not all in the permanent Civil Service. That represents a saving of $135,352.


James Dew Chaplin: If the number of employees has been reduced to the extent the minister claims, how is it that he requires a new man at a salary of $6,000 under the name of Controller of Expenditure?
Mr. GRAHAM. The position of Controller of Expenditure was created by statute. I brought down a bill in this House endeavouring to map out a plan for the organization but this House and Upper Chamber amended it and declared by statute that at a certain^ date the then Minister of Naval Affairs should become the Controller of Expenditure. So far as its involving any extra expense, it is not very much now because the controller is also acting deputy minister, and he is getting one pay for doing the work of both positions.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the Controller of Expenditure at this salary?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Desbarats.


Hugh Guthrie: He is also deputy minister?


George Perry Graham: He is Deputy Minister of Naval Defence up to a certain date, which has not expired yet. The statute was so amended that Mr. Desbarats, who was then Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs, should continue as such up to a certain date when automatically he becomes Controller of Expenditure In the meantime General Fiset having retired, I have named Mr. Desbarats Acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy. $1,500,000.
Arthur Meighen: Has the minister not a
statement of naval defence to lay before the
MARCH 6, 192b
Supply-Defence
House and an account of the achievements of the fleet? I noticed that on Christmas Day or New Year's he issued a message to the Canadian fleet at considerable length and of some rhetoric. Surely he can at least repeat that performance.


George Perry Graham: It is difficult for any of us but my right hon. friend to repeat a brilliant performance. The second time it is usually not quite so good as the first. I did not issue any classic to the navy or to the fleet. I issued the statement to the naval service. The act under which our naval activities are carried on in Canada is called the Naval Service Act, and it does not refer to the navy, but to the naval service.
It was on the advice of technical officers that a new idea in the development of the naval service was proposed and accepted by the House last year. Under that policy the cruiser Aurora, which I always maintained, and the technical officers agreed with me, was not a wonderful success as a training ship, was put out of commission and the staff paid off with the allowances provided by order in council. That cost in the neighbourhood of $70,000, if I remember correctly. The submarines were also retired. In place of the old policy another policy was announced during the last session. It was that the two destroyers would be retained, one on each coast, accompanied by two mine sweepers on each coast.


Arthur Meighen: Trawlers.


George Perry Graham: I have learned that that is not the proper name to call them. They now have the dignity of mine sweepers. That is what they are for anyway. On the destroyers there are about 160 men all told. The mine sweepers will require about 25 men each, and the two on each coast are now being fitted out. One of the destroyers is now on the Pacific coast. So the fleet is divided into these two sections.
There are two lines of policy advocated by naval authorities. One is that it is the duty of a nation to prepare for high seas warfare, and the other is that its first duty is to develop the defence of its coast. There is a good deal of difference of opinion on this point among the authorities, but the technical officers in my department advise me that the latter is the proper thing for the Dominion of Canada, that is, training for the defence of our coasts. As the estimates only got through in the summer last year, we were not able to put the "Aurora" out of commission and pay off the officers and ratings until late in the fall.
Under the new system no training takes place except that carried on on the destroyers and among the permanent force. What is aimed at this year is this: The permanent force, officers and training staff, at Halifax and Es-quimalt comprises approximately 500 men. These are practically all Canadians, and that I think should be a matter of pride to the people of Canada. The policy I might say is based on the fact that the present minister, backed up by the government, believes that for this young nation the proper policy is to train our own young men for naval service so far as it is possible to do so.
In addition to that there are 500 men of the naval reserve. These men are professional sailors. They need no training in high seas service, but training in gunnery, and all that kind of thing, will be given them so many days each year at our training grounds either at Esquimalt or Halifax. Canada has a very large naval reserve in her men at sea. In addition to that the Navy League has done, and is doing, good work. The Navy League, with which we hope to work, has already placed something like 200 boys on Canadian ships, boys who have got their training through the efforts of that league. In addition to the 500 men of the naval reserve, we are providing for the training af approximately 1,000 men of what will be known as the Volunteer Naval Reserve. I may say that the first offer to raise a company under this programme came from the province of Quebec, from a brother of one who is already in the navy, but up till the present time no active steps, except preparations for the development and training of the volunteer reserve, have taken place. At Esquimalt and Halifax we are now busily engaged in the preparation of the accommodation which will be required, and we have purchased and placed at these points the gunnery equipment for training purposes. There will be a school teacher at Esquimalt and one at Halifax to train the young men that come in the rudimentary knowledge that is requisite for naval service.
In addition to what I have mentioned we have a number of young men being trained in the British navy, not officers but seamen. About 25 of these have recently returned for duty in our own naval sendee. Furthermore, young Canadians have been periodically sent over to be trained as officers in the British navy. I might mention two of these young men, one of them being the son of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) the other a son of Mr. Justice Brodeur. Both are very bright active young men and will make their mark in the navy. The object of
Supply-Defence

the whole navy scheme, as I have tried to point out, is not to begin to try to undertake the defence of the high seas-that is impossible for the Dominion of Canada at the present time-but believing that in years to come as we develop we will require naval protection, as we require a militia, it is thought best, at least by the members of the government, that the present is the time to give our young men that training which will fit them, both as officers and men, to take their place in the naval service of Canada as it develops.


Donald Sutherland: Who is the present admiral of the fleet?


Jacques Bureau: The present member for
Lunenburg (Mr. Duff).


George Perry Graham: There seems to be competition among the aspirants. However, I may tell my hon. friend the list of applications is not closed. At present the head of the naval service is Commander Hose.


Arthur Meighen: Do these trawlers work
in co-operation with the British fleet?


George Perry Graham: They are mine sweepers
but my hon. friend insists on calling them trawlers.


Arthur Meighen: Well, mine sweepers.


George Perry Graham: They did very effective
work on behalf of the British fleet during the late war.


Arthur Meighen: I refer to the work of our mine sweepers at present.


George Perry Graham: There has been no war since we had our mine sweepers out.


Arthur Meighen: I do not doubt at all that so long as we are protected on the high seas, so that >
nobody can get to our shores, the trawlers will be quite effective to protect them. My hon. friend calls them mine sweepers instead of trawlers, but as long as the high seas are safe at the expense of somebody else I do not think it makes very much difference by what name they are called. I am, though, interested in this programme of training 500 men-either 500 at Esquimalt and 500 at Halifax or 250 at each place, I am not sure which-and 500 more of a volunteer reserve, training them for service in vessels that do not exist and that the government does not contemplate shall exist. I would like to know what training they are to get and what they are to do when they are trained; how much training they get each year applicable to the force at Esquimalt and Halifax and to this volunteer reserve? These men are to be trained for how long each year-trained at 
what and trained for what? How long are they going to use their knowledge when they are trained, and how much of the expense is borne by the government and how much by private subscription through the Navy League?


Jacques Bureau: And what will be their daily diet?


George Perry Graham: I hope I did not lead the House to believe that the Navy League was part of the organization. I may say that, with respect to the Navy League, the feeling is better than it was a couple of years ago. That seems evident from the correspondence we get and we hope to have some kind of working arrangement with them before very long.


Arthur Meighen: I hope so too.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend has asked me a qustion about training. This is the arrangement:

Every year all ratings will be required to perform a certain number of days' training at one of the naval bases for which they will be fully paid.
The training will vary from 14 days to 21 days according to the class of rating.
All ratings will be allocated to the different branches on entry and will be required for that branch before the completion of their first period of enrolment.


Arthur Meighen: After the 14 to 21 days' training, what authority has the minister for saying these young men will be trained to be of value for anything? Has he authority from anyone to say that they will serve in the British navy, because that is the only fleet in which they could serve unless they are going to serve in the fleet of some foreign country? Has he any authority to tell us they would be of value in the case of any emergency at all? In a word, is the training of these men of any value at all when we have no place to put them?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is pessimistic. This country is going to move. I have tried to point out to him that in the years to come as We develop and as we expand we shall, under this system, have young men of our own to put into naval positions instead of bringing men overseas to fill those positions. My right hon. friend forgets that this kind of training takes place in the naval reserve in Great Britain.


Arthur Meighen: Over there they have a
fleet in which to put the men they train.


George Perry Graham: It takes place also in the United States. Wherever they have a reserve that kind of training takes place. Now

Supply-Defence
let me ask my right hon. friend a question: Is he in favour of militia training? If so let me ask him what good towards making a soldier does 21 days' training a year in the militia do?


Arthur Meighen: The training for the
militia, as my hon. friend knows just as well as I do, is wholly different from the training for the navy. You can fit a man for service in the militia with a short training each year, although perhaps not under the system which my hon. friend provides for in the estimates he has brought down. However, that such can be done has been proved; but you cannot train men for the naval service with only a few days of service each 11 p.m. year. If my hon. friend proposes to train them for a few days each year, what is he going to do with them when they are trained? He has no place to put them. What career have they got to look forward to after having gone through this training unless they serve in the navy of some other country, or unless the government contemplates some indescribable naval service which does not exist to-day? If they are training men for a naval policy that the government does not contemplate, then this is nonsense. it is futile. If the government contemplates a different naval policy from what it has to-day, possibly this can be understood; but at present we are simply a laughing stock.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: Just a laughing stock, just wasting money. We are depending on another country to keep our high seas safe, knowing no enemy wrill reach our shores, knowing that the only things that can reach our shore are wasps and hornets that could not give trouble even to an invader.


William Duff: I am sorry my constituents are not present to hear the speech of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen).


Arthur Meighen: There is one here.


William Duff: While they voted against him at the last election, they would certainly go to the polls and justify their votes at the next election, because what he does not know about naval matters or matters pertaining to the sea would fill more than the seventeen pages which the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) lost out of his book. I think I am on record in this House as regards naval expenditure, and I am not here to-night to take back one word that I have said on a number of occasions in the different sessions that have preceded this one; but when the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) says
that he does not know what will become of those men when they have trained for ten or twelve days, he is quite right.


An hon. MEMBER:: Does the hon. member know?


William Duff: Yes, I know, and I am going to tell you. The right hon. gentleman-I will be charitable to him-displays his lack of knowledge. The Naval department will get these men, not from the schools, but from the fisheries of this country, from the men who are to-day engaged either in the fisheries or in the merchant marine, not, thank goodness, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which the leader of the Opposition is responsible for wasting $80,000,000 on, but the real merchant marine. These young men in the spring and summer will be engaged either in the off-shore fisheries, the -deep-sea fisheries or the shore fisheries of this country; they will be earning money and bringing wealth from the sea into this country. In the fall of the year, when they give up their vocation of fishing, if I understood the minister's programme correctly, they will be taken to the naval base at Halifax. I think the minister would be beter advised if he would have the men at Lunenburg where they are; but they will be taken to the city of Halifax and trained at the naval dockyard there where the greatest extravagance took place during the time when the leader of the Opposition was a member of what was known as the Union government. After they have been trained for ten or twelve days, if necessary they can be taken out on the high seas and trained either on mine sweepers or the two destroyers which the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries accepted from the British government. I think the idea is an excellent one, although I am not much in favour of a Canadian navy. In the first place, I do not think this country can afford a navy; but it can afford a certain amount of training for our fishermen and sailors, because after they have the training there is no necessity for them to go into the British navy or the Americain navy or any other navy; they can return to their vocations and help to pay the public debt of this country. They will go aboard the ships of the Canadian merchant marine, and they will be of some value to this country.
If the Minister of Defence brought in an estimate of $5,000,000, or $10,000,000, or $50,-000,000-and that would not give us half a decent navy-what would happen? We would have thousands of men taken from a productive industry and put into a non-productive industry, and we would try to make
Supply-Defence

ourselves believe that we had a Canadian navy. If we spent $5,000,000, could we defend our shores? The leader of the Oppposi-tion does not know anything about the matter; he does not know' whether it will take $10,000,000, $20,000,000, $50,000,000, or $100,000,000 to protect our Canadian shores properly. The leader of the Opposition, during the war, helped to vote $30,000,000 for what was called a navy to protect our Canadian shores, and we had to call on the United States government and the Japanese government to protect our Pacific and Atlantic coasts. That is the kind of naval policy my right hon. friend had; yet he dares criticise the present Minister of Defence for the volunteer naval reserve for which he asks in the small amount we are asked to supply to-night. It is amusing to me, almost as amusing as it was when the leader of the Opposition was talking about the strike at Glace Bay. He did not know a single, solitary thing about the matter; yet he dared get up and endeavour to make us believe that the county court judge had not the proper authority to call out troops. Of course, we do not mind the leader of the Opposition; he is a sort of joke on this side of the House.
The leader of the Opposition, of course, criticises this expenditure. What I would suggest to the Minister of Defence would be to clean up the mess in*the naval dockyard at Halifax, which mess is the result of the work of the government of the leader of the Opposition during the war and since the war, and of what was called the Purchasing Commission which was never authorized by parliament and which was appointed by the leader of the Opposition and his colleagues against the wish of parliament. They spent about $8,000,000 in buying stores which were not necessary; they put them into the naval storehouse at Halifax with the result that, to-day, after the Minister of Defence has sold some of the stores at about a quarter of their value, because he had to do so, there are still at the naval dockyards at Halifax about $2,000,000 worth of stores, and the leader of the Opposition more than anyone else in this House is to blame for that condition of affairs. Therefore, he should be the last one to talk in this House about extravagance or waste of money.
At the present time, due to the bungling of the late Union, National Liberal, Conservative, Tory Government, the people of this country had saddled upon them five ships. These ships were no good to the British navy and those gentlemen of the late Union government had those ships thrust on them. This present government had the good sense to lay up the
[Mr. Duff.l
big ship called the Aurora but at the present time they have two destroyers, the Patriot and the Patricia. Those ships are useless for naval purposes; but they can be utilized, and I am going to sugest to the minister to-night a way in which they can be used. Some time last Ostober, one of those boats was sent through the Panama canal and she is now on the Pacific coast. We have only two boats and the Pacific coast is entitled to one. Instead of bringing her back in the spring and spending a large amount of money in order to do so, I would suggest that the minister leave her on the Pacific coast. We have on the Atlantic, one known as the Patriot, and I would suggest that the minister put her to some practical use. This boat is no good for any purpose of defence; but we have a serious situation, not exactly on the Atlantic coast, but on the Atlantic ocean during the summer time. I am sorry the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) is not in his place, because this matter which I am going to discuss now, I am discussing as much for his benefit as for that of the Minister of Defence. Many fishing vesesls, carying some 3,000 men, proceed every year from Nova Scotia to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, where they anchor and the men fish for about four months of the year. In addition to these Nova Scotia vessels which anchor on the banks and from which the men fish, there come over from France what are known and what the leader of the Opposition referred to as trawlers. I do not believe the leader of the Opposition knows what a trawler is any more than he knows what a mine sweeper is. A trawler is a fishing vessel which fishes with an otter-trawl. These come from France and they can fish off the Grand Banks as well as our Nova Scotia vessels. During the last two years these French vessels have committed great depredation to the fishing gear of the Nova Scotia vesesls, and it has been impossible for the fishermen of these Nova Scotia vessels to do anything to prevent the destruction of their gear. These French trawlers swoop down, sometimes in the day and sometimes at night, where the sailing vessels' gear is set and they destroy not only the gear itself but all the fish on it with the result that a great loss accrues to the fishing vessels of Nova Scotia. I would suggest to the minister that during the summer months when the fishing season is at its height the destroyer Patriot be sent to the Grand Banks of Newfoundland with the Nova Scotia fishing fleet. She will do more good there than she can going up and down the coast of Nova Scotia, and she would be able to afford protection to the fishermen.

Supply-Defence


George Perry Graham: We shall have to let her
off for the boat race.


William Duff: I shall come to that in a moment. I say that this destroyer can do more work accompanying the fishing fleet than she can patrolling the Nova Scotia coast. If any depredation is committed the captain of the fishing vessel can notify the captain of the destroyer, who can ascertain the name of the French trawler and bring the matter to the attention of the Canadian authorities. I think that some international arrangement should be made with the French and the Canadian governments whereby something might be done to put a stop to these depredations.
The Minister of National Defence referred to the fact that one of these boats might be used in connection with the fishermen's races. I must thank this government on behalf not only of my own constituents but of the people of Nova Scotia generally for his generous act last fall in attaching the destroyer Patriot to the race and giving her up to the international race committee. This destroyer did good work while the preliminary races, were being-held off Halifax. The minister was good enough to send the Patriot to Gloucester with the racing vessel Bluenose. During the races in Gloucester the citizens of Nova Scotia were proud to see the Union Jack flying from the stern of the Patriot. She was only small, it is true, but she did represent Canada. I must also thank the government and especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for helping us in our time . of trouble during that race.	It may be
recalled by hon. members that a sad accident occurred at that time. One of the crew of the Bluenose accidentally fell into the dock and was drowned after the last race. The Prime Minister and the Minister o? National Defence, on leaminig this fact, immediately telegraphed to the captain of the Patriot, with the result that the body of the sailor was taken to his home town in Lunenburg on the destroyer. On behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the International Fishermen's Racing Committee, and on behalf of the people of the province of Nova Scotia I wish to take this occasion to thank the government for their action in this regard.
Now, I think that if the minister carries out the idea of a volunteer reserve it would be a good thing for Nova Scotia. In that way perhaps a number of young men who, if they had no naval reserve training, wight think of becoming second-rate lawyers, would with this training become good sailors, mates and captains and good citizens. I am willing
to give this volunteer naval reserve idea a fair trial, so that instead of having quibbling laywers we might have good citizens who would be able to help us in the production that is so much needed to-day.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the resolution should carry until adequate expression is given to the profound gratitude of the House for the inimitable manner in which the hon. member (Mr. Duff) not only sounds the depths of ignorance of all other members, but displays his own supreme erudition on every subject under the sun.


William Duff: I did not say every member;
I said you, and you alone.


William Alves Boys: You are a burlesque.


William Duff: I did not refer to anyone else.


Arthur Meighen: It is an undying advantage to the House that we have among us one who can speak with pontifical authority on every subject from sewer gas to angels' wings.


William Duff: You should be modest.


Arthur Meighen: The non. member was moved by very deep and pathetic sympathy for me, ignorant as I was, not knowing even what was to become of these trained cadets after they had got the advantage of government, service at Esquimalt and Halifax. In his sympathy for me, and for the House in having to listen to me, he rose to tell us all about it. "Why," he said, "the member does not know where these boys are coming from. I will tell him where they are coming from; they are coming from the fishing vessels, from the fisheries, and they are going to be trained at Esquimalt and Halifax. They are not going to be trained for any purposes of a military or naval character. No, that would be a waste of their time." I hope the minister got that. "That would be a waste of their time. They are going to be trained [DOT] from ten to fourteen days and then are going back to fish, and they will be better fishermen as a result of the training the minister is going to give them on the trawlers."


George Perry Graham: Mine sweepers.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. So at last we have the exalted purpose of Canadian Naval policy as now practised. It is to make better fishermen of those who are now suffering the depredations of French vessels on the shores of Nova Scotia. It is to teach the boys how to catch more fish from the water in order to feed the people of Canada. That is the purpose of the naval policy of the Minister of National Defence, according to
Supply-Defence

tliis court of appeal of last resort from the county of Lunenburg.
Well, I thought I was only stating a very simple truth and one generally accepted when I said-without the advantage of this later information-that this $1,500,000 was wasted, in so far as the defence of our country is concerned or in doing of the slightest thing to contribute to that defence, which others are now providing. When I stated that this money was wasted I thought I was uttering the simple truth. I felt fairly confident I was right. I must admit that for the moment I forgot that the same assertion was made a year ago by the hon. member for Lunenburg. Had I remembered that he was of the same opinion I should have had serious doubts as to the soundness of my view. But now that I utter again his conviction of a year ago he is lost in dismay at my ignorance.


William Duff: I did not mention the word
"ignorance"; I said lack of knowledge.


Jacques Bureau: That is more technical.


Arthur Meighen: Let us leave the member for Lunenburg and come to the trawlers now christened the mine sweepers. Is the purpose of our naval policy really what the hon. member says it is? Are these vessels really to do what he says? Is the object of this training to send boys back to be better fishermen or to send them back to some mercantile marine, to be able, as I suppose, to handle the rigging of the mercantile ship a little better? Is the hon. member for Lunenburg rigt? Let us ascertain whether or not we have a naval service and whether we should vote a million and a half for what is actually being done to-day. That is what is before the committee for consideration. Do not let us deceive ourselves into thinking that we are lifting a hand by a burlesque of this sort to aid in that naval defence of which we share the advantage every hour. We are not. It would be far manlier of us to sweep the decks clear and say that we are not, and to stand before the world in our true colours. When we have a Minister of Defence who says we cannot go to the high seas because it would be too dangerous for the light craft that we have and that the high seas must be swept clear by someone else; when we have a Minister of Defence who is compelled to make such an admission, compelled by the exigencies of the policy of which he is sponsor, then we are doing nothing whatsoever in the way of defence, and it would be far manlier of us to say that we are doing nothing and to make the records of the House and the estimates show that we recognize the fact.

Now, it has been stated here that we met the last emergency without adequate provision ourselves. I know quite well we did. I know the necessity of adequate provision was scoffed in this House year after year. We were told that we were March hares and April fools because we ventured to suggest that something in the way of a manly effort should be made to provide against a contingency that seemed at least to be looming in the near future if not on the immediate horizon. We the Conservative party attempted to provide against that contingency, we attempted to bear some share that we thought befitted the strength of this country. We were stopped, we were not able to get the requisite legislation through. Then the war came upon us and we were without provision. We might of course have had something of the nature of what we have to-day under the Naval Service Act, but there was no possibility of getting anything under that act that would be of any use at all. There is no one knows that better than the minister who is now the Minister of National Defence. The only thing we could get was along the lines we sought to provide and were prevented by the Liberal majority in the Senate. [DOT] That is why we had to depend upon the strong arm of the British navy when war came-an arm to v'hich no ounce of muscle was added by this Dominion.
And here we are now. If we are not ready to do something in the way of naval cooperation that is at least worthy the strength of this, the greatest Dominion of the Empire, do [DOT] not let us play with the subject. Do not let us put a million and a half dollars in the estimates and tell the world in one breath and through the mouth of the responsible minister, "This is naval defence"; and then through the mouth of his parliamentary deputy, "This is merely to make better fishermen of our boys-a method of increasing the fish production on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts." I think we ought to stand forth in our true colours. I do not think this proposal is of any value. It must be plain that it is not. To be training for a life that our fishermen cannot follow in any naval vessels of ours is useless. If they intend to follow a naval career in another country, the place to be trained is there. To be trained for action on vessels that do not exist, and that the minister will not say are in contemplation to exist-well, surely that is nothing better than a sham.
Now, would ^t not be wisdom to wipe out the vote altogether rather than to go on in this way? Do not let anyone say that this is my policy. I think we ought to do something

Supply-Defence
worthy of this Dominion. I do not think we ought to expend on a naval service the equal per capita of what the Mother Country does. She has responsibilities that are not ours in an equal share. But we ought to do something that is worthy of our standing, of our strength, of our responsibility, of our wealth, of our exposure here on two coasts, worthy of our place in the Empire, the place we have won. I think the government would be well advised to come before parliament with a programme that measures up to these requirements.
Mr. DUFF. Before the vote carries, Mr. Chairman, I would explain for the benefit of the leader of the Opposition why it is wise to spend this money on the volunteer naval reserve. I think it is well known to most hon. members that the men who join the British navy do not come from the colleges or the schools of the Old Country; they come from the British fishing fleets and the mercantile marine. It is a well-known fact to every hon. member that when the war broke out thousands,-yes, tens of thousands of fishermen and merchant sailors were transferred to the navy and did invaluable service in the North Sea and other parts. Does not every one know that even in our own country men were taken from the fishing fleets on the Pacific and the Atlantic coast and from our merchant marine? They were the only men the government could get for naval duty during the war. They were the men that the government, of which the leader of the Opposition was a member, used on the leaky trawlers and old tug boat3 with which they pretended' to defend the shores of Nova Scotia. Is it not a well-known fact that the fishemen from the island of Newfoundland were perhaps, the very best men among those that took an active part in the operations of the British navy at Gallipoli? And yet the leader of the Opposition has the temerity to get up in this House and say that the Minister of Defence does not know what he is going to do with these men after he trains them. If war broke out tomorrow, and Great Britain needed more sailors for her navy, we could send thousands of men across the ocean for service in the North Sea or anywhere else. It is not necessary that these men should join a naval vessel after they complete their training in our fishing boats or in the mercantile marine. Their training during the rest of the year is probably just as effective as any training they will get under this scheme of the Minister of Defence.
The leader of the Opposition must have forgotten history when he criticized what the
Liberal party did for the naval defence of Canada. Why, if I were a Tory I would be ashamed to mention a word about our Canadian navy. Was it the Liberal party or the Tory party that brought down the Laurier Naval Bill? Was it not the Tory party which voted against that measure under which the Liberal party wanted to build ships for the defence of Canada? What did the Tory party do for naval defence? What naval vessels did we have to protect our coasts when war broke out? It is quite true that in 1912 the Tory government tried to vote $35,000,000 as a contribution to Great Britain for the building of three dreadnoughts, which would have been attached to the British navy in the North Sea. What use would they have been for the defence of Canada? And would they have been manned by Canadian boys? That was the naval policy of the Tory party in 1912. What happened in 1914 when war broke out? Had they spent one dollar for naval defence up to that time? No. Even the four ships that we provided under the Laurier administration were out of commission, due to the fact that certain Nationalists in the province of Quebec had the Tory party by the throat. Those vessels were tied up at the docks, the Niobe at Halifax and the Rainbow at Esquimalt. It took six weeks to put the Niobe in commission for war service. And'yet the leader of the Opposition dares to criticize the Liberal party and the Liberal government in regard to their record on naval defence. If our policy had been carried out in 1910, Canada would have had an effective navy when the war broke out. But because the Nationalist friends of the Tory party would not allow them to continue the Laurier naval policy we were left totally unprotected against attack by the German navy. I think it is high time the leader of the Opposition stopped talking about what the Tory party did for the naval defence of this country.


Donald Sutherland: Before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I must express my surprise at the developments which have taken place during recent years. It has generally been conceded that one of the most difficult positions to fill is that of an expert seaman on board a man-of-war, but apparently under the present system it is only necessary to teach men to be good fishermen and they automatically become good navy men. Nine days' training will equip an ordinary fisherman so that he will be equal to anything that may be required of him for the naval defence of this country.
I was also surprised at the references to the Canadian navy made by the hon. member
Supply-Defence

who preceded me (Mr. Duff) and what his party had attempted to do while in office previous to 1911. Notwithstanding the fact that they had occupied the .government benches for about sixteen years, during all that time not a contract was let for the building of a single warship. They went out of office and that was the condition of affairs that confronted their successors. It was well known that it would have been impossible to establish shipyards in this country and do anything effective in the way of building ships of war in the short period during which the administration that succeeded the Liberal government was in power. An attempt was made to vote $35,000,000 for the building of three dreadnoughts on the other side, where the work could be quickly done and there was reasonable prospect of rendering aid at a time when it was needed.


William Duff: The hon. member says we
could not build warships in this country from 1911 to 1914, when the Conservative government was in power. Is it not a fact that under the Union government 63 ships were built from November 1918 to some time in 1920?


Donald Sutherland: My hon. friend's
question is about as consistent as his argument tha^ fishermen are competent to man ships of war. No one would suggest that these poor little wooden ships of the mercantile marine were competent to defend the coasts of this country or to go out and meet the enemy. Who ever would take that view must be-well, I will not attempt to describe the condition his mind must be in.


William Duff: The ships that the Union government built from 1918 on were not wooden ships; they were steel ships.


Donald Sutherland: It was impossible to build shipyards here from which ships of war could be turned out that would be competent to meet the enemy-impossible, in any event, to turn them out in time. As late as June 1914, hon. gentlemen opposite were saying that no emergency existed, were pointing out that the sky was clear, that there were no clouds on the horizon, and that there was no need of taking any particular action in the matter of defence. It is also significant that even at that time the leader of the government, instead of taking notice of the criticisms that were being levelled against the administration, was organizing the various departments in order to be ready in the event of anything happening. The deputy ministers of the various departments and members of the Militia

Council were a committee organized for that purpose. My hon. friend says that the Liberal party had a policy; but the Liberal party went out of power without doing anything. It is true they called for tenders for the building of ships, but those tenders were filed away for months and no contract was let; nothing was done. Now we find the government asking the committee to pass an item of this size without any pretence that anything effective will result. They say it is merely to equip trawlers and mine-sweepers. I can scarcely understand the minister referring in a jocular way to these trawlers as mine-sweepers, when he knows perfectly well that there is no necessity for mine-sweepers at this time; they are being employed, as the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has said, for fishing purposes. So we are voting this money for trawlers to go on the fishing banks of Newfoundland and elsewhere.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Donald Sutherland: The hon. member
pointed out that one of these ships of the navy should be accompanying the fleet in its fishing operations off the banks of Newfoundland and also off the Pacific coast. It is the greatest burlesque ever brought before Parliament to ask the committee to vote money, supposedly for the naval service, but, according to one who claims to be an authority on the subject, actually for trawlers for fishing purposes.


Arthur John Lewis: I think the name "mind
sweeper" would be appropriate, because you would have to sweep your mind diligently to find a word that would give to what we have now in the way of vessels for the purpose of defence the dignity of a Canadian navy. I have nothing to say about the Conservative or the Liberal party so far as past policies are concerned. Mistakes may have been made. If the Liberal policy of 1910 had been put into effect, we might now have a navy which could be regarded as a real defence unit. At present, however, we have nothing. It is admitted on all sides that we need a certain amount of defence on the high seas. We have extensive coast lines on the east and on the west and whether we like it or not, these are to-day being protected by the Mother Country. We may not claim that they need protection, but it is a fact that we are producing largely for export trade; our mercantile vessels must sail the high seas, and if our markets are to be kept open in different parts of the world it is essential that these trade routes should be protected. We as a part of the empire should

Supply-Defence
assume our share of that burden of protection We are just as well able to bear the burden as Great Britain is, in fact, the people of Great Britain are more heavily taxed than we are. A nation canot live unto itself, and if we have arrived at the point where we can call ourselves a nation, we must bear part of its burden. We have entered into the League of Nations and that League has declared that in some way or other the whole world must be policed. Are we, as a self-governing nation within the empire, taking our part in national defence? If the policy advocated by the minister is a step to that end, I am willing to support it. But I sincerely hope that the policy advocated by the Liberal party twelve or thirteen years ago may one day be put into effect, so that we may be able to hold up our heads in the world, of which we are one of the important nations.
Mr. SUTHERLAND. What has become of the students who were attending the naval colleges at Esquimalt and Halifax?


George Perry Graham: Provision was made by
which the majority of them entered other universities. Some were admitted to the Royal Military College at Kingston.


Donald Sutherland: They did not take to fishing.


William Duff: More's the pity.


George Perry Graham: For education.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
Wednesday, March 7, 1923