1925-06-24

REPORT-MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.- Mr. Raymond.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay on the table the usual report of the organization of the staff of the House of Commons.
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved:
That the House doth concur in the report of the organization of the staff of the House of Commons.


Mr. SPENCER:: We did not hear what
this was.


Hewitt Bostock: Every year at the beginning of the session the Speaker tables the report of the Internal Economy Commission, and it is more regular that at the end of the session the report of the organization of the staff of the House of Commons be tabled. It contains nothing except what is statutory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR *	RETURN

Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	How much freight, in pounds, was forwarded from Anxiui Station, county of Matapedia, in thes years 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively?
Inquiry for Returns

2.	What revenue did the Canadian National derive
from above shipments?
3.	How much freight, in pounds, was forwarded C.O.D. to said station, and what revenue did the Canadian National Railways derive from said freight?
4.	How much freight, in pounds, was received C.O.D. at said station, and what revenue did the Canadian National Railways derive from said freight?
5.	What revenue did the Canadian National Railways derive from, (a) goods by express, (b) telegrams, (ci sale of express orders, for the above years, respectively ?
6.	What was the revenue of the Canadian National Railways on the sale of tickets, at said station?
7.	How many freight cars were forwarded and how many received during said years?
S. How many sidings are there at Amqui?



ALBERTA COAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Some time ago the Canadian National Railways entered into an arrangement with the government .of Ontario to carry 25,000 tons of Alberta coal to Ontario for $7 per ton, as an experiment and demonstration. I have in my hand a copy of a telegram from the acting premier of Ontario and the mayor of Toronto, Mr. Foster, that this arrangement has been withdrawn. The railway in question promised a similar demonstration to the Coal committee of this House to aid a national coal supply. Has the arrangement referred to been cancelled? If so, by whom, and why?
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Reference was made to that the other day. It is an arrangement between the railways and other parties. A hitch seems to have occurred in some way. I am not familiar with the particulars.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I notice that the order " motions " has passed to-day and nothing i3 down. It really looks as if the government were deliberately flouting the orders of the House. Motions that passed three and a half months ago entailing very little work are called attention to time after time, and nothing follows at all. It really means this, that the government do not want to bring them down and are going to defy parliament. I call attention also to a question which I have had on the order paper since the 10th June. One would think if any question ever was simple, this is:
What sums in addition to the estimates has the government requested parliament to authorize pay-

ment of in government measures during the session of 1925?
The government apparently have kept track so little of their own measures that in fifteen days they cannot compile an answer to that question.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Will my right hon. friend not see that for himself in the Votes and Proceedings?


Arthur Meighen: I am not in the government. I have not a horde of officials at my back to do this work.


Ernest Lapointe: Anybody can get that
from the Votes and Proceedings.
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):	My right
hon. friend should not say a " horde " of officials. The same officials serve the present government as served his, only they are not so big a "horde." I will call the attention of the ministers to these returns. I think they ought to be brought down. Of Course, some very innocent looking returns on paper, when you come to have to chase all over Canada in the different ramifications of t department inside and outside, mean a good deal more than they appear to mean. As to the expenditure in bills, I should think an answer could not really be compiled until we discover what is going to be done in regard to the Home Bank.


Arthur Meighen: It is the government's
requests I ask for, not what goes through.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Then my right hon. friend would speak up rather glibly, as he did in regard to Carillon, and say, that these requests having been made they would also be granted.


Arthur Meighen: Your right !hon. friend did not do anything of the kind. The minister could not criticize one sentence his hon. friend said, and did not attempt to do so.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I should notsay it was my right hon. friend. I will excuse him, but evil communications sometimes get the right man in the wrong place.



PULPWOOD CONCESSIONS IN MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Has the government received an application for the establishment of another pulp mill in greater Winnipeg or Selkirk, and if so, is it considering the advisability of granting sufficient pulp-wood and water-power?

p-" ' i
Canteen Funds


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will find a similar question answered in yesterday's Hansard.


Arthur Meighen: The question yesterday
was as to whether or not the lease to Mr. McArthur or to the Spanish River Company, whichever it is, prevented the granting of any lease to others. The inquiry yesterday was whether there was an application for another lease, to which the answer was "yes". But that does not cover all that my hon. friend asks.


George Perry Graham: I will call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Argenteuil) to the question.


Arthur Meighen: I suggest that perhaps it might be well not to sit so late that the ministers cannot be down when the House opens.



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) Is the Minister of Labour prepared yet to make a statement as to the conditions in Cape Breton and the result of his mission there?
Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: There is nothing further at the
moment to add to the statements already made except that last night I wired again to the district board of United Mine Workers to ascertain when they would be in a position to resume the consideration of negotiations looking to a settlement. My hon. friend understands that the miners locals and possibly the miners individually through a referendum, are considering the proposals that are now before them for settlement.


Mr. JACOBS:: Was the Minister of Labour in Cape Breton officially or as amicus curiae?



PAY OF PERMANENT FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Early in May I put three questions on the order paper concerning rates of pay of the permanent force. After leaving the question unanswered until May 20, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) allowed them to pass as orders for returns, but since that time no return has been brought down. The same questions were put on the order paper last session and systematically disregarded. The minister was asked these questions during the discussion of his estimates and he promised to put a statement on Hansard. This also he systematically ignored. I would ask the government to table the information. Will these returns be brought down before the estimates
for national defence are taken up? That will be the appropriate time to have them.


Hewitt Bostock: Orders of the Day.


Arthur Meighen: Is there no answer to my hon. friend's question?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The Minister of National Defence is not in his seat, but I may say that I beal'd him remark yesterday that he had a return or two to bring down and would probably tab e them later. I hope that the ones to which my hon. friend refers are among the number.



CANTEEN FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
m

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading, of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 32, respecting the disposal of the canteen funds.
He said:	Perhaps a word of explanation
might be in order. The House will remember that the bill as originally presented to the House of Commons received more than ordinary attention. It provides for the disposal of canteen funds amounting to about $21550,000 more or less, and the Senate has amended it in one important respect. There are other amendments of minor importance but the one to which I refer is the amendment which removes from the bill the cause or subsection providing that an amount of $100,000 shall be placed in the hands of the central board of trustees for the maintenance in Ottawa of a central adjustment bureau. The Senate has found it advisable to remove that feature from the bill. If I read the subsection perhaps hon. members will more readily understand the nature of the change:
That the sum of $100,000 shall be allotted and paid to the central board of trustees to be expended by such board from time to time in such amounts and in such manner as i-t may be deemed best for the maintenance and assistance of an adjustment service and bureau at Ottawa for the benefit of ex-members of the forces and their dependents.
This has been deleted. The Senate has also struck out the provision contained in section 3 for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a central board of trustees. If therefore we accept the amendments of the Senate this amount of $100,000 will not be handed over to anyone except to the parties mentioned for the general distribution, that is to say, the provincial governments. In this connection I have received a communication dated June 10, on behalf of a number of soldier organizations in Canada. Perhaps I had better read it:
Canteen Funds
[Stage Direction]
Dear Sir,-At a meeting of the representatives of the Dominion chartered associations enumerated below held at the Trusts Building, Ottawa, on Monday, June 8, the following resolution was passed unanimously:
" That the time has arrived when no further grants be made by the government from canteen or public funds to any veterans' association for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a service or adjustment veterans' bureau in Ottawa."
That communication is signed by the actingsecretary, Mr. Keeling, who states that the following representatives were present:	One
frofil the Canadian Legion, one from the Army and Navy Veterans, one from the Grand Army of United Veterans, one from the Amputations Association, one from the Tuberculous Veterans' Association. These different bodies were represented at that meeting and expressed the view that no canteen funds should be appropriated for the purpose of maintaining an adjustment bureau, at least so far as they were concerned. The only large association that does not appear to have been represented at the meeting is the Great War Veterans' Association. I have not read the evidence given before the Senate committee, but I am informed that the secretary-treasurer of the Great War Veterans' Association in his testimony stated that the association did not desire to administer the adjustment bureau. It would appear therefore that the veterans generally are more or less hostile to the adjustment bureau. This clause I introduced on the suggestion of the royal commission. In view of these circumstances, I do not think it would be in order to ask the House to pray the Senate to desist from their amendment.
There is another amendment by the Senate which perhaps is a little more embarrassing. A sum of five thousand pounds was handed to His Excellency the Governor General from the United Services Fund of England for distribution amongst ex-imperial soldiers in Canada. I understand the money has been placed by His Excellency in the hands of the Receiver-General, with an intimation to the government that appropriate action would be taken for its distribution. The Senate has removed this feature from the bill. No reason is given for their action, except that the distribution was to have been made by the Central Board of Trustees. If the bill passes in its amended form there will be no provision at all for the distribution of this five thousand pound fund, except in so far as the government may think proper to proceed after prorogation. I cannot say at present what action we will take with respect to it. I may say, however, that I would be inclined to hand over the five thousand pounds to the Canadian Red Cross Society for distribution.
Mr. POWER:: Has this grant, made
through His Excellency the Governor General, any strings attached to it?


Mr. BELAND:: There is no special condition attached to the transfer of the money.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Where should it go?


Henri Sévérin Béland: For the benefit of eximperial soldiers and their families in Canada.


Mr. CALDWELL:: From what source did this five thousand pounds come?


Henri Sévérin Béland: From the United Services Fund-originally from that part of the canteen fund which was allotted to the United Kingdom.
There is another amendment by the Senate that the sum of fifteen thousand dollars be repaid to the disablement fund in reimbursement of the loan made by the trustees of the fund to the Dominion Veterans' Alliance. I am thoroughly in agreement with this.


Mr. CLARK:: Is that to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund or out of the canteen funds?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Out of the canteen funds.


John Arthur Clark: Why?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the recommendation of the Senate. As the one hundred thousand dollars which was destined to the central board of trustees for the maintenance of a bureau in Ottawa has been deleted from the bill, apparently the Senate thought it proper that the Disablement Fund should be reimbursed in this way.


John Arthur Clark: I agree with the reimbursement, but I think it should be reimbursed out of the consolidated revenue fund. I cannot see what liability the canteen funds are under to reimburse the money.


Henri Sévérin Béland: With all due respect for my hon. friend's opinion, I really think it was a proper provision for the Senate to make.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Does this item of $15,000
cover all the advances?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, with the exception of $5,000 which was provided by a special vote of the House two years ago.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Pension Act



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 70 to amend the Pension Act.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, there is a small amendment made to clause 1 which I do not consider of any importance. It is the removal of the words, " or attributable to," which we inserted in this House. Clause 3 has been struck out. It provided for an extension of five years for the payment of pensions to dependents of pensioners in classes one to five. I shall have a word to say about this amendment a little later on. The Senate has also amended section 13 of the act, providing that applications for pensions may be received within seven years after the date of discharge. This is quite agreeable to me and, I think, should be to the House.


Charles Gavan Power: Will this have the effect of increasing the number of pensioners, and therefore the charges on the revenues of the *country?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It will to a certain degree.


Charles Gavan Power: If so, has not the Senate initiated a money bill?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend's point is
perhaps well taken. But the Pension Act may be said to be different from any other act, because tha payment of pensions is really in charge of a body which has judicial functions beyond the power of parliament. Another amendment which has been made has relation to marriage after the appearance of disability. This question of the payment of pension to widows whose marriage to the returned man took place after the appearance of disability has engaged the attention of parliament more or less since 1919, and there has been a wide difference of opinion with respect to it, both in the parliamentary committee and on the floor of the House. It is a very important clause. I remember when we discussed it in the first instance the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) said that the clause was certainly not clear. It is very involved indeed. In view of the number of amendments to the Pension Act this vear, however, that are really favourable to the returned men generally I do not thing we should ask that the Senate desist from this amendment. Section 10 of the bill which is deleted by the Senate amendments, provides
for the payment of pension to widowed mothers who become dependent after the death of the son. I may say that the office of the minister is deluged with correspondence from all over the country, much of it consisting of complaints with regard to the provisions of the act, or the action of the Board of Pension Commissioners, but I do not think I have received a single complaint from widowed mothers who had become dependent and who had been awarded a pension below the maximum. I believe they have received pensions commensurate with their need, and I do not think we should insist that this clause remain in the bill. Another amendment made by the Senate is of a more serious character. It is to section 16 and has relation to appeals to the Federal Appeal Board. The Board of Pension Commissioners have decided in some cases that pensions could not be awarded where the disability was the result of misconduct. In every case where such a decision was brought to my attention and the soldier thought he had not been fairly dealt with, I advised an appeal, and in some cases where appeal was taken the appeal board sustained it, that is, declared that the disability was attributable to military service. The Board of Pension Commissioners, however, have taken the ground that from a decision on their part that a disability was the result of misconduct there is no appeal; that such a matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Appeal Board, and the Justice department have upheld that view. But I do not think it is fair that a man whose application is turned down by the Board of Pension Commissioners because his disability is alleged to be the result of misconduct should have no appeal. We had provided in the bill as follows:
"Upon the evidence and record upon which the Board of Pension Commissioners gave their decision an appeal shall lie in respect of any refusal of pension by the Board of Pension Commissioners on the ground that the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death was not attributable to or was not incurred during military service or was the result of misconduct."
These last six words, which are added to the former clause, have now been deleted by the Senate, so that where the Board of Pension Commissioners decide that a man's disability is the result of misconduct he is precluded from appeal. In my opinion, where a man is turned down on that ground the decision means that his disability is not attributable to military service, but if the decision were simply that his disability was not attributable to war service, he would 'have an appeal under the act. According to the Justice department he has
Pension Act

no appeal where the ground for the rejection of the application is that the disability was the result of misconduct. I think, therefore, that we should a& the Senate not to insist on that amendment. There are only twelve cases involved, I understand, but even twelve cases should not be wrongly dealt with. It does not mean that these men will receive pension or will not; it simply means that when the board decides that the disability is the result of misconduct, if the soldier holds that the disability is not the result of misconduct but is attributable to service, he should have the privilege of appealing to the Federal Appeal Board.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: They have changed the original clause, too.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In what way?


Arthur Edward Ross: They have left out the words in line 16 " not attributable to or was," referring to a disability incurred through military service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


James Arthurs: What proportion of cases awaiting appeal are affected by the change in the original clause, by the deletion of the words " not attributable to "? I think that is a more serious change than the one regarding misconduct. It makes a very serious change not only in the existing act but in the amendment passed by this House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend will remember that the bill as originally brought down to the House did not contain the words " not attributable to " and it was suggested by my hon. friend himself, or by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross), that we should insert those words. I at that time held the view that if we said " was not incurred during military service," that covered the whole ground, and I still hold that view. The phrase has a wider interpretation.


James Arthurs: I think the hon. member for Kingston and myself disagree with the minister vqry seriously there, because cases arise-and there are now cases in appeal- where there was no manifestation of the disease during military service, and the whole case turns on the question of attributability.
I thought, and I still think it would be wise to retaiu these words.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection to asking the Senate to leave in those words. I do not think there would be very much objection to that. But I would point out that even if the disease manifests itself long after discharge, a decision must be given as to 
whether it was incurred during military service or not, and in my humble opinion the words my hon. friend suggests have a narrower interpretation than the phrase " incurred during military service." But, at all events, that is a matter that can be adjusted in the motion.
The Senate has agreed with very important clauses that we have passed at this session. For instance, the House has made the bonus a permanent part of the pension this session; that clause has been left intact by the Senate. That is clause 13. Another amendment dealing with venereal disease contracted prior to enlistment which was passed by the House has also been left intact. Another clause which deals with tubercular pensioners and the payment of pensions to them after discharge from, hospital has also been respected in its entirety by the Senate. There was also a new provision that an allowance for wear and tear for clothing should be made in amputation cases; that has also been left in its entirety; also the payment of pensions to parents who-are in dependent circumstances, when the son still living is by reason of certain circumstances unable to provide for their support has been left intact.
The House will remember that we made an important amendment this year which provided for no cancellation of pension in the case of an alleged prostitute until the opportunity had been offered to the woman to present her defence. That also has been maintained. I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House hath agreed to the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fifteenth, eighteenth and nineteenth of their amendments to tho Bill No. 70, An Act to amend the Pension Act, and hath disagreed to the first amendments for the following reasons:
1.	In section one, the words "was attributable to or" should not be deleted as it is claimed a disability may make its appearance long after discharge and the words " incurred during military service " if they are the only ones left, may lead to narrower an interpretation.
And hath disagreed to their third and fourteenth amendments for the following reasons:
2.	Sections 3 and 9 should be reinstated: They provide for payment of pension to dependents upon the death of pensioners in classes 1 to 5 regardless of whether the death is a result of military service or notIt is represented that high disability pensioners are less than others in a position to provide in advance for their dependents.
And hath also disagreed to their sixteenth and seventeenth amendments for the following reasons:
3.	Section 16. The words " not attributable to or was " in the 16th line, and " or was the result of misconduct" in the 17th line, should not be deleted for the reason that a decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners to the effect that the disease is the result of misconduct is equal to a decision that the disability is the result of an injury or disease

Canada Temperance Act
" not attributable to military service " and in such a case there should lie an appeal to the Federal Appeal Board.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 209, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
Samuel William Jacobs: I would like to say a word1 in opposition to the principle of this bill. I am afraid that I am rather in a minority in this House on the question, but nevertheless with the feeling that I am right, I am going to put before the House the proposition which I think ought to govern in this case. This bill, or a similar bill, has been before the House for the last three or four years. It seeks to give the attorney general of the province where it is going to be put into effect the right to declare prohibition by order in council. Up to the present every province which has prohibition in force has had first to obtain from this parliament the right to hold a plebiscite, and when the plebiscite was granted and a vote was taken in the province upon it, they had the right to put prohibition into effect. But under the present legislation no plebiscite will be necessary. The parliament of Canada gives to the province the right to say that, upon an order in council being passed by the province without any plebiscite, prohibition will go into effect, and furthermore it also gives the province the right to revoke this prohibition and put the province in the same place as it was before. That means that if at any time they feel they do not want prohibition in any province, that province need not come to parliament, but can declare that ipso facto prohibition is revoked and is no longer in effect. So that we the parliament of Canada delegate to the provinces the right to do something which they never had before. The point I am trying to urge on the House is that there should be a plebiscite in the provinces which are seeking to obtain prohibition before they can put it into effect. The other provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and others, that have had prohibition, obtained it only after a plebiscite was taken. The province of British Columbia, which I understand is the principal one interested in this particular act, wishes to put this law into effect without going through the procedure which the other provinces were obliged to go through, and for that reason I object to the bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: A poor reason.
Mr. JACOBS. It is the best I have.


George Black: Was a plebiscite
held in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, a plebiscite was
held. I think that, as the discussion of this matter will involve questions and answers, it will be better to go into committee, because if I answer my hon. friend I will not have any right to discuss the matter again. If my hon. friend agrees that we go into committee on the bill I can assure him that that does not mean he is in favour of the principle.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have no objection to the
bill going into committee, but I think the principle of the bill should be discussed on the second reading.


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite willing.


John Arthur Clark: I desire to say one word
on the principle referred to by the hon. member who has just spoken. If this bill passes it places in the hands of one man-


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


John Arthur Clark: -in the province the righj
to bring this legislation into force. It likewise places in the hands of that one man the power to repeal, the power to bring it back into force, and the power to repeal it again. Just think -of the power that man will have over the liquor interests, and how he will be able to go to them and say, " The time has come when I can exercise the authority given me by this act, come across or you will have to go out of business."


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely there are no people
in this country who would do that.


Mr. SPENCE:: Do not give them a chance.


John Arthur Clark: I do not believe in placing that power in the hands of any man, or placing any man under suspicion that he is doing such a thing. Furthermore, I think it is constitutionally wrong to pass legislation in this House giving one man in any province the power to say whether or not it shall become law, and, having once become law. the powTer to say " It is not law to-day, but it will be to-morrow." This act should either apply from the time it is passed, or from a certain date, to the specific province in question, or not at all. The provinces should be named at the outset.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension when he states that this will place all the power in the hands of one man. That was the objection [DOT] to the bill two years ago, because this matter
Canada Temperance Act

came before parliament only once, and not for three or four sessions, as has been suggested.


John Arthur Clark: When I say one man, I
mean the lieutenant governor in council. I was thinking of the attorney general.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad my hon.
friend says it is not one man, but the government of the province. Two years ago, when this bill passed the House of Commons, an exception was made in the bill permitting export warehouses to import liquor, but they had to obtain leave from the attorney general of the province. This provision was strongly objected to in this House, and my hon. friends who were opposed to the bill pointed out that it was giving a tremendous power to one man. The government then moved to strike out this exception in favour of the export houses altogether, and the objection in regard to giving the power to the attorney general was eliminated. The bill passed this House and was amended in the Senate in such a way that it was not acceptable to this Chamber. All the provinces at the present time, except British Columbia and Quebec, have held a plebiscite and have placed themselves under Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act; that is to say complete prohibition. Three of those provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have modified that situation since by adopting the system of government sale of liquor. British Columbia and Quebec never held a plebiscite under Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act, but both held plebiscites for the purpose of having government control of liquor. A plebiscite was held in British Columbia and the people of the province voted that liquor should be sold in British Columbia by the government or by a board or commission appointed by the government. The purpose of this bill is that in those provinces Where government control of liquor is in force, where they have not placed themselves under Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act, when the lieutenant governor of the province by order in council asks the Governor in Council of Canada to apply in that province prohibition of the importation of all liquors except by the government, or the commission intrusted by the government the power of selling liquor, with certain exceptions provided in the bill, the Governor in Council Shall issue a proclamation giving effect to the will of the province manifested by its government that there should be no more importation of liquor.
]Mr. Lapointe.]
This legislation has been requested very urgently by the government of British Columbia. This House accepted it two years ago, and by moving the second reading of this bill and submitting it to the House, I am only conforming to the principle which seems to have been adopted in this country, that the will of the provinces in this matter should prevail. If British Columbia wants prohibition of importations except through the government, I think we should enact legislation to put that situation into effect?


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lend what support I can to the passage of this bill. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) that it is putting too much power into the hands of one man, has been met already by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stating that it is not one man, it is the government of the province. The government of the province is responsible to the people of British Columbia, and they will know how to deal with any attempt to hold up the liquor interests. The liquor interests, as we know them in British Columbia, are abundantly able to take care of themselves. There is no danger of their being held up in any sense of the term. As regards the remarks of an hon. member opposite in reference to a plebescite, we do not want any more plebescites in British Columbia. We have taken three plebescites on this question already and now we want some action. We have fully expressed in British Columbia what we want. The principal advantage of this bill, to my mind, is in doing away with the export houses. Export houses were done away with in Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1922, and I do not know of any complaints of any unjustices or misfortunes that have happened to those provinces as a consequence. The system does harm in British Columbia in many ways, but I will name three of them. First, there is a heavy loss of revenue to the Dominion government because they evade the excise. Gf course the liquor is ostensibly exported to go to Mexico -that is the usual clearing paper-and then it is taken down to 'Frisco or Washington and sold there. In this case the duty will be paid. It has become a regular standard trade to bootleg the liquor back into British Columbia. It is taken a few miles from the harbour in a boat apparently on its way to Mexico. It is brought back after dark and put into the hands of a bootlegger-not the casual drink peddler you meet on the street corner, but established houses-and then it is sold to the public at a price far below that at which the government can sell it because they have not paid the excise. Very often they omit the formality

Canada Temperance Act
of taking it down the Sound. They take it in a truck from one place in the city to another. If some prohibition officer interferes, the truck breaks down and the stuff is taken back whence it came. If they are pushed to it, they will get a boat next day and take it out.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Is the hon. member describing conditions as they exist to-day in British Columbia?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. It is also bringing the whole law into contempt in British Columbia. It- has got to be now quite a respectable thing to be a bootlegger; you rank between a deacon of the church, and a bishop. I know of people who move in good society who are not ashamed to say that they have made, are making and will continue to make, money in that way. This leads to contempt of the law in other respects also. We are getting familiarized with breaking the law and this is spreading in other lines. This is a paper I received to-day, the Vancouver Daily Province, which says in big headlines:
Baker and Sowash will hang September 4.
What are they to hang for? For the murder of two men that were hi-jacked. "Hijacking" is another branch of this beautiful system. When this man takes out booze going to Mexico or the United States, he is doing so illegally and, therefore, he more or less ceases to be under the protection of the law. Some man comes along with a faster boat, and by means of coercion, possibly with a shotgun, he takes the liquor away from the other man. The man who has been robbed of his liquor cannot squeal because he is outside the pale of the law. Thus we have this other occupation known as hi-jacking. These two men who are going to hang on September 4 hi-jacked two men on a boat. They murdered them. Four men were concerned in this. They have got two and the other two they will get yet. Thus, six lives are to be snuffed out as a result of an every day occurrence of this trade. This hi-jacking is going on, not only on the high seas, but on the roads where they are transporting the liquor by means of motor trucks. To have your liquor hi-jacked is a common occurrence, and it is recognized as one of the expenses of the business.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. member believe, if this legislation goes into force, all the hi-jacking is going to be done away with?


Alan Webster Neill: Ninety per cent of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: What about the United
States? They have a prohibition law in force there and conditions are just about the same as he has depicted them in British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member is talking
from the other side of the line, so to speak. I am not responsible for conditions in the United States. They are doing their utmost to enforce the law there, and they are very much handicapped by the illicit trade that is going on from British Columbia. That brings me to another phase of the argument why we should pass this bill. It is an important one in these days of international relationships. This traffic is highly productive of friction between us and the United States. We are further away here from the border and we do not see these things. But in British Columbia, we see it going on all the time, and it is very much calculated to cause ill-will between the United States and us. A boat called the Quadra was seized the other day on the California coast from British Columbia with a large cargo running into hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth. The case came into court. The question arose whether this boat was really within an hour's run-I think that is the limit prescribed-from their coast when it was seized or not. It was held by those defending the Quadra's crew and captain that the court unjustly ruled against allowing any evidence to show where this boat was at the time. Naturally it was commented on very strongly and harshly in our local papers. International friction was engendered at once. It is alleged that these British Columbia men, some twenty in number, who are in jail now awaiting trial, had not a fair chance, because the judge took the opposite view in the American court. Incidents like that are occurring all the time, and sooner or later they are going to lead to an international question that is quite unnecessary and highly to be avoided. It says somewhere: A man who would have friends must show himself friendly. A man who would have good neighbours must be neighbourly himself. We are not acting as a good neighbour towards the United States when we encourage this illicit traffic.


George Black: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is expecting altogether too much in the way of reform as a result of this legislation. He speaks of the evils of the export houses. He seems to overlook the fact that those export houses exist only at the will of the government of British Columbia, and in fact, at the will of the Attorney General of British Columbia. They all have to come to him for licenses, and if he did not wish them to exist and operate, they would not be there at all. They cannot operate with
Canada Temperance Act

a license from the Attorney General of British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not a license, it is
only his consent to a license issued by the Dominion, if my hon. friend will excuse my correcting his law.


George Black: That may be a
distinction without a difference.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


George Black: There is not an
export house that is operating in British Columbia to-day that does not have to have the approval of the Attorney General of British Columbia, and in many cases licenses were issued to those export houses situated in the interior of British Columbia where there was no possibility of their doing a legitimate export business. If they had been down at the coast where goods could have been exported to foreign countries, the matter would have been different. It was a standing joke in British Columbia that export houses were applying for licenses so that they might make illegitimate exports to the United States which was the only place where they could run their goods. These licenses were issued wilfully with the approval of the Attorney General of British Columbia, and it is idle for hon. members to pretend that in asking for this legislation he wants to prevent illegalities or bootlegging. It is only a sham fight that is being put up by British Columbia against bootlegging; it is one of their chief sources of revenue. I see no reason why this question should be dealt with in British Columbia on any basis different from that adopted in other provinces. When the people of other provinces desire a change in their liquor law they express that desire at the polls; but this question has not been voted upon in British Columbia. That is the principal objection to the bill; it is wrong in principle. This is a pointed case of establishing government by order in council, and that I should think would be the last thing that this government would want to encourage. There is no necessity for the bill. It is an encroachment on private rights and until we have some expression from the people of British Columbia that they want such legislation, I submit it should not be enacted.


Mr. T. G. McBRIDE (Cariboo):: It is said that there has been no plebiscite in British Columbia on this question, but that is not correct. There was a plebiscite and it carried by the largest majority ever secured on any question voted upon by the people of that province. The people gave the government

control over the liquor question and unless this legislation is passed that government will not have that control. The provincial government wants this legislation enacted and the people want it.


John Arthur Clark: Does the hon. member suggest that the government of British Columbia has not now as complete control over the operations of the export liquor houses as it will have after this bill becomes law?


Thomas George McBride: Absolutely no. As I say, both the government and the prohibition people as well as those who have the interests of the province at heart have demanded this legislation in order to put a stop to the traffic in liquor which is going on between the province and the United States. This traffic is creating a hard feeling between the United States and the people of British Columbia, and indeed, of Canada as a whole, and it is felt that this government is responsible for it. If this legislation is carried it will end the traffic, and as the people of the province are asking for it I see no reason why it should not be adopted.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee. Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Importation of intoxicating liquor prohibited.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to move an
amendment by inserting after paragraph (c) in subsection (2) of section 163 the following, as paragraph (d):
TIig importation into a province of any intoxicating liquor for sacramental or medicinal purposes or for manufacturing or commercial purposes other than for the manufacture or use thereof as a beverage.
This exception is contained in part four of the Canada Temperance Act. My hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) drew my attention to it the other day, and I think it makes it clear that the present law will not apply to liquor imported for the purposes here enumerated.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Black: Will the government of British Columbia enforce this provision in respect of all importations except of liquors for the purposes just mentioned, or can the government differentiate between the private importer who imports for his own use and the import and export warehouse? Is this to be the interpretation of the provision, or will the prohibition apply to all?


Ernest Lapointe: They will all go out of business except those included in the exceptions contained in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and the new paragraph (d).

Canada Temperance Act
4S07


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister admit that the Attorney General of British Columbia has the power now to refuse to approve of a license to any export warehouse? Even without this proposed act the attorney general or the government of the province has to-day the power to refuse to approve of licenses for export warehouses and by means of that refusal they can put all export houses out of business. They do not require this legislation in order to do that.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe my hon. friend is right, that they do not issue licenses except with the approval of the attorney general However, it is considered wise to have this provision.


John Arthur Clark: As for the picture painted
by my hon. friend (Mr. McBride), the government can absolutely control the situation to-day; they are responsible for the conditions that exist. Why should we enable the government of British Columbia to bring certain legislation into effect, to cancel it, to bring it back into force again, and to switch it around any way they like, when they already have the situation absolutely in their control if they desire to take advantage of the power they now have.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member is working both ends against the middle. It is true that the attorney general of the province must give his consent before the license is issued, but that consent has reference only to the surrounding conditions, because he has not the power of absolute refusal. Anyone who wants a license gets it from this government and all that the attorney general of the province has to do with it is to exercise an advisory supervision, so to speak, over the circumstances in which the license shall apply. He may say that this is the wrong place, or that the circumstances are undesirable, and so on but he cannot positively withhold the license, inasmuch as it is this government that issues it. As regards the objection that the attorney general can already do what it is proposed to enable him to do, the hon. member (Mr. Clark) stated a few minutes ago that he did not want to see so much power put into the hands of that officer. Apparently he has not much confidence in the attorney general of the province, and when the Minister of Justice pointed out that it was not the attorney general but the government of the province that had the say, the hon. member transferred his distrust to the government. He suspects that proper use will not be made of the power which is being
enacted, because, he says, this has been the case in the past. Now, what is the objection to this legislation, which will absolutely prohibit by Dominion law the importation of liquor for export? It would appear to me that it is not going to do any harm if everything the hon. member has said is correct.


John Arthur Clark: That is just where my hon. friend is mistaken. This is order in council legislation, and not until the government passes an order in council does it come into effect. To-day the Attorney General of British Columbia can positively stop the issuance of a license to any government export house in the province. The Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau) has so stated in this House. All he has to do now is to withhold his consent and the license will not issue. The only additional power given by this legislation is to prohibit private individuals importing liquor.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with What t'he hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) has stated. When the Attorney General of British Columbia refuses to give his consent to the issuing of a license, it practically puts an end to the efforts of any person to get a license here in Ottawa, and so far as I know the Customs and Excise department have never issued a license where the attorney general of the province has refused to give his consent either through whim or otherwise. He may object to give the applicant a license because he is bald-headed, redhaired, or anything of that kind.


Mr. McMASTER:: No, those are hot
drawbacks.


Samuel William Jacobs: It just shows how senseless this is, because sometimes a bald-headed man has as much inside his head as many others have outside. But I am afraid that when I refer to bald heads in this House I am treading on dangerous ground. That disposes of the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). Let us assume that this measure will be passed-and I am inclined to think that it will be-the government of British Columbia need never put it into force at all; it simply transfers from the federal authority to the provincial authority all federal rights. That, it seems to me, is giving that province more power than the other provinces, because the latter had to proceed by way of plebiscite. Hon. gentlemen have stated that three or four plebiscites were taken in British Columbia. But those plebiscites were only on the question of government control, and the Minister
Canada Temperance Act

of Justice admits it. The Quebec legislature has passed an act declaring that no one except the provincial government can traffic in liquor. If it is legal for Quebec to do this, why does not British Columbia take the same course? It looks rather strange, to say the least, that the provincial authorities there should come here and ask for ancillary legislation from this authority which the province of Quebec does not think is necessary. I believe in putting all the provinces on the same plane. Every province that wishes to carry on business in this particular way should take a plebiscite before it goes into the business. Why make a distinction in favour of British Columbia?


Mr. McTAGGART:: Mr. Chairman, if this legislation is expected to discourage the efforts of the bootleggers in British Columbia, why should not the same law be made applicable to the prairie provinces as well?


Ernest Lapointe: The prairie provinces
have even more stringent legislation.


George Black: Were the export warehouses in the prairie provinces put out of business by similar legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: A few years ago the prairie provinces voted by plebiscite to accept part four of the Canada Temperance Act, which constitutes complete prohibition, and. this government gave effect to it by proclamation. Since then those provinces have accepted government control of liquor, but the courts have decided that part four is still in force as to importation, except through a commission appointed by the provincial authorities.


George Black: I suppose it is open to British Columbia to proceed in the same way and adopt part four of the Canada Temperance Act?


Ernest Lapointe: They could do so.


George Black: Until two years ago the export warehouses in British Columbia paid three thousand dollars to the provinces for their licenses, then that fee was increased to ten thousand dollars. So these export warehouse enterprises are all officially the creation of the government of British Columbia. This legislation seems a very roundabout way to put them out of business.


Ernest Lapointe: It does not follow that because they are taxed by the province they are the creatures of the province.


George Black: The only result of increasing the license fee to ten thousand

dollars was the amalgamation of a large number of export warehouses into bigger and more powerful business enterprise. Has the Minister of Justice any assurance from the government of British Columbia that upon the adoption of this legislation it will be immediately put into force by the province?


Samuel William Jacobs: No, he has not.


George Black: This legislation may remain in abeyance forever unless the cabinet of the province chooses to pass an order in council and send it down to the Dominion authorities for them to pass a similar order in council. This measure is only putting a club in the hands of the Attorney General of British Columbia to take away the power of import whenever he pleases. If the government of British Columbia wants legislation from this House to prevent the importatior of liquor, why not say so in so many words and put through a bill here positively prohibiting importation, instead of adopting this go-as-you-please course? Has the Minister of Justice any assurance that this legislation will go into force in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: The government of British Columbia have been so insistent in asking for this legislation that the advisability of asking them whether they were going to take advantage of it never entered my mind. The reason for adopting this procedure is that the legislation does not apply to Britiab Columbia alone, Quebec can take advantage of it.


John Arthur Clark: Has Quebec asked for it?


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that two years ago Quebec was quite agreeable to such legislation being enacted.


John Arthur Clark: That is very different from asking for it. I wonder if they made a request for such legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: Quebec will make use of the legislation only if she wants it, and she will have to adopt the same process as British Columbia. That is why this procedure by order in council is adopted, and I believe it is the only one that could be adopted under the circumstances.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the position in regard to Ontario?


Ernest Lapointe: Ontario is under part four of the Canada Temperance Act. She had a plebiscite and a proclamation was issued accordingly.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does it not seem peculiar that one province should adopt a procedure different from the ordinary?

Canada Temperance Act


Ernest Lapointe: There is nothing extraordinary about it. Those provinces which have been desirous of adopting Part IV of the act have done so. There are two provinces which have not adopted Part IV, but both of them have government control of liquor. Plebiscites have been held in both those provinces as a result of which the people asked for that government control. Is there anything extraordinary in the proposal that when any one of these provinces asks that importation of liquor be prohibited otherwise than by or through the government, subject to certain exceptions, the will of the province shall be ratified and agreed to by the Governor in Council?


Arthur Edward Ross: I think there is. Ontario ran wild with these export houses until they took action to deal with the matter. I was in the legislature and I know there were dozens of them until the province put a stop to it. I think British Columbia should do the same.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why is a special exception made in favour of British Columbia with respect to plebiscite? Why should they not have a plebscite as the other provinces have had?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no exception in the case of British Columbia. I understand they have had a plebiscite.


John Arthur Clark: Not on this question.


Thomas George McBride: The government of British Columbia represent the people of that province, and the leader of that government was down here and asking for this legislation. They seemed to think that unless this legislation passed they could not control liquor there as they would wish to. Why should we quibble over these things when the government which represents British Columbia ask for this legislation?


George Black: It is not a question of quibbling; it is a question of observing the rights of the people of British Columbia.


Thomas George McBride: The bootleggers.


George Black: Not the bootleggers; I do not thank the hon. member for that remark. I am just as anxious as he is to see the liquor business of British Columbia or of Canada generally put on a proper and decent basis if it can be done. But in my opinion the application for this legislation is not bona fide; is not for that purpose; is designed simply to put a club in the hands of the Attorney General of British Columbia to be used by him politically and for no
other reason. When the hon. members for Comox-Albemi and Cariboo say that a plebiscite on this question has been held, they do not speak by the book; they are mistaken. There was a plebiscite on the question whether there should be government sale of liquor, prohibition or whether we should continue in the old way of sale in public bars, and the plebiscite went in favour of sale by the government. But the vote taken at that time and the legislation enacted thereunder in no way dealt with the question of private importation; that question has never been submitted to the electors of British Columbia. There is no reason why we should overlook these private rights in regard to British Columbia when they have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion in all the other provinces.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Subsections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
On subsection 6-Revocations of prohibitions.


Samuel William Jacobs: This is the clause that I should like to see struck out of the bill:
Upon receipt hy tl>e Secretary of State of Canada of a duly certified copy of an order in council of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province, in which the prohibitions of subsection one of this section are in force, requesting that the said prohibitions be revoked, the Governor in Council may by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette declare that the prohibitions of subsection one of this section shall no longer be in force in that province and the same shall thereupon cease to be in force therein.
Bv this clause the province is seeking to obtain the right to revoke prohibition and bring the sale of liquor into force again. Surely my prohibition friends are not in favour of a section of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is absolutely wrong. The reference is to the prohibition of subsection 1, that is, the prohibition of importation.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is to revive what they call the bootlegging trade, to revive a trade by private people in liquor in competition with the government. That is to say, the government of British Columbia will have the right by order in council to revive the sale of liquor by private interests. I do not think they should have that right. If British Columbia wants to be a temperance province and wants to observe the law in the way in which the hon. member (Mr. Neill) says it should be observed-and I should be the last one to argue that it should not be observed- then why give them the right to revive the sale?
.4810
Canada Temperance Act


Ernest Lapointe: The principle underlying this legislation, as I have said before, is to give effect to the will of the province. It is to give effect to the will of the province that the Governor in Council may issue a proclamation prohibiting the import of liquor except by or through the government, and it would be to give effect to the will of the province if a proclamation was issued under this clause. It is exactly the same principle.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not at all; they are asking the right to revoke prohibition.


John Arthur Clark: This is the feature of the
bill that I protested against before the Speaker left the chair. It is an entirely wrong principle that the Lieutenant Governor in Council in any province should have the right to declare for prohibition on one day and then on the following day say, "We have had enough of it; we will let these bootlegging houses run wild again."


Samuel William Jacobs: I move that this clause be
struck out.


The CHAIRMAN:: A motion cannot be
made to strike out the whole clause, but there can be a vote on the clause itself. Those in favour of the section carrying will please say *[DOT]aye".
. Some hon. MEMBERS: Aye.


George Newcombe Gordon: Those opposed, "nay".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Thomas George McBride: Do I understand that we are voting on the amendment?


George Newcombe Gordon: No, there is no amendment. The question is whether the subsection shall carry.


Samuel William Jacobs: Carried on division.


George Black: Before the subsection carries I would like to ask the minister if its effect is not to allow the government of British Columbia by order in council, subsequently verified by order in council of the Dominion government, to reinstate the conditions existing to-day in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: To cancel the proclamation-surely. If British Columbia adopts any other system or asks this government to cancel the proclamation which puts into force the prohibitions contained in this act, the Governor in Council will again give effect to the will of British Columbia. That is the principle underlying the legislation, But my hon. friends know that this is for the purpose of prohibiting the importation of liquor into British Columbia. Why not accept it as it is?


George Black: What would the
minister require to indicate to him the desire of the people of British Columbia that the legislation now going through the House should be cancelled?


Ernest Lapointe: The order in council of the government of British Columbia.
Subsection 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 208, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 233, to constitute a Board of Audit.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr Gordon in the chair.
Chambly Canal, Improvements, revote, $5,000-$41,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: How much more money is to be voted on this canal for improvements? What is the anticipated total required?
Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): You cannot tell in a work of this kind. It may be all right to-day, and two weeks from now a piece of the bank may go, or you may have to riprap the other side on account of a leak. There are constant improvements required. The work this year for improvements is the construction of a bridge, and for the marking out of the property for the canal. The bridge is to cost $36,000, and crosses the canal. With the heavy motor trucks on the highway the present structure is not considered strong enough to carry the traffic.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sculanges Canal, improvements, $20,000.
Mr. WARD:: Where is this canal located?


George Perry Graham: It is in the province of
Quebec, along the St. Lawrence river.

Supply-Railways and Canals


William John Ward: We are always questioned
pretty closely whenever we mention the Hudson Bay railway and I think we should be given some information on this work. Last year we spent $50,000, and this year, $20,000 is required. What purpose does this canal serve?


George Perry Graham: It serves all the waterborne traffic, including grain, that comes from the Great Lakes to Montreal and Quebec. It is one of our chief canals, connecting lake St. Frances and lake St. Louis in the St. Lawrence system. This amount is required for a second new lock.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is there any revenue
from this canal?


George Perry Graham: There is no revenue
from any of our canals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, improvements, revote, $107,000.
George Perry Graham: Of this, $67,000 is required to complete the contract; the balance, $40,000, is required for roadways at Iroquois and Cardinal. When the canals were deepened and widened, the department took over the roads built in this locality, and had to construct new roads. These roads are now in our hands, and are badly out of repair. It is estimated that to put them in proper shape, up to the standard, would cost $100,000. The federal authority has made a proposition to the provincial government of Ontario that we pay forty per cent, and they sixty per cent, to bring the roadway up to the standard of the provincial highway. This government is responsible for this portion of the roadway.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that work going to be started this year?


George Perry Graham: We hope so, because the
roads are in a disgraceful condition. We have been trying for a year or two to come to some arrangement with the provincial government, and hope to be able to do so. If not, we intend to proceed to repair these roads ourselves.


Arthur Edward Ross: How do these
roads lie in relation to the highway?


George Perry Graham: They are part of the
highway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal, improvements, revote, $46,000-$393,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Could the minister give us
the amount of tonnage handled on this canal?


George Perry Graham: The total amount of
money spent on the canal since it was first originated is about $19,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was not the
question.


Mr. COOTE:: Is the minister not several
millions short in that estimate?


George Perry Graham: I spoke from memory
and I am not sure. I think it was about that, according to the last figures.


George Gibson Coote: I have a statement here
showing an expenditure of $23,000,000 odd. I do not know whether it is correct or not.
Mr. GRAHAM . Yes, that would be correct.


George Gibson Coote: How much is it proposed
to spend this year?


George Perry Graham: The whole amount is
$393,000. The Trent canal is one of the old works, I think started before confederation, and the province of Ontario had certain rights owing to lumbering. They had to maintain dams and all that kind of thing. Owing to the procedure in constructing the Trent canal the federal authority took over most of these undertakings from the provincial government, and, no matter whether we like it or not, we are bound to maintain all these properties in the way of dams, locks and so on, to maintain the water levels for the protection of those who use power as well as for the floating of logs. We are not spending anything that we are not compelled to spend practically in maintaining the properties along this canal. For years a large amount of money was expended in extending the canal through to the Georgian bay. That construction has been at a standstill for some years, and any amount that we are asking for the Trent canal is in order to keep the property in the state of repair it is in at the present time, and we rannot do less than that. Suppose we were to allow one of the dams to go out, it would inflict a great loss of property and perhaps a loss of life for which this government would be responsible. The amount spent yearly in recent years is merely to keep this property in good condition, so that no damage can occur in case of any locks or dams going out. There is some money in the estimates-I do not know whether it is in this estimate or not-for a new lock to be put in. When a lock which has been there for several years wears out and a new one has to be put in, it is constructed of a size to conform with the general size of the canal, and to give a depth of eight feet four inches. The new lock gate is larger than the old gate, but it



Supply-Railways and Canals
is in conformity with the depth of the canal throughout.


William Thomas Lucas: Is there and record kept of
the tonnage Which passes through the canal yearly?


George Perry Graham: During the year 1924 there were 7,085 motor boats, 3,079 freight boats. The tonnage of the vessels was 121,508, and the tons of freight carried 41,099.


Mr. MILLAR:: What is the minimum
depth throughout this canal?


George Perry Graham: Six feet is the minimum.
I ought to correct that by saying that at one time, in what we call the Severn branch, there were two marine railways for a short distance.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister not think it would be more economical to hire the unemployed to carry that freight by hand, and to maintain this canal by hand?


George Perry Graham: If we could break contracts as easily as that perhaps we might do the work by hiring the unemployed, but that would not maintain the dams and all that kind of thing, which is really the large amount of work.


Edward Joseph Garland: The government had no hesitation whatever in helping to tear up the Crowsnest pass contract.


George Perry Graham: ' The parties who made t'he Crowsnest pass agreement were at liberty to tear it all up if they so desired. The parties who made this contract would not allow it to be tom up if we so desired.


Edward Joseph Garland: We should be very careful about entering into such contracts.


George Perry Graham: We are very careful now.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Gibson Coote: Just what is intended to be done with this amount of 8393,000 this year?


George Perry Graham: About $183,000 of this
amount appears here as in excess of last year's vote, but it is not. It will be found deducted from another vote. It is taken from capital account and put under income, and the two

votes together will be found to balance. The
items are as follows:
1.	Young's .point look	
$ 90,0002.	Dam at lock No. 23	
100,0003.	Cement	
32,0004.	Construction of lock gates	
20,5005.	Canal shops at Peterboro	
5,0006.	Deepening and widening existing channelbelow lock 26, Lakefield	
9,0007.	Deepening and widening channel throughLovesick lake and Deer bay	
6,5008.	Concrete dam at Norland, Gull river..	3,0009.	Concrete dam at outlet of Swamp lake.	4,00010.	New concrete dam and log slide atScott's mills	
15,00011 Rebuilding and repairs to reservoir dams	10,00012.	Extensions of aprons, dam No. 5..	..	2,00013.	Electrical equipment for Swift Rapidsdam, Severn Division	
3,50014.	Dredging, Severn Division	
35,00015.	Staff salaries and working expenses..	..	53,00016.	Dredging Otonobee river	
2,50017.	Dredging Rice lake channels	
7,00018.	Miscellaneous and unforeseen items..	..	3,000Total	
$401,000
The first two items come under the category of those explained by me just before one o'clock. These works have to be renewed and kept in a good state of repair. When a dam or lock plays out, we repair it as well as we can.


George Gibson Coote: Would the widening and
deepening of channels and the dredging of these rivers be covered by the .covenant and agreement by Which the minister said they were bound?


George Perry Graham: You have to keep them to a certain depth. In those waters, of course, there is continual silting and that kind of thing. Part of the canal is eight feet four inches, and part of it is six feet. Some of the boats going through there strike bottom quite often, and this is for the work of keeping the channel in proper condition for boats to go through.


George Gibson Coote: It would not be very serious if they stayed aground for a time, for all the traffic there is there.


George Perry Graham: It would be quite serious if several people were drowned by a boat hitting a rock or something of that kind.


George Gibson Coote: Would it be possible to make a gift of this canal to Ontario?


George Perry Graham: It is an older thing than either my hon. friend or myself. It has been in existence for many years. In fact, the Dominion government and the provincial government had a lawsuit at one time in regard to the water-powers on the canal. I am not sure whether it went to trial or whether it was settled out of court, but it was found


Supply-Railways and Canals
that the authority rested with the federal government, and so the federal government is responsible.


Mr. THURSTON:: What is the policy of
the department in connection with building small wharves on the lakes on the Trent canal? For a number of years it was the policy of the department to construct small wharves for the accommodation of boats calling at the different little summer resorts. While possibly a great deal of criticism may be made of expenditures in connection with the Trent canal, yet I fear that to-day very few of us realize what value the Trent canal is to Canada. It is a great inducement to the tourist traffic. It gives them travelling facilities up and down the canal. While there are parts of it that never should have been built, yet I feel that the money spent in constructing the connecting links between the chains of lakes was money well spent and those channels should be kept in proper shape. In this way the tourist traffic is given the encouragement it deserves, and few of us realize the value to Canada today of the tourist traffic. It would be wisdom on the part of the government to see that small wharves are constructed at an expenditure of from $2,000 to $4,000 or $5,000, to accommodate small boats. Many tourists like to have their mail come to them by boat at the small resorts.


George Perry Graham: It would be hard to announce a policy as to small wharves. It might mean many dozens of small wharves. At the entrances to locks, of course, there is always accommodation and I think the chief places have their locks. I would not like to say that the government was ready to construct a wharf at every place where a few people congregated for the summer. We have many applications, but as a general rule we do not go into the dockbuilding business very extensively along the Trent system. Hon. members who have never been through the Trent system, ought to go through it before they criticize it very much. More money is coming to Canada every year through the tourist traffic than, perhaps, people are aware of, and this is one of the most beautiful spots in the Dominion or, in fact, the continent of America. The tourist traffic through it is growing every year and the money they expend there cannot be counted in small figures. In addition to that the federal government collected last year $152,000 in income, not from the docks, but from waterpowers that have been leased along the Trent.


George Gibson Coote: What was the total
amount spent by the Dominion government?
307i


George Perry Graham: I gave that this morning and it was checked up.


George Gibson Coote: Last year we voted $435,000.
I presume most of that was spent.


John Jabez Thurston: The minister stated that he did not think it was wise for the department to begin the construction of wharves at every place where requests were made for them. I do not think there is any danger that they will get into a condition of that kind and build structures wherever they are requested. But there are places with anywhere from seventy-five to one hundred and fifty summer cottages where some accommodation is badly needed. The boats to-day run their bow up on the shore and in windy weather they are obliged to go by with the mail or have another boat come out and meet them. It is important that we should cater to the tourist traffic in the Highlands of Ontario. We have something to sell in that regard which is not equalled anywhere else in Canada, and where public highways lead up to resorts of this kind of any considerable size it would be well for the government to provide some small accommodation to enable the boats to land.


George Gibson Coote: Will it be necessary for these contracts to run on forever? We spent on this canal up to the end of the fiscal year 1925 the sum of $23,443,742, and these expenditures have been going on since 1882. In view of our present financial standing some effort should be made to stop the leak. I would ask the minister for some information regarding these contracts.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows that these are old agreements outstanding between the Dominion and the provincial government, and we might just as well attempt to remove the dams that protect the people living on any part of the Ottawa river as allow these dams to become, not dilapidated but in any degree unsafe. My hon. friend will understand the situation only as a result of a trip through that part of the country. He talks about "stopping the leak," but we are forgetting, or we have not yet learned, the benefit of the tourist traffic to the country. We have one of the most beautiful countries in the world. Those of us who have been in Switzerland know perfectly well that that countiy has nothing on Canada for scenic beauty; yet we shrink at any expenditure to develop the traffic. There are places in Canada where not much grain is produced and one of the sources of revenue is just this traffic. The people in this part of the country depend almost entirely on the business that

Supply-Railways and Canals
results from the visit of tourists, and for that reason this expenditure can more readily be justified -perhaps than others. We cannot afford to abandon the Trent canal with all its dams and other protective works. If we failed to keep them in a constant state of repair there would be a danger of the surrounding country being flooded, and we are not allowed to neglect them under the agreement we have with the province. If we abandoned this work it would cost us millions of dollars, to say nothing of the wanton destruction to property.


George Gibson Coote: Is it contemplated carrying
the canal through to Georgian bay?


George Perry Graham: It is all through except for the completion of the portion of work on the Severn river which is not yet done. Small marine railways are being used to take the fifteen-ton boats from one point to another of navigation, and the completion of the remaining portion of work is all that is necessary to have the waterway capable of carrying hundreds of thousands of tourists from Georgian bay clear to lake Ontario.


George Gibson Coote: Does Switzerland build canals to develop the tourist traffic there?


George Perry Graham: She does everything of
that kind. She spends millions of dollars developing the scenery and as a consequence cities like Geneva are crowded the year round with tourists. In Germany, instead of building branch railways to places that can be reached otherwise, small waterways are built along which industries are started. Germany is dotted with scenes of this sort. I have been on canals there where they pumped the water from one part into another, and I can assure the committee that the Trent canal is a prince to most of them.


John Jabez Thurston: For the information of those who criticize the expenditures to develop our natural scenery, I may say that during the tourist season last summer for some two and a half months two little villages in my constituency, each with a branch bank and with a population, one of 800 and the other of 900, took in respectively $44,000 and $27,000 of American money. That gives a slight idea of the value of the tourist traffic to that part of the country.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Is the tourist traffic
fairly steady, or does it fluctuate? I notice looking back over the record of the work done that the expenditure has always increased around election time and I was wondering whether there was any particular influx of tourists on such occasions.


George Perry Graham: There might be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland canal-improvements-revote, $14,000, $151,000.
William Findlay Maclean: Can the Minister of Railways give the House any information regarding the international negotiations that are in progress in connection with the St. Lawrence waterways?


George Perry Graham: There is a vote in the
miscellaneous items for $150,000 in connection with the St. Lawrence matter but I promised the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that I would not bring on the discussion of the subject in his absence.


William Findlay Maclean: You will make
the explanation later?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Thomas Langton Church: I would impress upon the
minister the importance of having this work completed as soon as possible. The date fixed for the completion of it is 1929 and the fact that American boats are now carrying grain at half a cent a bushel cheaper than it .can be carried on this side will indicate the saving that might be effected if this work were completed. Last summer a party of Americans came over here and they were surprised at the magnitude of the work. They recognized its importance to the grain trade of the country, for it certainly will solve many of our transportation troubles. The work was decided upon after very mature consideration- by the late government and it was intended to be the first undertaking in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway. At the present time no large boats on the upper lakes can go down lake Ontario owing to the canals being so small. Shippers have to use the all-rail route because of lack of progress made in this canal. The fixed charges in connection with this work are considerable. I hope the Progressives will go and see this work, for then they will realize its magnitude and the important factor it will be in our transportation system. Already as a result of our not having this canal thirty-eight elevators are established in Buffalo to-day.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) is discussing the Welland ship canal, which is not the vote before the House.


Thomas Langton Church: That is one of the reasons why-there are four or five others-why those elevators have been established there. Let me tell the House that after the next election there is going to be a Ginger party here from Ontario.

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is
debating the wrong item. This vote is for the old canal, not the ship canal.


George Gibson Coote: What was the tonnage handled through this canal last year?


George Perry Graham: Five million tons.


George Gibson Coote: What tonnage of grain was
handled?


George Perry Graham: About three million tons
of wheat alone.


George Gibson Coote: Has the department statistics showing how much of this is Canadian and how much United States grain?


George Perry Graham: From a Canadian port to a Canadian port about two million tons of wheat alone.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: maintenance and operation of, $239,339.
George Gibson Coote: Does the government propose to increase the membership of the commission?


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in the
estimates for the purpose, anrt m wVuiu require legislation to either increase or diminish the board. The board was constituted along certain lines, and I had the honour some years ago of introducing legislation to enlarge it. although I think the board is, if anything, too unwieldy already, that does not at all shut out consideration of the suggestion that there might be some reorganization of the board in the future.


George Gibson Coote: I am not particularly anxious to have the board enlarged, but I should like to see it more representative of the different sections of the Dominion. Western Canada has only one representative on the board, and I think we contribute the major portion of the net earnings of the Canadian Pacific. With the passage of the railway freight rates legislation within the past few days, the protection which the Crowsnest pass agreement gave us on every commodity except grain and flour has been removed, and we are now left altogether -if I may be pardoned for using the expression -at the mercy of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Does the minister think we are fairly represented on that board? If not, are we likely to receive justice from the board? This is a very important matter to western Canada, and there is a strong feeling in the west that we should have greater representation on the board-one member out of six is altogether inadequate.


George Perry Graham: When the board was first established the object was to get the best men to undertake the work, no matter where they came from, because, considering the diversity of interests throughout the Dominion, the board has a very difficult task to perform. As in any other business the man who will do the best is the man who ought to be on the board. If I were hiring a man to do my business I would not care where he came from so long as he did his work satisfactorily. The suggestion of having a man from the west is worthy of consideration, although I would not admit that any other man would not give the west justice. But the western man might understand the psychology of the western people at least a little better than a man from some other part of the country.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree with the minister that this board is too large and will have to be reorganized, and the quickest way to reorganize it is to consolidate the two railways. If that is done you will not have all this competition for traffic between two companies, to say nothing of outside companies, and there will not be one quarter of the work that is now imposed on the railway commission. You do not improve matters by increasing the number of members of the commission; in fact you only make things worse. But when you simplify the railway system you can reduce the personnel and simplify the operations of the board of railway commissioners, as well as effect an economy of 5100,000,000 a year-the best authorities say $150,000,000. This is the only way parliament can get control of railway rates; we will save money, have a better system and get a better service.


George Gibson Coote: The best member of the
board now is a western man. I have heard it remarked that he spends most of his time writing dissenting judgments.


George Perry Graham: I see he gave one the
other day in which he was in accord with the rest of the board.


George Gibson Coote: Perhaps the exception proves the rule. I think there is a great deal of misapprehension with regard to the work of the Board of Railway Commissioners. We often hear it stated that the matter of making railway rates should be left entirely to the board. I doubt very much whether the board has ever made a rate; they have only put their stamp of approval upon rates that are made by the railway companies. Whenever there is any rate making, it is by the railway companies themselves, and if no one objects after the rates are posted up in the office of the rail-

Supply-Railways and Canals
way commission, they are approved of by the board. I would like to see this board actively engaged in the making of railway rates, not simply putting their rubber stamp on the rates fixed by the railway corporations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and inspections: canals, including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, revote, $5,000, $20,000.
George Gibson Coote: Why is it necessary to make surveys now that we have the Canadian National Railways?


George Perry Graham: There is necessity for a
great deal of special investigation. This vote has been carried for many years and used in various ways, but never outside the purpose for which it was intended. For instance, last year I sent a special man out to investigate certain conditions about railways for my own information and for the information of the department. Then we have the government railways coming under the Canadian National for operation and other purposes, but it is always questionable whether, for the purposes of the construction, say, of a viaduct, the Board of Railway Commisioners has jurisdiction over the government owned railways in the sense of being in a position to make them do certain things. This is a very necessary vote, and not a dollar of it will be expended otherwise than in the interests of the public.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister ever send these officers out to inspect branch lines that were started about fifteen years ago but have been left partly completed, and to report to the government whether the work should not be completed?


George Perry Graham: We have reports on all
these lines. We have been doing pretty well since this government came into power in the way of putting rails on them. We have not always succeeded, but we have done a good deal.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many departments of surveys are there in the government? Is there one for the railways, one for the canals, one for public works, one for the railway commission? Can there not be a beginning at a co-ordination of these services under one head?


George Perry Graham: That is worth considering. But the Board of Railway Commissioners is an entity by itself; its work is different from ours. They do not borrow any of our officers and we do not borrow theirs. If we had to depend on the board for a man to do certain work-and it is not all survey with rod 
and line; it includes inspectional or investigational work-then the board might not be able to attend to some applications that an hon. member might place before them. None of these men are idle.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many engineers are employed in railways and how many in canals?


George Perry Graham: It would be hard to do
that on the canals. There are two engineers on the Trent canal, and they have some assistants. Then there is our chief engineer, and we have also engineers attached to our department, but in no wise responsible to the department, except indirectly, in connection with the investigation of the St. Lawrence waterways. That comes under a separate vote. The Board of Railway Commissioners also has its engineers for the particular purposes o!f the board. There is a good deal to be said for consolidation, but if the hon. gentleman was in one of these departments and was responsible for it he would want his own staff subject to himself to do the work that was required, and to do it when he wanted it done. As long as there are not any men sitting around idle, I do not see that there is much to complain of.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many engineers are covered by these two votes?


George Perry Graham: In surveys and inspections? We have three, I think, altogether.


Arthur Edward Ross: And in the railways?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is a great deal of
force in what the hon. member for Kingston has said. For years the government of this country has been over-staffed in regard to the survey and engineering forces. There has been talk from time to time of consolidations, but the consolidations have never yet taken place. In Washington they have consolidated this work, and have effected an enormous saving in consequence. In Washington the Department of the Secretary of State for War has charge of the whole survey staff of the government, and the whole engineering staff for construction purposes. That department carries on all government construction and all government survey work in the United States. Here we have engineering staffs and survey staffs in many departments. In the Interior department we have a very large surveys branch; in the Public Works department we have a very large engineering staff. I omit the Department of Railways and Canals because I think it is essential that they should have a staff of their own. But there are

Supply-Ra.ttwo.ys and Canals
other departments which have engineering and survey branches, and I do not see why they should not be consolidated in a single department. I am satisfied, and everyone who has looked into the matter is satisfied, that there is overlapping in regard to this work, and I think the government would be entitled to the thanks of the country if they were to start to consolidate the staffs of the engineering and survey branches in the various departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cana-ls-staff and repairs, $2,222,000.
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister give us
some details showing how he intends to spend this amount?


George Perry Graham: There are regular positions on the canals throughout Canada, as follows:	Province of Quebec, 595; Ontario,
St. Lawrence, 212; St. Peters, 10; Rideau, 143; Trent, 224; Welland, 388; Welland, elevator, 133; Sault Ste. Miarie, 58; or a total of 1,701. Then, engaged in construction on the Welland ship canal are 358, and in the St. Lawrence waterways investigation, 37, but they do not come under this vote. The staff that does come under this vote comprises l,iur umpiujcco on all the canals.


Mr. LEWIS:: These works are chargeable
to collection of revenue. Does this service nearly pay for itself?


George Perry Graham: Oh no. We have a staff, for instance, on the Trent canal, and we are collecting revenue for water, and so on; we also keep a statistical staff for the canals, but under an agreement made between the United States and Canada neither country charges any tolls on the canals, and consequently there is no revenue except what might come from water-powers along some of the canals.


George Gibson Coote: The largest part of this
vote will be for the staff who operate the canals, the loekmen, and so forth?


George Perry Graham: Yes, for operation and
maintenance. In addition to what I have already mentioned, there are land leases. Many of the properties held for the canals are leased, some of them in connection with water-powers, and others, at Montreal, for instance, for warehouses and all that kind of thing.


George Gibson Coote: How much of this vote
would be for the staff on the Trent canal?


George Perry Graham: $118,000. All these staffs
are under the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur John Lewis: If there is no revenue, why
is this vote entitled "chargeable to collection of revenue"?


George Perry Graham: That is one of the things that I do not think my hon. friend would understand if he was in the department ^ for forty years. We have three items, capital, revenue and income, and for book-keeping purposes the votes are kept under these three heads. It is true there is not a sufficient revenue to pay for this service, although it is chargeable to revenue account.


George Gibson Coote: There are really four headings, are there not-capital, revenue, staff, and repairs.


George Perry Graham: Staff and repairs should read without any comma. That would come under revenue.


George Gibson Coote: I have a return here in regard to the Trent canal showing the expenditure under four heads, capital, income, staff, and repairs, and a separate column is given for each. I did not notice I had these figures when I asked the minister if there were not four accounts kept. This return shows that last year $113,000 was spent for staff, $88,000 for repairs, $129,000 under the heading of income,^ and $156,000 under the heading of capital, in connection with the Trent canal.


George Perry Graham: As I pointed out a few minutes ago, I deducted $183,000 from capital and put that under income, believing jit should not be charged to capital, but rather to current expenses. There is no vote for staff and repairs except under the head of revenue.


George Gibson Coote: Am I to understand that revenue and income is the same thing ?-


George Perry Graham: Not for bookkeeping purposes.


George Gibson Coote: I cannot understand, then, why this return should show the expenditure under these four heads, capital, income, staff, and repairs.


George Perry Graham: It was divided that way, I think, for the convenience of my hon. friend, to give him the information he wanted in the way he wanted it.


John Millar: The minister stated that under an arrangement with the United States no tolls are charged on the canals. Would it not seem that Canada at the present time is keeping up more canals than the United States and that therefore it is a kind of one-sided bargain? Will that arrangement be

Supply-Railways and Canals
continued when the new Welland canal is completed? We will have probably $100,000,000 in the new Welland canal. Is that arrangement with the United States likely to be continued?


George Perry Graham: Unless some new arrangement is made, it will be continued. The tolls were removed from canals for the purpose of encouraging traffic through our own Canadian ports, and through our canals. It cannot be denied, I think, that every dollar you impose in tolls must come out of the produce or the cargo. There is no other way to pay it. The vessel owner will charge that much more in his expenses against the traffic that is being moved; eventually either the consignor or the consignee will pay it, and in those days it was thought wise, in the interests of the development of our country, that we should remove the tolls from the canal. My hon. friend is right. We have a greater investment in those canals, and Canadian vessels I think, outside of the canal at the Sault, do not use American canals to any great extent. But that is the arrangement between the two countries, and every year there has been no toll charged.


Mr. FANSHER:: Does that apply to the Trent canal?


George Perry Graham: I think so.


Arthur Edward Ross: When were the
tolls put on first? It appears to me when we had free trade between the two countries there was no toll and we had free use of the canal. Even after the Americans abolished free trade and put a restriction on Canadian goods we had free use of her canals. Was there any particular time when the tolls were put on on the canals?


George Perry Graham: I can remember when
there were tolls on the canals. I can go that far, but I cannot give my hon. friend any information as to the date. My deputy tells me they were taken off in 1898.
Mr. .COOTE: When the Canadian ambassador to Washington is appointed will the ambassador take up with the United States the matter of sharing the expense of these canals and bearing their fair share for expense of operation? I think Canada is paying far more than her share for the construction and upkeep of the canals between the international lakes, and I think it is a matter that might very well be taken up with the government at Washington. As to tolls: if tolls are charged on the canal, the amount would would have to be added to the cost of the goods, to be paid by the people whose goods 
were being transported. Is that not the place where the money should be collected, rather than from the taxpayers of the country? If this principle were to be adopted with regard to all our transportation, it seems to me it should naturally follow that we should build rights of way, keep them up, allow the railways to operate and charge sufficient to cover the cost of operation and keep the rolling stock in repair. Why should we furnish a free waterway for all these ships, to compete with our own railways, and make it so difficult for our railways to pay the cost of operation? We are furnishing the Trent canal free of tolls to the people who live in that neighbourhood, and certainly, if they are carrying any freight at all, they must come in competition with our railways. I think it is time this matter was carefully considered by the people of Canada. In western Canada we have no canals and no water transportation and the government is spending no money in providing anything of that sort. But they are providing facilities in some sections, and I think it is unfair to other sections of Canada where there is no water transportation. If the canals were made to pay interest on the cost of investment and the necessary upkeep of the staff on the canals, we might consider that we were getting a fair deal, but under the present arrangement I do not think we are. Has the minister any views to give the committee on that point?


George Perry Graham: I have not looked into
the arrangement itself or the negotiations which led up to it. There may be something in what my hon. friend says and there may be some other reason underlying it which I am not aware of at the present time. I think I may go this far, that when the ambassador starts for Washington I will call his attention to what my hon. friend says.


George Gibson Coote: Would the hon. minister not go further with reference to this Trent canal, for instance, and the Rideau canal? Are there any tolls on the boats that convey freight up and down the canals? If not, is it not creating unfair competition against our national railways operating in those regions? For the life of me I cannot see why tolls should not be charged on the canal. We would not think of building a railway right of way and allowing the railway to come along and run trains over it and pay nothing. We even go so far as to keep up the canals and pay the men who operate the locks.


George Perry Graham: Is water competition not
a pretty good regulative rate?

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Gibson Coote: I suppose it is, but it is
pretty hard on the railways, and it is hard on the taxpayers. I find from the return before me that we have spent in Canada a grand total of $211,000,000 on canals. The interest alone on that amount is a sum that would startle the taxpayers if they really knew what they were paying, and in addition to that we have an item of $2,222,000 here for the staff. Then there will be a lot of repairs, I presume, in addition to that.


Mr. SNOWBALL:: The question brought
up by my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) is disturbing the people of the Maritime provinces. When confederation took place the expense on canals was about $20,000,000. The expenditure on the railway in New Brunswick taken over at confederation was about the same amount. At that time the Intercolonial was promised, and built I think at a cost of about $147,000,000; the canals cost $211,000,000. We in the Maritime provinces feel that we get no compensation for our share in the upkeep and maintenance, and the expenditure in dredging the canal. We are made to pay the regular rate, or a proportion of rates, in those provinces, and we are taxed higher than they are in some parts of the Dominion, especially in the Northwest.


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member is wrong.


William Bunting Snowball: No, I think hon. members will find we are right. The increase in rates on lumber alone was only 32 per cent from British Columbia, and from the Maritime provinces it was 68 per cent.


John Livingstone Brown: On what figures are those
percentages based? Percentages lead one astray unless one knows on what they are based.


William Bunting Snowball: On the freight rates that existed prior to 1916.


John Livingstone Brown: What were they?


William Bunting Snowball: The Maritime provinces are very much interested in the matter of canals, and they feel that on account of the canal systems and the benefits they are giving to the prairie provinces in the way of getting their goods transported, as well as to Ontario, the Maritime provinces should have some consideration given to them as regards freight rates on the Intercolonial railways system of the Canadian National.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Nelson terminals-Hudson Bay railway-revote, $10,000-$35,000.
William John Ward: I notice that $25,000 was
spent at Nelson harbour last year. What was it spent for?


George Perry Graham: We have at Port Nelson, on account of previous construction, machinery, vessels, boats and a good deal of other property. We have to keep quite a number of men there in order to preserve the property from going to destruction.


Arthur John Lewis: Is it not about time the government started to reconstruct rather than to keep it in repair?


Mr. HOEY:: Has the minister considered
the advisability of moving some of these boats, particularly the large dredge, from Port Nelson? What is the object in keeping them there to deteriorate if there is no intention of going ahead with the port?


George Perry Graham: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations, including the Canadian National Advisory Committee and its employees and including E B. Jost, $2,500, as assistant to chairman of engineering board, and G. W. Yates, $1,200, as secretary (revote $25,000), $150,000.
Thomas Langton Church: Why is this St. Lawrence ship canal vote holding up the Morrisburg application of the Ontario government and the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission for

Supply-Railways and Canals
power which is so badly needed? I understand the government has taken the position that nothing will be done until this money is voted and a report made. It may be a year or two, or three or four or five years, before a report is made. In the meantime, the reports and the applications are all in, and I see no reason why the application of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission and the Ontario government should not be granted. A joint report was made by the commission on this work from the financial side, the engineering side, the navigation side and the transportation side. It is a very good report. I cannot see what object will be gained by appointing a new commission. In addition to this, the appointment of this new commission is, holding up a very important power development for eastern Ontario. About a month ago the minister promised that when this vote was up, he would make a statement as to the Morris-burg proposition.


George Perry Graham: This item is larger than it was last year, but that is accounted for by the fact that heretofore we have been carrying an item of $50,000 in the estimates of the Railways and Canals department for this work, and now it is all put under the one head and made $150,000 instead of $100,000. My hon. friend has asked a question and it will take me a few minutes, perhaps, to explain the matter. As a matter of fact, the duty of this government is [primarily to look after the requirements of navigation. The question of an enlarged St. Lawrence waterway is viewed from three angles: First, those who want it developed for power purposes and have little interest in navigation; second, those who think altogether of navigation; and third, others who take into consideration both the development of power and the improvement of navigation. The federal authority must make navigation its primary care. Some years ago a joint board of engineers was appointed by the United States and Canada. That commission was composed of Mr. Wooten, representing the United States and the late Mr. Bowden, representing the Dominion of Canada, he being chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals.' This committee made a comprehensive study of the question and brought in a report. Without going into details, I may say that that report was favourable to this project.


Arthur Edward Ross: In what year was that report made?


George Perry Graham: I think it was 1921, but I am not sure. The hon. member for North

Toronto (Mr. Church) asks: Why is this not proceeded with, after that report has been made? Let me point this out. Owing to the many questions that arise between Canada and the United States involving interests in water in streams, international and otherwise, the two governments arranged by treaty, some years ago, to name an international joint commission, to which is referred all questions concerning boundary waters. This question of the development of the St. Lawrence waterway was referred to the commission and the report of Messrs. Wooten and Bowden was submitted, if I remember rightly to it. While the engineers were studying the problem the International Joint Commission toured Canada and the United States, taking evidence as to the advisability of entering into an arrangement in regard to the St. Lawrence waterway, both countries being deeply interested. I appeared among others before the commission and gave what evidence I thought ought to be given. The International Joint Commission itself, after consideration of the report of the board of engineres decided that the scheme was practicable. It made a report recommending the project, but in that report the following significant paragraph appears:
The commission is convinced that in a matter of such unusual magnitude, involving engineering factors that are more or less debatable, and affecting the interests of many millions of people, too much care cannot be taken to ensure the adoption of plans that will be beyond reasonable criticism both as to the general scheme of development and the working out of its details. It is therefore desirable that before any steps are taken to carry out the commission's recommendation the plans of the engineering board, together with such comments or criticisms or alternative plans as have been filed with the commission by other engineers, should be referred back to the board and enlarged by other leading members of the engineering profession, to the end that the whole question be given that further and complete study that its magnitude and importance demand.
In view of that very positive recommendation the governments of both countries decided to proceed with a further investigation. There was a good deal of correspondence between the United States and Canada as to the questions which should be referred to the enlarged joint engineering board. That board included, in its Canadian section, D. W. McLachlan, of the Department of Railways and Canals, Oliver O. Lefebvre, chief engineer of the Quebec Streams Commission, Montreal, and Brigadier General Charles H. Mitchell, of Toronto; and in its United States section, Brigadier General Jadwin, Colonel Wm. Kelly, and Lt.-Colonel George E. Pillsbury. Mr. McLachlan was appointed chairman of the Canadian section and Brigadier General Jad-

Supply-Railways and Canals
win of the United States section. The other two members of each section, Messrs. Lefehvre and Mitchell and Kelly and Pillsbury were appointed technical officers for the consideration of the term of reference which should constitute the instructions to the enlarged joint engineering board. Several meetings of the technical officers were necessary, and much correspondence between the respective governments before the terms of reference could be recommended by the national advisory committee for adoption by the Canadian government.
One difficult question arose between the two countries and it required a good deal of correspondence to get it straightened out. Everyone understands or has some knowledge at least of the difficulties in connection with the diversion of water at Chicago, and while the actual diversion did not perhaps properly come within the scope of the investigation of the engineers, the Canadian government felt that the joint engineering board Should consider the effect which the lowering of the water through this diversion would have on the St. Lawrence project. The American government was of the opinion that the question of the diversion of water at Niagara Falls should also be considered by the engineers. The Canadian government took the view that the Niagara diversions did not affect the St. Lawrence scheme; we pointed out that the diversion of water there had no influence on the depth of the St. Lawrence or the works involved, for the simple reason that practically all the water used at Niagara returns to the Niagara river or into the waterways that flow into the St. Lawrence, while at Chicago the water which is diverted goes into the Mississippi watershed and is lost both to the Niagara and the St. Lawrence rivers. It Will be seen, from the terms of reference Which, with the consent of the committee I beg to place on Hansard, that the joint board of engineers will give consideration to the effect of the Chicago diversion on the St. Lawrence project and that the question of the division of water at Niagara is not involved:
Instructions to Joint Board of Engineers on the St.
Lawrence Waterway
The governments of Canada and the United States have accepted the recommendation, made by the International Joint Commission in its report dated 19th December, 1921, that the question of the development of the St. Lawrence river for navigation and for the supply of power be referred to an enlarged joint board of engineers.
It is desired that the new board should review the report dated 24th June, 1921, made by the late Mr. W. A. Bowden and Colonel W. P. Wooten, and that it should extend its enquiries to certain additional
matters with a view to supplying the technical information likely to be relevant to the proposals made in the report of the International Joint Commission above referred to. The new board is therefore charged at this time with reporting upon the following:
1.	Is the scheme for the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterway, presented by the board in its report of June 24th, 1921, practicable and does it provide to the best advantage, at this time and ultimately, for the development of the capacities and possibilities of the waterway?
2.	What alternative schemes, if any, would be better adapted to secure the ends desired, due consideration being given-
(a)	to any special international or local interests having an importance justifying exceptional consideration, and
(b)	to the extent and character of the damage through flooding and the probable effect of the works upon the formation of ice and the consequent effect on the flow of the river?
3.	Should the estimates of cost be revised and, if so, what are the revised estimates of cost having regard to alternative schemes?
4.	In order to assist either government to allocate the amounts chargeable to navigation and power, what would be the respective estimated costs for improving the river for navigation alone and for power alone?
5. To what extent may water levels in the St. Lawrence river at and below Montreal, as well as the river and lake levels generally, be affected by the execution of the project?
6.	(a) To what extent and in what manner are the natural water levels in the St. Lawrence river and on the lakes affected by diversions authorized by license by either Canada or the United States, from or in the St. Lawrence river watershed?
(b)	By what measures could the water levels or navigable depths affected by the diversions referred to in section 6 (a) be restored, and what would be the cost thereof?
(c) How much power could be developed on the St. Lawrence river with the water diverted from the watershed referred to in section 6 (a) under:
(1)	The plans recommended.
(2)	Alternative plans providing for a full practical development of the river.
(d)	Without considering compensation by the present relative diversions of water from the Niagara river and from lake Erie, and without prejudice to a future consideration thereof, what works, if any, could be constructed to recover on the St. Lawrence river the amount of power determined under section 6 (c), and what would be the cost of such works?
7.	Having regard to economy of construction and maintenance, expedition of construction and efficiency of operation-
(a)	Which of the works should be constructed under the technical supervision of an international board and what other works, if any, might advantageously be constructed under such supervision?
(b)	Which of the works should be maintained and operated by an international board and what other works, if any, might advantageously be so maintained and operated ?
8.	What, if any, readjustments in the location of the international boundary are necessary or desirable lo place power structures belonging to either country within its borders, as recommended by the International Joint Commission?
9.	If the board is of the opinion that it would be advantageous to provide in the first instance for channel depths other than 25 feet, but less than 30 feet, for what draft of vessel should provision b* made?

Supply-Railways and Canals
10.	Having regard to the recommendation of the International Joint Commission that the new Welland ship canal should be embodied in the scheme and should be treated as a part thereof, and to the fact that if a greater depth than 21 feet be adopted for the initial project depth of the St. Lawrence, such greater depth would not be available to the upper lake ports without further work in the navigation channels in the lakes, what would be the cost of improving the main navigation channels between and through the lakes, so as to provide, without impairing the present lake levels for (a) a depth of 25 feet and (b) for such other depth not exceeding 30 feet, as may be determined by the board to be that for which it would be most advantageous to provide on the St. Lawrence river ?
11.	What is the time required to complete the proposed works, the order in which they should be proceeded with, and the progress which should be made yearly towards the completion of each in order to secure the greatest advantage from each of the works and from the development of the waterway as a whole?
It is desired that the report be accompanied by such drawings as are necessary for showing the location and general character of the works proposed.
It is also desired that in the preparation of the report, due regard should be had to any diversions from or in the St. Lawrence river watershed, which, at the date of the report, are authorized by license by either Canada or the United States.
It is desired that the board report, from time to time on the matters referred to it as the progress of its enquiries permits, and that these enquiries be so prosecuted that, if practicable, the board should have reported on all such matters by the end of April, 1926.
The Canadian government and the United States government have worked out plans for carrying on an investigation outside of the engineering investigation that is being conducted by the joint engineering board and its technical officers. To consider generally whether or not the project would, if completed, be beneficial to Canada, the government has appointed a national advisory committee for the Dominion, which is composed of your humble servant as chairman, Thomas Ahearn, Ottawa; Hon. W. E. Foster, St. John, N.B.; Beaudry Loman, Montreal; Edward D. Martin, Winnipeg; Dr. Wilfrid L. McDougald, Montreal; Hon. Sir Clifford Sifton, Toronto; Major General John W. Stewart, Vancouver; Hon. Adelard Turgeon, Quebec. The United States advisory committee is composed of Hon. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, chairman. William C. Breed, attorney-at-law, New York city, former president New York Merchants Association; James E. Davidson, Bay City, Michigan, vice president American Shipbuilding Company, Bay City; James P. Goodrich, Winchester, Ind., formerly Governor of Indiana; James R. Howard, Chicago, III., formerly president American Farm Bureau Federation; James D. Noonan, American Federation of Labour; Stephen B. Davis, Washington, D.C., counsel; Charles P. Craig Washington, D.C., executive secretary. I

might point out that the secretary of the Canadian board is Mr. George W. Yates, Assistant Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, and formerly private secretary of the late Mr. Cochrane. In the estimates is included an amount to be paid him, in addition to his regular salary, for performing this work, because we could find no man as well qualified for four times the money.
In order to facilitate the gathering of data for the information of the government and the consideration of the national advisory committee which is to advise the cabinet, the government has thought it wise to select representatives from the several departments which come into contact with the project. A committee which we have called the interdepartmental committee has therefore been formed for the co-ordination of the views of the technical officers of these various departments. It is composed of Colonel Biggar, chairman; Finance, J. A. Russell (alternate R. B. Viets); National Defence, Brigadier-General A. G. L. McNaughton; Public Works, K. M. Cameron (alternate C. R. Coutlee); Interior, J. B. Challies (alternate J. T. Johnston-Mr. Challies having left the service, his place has been taken by Mr. Johnston; Marine and Fisheries, W. J. Stewart-we all regret that he has been taken away-(alternate V. W. Forneret); Railways and Canals, E. B. Jost; Trade and Commerce, Gordon Wrong. This committee meets regularly and has done splendid work quietly and silently. It has rendered available data that could not have been secured in any other way, and if there is never any St. Lawrence development this country will be the richer for the information they have compiled.
To date the joint engineering board has had several meetings, and each section is also at work upon national aspects of the project.. Our national advisory committee has had two meetings. Its chief work to date has been the consideration and approval of the terms of reference submitted to the joint engineering board. This committee will also study the recommendations and suggestions of the interdepartmental committee, and when their work is completed I believe they will present a report to the government that will be of very material assistance to us in reaching a decision as to whether this project in all its bearings should be proceeded with, and how.
As to the development of power on the St. Lawrence, I think all Canada will agree with me it would be contrary to the recommendation of the International Joint Commission if any work for the development of power were proceeded with until this investigation

Supply-Railways and Canals
is completed, because any work undertaken, say, at Morrisburg, might be altogether at variance with the report which may be made by the joint board of engineers as to where and how that power should be developed. I should like to see the water-power at Miorris-burg or elsewhere on the St. Lawrence developed at once, but as the duty of this government and this parliament is primarily to protect the interests of navigation, it would be unwise and altogether out of harmony with our treaty obligations with the United States and contrary to the recommendation of the International Joint Commission if we did not stay our hand until such time as we have-the report of the men appointed by international arrangement for the full investigation of the St. Lawrence waterways project.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: How long will it
be before that report will be issued?


George Perry Graham: I think the time suggested is April, 1926, but I hardly think the board will have the work completed by that time.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Chairman, I would
think that if the project ever works its way through this maze of machinery it will be past 1926, before it emerges at the other end. We have first of all the International Joint Commission, which of course has. the superintendence of the matter by treaty, and whose approval must be procured before any project can go through. Then, if I followed the intricacies of the organization, there is a joint engineering board, the duty of which, I presume, would be to advise as to method. Then there is another advisory committee, and so far as I got an idea of its functions it is to tell the engineering board what subjects they must investigate and report upon.


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: Well, what matters they must make subjects of reference to the engineering board.


George Perry Graham: The technical officers
selected by both countries are members of the joint engineering board. Two were taken from each section to act together and make recommendations as to what should be referred.


Arthur Meighen: That is wrhat I said.
That is number three. Then there is a national advisory committee, which the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) described as looking very much like a Liberal campaign committee; however, the names are certainly distinguished. Apparently it
has met twice and approved what some other committee did. This is number four. Then there is an interdepartmental committee gathered from all the departments under the chairmanship of Colonel Biggar, and this is pumber five. If the purpose was to keep the matter constantly between heaven and earth I think the proper devices have been adopted.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Would "between wind
and water" not be a better expression there?


Arthur Meighen: I fancy that in the real prosecution of the enterprise there has been a lot more wind than water. I have no particular objection to any of the men who have been named on any of these committees, but really I would not have thought anything quite so complicated was necessary. Under the late government we had a board, one single committee, which had arrived at very definite conclusions as to the general lines of the venture, as to where the dam should be, the nature of its construction and so on, and had compiled data which seemed very amply to support its view. I refer to the Dominion power board. Nominally it sat under my chairmanship, although I never was there; actually it was under the chairmanship of Mr. Challies, who now is on this interdepartmental committee. This is a question that the government has not attacked de novo at all. It has been under review departmentally for years. When the government came into office the Railway department had a most pronounced view on the subject. They had an engineer there by the name of Mr. Bowden, who is since deceased. Mr. Bowden was a member of the Dominion power board. He was most persevering in his own opinion. He never could be got to agree with the other members of the board; he had his plan which differed from the rest. Aside from that, however, there was no difference. Why we should have a committee of great political dignity and a galaxy of others, all filling the heavens at the same time, debating this matter year in and year out, I really do not know. I would not like to see any mistake made as to the development, but with the plans which the Dominion power board had worked out the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario were in accord, and the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario, from the practical standpoint, with the experience they have behind them, would appear to me to be the body best entitled to speak as to how the whole thing should be managed. Of course I am aware that the responsibility of the Dominion is primarily from the standpoint of navigation. The navigation feature of this

Supply-Railways and Canals
enterprise is a big feature, but I do not think I could ever be persuaded that it is the major feature. The major feature is the power development, however we may cover it up under the lee of better navigation and so forth. Great advantage will come from better navigation of the St. Lawrence in the territory affected by the development, but it is comparatively meagre when compared with the commercial harvest that is expected to be reaped from the great potential power. I feel that the utmost consideration should be given to the views of the Hydro Electric Commission in this matter. They have undoubtedly made a success of the pioneering in power enterprises in this province. What they have done is to-day the outstanding example to the whole world of what can be achieved in the matter of great power development. I would be very sorry to see, in the first place, any plan adopted which is not in full harmony with the experience and matured opinions of that body, but I would be equally disappointed to find that by the interposition of a hopeless complex or endless devolution of machinery the aspirations of the people of Ontario for power from this enterprise are indefinitely postponed.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is interesting to note how the system of the United States differs from ours in connection with this matter. Something has already been said in regard to engineering or survey services under an earlier item. I pointed out, or intended to point- out then that all these services should be really under one head. To-day the United States are dealing with this project under one department; the officers appointed by them to deal with it are permanent officials of their engineering services. Our system is so divided and subdivided that, like my leader, I have very little hope of a decision being arrived at in the matter. Certainly under the present methods it will take a great many years to reach anything dtefinite. The development of power i3 of very great importance to this country. Power can be developed on the St. Lawrence in a very few years, but the deepening of the St. Lawrence cannot be completed within from thirty to fifty years-I would say fifty, if we are to judge by the development of other projects now under way, the Welland canal for example. The country cannot afford to wait even thirty years for the development of this power. The Hydro Electric system had under consideration the question of the development of power on the St. Lawrence at two points. First they were willing to take power from a development at Waddington,
 <
N.Y., but that fell by the way. Then about 1912 or 1913 came the project of developing power at the Morrisburg dam. We have the assertion of the engineering department of the Hydro Electric system of Ontario that the development by means of this dam would not interfere with navigation on the St. Lawrence, but would rather improve it. I do not think we need hesitate to accept this view of the Hydro Electric engineering deportment, because they have already undertaken the development of power on the Chippewa river. That project is one of the greatest in North America, equal perhaps to anything in the world. I happened to be there about the time of its completion, when a survey of the work was being made by the greatest engineers of the American Department of Engineering. The men who had planned and brought to completion the great power development on the Mississippi river were there on that occasion, and they had no hesitation in saying that this was one of the most wonderful projects developed on this continent, or indeed on any continent. Consequently, I think we need not cast aside the opinion of a department like the Hydro Electric engineering department of Ontario, and they have already made the assertion that the development of power by the Morris-burg dam will not interfere with navigation on the St. Lawrence.
To shorten the matter, I would urge upon the minister that means be taken, to have a quick decision given as to the possibility of the development of power by the Morrisburg dam without interference with the other project. I do not see any reason why that decision should be delayed. The matter is urgent, and this power will be developed without any cost to the federal government or to this country. The matter should be brought to a head at once. Let the engineers who are now discussing it give their decision, and if their decision should be that it would interfere with the St. Lawrence project, we can sit quiet and say all right; we can afford to await a further opinion. But it is urgent that the engineers in connection with" this matter should not wait for the larger project, which of course, will be considered further, but should let us have a decision as to whether this Morrisburg development cannot be proceeded with at once.


John Millar: I wish to commend the action of the government in one respect at least, that they are approaching this matter with caution. I do not know whether the method that is being followed is the best; I do not know whether the amount that is

Supply-Railways and Canals
being expended is too small or too large; but I am convinced that if this project is proceeded with at once it will be fatal to the best interests of Canada. Some years ago the Welland canal project was launched, and I think perhaps many would have taken at that time the same course the minister took. We were all optimistic, we had not got into the war, but now we can plainly see that the project was started too soon.
I would like to say a word on transportation in connection with the deepening of the St. Lawrence. I have little knowledge of the possibilities or of the necessity or the wisdom of proceeding to develop water-power, but the transportation side of this question is of interest to western Canada. Two years ago when we were discussing this matter, I pointed out that after the Welland canal was opened, great boats would be able to proceed to Prescott, and there the grain could be transferred and taken to Montreal, either by small boats or by rail, for a very few cents; in fact, I believe I said that even if the grain were transferred to elevators at Prescott and taken by rail, the cost in the large bulk would probably be only three or four cents; I am not sure as to the exact figure I stated. After I left the chamber, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) pointed out that the rate there was 13 cents. Now there is no good quoting a rate where there is no grain, or very little, moving. A few years ago the rate from Owen Sound and other points on the lakes, from transfer elevators to Montreal, was 5i cents; it is now, I believe, about 8 cents. It is quite plain to me that after the Welland canal is opened the cost of transferring grain at Prescott and taking it to Montreal is not going to be great. A small boat can take 80,000 bushels at a load, and which ever way it gcTes, the cost will be small. But this St. Lawrence waterways project is going to cost the two countries, I think, almost $500,000,000, because you can always double the first estimate with safety.


George Gibson Coote: Double it again.


John Millar: It might be. We can
plainly see that Canada is hardly in the financial position to stand this expenditure.
There is another reason why I think the government should approach this matter with great caution. When Mr. Hoover, who had been appointed chairman of the commission that has been referred to, came over into Canada, in about his very first speech he made the statement, if the newspapers quoted him correctly, that the commission was going
to report in favour of this project. I thought it would have been well for him to have first got the evidence and then have given his decision on the evidence, but rather it would seem he gave his decision first and was going to take the evidence after. For this reason I think it is doubly necessary that our government should be very, very cautious.
There are many phases of this matter that require investigation. It is quite well known that the levels of the upper lakes are much lower than they were a few years ago. Possibly this project may lower the levels of the upper lakes still further. A loss of two or three feet, or even of one foot, when we consider the danger to navigation and the possibility of a big boat striking the bottom, is a very serious thing; it is difficult to estimate the loss there might be in that respect.
Looking back over the histoiy of our canals, we have had three Welland canals, and in each case the expectations of the traffic that was going to come through these canals were disappointed. It was expected that traffic was going to go in that direction in very great quantities, but if you look up the statements that were made by prominent men before the canal was opened and at the figures of the traffic since, you will find that in each case the results have been very disappointing. I am taking the statements of such men as Mr. Sanford Evans, who is perhaps my principal authority. I do not wish to hold up this estimate. I am glad the government are investigating this matter thoroughly, and I shall not object if they continue their investigations for the next twenty years. I believe this project will eventually be undertaken, I think it is proper that it should, but Canada is not ready for it yet.


William Findlay Maclean: What has the
minister to say in reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) as to whether the Morrisburg proposition cannot be gone on with and power developed there for the Ontario people who want it for their industries, and without interference with this other great project of the St. Lawrence waterways?


George Perry Graham: That is one of t'he questions the joint engineering board is investigating. It is not all harmony between what the Hydro-Electric suggests and the opinions of the engineers who have investigated this question. One of the matters they are investigating now is the scheme that ought to be adopted, whether it should. include the Morrisburg dam, whether poweT should be

Supply-Railways and Canals
developed there, or whether power should be developed at the Long Sault in its entirety.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I really wish
my hon. friend would take this up himself. I know there are engineering disputes; there always are, but there is a real practical situation in connection with the development of this power. There are those, and I think the late chief engineer was one of them, who think we should have the development but at the one point, and that the development should be a good deal farther down the river than Morrisburg.


George Perry Graham: At the Long Sault, at
Barnhart's island.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a long way farther down than Morrisburg. The development of that scheme means the expenditure of an immense amount of money, flooding a tremendous area. But one of the chief objections to the scheme is the matter of the riparian ownership which happens to exist at that point, of which my hon. friend is well aware. In other words, if that work is to be a development for the benefit of the people of this country, it will not be there, but it will be at Morrisburg. Certainly there can be development there and there possibly will be development there, and that development can take place perfectly well with the development at Morrisburg. I know there is a dispute between the engineers as to which would be the more efficient, having regard to the total amount of power to be developed. There is a school of thought which holds that if we go down to Barnhart's island we will get a somewhat greater volume of power, and another school which maintains that if we divide the development, doing the best we can at Morrisburg, we will get a greater total than we can in the one development, but the real practical thing is this:	Either scheme
will give us a great amount of power, and what is wanted is development at a point Where the general public will get the greatest use of the electricity produced. I do not think anyone knowing anything about the situation can take any exception to the proposition that so far as the immediate utilization and the larger percentage of gain to the general public is concerned, we will do far better if we develop at Morrisburg. There is another reason for the development at Morrisburg. If we develop there this government is saved all financial commitments. This government has not too much money to spend and we have heavy taxes. Surely it is a good thing for us if we can have the power situation covered without any cost to our-

selves, and at the same time reserve all rights of navigation. Surely that proposition is one which requires some immediate attention. I forget how many years ago it is, but I should think it must be three years, since the Hydro Electric Commission put in their application for leave to develop power at the Morrisburg dam. I have not looked into it at all lately. My hon. friend can tell me if I am wrong, but it is some considerably time ago at any rate, and they are just as near getting any action now as they were when they first put in their application. Their proposition covers not only the production of the electricity, which is a great thing for the district which my hon. friend has an immediate interest in, eastern Ontario, but it looks after the navigation end of it. Why can that not be done? Let us see what is happening in the meantime. Here we have got a commitment, owing to this delay, of $10,000,000 at present in the estimates for steam power in Ontario, knowing at the same time that unless proper water development is permitted that amount will grow to $25,000,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is perfectly absurd that with the water-powers we have Canada should be asked to put money into a steam plant and asked to continue to use American coal at great expense when we have our own power here running to waste, simply because engineers squabble. I do not think that matter should be allowed to stand. If my hon. friend will take it up himself, and get away from all the different committees that have been erected for the purpose of preventing any action at all, we can get something done, and it should be started immediately.


Mr. GERMAN:: I desire to say one word
with reference to what has been stated by the hon. member for West York. He suggests that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission should be allowed to go on immediately and construct the Morrisburg dam and develop electrical power at that point. I do not know that anyone who desires electrical power so far as Ontario is concerned will seriously object to that, but the great obstacle in the way is the United States government. They will not agree to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission putting a dam across the river to the American territory at Morrisburg for the purpose of developing American power. So that will stop that proposition at once. I think the government have been delaying this matter too long. I quite agree with the leader . of the opposition that we have too many commissions. I think all that was necessary was to have a board of engineers, three on each

Supply-Railways and Canals
side, to supervise and inspect the figures prepared by Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wooten, the Canadian and United States engineers who made the report to the International Joint Commission. It seems to me that all that is now necessary is to have those figures checked up to see if they are correct, and find out that the work will not cost more than the estimate made in that report. If it will not cost more, then go on and carry out the project.


William Findlay Maclean: And Ontario will pay for it.


William Manley German: Ontario will not pay for it. It is a fact that electrical power can be developed, as outlined in the report of the International Joint Commission, and sold at the switchboard of the power house at a cheaper figure than power is to-day being sold by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission at Niagara Falls, Ontario.


Arthur Edward Ross: Taking the original proposal, what is my hon. friend's opinion as to the time in which power will be developed or could be secured?


William Manley German: It can be developed under the proposition recommended by the International Joint Commission just as quickly and easily as it can be developed by building the dam at Morrisburg, because it will take no longer to build a dam at the foot of the Long Sault rapids than it would take to build a dam at Morrisburg, and all the dams and locks could be constructed concurrently; so that five or six years should see the completion of the work after the plans and specifications were provided and the contractors told to go ahead and do the work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think my hon. friend is wrong. In the first place, he is wrong in saying that Ontario will not pay the cost of the Morrisburg dam. The offer is in, and there is no use drawing red herrings across the trail. This is something that is absolutely needed in the public interest. The offer is there and there is no trouble whatever, so far as the government is concerned, on the financial issue. The matter has been standing not for months, but for years. There was some international difficulty at one time I believe, but I know this:	A gentleman who was interested in the development on the American side came to see me not so very long ago. He wanted to find out why it was that Canada would do nothing in connection with the Morrisburg dam. He told me that the state of New York was a unit for it, and that there would be no difficulty whatever in arranging for the construction of works to produce 308
electricity upon a fair basis of division, having regard to American rights to the water and also the Canadian rights.


William Manley German: The state of New York
has no more jurisdiction over it than the province of Ontario. The federal government of the United States and the federal government of Canada control navigation on the St. Lawrence.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite appreciate that; but he said that as far as the United States was concerned they needed the electricity and wanted it just as much as we did, and that if the navigation rights were absolutely secured-and that is the proposition-there would be no objection by the federal government. I do not pretend to know what is going on behind the scenes or what interests are blocking this scheme. I do not pretend to know what particular representations are being made to the government in connection with this, but I believe-and I am pretty sure I am right-that, as I said before, if we were to get rid of the cloud of commissions or committees that are obscuring it, and if the hon. gentleman, in whom I have great confidence were to take this matter up himself, he would find no international difficulty. He has not to find any money from this parliament and, on the other hand, he will enable another organization to function.


George Gibson Coote: Might we have some explanation of the statement just made by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) that the minister would not be called upon to find any money for this project? That is news to me.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is getting projects mixed. If the Morrisburg proposition were part of the scheme, that is all it could be; it is not a scheme. What the hon. member for West York is talking about is a dam at Morrisburg to be constructed by the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission for ,the development of power from which the Hydro Electric Commission would get the revenue. He was not talking about the entire project. The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) says that before you can put one foot of lumber into an international stream like the St. Lawrence, you have to get the consent of both federal governments. I am not arguing as to the right to power. That is a question for lawyers and I would not venture on that ground. The federal government have appointed representatives of Canada in the International Joint Com-

Supply-Railways and Canals
mission. That commission, having taken evidence all over Canada and the United States, having had the report of a joint engineering board composed of one man from Canada and one man from the United States, says to the people of both countries: Do not go on with this project until you have a further investigation by an enlarged engineering board. That is what we are doing. My view is that the United States-I do not speak positively, but I think I am correct-will not give their consent to any proposal affecting the international section of the St. Lawrence river until they have a report from the joint engineering board.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it not true that the construction of this dam at Mor-risburg would be in ease of future navigation work? To the extent that that dam iis put in, navigation is rendered more easy (When the complete scheme comes along.


George Perry Graham: It would be if the joint
engineering board should approve the Mor-risburg dam as part of the ultimate scheme. But they might report adversely to that feature, and say that that is not the best thing to do. I think it is fair to assume that neither government, on account of its obligations each to the other, could give its consent to the construction of a dam at Mor-risburg until the joint engineering body appointed by them to report on that scheme Lad made its report.


William Findlay Maclean: When is that
report expected?


George Perry Graham: I gave the date some
time ago. I think it is April, 1926, but my personal opinion is that it may be later, because anyone who has studied the question knows how involved the matter is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid we shall have to look for reports and not for power.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend
would do just as we are doing if he were charged with the responsibility. He would not delegate to his province or any other province the responsibility that belongs to the federal authority, and if he did, the province of Ontario could not deal with the United States; only the Dominion of Canada could deal with them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Certainly.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister a report
including an estimate of the cost of the proposed international waterway?


George Perry Graham: $253,000,000, if I remember correctly the former engineer's report.


George Gibson Coote: I take it from the remarks
made by the minister a few minutes ago that we can be assured the government do not contemplate engaging in any work in this connection until the report of this commission is received.


George Perry Graham: That is the position the
government must take.


George Gibson Coote: I just wanted to be assured
of that, because, personally, with the limited information we have, I am very much opposed to this country entering upon the construction of the St. Lawrence waterway at the present time. We should first begin to pay off a little bit of the debt already incurred and finish other work which has been started.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To recoup the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited, for management and operation of barquentine S. P. Tohnie, $60,000.
George Perry Graham: This is really a bookkeeping item in order to straighten out the accounts of the government merchant marine with the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Some years ago the Marine department engaged the Canadian Government Merchant Marine management to manage a boat of theirs, agreeing to pay the expenses and the loss in operation. The loss in operation was $60,000. The boat was sold and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine carries on its books $60,000. We want to adjust that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital-St. Anne's lock: highway bridge at Isle Perrot, $50,000.
George Perry Graham: Parliament voted $150,000 to aid in the construction of this bridge. We have paid $100,000 and this is to pay the balance of $50,000. The bridge was opened in June.


George Gibson Coote: Is it an international bridge?


George Perry Graham: In one way it is an interprovincial matter and in another it is not. This money was voted by this parliament in order to aid a highway project which connects the province of Quebec with the province of Ontario and the west. The Ottawa river does not, in either of its branches, touch Ontario at this point, but a little west of that it is an interprovincial stream. The parliament of the time thought it was wise, in giving this aid to road construction, to aid in the construction of this bridge.

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Gibson Coote: What was the cost of this
bridge, and who paid the balance of it?


George Perry Graham: The Quebec government
paid the balance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose this
is carrying out the original plan?


George Perry Graham: Yes. As a matter of
fact, at Ste. Anne, the bridge has to cross the Dominion canal, and that is a perfectly good reason for our contributing an amount towards the construction of this bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal-construction and betterments (revote, $17,000), $42,000.
George Gibson Coote: Why should we spend more
money on capital account for the Trent canal?


George Perry Graham: This is for guard gates.
Severn division, payment for land damages, erection of lockmaster's house and some other small items. Hon. gentlemen will note, as I explained some time ago, there is not really a reduction in the item because the reduction was added to another place and taken from capital account here because we believed the items should be under another head.


George Gibson Coote: We are spending $42,000 on
capital account. From what the minister says it seems to me that it should come under repair account. Why should the department carry items like these under capital account when they add nothing to our capital? Why not be honest and designate it properly?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend built himself a house would he not charge the cost to capital account?


George Gibson Coote: But not if I built a new door on an old house.


George Perry Graham: These are not new doors; these are new constructions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know that it makes much difference; it is merely a matter of bookkeeping, because this is added to the net debt. We are not under the same illusion as in the case of the railways.


George Gibson Coote: I think so, for the reason that this canal will not be worth fifty cents more after this expenditure is made than it is now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal-construction, $15,000,000.
Mr. KNOX:: This is a large and important item and there is an increase of $4,000,000 as 308i
compared with last year, when we thought that the vote of $11,000,000 was quite large enough. I have had an opportunity of looking over the work on the Welland canal and I must say that when I saw it some time ago I was impressed with its magnitude. I studied to some extent the traffic passing through the canal and the estimate I got then has been corroborated to-day by the minister; that there was a traffic of some 5,000,000 tons over the canal last year. It struck me that the canal was giving very good service as it was, and at a time like this when our finances are more or less limited it did not seem to me advisable that the expenditures there should be increased. I discovered some time ago in answer to a question that the wofk on the Welland canal is expected to be completed in 1929. So far the expeditures on the canal total $51,203,488.15; that was up to the beginning of the present season. But as it is estimated that the total requirements for the work demand some $100,000,000, it will be seen that we have still something like $49,000,000 to provide before the canal will be completed. Spread that over five years, including the present year and the year 1929, and you have an annual expenditure of less than $10,000,000. Why therefore should we be spending $15,000,000 this year? That is what is bothering me. We have been spending rather lavishly too in other directions. For instance, there is an item of $5,000,000 for Quebec harbour. Is it necessary that we should spend $15,000,000 this year on -this work when other projects elsewhere are not, so far as we know, receiving very much consideration?


An hon. MEMBER:: The Hudson Bay railway.


Andrew Knox: Yes, that is the very thing I had in mind. We may be told of course that as the session is not yet over there is still some prospect in that regard; but from all the information that is available, things do not look very promising. Under these circumstances I do not think I should be doing anything but what might be reasonably expected of me if I protested very strongly against so large a vote for the Welland canal. I move therefore that item 111 for the Welland ship canal construction be reduced by $5,000,000.


George Perry Graham: I do not think the hon. member can be serious. If he is, then, he has not the faintest idea of what a business proposition is. This work is all under contract except one section of it and if we refused to

Supply-Railways and Canals
carry out our contracts we should still have to pay the money, and that would be paying for work that is not done. Parliament cannot take any different position in business from that which any private person would assume. If my hon. friend had a man engaged to build a house for him he would want to have the work done as quickly as possible.


Andrew Knox: But I would try to provide the money before letting the contract.


George Perry Graham: The -money is always provided before the contracts are let. I repeat, this work is all under contract and we cannot afford not to carry it out. If the hon. member gave a man a contract to -build a house what would he do if somebody else came along and advised him not t-o put the roof on this year but to let the contractor discharge his workmen? Why, he would not think of such a thing for a moment either in his own interests -or as a matter of fair play to the contractor. The Welland canal was started at the request of the western people, and I say that emphatically because I know.


Andrew Knox: Did the minister ever receive -a request signed by 125,000 people of one province urging that this work be completed, as was done in the case of the Hudson Bay railway a few days ago?


George Perry Graham: The people of the west
urged the government to have this work done. I do not think my hon. friend was in the firing line then.


Andrew Knox: Yes, he was.


George Perry Graham: At any rate, they urged
the government to pledge itself to the completion of the Welland canal at the earliest possible date. That was the state of public opinion in that part of the country then, however it may have changed. I say emphatically that the WTelland canal was started largely at the request of the western people to reduce the cost of carrying their commodities. My hon. friend objects now and he gives as the reason for his objection the fact that the Hudson Bay railway is not getting a vote.


Andrew Knox: That is one of the reasons.


George Perry Graham: Well, that may be an excuse but it is no reason; it is not a reason that will carry my friend along. Suppose when the Hudson Bay railway started, members in parliament had refused to vote anything -for it because votes were not being asked for in connection with other undertakings. Would that have been any reason for not voting expenditures for that railway?


Mr. FORKE:: The point on which the
committee would like some information is whether it is absolutely necessary that the canal should be finished right away.


George Perry Graham: The longer it waits the
more it will cost. When the war came on the government of the day stopped construction and they had to settle with the contractors. After the war regular construction started again. I think hon. gentlemen have a wrong idea of the Welland canal, and I believe that no part of Canada would object more than the west, particularly those there who send their grain eastward, if we now stopped construction or retarded it. At the present rate it will take four years to finish the work. Does any hon. member think it would be good business to leave one section unconstructed? We -might as well stop work altogether, because the canal cannot be opened for use until every section is completed. Suppose we let up on the work, the canal could not be utilized and our investment would be idle.


Andrew Knox: Does the minister say it will take $15,000,000 annually for the next five years to complete the work?


George Perry Graham: I do not think it will.


George Gibson Coote: A little more I think.


George Perry Graham: The contracts will be
completed as we go along, and as there is only one new contract to be let a less amount will be required each year. I think hon. gentlemen will see the wisdom of getting this work completed. I have not lost faith in the conviction I have expressed many times, that the completion of the Welland canal, so that grain can be carried in bulk down the St. Lawrence, will reduce the cost of carriage to a very marked extent.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister stated that
most of the requests for undertaking this work came from the western provinces. Was it from members of parliament, boards of trade, or the organized farmers' associations?


George Perry Graham: I think I am safe in saying that in one section of the west that Sir Wilfrid and I visited there was not one single point where we were not urged to start construction of the Welland canal. There was another body of people-a small body, but they have increased greatly in the meantime-[DOT] that urged the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. These were the two things urged on us throughout the whole trip. Of course, it is a matter of history now that the Pacific coast route has opened up. On my return

Supply-Railways and Canals
from that trip, even coming through the prairie provinces, I was laughed at for saying that in a few years they would be shipping some of their grain to the Pacific coast, because it was then objected that we could not ship grain through the tropics in bulk, it must be put in sacks, and so on. But as to the east bound traffic, I am still of the conviction that the men in the west who asked for the Welland ship canal were wise, and that we ought to complete it as soon as possible.


Mr. MORRISON:: Was it mainly at the
request of western people that the government of the day started this project, or did not eastern representations have equal, if not more, weight with the administration? The minister says the contract was stopped when the war came on. That happened with the Hudson Bay route, too.


George Perry Graham: That was stopped afterwards, I think.


John Morrison: The government saw
their way clear to resume work on the Welland canal, but they forgot all about the Hudson Bay railway. I think they should treat both projects alike.


John Millar: I am a little in doubt what course I should take towards the amendment. There is one aspect that I would point out. At the present time the cost of carrying grain from the head of the lakes down to Port Colbome runs from two and a quarter to four cents a bushel; that is for about a thousand miles. It costs about ten cents a bushel to carry that same grain a little over a third of that distance from Port Colborne to Montreal. There is a hundred and fifty miles of lake Ontario in the route that takes the higher rate, simply because the Welland canal will not permit of any more than light loading. With the completion of the Welland canal, that hundred and fifty miles of lake Ontario will belong to the route that takes the lower rate. For that reason I have felt a little more favourably inclined towards the Welland canal than perhaps have some of my colleagues because I believe it will be a greater benefit than some now realize; while I am convinced that the benefit from opening the St. Lawrence will be less than many anticipate. While I have no doubt whatever that the minister has ground for his statement that this canal was started largely because the west were asking for it, yet as against that I would say that although I was connected with farmers' organizations as far back as 1901, I never at any time heard any demand for this work; at least, I cannot remember any. However, the project has been started and a lot of money
invested in it, and unless it is completed a lot of the investment will stand idle.


An hon. MEMBER:: The same with the
Hudson Bay railway.


John Millar: True. I think both should be completed.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Mr. Chairman, I am
not at all convinced that the completion of the Welland canal will be any material factor in reducing grain rates on the lakes. One thing stands out clearly in the study of the situation, that the only real factor in keeping down the rates on traffic between the head of the lakes and Montreal is the competition from American sources. Grain is always carried at a cheaper rate on a mileage basis to the American ports than to our ports, and that again is determined almost entirely by the amount of coal and iron ore that is handled on the lakes. Anyone studying the situation will be struck with that fact. When the coal and iron ore traffic falls off, it leaves more shipping available for the handling of grain, and consequently the grain rates automatically go down; while during the period of active traffic in iron ore and coal those rates go up. One thing that has a great deal to do with this on the Canadian side is our coastal laws, Which prevent American ships bringing grain to Port Colborne, and is a great factor in diverting our grain to United States ports. After giving the matter a good deal of study, I am still to be convinced that this canal will ever he a factor in determining grain rates on the lakes.


William John Ward: Mr. Chairman, I am sure it
must be patent to all of us that if the Welland ship canal is to be of any real economic benefit to western Canada we must start to deepen the St. Lawrence river down to Montreal. I have stated on previous occasions that I do not believe the construction of the Welland ship canal will reduce the carrying Charges on grain one iota. The minister has accused us of not being sincere. Well, I do not think he is sincere when he tells this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Perry Graham: Pardon me, I have never in my life accused a man in this House of being insincere; and I have never before been accused of insincerity myself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


William John Ward: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think the minister meant it in a derogatory
4832	COMMONS
Supply-Railways and Canals
sense at all, but he referred to the hon. member for Prinee Albert (Mr. Knox) as not being sincere in moving his amendment.


George Perry Graham: I have never said a word since he moved his amendment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


William John Ward: Wait just a minute.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


William John Ward: I have been connected with
farmers' organizations in western Canada for over twenty years, and in all that time I never heard a demand for the Welland ship canal until I arrived in Ottawa. I am convinced that this project was commenced only at the instigation and on the request of the lake shipping companies. It is just like the deepening of our waterways-of the St. Lawrence, for example. We are deepening the St. Lawrence, spending some twenty to thirty millions before we get through, to satisfy an obsession on the part of the shipping companies who wish to build greater and greater boats. The same is true of the Welland ship canal. A number of us visited the Welland ship canal a few weeks ago and we were amazed at the extent of the project. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) was well within the mark when he said that $50,000,000 more would be spent upon it. The engineer informed us that $60,000,000 would be required, and on the basis of former estimates in connection with the project, that will mean that the canal will cost us $130,000,000. I think the original estimate was $55,000,000. It has now reached $110,000,000 and will probably go to $125,000,000 or $130,000,000 before it is completed. The minister made some reference to contracts. Of course he was very careful not to mention the contract that was made with the western people for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. There surely must have been a contract to complete that ninety-two miles of road where the grade was all built and the material was all on the ground for its completion. Eminent railway men have frequently stated that three months would have completed the road to the bay. In 1919 we had two debates on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, for which this parliament voted $8,000,000, the excuse being given that the government must continue the merchant marine in order to give employment in and around Montreal. Sandwiched in between these two debates was the debate on the Hudson Bay railway, where the excuse given for the course adopted was lack of labour. At that time the deputy minister, whom we have with us to-day, stated that

$1,750,000 would complete the Hudson Bay railway, yet this parliament voted $8,000,000 for such a wild-cat scheme as the merchant marine. I wonder sometimes just what has happened in the last few years. What influences have been at work? I have before me a clipping from the Manitoba Free Press of 1890, which states:
The Manitoba members waited on Sir John Macdonald at Ottawa and presented a petition signed by 130 members of the House of Commons, asking the government to aid in construction of the Hudson Bay railway; Sir John promised to lay the question before his colleagues at the earliest possible date.
I have another clipping here from the Manitoba Free Press of 1895 which states that it was announced that the Dominion government would grant $2,500,000 for the Hudson Bay railway.


Thomas George McBride: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order. We are not debating the Hudson Bay railway, and I do not think any member of the House should get up and make a statement such as the hon. member did without the Chair calling him to order.


Milton Neil Campbell: I submit that the hon. member is perfectly in order, because he is only discussing the Hudson Bay railway by way of comparison.


Mr. RINFRET:: You are doing that every day.


Mr. RAYMOND:: Was not the canal
started in 1823?


William John Ward: The Welland ship canal
was started in 1913.


William Gawtress Raymond: They held a centennial
the other day.


William John Ward: It was started in 1913. We
had then been three years on our way with the Hudson Bay railway.


Robert Forke: The hon. member for
Brantford (Mr. Raymond) is mistaken.


Mr. IRVINE:: It started some time, anyway; what is the difference?


William John Ward: The minister again will refer to the matter of contracts. The Welland ship canal was only started at that time. A few survey parties were on the ground in 1913; some work was done in 1914 and 1915 and then work was suspended until 1919. At this date the Hudson Bay railway was practically completed. It has been questioned in this House whether the west has actually paid for the Hudson Bay railway.


George Newcombe Gordon: I am afraid the hon.
member is getting beyond this item. It is

Supply-Railways and Canals
quite within the rules to refer to the Hudson Bay railway for the purposes of comparison, to support the argument that this item may be greater than it should be in relation to some other item. But the hon. member is not in order to make extended remarks with regard to some matter that has not to do with this item, which is for a specific purpose.


William John Ward: My point is that the minister has distinctly stated in this House that it is the west that is asking for the Welland ship canal. I will state here and now that if work was stopped on the Welland ship canal to-morrow the minister would not receive a solitary resolution or request from western Canada to continue the work. It is unfair to charge the west with responsibility for this project. As the hon. member (Mr. Knox) has stated, 125,000 original names were placed on a petition from Saskatchewan asking for the Hudson Bay railway. I have in my office-I have not presented it to the House- petitions containing several thousand names-


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a point of order.
The hon. member is repeating his argument on the Hudson Bay railway, stating the number of names he has attached to a petition. I will call attention also to the fact that the hon. gentleman has not apologized for making certain remarks with respect to the Minister of Railways.


William John Ward: When the minister apologizes to the hon. member for Prince Albert, then I will apologize.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order.


William John Ward: I am simply proving my previous statement. My whole argument is based upon the minister's statement that the responsibility for the construction of the Welland canal is upon western Canada. That I contend is not correct.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Might I interject one word? I had the honour of going west with the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910, and I was present with him on several occasions when boards of trade and prominent business men in the west pressed on him the necessity of proceeding with the construction of the Welland canal.


William John Ward: Were there any representatives of the farmers' organizations in western Canada present?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In many
centres in the west representative public men
in their respective communities waited on Sir Wilfrid Laurier and asked for the construction of the Welland canal. I do not know who they were individually at this time.


William John Ward: I think the argument is
immaterial. We are also told in this House very frequently that railway charges in western Canada do not pay for the operation of the National railways, and that is given as an excuse why work should not be continued on the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. JELLIFF:: I would like to know on
whose authority the hon. gentleman makes the statement that nobody in western Canada wanted the Welland canal. I think we did want it.


William John Ward: The press as a rule reflects
pretty well the sentiments of the people in any particular part of the country, and I defy any member of this House to show me one article in a newspaper in the last three years asking for the Welland canal.


Neil Haman McTaggart: Within the last two
years an association was formed in the city of Swift Current, called, I think, "The Greater Waterways Development Association," whose object it is to urge upon those in authority the necessity of proceeding with the development of this great waterways scheme.


William John Ward: I wonder what has become of that association. We have not heard anything of it for the last few years.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: We get a circular from it every few days almost.


William John Ward: I have not heard the hon.
member for Maple Creek backing up that association very strongly.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a point of order, to ask that the hon. gentleman apologize for what he said to the right hon. Minister of Railways.


William John Ward: I think, Mr. Chairman, that
I have absolutely proved what I said at the outset.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Of course, for you said
nothing.


William John Ward: The newspapers tell us that
none of us say anything in this House. It is my intention to support the amendment of my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox). I think he has set forth certain reasons why we should not vote this large sum of money at this time. I do not believe Canada can afford a project such as the Welland ship canal, which we do not believe has any

Supply-Railways and Canals
economic value for the people of western Canada, who are charged with the responsibility for this project. It does 'look as though there might be some connection between this vote and the coming election. I am not sure whether that is so or not. I think, however, we are being very generous with the people of that part of Ontario, and with the shipping interests who will largely benefit by the construction of this canal, if we vote the sum of $10,000,000.


Mr. HEALY:: I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but on account of the extraordinary attitude taken by a very few western members I would like to say just a word. As one who lives in one of the great inland ports on the Great Lakes-


An hon. MEMBER:: , Belle River?


Albert Frederick Healy: The hon. gentleman should
not be so naughty. That expression is the pet remark Of the right hon. leader of the opposition. I should think the hon. gentleman himself in the course of two years might get an idea of his own. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here. I would like to draw his attention to a new western disease that apparently has arisen in a portion of Alberta. It seems to be grain on the brain. It ought to be stopped before it spreads any further into Ontario and the rest of the country.
Speaking for the city of Windsor, we are very anxious that the Welland canal work should be completed. Without ports such as we have at Windsor it would be very difficult to get revenue enough to run this country either now or in the future. I would just like to tell these gentlemen from the west that last year the direct revenue from the city of Windsor in customs and excise was twice as great from that one port alone, in the county of Essex, as the combined revenue from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. That only refers to customs and excise. If the direct revenue paid by the people who live in the port of Windsor and within a very few miles of it in income tax were compared, it would be found to be twice as the combined revenue of those two western provinces. We are willing in Ontario to cooperate with the west, and we have shown it in every way, but we do want a little cooperation from the west when we are trying to develop this great inland waterway. I would like to point this out to these few gentlemen who are objecting to everything we have in Ontario that seems to be making money for a district which seems to be progressing.


Andrew Knox: Do you not mean spending money?


Albert Frederick Healy: If we are spending it, we are making double the amount for Canada as a whole. I have pointed1 out one very Strong argument in favour of the continuance of this work, and that applies to all the other inland ports, every one of them. I did] not believe a man lived in Canada, knowing anything about transportation, who was not absolutely convinced that the longer the water carriage which*lessens the rail haul the cheaper the rate even if you add only a hundred miles to the water transportation! and take it from the rail haul. We at Windsor load our canned goods on boats, tranship them at Montreal, send them around by the Panama canal, land them at Vancouver, and beat the rail rate from Windsor to Vancouver by 20 cents per case. Surely that is a demonstration of the argument that every mile added to the water carriage deducted . from the rail haul reduces your rate, and I would like a little co-operation from the west when we are trying to do some things in this part of Canada to build up our country.


George Gibson Coote: I think the hon. member takes a rather peculiar way of asking for a little co-operation. He speaks of the amount collected in customs and excise taxes at the port of Windsor, and I wondered1 a bit, because that is the place, I think, at which the automobile parts are brought into this country which are later assembled into automobiles here, and sold to us at an advance of 37 per cent over the price in the United States, and in some cases at an increase of 41 per cent.


Albert Frederick Healy: That is the same speech you made a month ago, and you were voted down.


George Gibson Coote: My motion was voted down, and I did not get much co-operation from Ontario at that time. If there is one district in Canada that is receiving undue favours at the expense of the rest, it is the district surrounding Windsor, Ontario, where automobiles are manufactured.


William Irvine: The hon. member said that every mile added to the distance to foe travelled by water reduced the rate to be paid. Will he tell me how many miles a ship would have to go before the rate would be reduced to nothing?


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member for North Essex made that statement and my hon. friend
4S35

Supply-Railways and Canals
should ask him that question. When, my hon. friend from North Essex was speaking about the amount of taxes they returned to the treasury there, I could not help but think that they must collect those taxes from somebody else. So far as automobiles are concerned they certainly do, and it reminded me of a certain class of people referred to in the New Testament, called the publicans. They were the tax collectors. They purchased from the government the privilege of collecting taxes from the people. They paid a certain amount to the Roman government and went out and collected all they could from the people. That is 'the position of certain people in the vicinity of Windsor. They are tax collectors for the Dominion of Canada, but they put so much in their own pockets through the process that they are liable for the biggest income tax of any part of the Dominion of Canada. If the hon. member for North Essex can find any glory for the people of Windsor out of this situation, let him have it.
To go back to the Welland ship canal, the item under discussion, we have already spent on this canal, we have been told, $51,000,000 odd. It is estimated by engineers that it will take another $60,000,000, making a total of $110,000,000, and if this estimate is no better than the estimates were in 1909 or 1910, it will run up to $125,000,000 or $150,000,000. But let us leave it at $110,000,000, and add to that the interest on the money put into this work every year and that will be put in every year until 1930, When the canal may be ready for operation, and you will find we will have an investment of $130,000,000 at least. The interest at five per cent would be $6,500,000, as we are paying at least five per cent on the money we are borrowing. That shows how much it will reduce the freight rate on grain! I find according to the statements given by the minister to-day that possibly 100 million bushels of grain came through the Welland canal last year. If you are going to spend $6,500,000 to reduce the carrying charges on 100 million bushels of grain, you are adopting an expensive method of reducing the freight rate. Before we would be justified in proceeding with the Welland ship canal, and before we are asked to vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert, I think we should have some more information
from the Minister of Railways. We have not been given any reason why the construction requires so much more money this year than in previous years. We spent, in round figures, the following sums:
1915		 $4,000,000
1916		 4,000,000
1917		 3,000,000
1918		 1,000,000
1919		 1,000,000
1920	 3,000,000
In 1920, when the war was over and we were well started again we spent $3,000,000.
1921		 $5,000,000
1922		 4,000,000
1923		 4,000,000
1924		 6,000,000
1925		 11,000,000
Last year we advanced to about $11,000,000. Why should we jump up this year to $15,000,000? I hope the minister will give us some explanation of that and tell us also what contracts are now entered into. This is information I asked for some weeks ago. I would like to know how many contracts there are, the amount necessary to complete them, new contracts are to be let, and what they are intended to cover, and what will be spent under them.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see
how impracticable he is. He is asking for these figures. He wants us to advertise what we expect the tenders will be. Surely he would not want us to give that information and tell the House what we expect to spend under the contracts. It would be telling the public what we are going to spend.


George Gibson Coote: What is going to be spent
this year under these different contracts? Is it necessary that these contractors should work twenty-four hours a day under their contracts? Some of them I understand are doing that. If the canal will not be completed until 1930, we will save a good deal of interest between now and 1930 if we keep down the expenditure to a reasonable amount, and let the amount we spend on the canal each year increase, as far as we can, up to the probable date of completion. I doubt whether the country is wise in finishing the canal at this time, because I believe there is an expenditure of $70,000,000 ahead of us before we can put a boat in it. I doubt if we can save enough on the reduced freight rates to pay the interest on the money which will have to be paid to complete the canal. I think we might have some information on this.

Supply-Railways and Canals


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend wants to
know how much we are spending each year.
The expenditure is as follows:
Sections 1 and 2	 $1,800,000
Sections 3 and 4	 3,700,000
Section 5	 100,000
Section 6	   500,000
Section 7	 1,400,000
Section 8	 2,900,000
Cement	 1,900,000
Metal work for locks	   150,000
Steel gates and machinery for locks 1 and 7	400,000
Bridge superstructure	[DOT][DOT].	1,000,000Right of way, sections 6, 7	and	8	
300,000Engineering staff	
500,000Construction railway	
100,000Metai work on watering gates,	locks 4 and 8	150,000Fabrication on watering gates,	lock 8.. ..	15,000Miscellaneous, contingencies	
85,000Total	
$15,000,000
I might say the department asked me for a lot more than that and I out it down to $15,000,000.



RHINE FRONTIER

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
committee takes recess, I desire to lay upon the table two documents, one a note from the German government, February 9, 1925, and the other a note from the French government June 16, 1925, both relating to the German Security Pact proposal.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


Mr. LOVIE:: When the committee rose at six o'clock, we were discussing the whole of the Welland canal. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, if you are adhering strictly to the rules, we would have to speak on the amendment alone, and in that case I would discuss only the amendment. But if you give the same latitude as other hon. members have had, I will take a few minutes to discuss the Welland canal. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) mentioned this afternoon that he thought all the members should visit the Welland canal and see it at close quarters. I was one of a party who visited the Welland canal this session; we went right from the lake Ontario end to the Port Colbome end, and as well we had a sail out on the lake around the harbour at Port Colbome.


William Findlay Maclean: Did the hon.
member see the Hydro-Electric too?


William James Lovie: No, we did not. We did not see anything except the Welland canal. We

were not interested in anything except examining the locks and the wonderful digging and other work that was being carried on there. I would not say that Canada was wise in starting work on the Welland canal at the time she did, because, in my judgment, Canada should have had at least 20,000,000 of a population before commencing such a work as the Welland canal is. The unfortunate feature is that even after the work is completed-and it will not be completed until about 1930-no particular benefit will be derived from it, for this reason, that the boats which are now unloading at Port Col-iborne will simply be able to get through the ship canal and then they will have to unload at Prescott or Kingston. They will not be .able to get down to Montreal, and consequently no particular saving is to be effected by this work. I certainly would have been opposed to the work being started at the time it was, but in my opinion Canada cannot afford to stop the work to-day. It has gone on so far now that it cannot be stopped and it will have to be completed. There is such a quantity of plant, outfit and material on the ground that a tremendous loss of money fwould occur if the work were stopped, and a further tremendous amount of money would be required if the work were to be started up again. Although $15,000,000 which is going to be voted this year looks a huge sum, although it is going to take about that same amount of money every year until 1929 or 1930, and although it seems almost beyond reason to be voting such an amount of money, at the same time I hardly feel I can afford to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox). I think the more money that is voted and spent wisely, the sooner that undertaking will be finished now that it has been started.


John Livingstone Brown: I wish to make a few remarks along the same lines as those of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Lovie). Like the hon. member, I was one of a party who felt that we were discharging an obligation and, at the same time, fulfilling a very pleasant duty in inspecting the Welland canal. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) undertook to advise western members to inspect that great work. I venture to assert that more western members have visited that canal than, perhaps, members from Ontario and certainly members from Quebec or any of the other provinces. Emphasis has been laid upon the fact that this was started at the instance of the western people. I have no doubt that such was the case; but I think the minister knows, governments know, and mem-

Supply-Railways and Canals
bers of parliament know, that when persons interested want to get recommendations for a certain course of conduct, all they have to do is to circularize a certain number of people and they are sure to get those recommendations. I would suggest that possibly something of the same kind must have happened out in the west when pressure was brought to bear by various boards of trade on the government of the day to begin that work. I had the privilege of coming to Ottawa in 1910 with the farmers' delegation, and they made many demands upon the government, among them, of course, the Hudson Bay project, but I cannot recall that the Welland canal formed any part of the representations made to the government at that time. Certainly, during all my connection with the farmers' organization it has never been a subject of discussion. That, however, is not very much to the point at this juncture.
I had the pleasure of inspecting the Welland canal and, as a Canadian glad to see Canada doing big things in the world. I must say that it was a matter of pride to me to see the work that is being done there. No person who has not seen that work can form an adequate conception of the magnitude of it. I suppose, outside of the Panama canal, there are not many works that will exceed the Welland canal for magnitude and splendour when it is completed. At the same time, I have very grave doubts as to the wisdom of the undertaking in the first place. It might easily be demonstrated to-day that the interest on the money invested would have transported an immense quantity of grain from Georgian bay ports to Montreal by rail, and the present Welland canal would then have served all the other purposes for which a canal is required. One thing that was made clear to us the day we were there, was that the present canal is not large enough to accommodate the increasing traffic. We saw for ourselves that the traffic was becoming very congested. While there might be some criticism of the work as a commercial undertaking, there cannot be any criticism of it from the standpoint of a magnificent engineering feat. While it might be hard to prove that it is warranted as a commercial undertaking, now we are in it, like the hon. member for Macdonald I do not see how it can be stopped. Sometimes when you get into a bad place, the best thing to do is to make haste and get through as quickly as you can. As I view the matter at the present time, if this work is to be completed, as it certainly will be some time in the future, I do not see that anything can be gained by unnecessary
delay in the prosecution of it. A delay of one year would be of no value from the standpoint of economy. It would have to be five or ten years and by that time the plant that has already been installed would be in such a state of disrepair that a tremendous loss would be involved. I question very much the immediate effect of the Welland canal on grain rates; I do not think that the anticipations of those who so strongly advocate this project will be realized in the near future. At the same time I cannot see that there is anything else we can do than carry the work through to completion as speedily as possible.


Arthur Meighen: If the present canal is
too small for the traffic that is going through it, what on earth is to be done but enlarge it?


Mr. BBOWN:: I did not elaborate the
thought I had in mind. I can see that the interest on the amount that will be invested in the new canal would pay the freight from Georgian bay points to Montreal by rail on such a large quantity of wheat that the present canal would take care of all the other traffic. There is no question that the present canal will not accommodate all the traffic which will go on increasing in the next few years. With that situation in mind, and for the reasons I have already stated, I do not think it would be sound economy to delay the work unnecessarily. I do not feel that I could logically support the amendment. I do not know what commitments the government has made for the coming year, but in the absence of the fullest information I should not like to move that the item be cut down by any specified amount. Certainly I would not want to do that without a great deal more information than we have at the present time. In controversies of this kind we often get into illogical positions. The hon. member (Mr. Healy), who was properly attended to by the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), made the mistake, which so many people make who come from eastern constituencies or from ports, of thinking that because these places are points of entry the people there are therefore paying all the duty. We have heard that argument from Montreal and Toronto and to-day we have had it from Windsor. Because it is a port of entry the people there are under the impression that all the duties collected at the port are by those in the immediate neighbourhood. As a matter of fact instead of their being taxpayers they are in a large measure tax collectors for the Dominion. It is such utterly absurd suggestions that sometimes lead us to question the
4S38

Supply-Railways and Canals
statements of hon. gentlemen on other subjects.


Mr. MILNE:: Since coming to the House
I have not heard anyone justify the expenditures on the Welland canal from the standpoint of freight traffic. After visiting the work that is going on there I have endeavoured to study canals generally to some extent. Although I do not pretend to have covered the entire field I must say that such literature as I have read on this subject does not incline me to justify the construction of the Welland ship canal. It seems to me that it is unwise to put these large expenditures into the project. I find two statements, one to the effect that it would reduce the cost of hauling wheat to the seaboard by 10 cents per bushel if the canal were completed. At present it costs less than 10 cents to carry wheat from Fort William to Montreal with the facilities we have, so that that statement is absurd. The other statement is that it would save the western farmers 5 cents a bushel. This is absurd too. As a matter of fact neither of these statements was signed; I do not know who the author was. Under the circumstances it is hardly to be wondered at that the western farmers, given to understand that they would be saved 10 cents a bushel on their freight, should clamour for the canal as suggested by the Minister of Railways.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does my hon.
friend believe that it would save one cent a bushel if the big boats were enabled to go through?


Robert Milne: If the hon. gentleman will
wait I shall come to that point. Now, this is the literature that has been circulated to justify the construction of the Welland ship canal and I claim that both of these statements are quite ridiculous. But apart from this, I have been looking into the subject generally and studying the history of canals. I find that the Welland ship canal is regarded as one of the outstanding feats of engineering, surpassed only by the Panama canal. Canals generally were at their best in the eighties but since that time the traffic has gone down rather than increased. I will admit that perhaps our canals are in a different class. I have been looking into the Manchester ship canal, connecting the city of Manchester, England, with the ocean. This canal has proved an absolute failure financially. To start with the engineers made the same mistake in connection with their estimates for the construction of the work as the average engineer does in this country, for the estimate was about half what the cost of construction proved to 
be on the completion of the work. People who were directly interested in it advocated the construction of the Manchester ship canal on the ground that ocean going vessels would be able to come right into the city of Manchester, but they found 'that the tonnage instead of increasing had diminished in the last few years. Ocean vessels rather than go up the thirty-five miles of canal unload at the seaboard, the freight being carried on by rail. The overhead in connection with the canal is so tremendous that the railways can compete,. and as a matter of fact they can cany the freight at a lower cost. The capital cost of the Manchester ship canal, which perhaps is nearest in comparison to the Welland canal, was $2,850,000 per mile while, if I am not mistaken, the Welland canal when completed will have a capital cost of about $5,000,000 per mile, or nearly twice as much. This being the case, I doubt very much that we shall ever be able to reduce the cost of transportation through the medium of this canal. We must remember too that the railway companies today are making great strides in the direction of cheaper transportation. They are able to load huge trains nowadays as compared with a few years ago and in this way they can carry freight at a lower rate. For that reason I do not believe that we shall effect very much of a reduction on the Welland canal. As I have said, I am not an authority on canals, but from the two or three books that I have read on the subject I have come to this conclusion. I understand that a few years ago the United States appointed a committee to investigate the canal situation in that country and also Europe, where there are a great many of these waterways, and the general report seemed to diiscourage further expenditures on construction so far as bringing about any reduction in transportation costs was concerned. Without going further, I am of the opinion from all the information that I have been able to gather on the subject, that there is very little chance of reducing the cost of transportation on the canals owing to the extremely high overhead. I should like to see the officials of the department prepare an estimate of the tonnage expected and the possible saving on freights by the use of the proposed canal. I may have been unforunale in reading authors not in favour of canals, but so far I have not seen one estimate substantiated, and I want to see something authentic as to the possible saving.

Supply-Railways and Canals
Amendment (Mr. Knox) negatived: Yeas, 12; Nays, 77.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-income-to increase amount authorized by vote No. 137 main estimates 1924-25, additional amount required, $7,500,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I move that the item be struck out.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us what guarantees have been given to the Canadian National Railways since March 31?


George Perry Graham: None.


Arthur Meighen: What were given between January 1 and March 31?


George Perry Graham: I would have to look that up. I will give my right hon. friend the particulars when we get to the main estimates of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item withdrawn.
Miscellaneous-to provide for adjustment of allowance of pay for Railways and Canals employees while they were on service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the Great War, $6,500.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I move that this item be stricken out.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister tell us the secret history of this vote?


George Perry Graham: We passed a vote a year ago to pay certain of these allowances. This year it was decided the item should not go in. It is here by error.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item dropped.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to income-canals- Ontario-St. Lawrence-additional amount required (revote), $40,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I move that this item be stricken out.


George Perry Graham: The item is really in
the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item dropped.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital-railways -Canadian Pacific Railway-original construction, $1 ,354.16.
Arthur Meighen: What is this?


George Perry Graham: This is an item moved
every year for the settlement of old claims on Canadian Pacific Railway lands. Many years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was given a certain line of railway, and year by year little claims crop up in
connection with the land; these have to be settled. It is really in the Indian department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-Welland-Port Colborne elevator construction -additional amount required, $15,000.
George Perry Graham: Most of this amount is
required for connecting up the annex to the Port Colborne elevator.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Is it necessary to go
on with this work? It will all have to be abandoned as soon as the Welland canal is completed, and then we will have to build new elevators at Kingston, Prescott and other places.


George Perry Graham: This work is completed, but it cost $15,000 more than was anticipated. I disagree with my hon. friend when he says that the Port Colborne elevator will be abandoned. It will be used locally notwithstanding the construction of the Welland canal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent-towards new bridge across Atherly narrows, $40,000.
George Perry Graham: For some years this matter has been the subject of discussion between the counties concerned, the provincial authorities and the federal government, but an arrangement has been arrived at under which each pays one-third of the cost of construction.


Arthur Meighen: Is it the usual plan with respect to bridges across the canal?


George Perry Graham: The federal government is responsible, I suppose, for the construction of bridges across the canal property, but certain other considerations arose in this connection. The county admitted liability for some of it; the province did likewise and the federal authorities joined with them in contributing a third. It will cost $120,000.


Arthur Meighen: A very expensive bridge.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the bridge across the canal which will connect up the Toronto-Hamilton highway be proceeded' with this year? At present there is a detour over an old wooden bridge. The new bridge will have to be built anyway, and it has been asked for by the municipalities.


George Perry Graham: That is the Queenston road bridge. There is $80,000 in our estimate for it.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the work go on this year?

Supply-Railways arid Canals


George Perry Graham: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada-maintenance and operation of, including A. D. Cartwright, secretary, at $6,000; A. G. Blair, counsel, at $6,000; and F. F. Burpee, secretary to Chief Commissioner, at $2,400 per annum from January 6, 1925, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: Why is this in this shape?


George Perry Graham: That is something I do not thoroughly understand myself. It seems that the Board of Railway Commissioners recommended some time ago that the salary of Mr. Cartwright, as secretary, and of Mr. Blair, be placed at $6,000, and that was approved by order in council. It is found that the Civil Service Commission classified Mr. Blair at $4,000 and up, but I am told that that classification was not included in the larger classification that was adopted. Mr. Cartwright is in a different position; he has a classification up to $6,000. Mr. Burpee is the private secretary of the new Chief Commissioner, and he is allowed only $1,800. Of course no man can get a secretary for that amount, and I doubt whether he will keep him long even at $2,400, if he is a good man -and he is, because the chief commissioner brought -him with him. We are told that this is the only way the salaries could be so arranged.


Arthur Meighen: It is really to revise the work of the Civil Service Commission and pay these men $5,000 more among them?


George Perry Graham: There is a good deal in
that. There seems to have been some misunderstanding as to the status of the staff of the Board of Railway Commissioners so far as the Civil Service Commission is concerned. Only a few days ago an order in council was presented for consideration to put the Board of Railway Commissioners under the Civil Service Commission. It is all intricate to me.


Arthur Meighen: There is no doubt that
the staff of the railway commission is under the Civil Service Act. I do not know anything about what salary these men are getting. I cannot say whether it is too much or too little, nor would I be able to say did I know what the amounts were. But I fail to see any reason why they should be treated exceptionally in the estimates.


George Perry Graham: Apparently there has been some misunderstanding. The position of secretary is mentioned specifically in the Railway Act, the same as the commissioners, and Mr. Cartwright has always contended that

he does not come under the Civil Service Commission any more than the commissioners themselves. I thought this was the easiest way to adjust the matter. If the staff is not directly under the Civil Service Commission I think it ought to be put under.


John Millar: May I bring to the
attention of the minister and of the commission a complaint in regard to rates?


George Newcombe Gordon: That cannot be discussed under this item. I understand the minister says theTe is another vote, for the Canadian National, under -which that could be discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-National Defence-salaries, $675,798; contingencies, $50,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When these estimates
were previously before the committee all the details of this item were given and fully discussed for three hours. I see no reason why we should not pass it and proceed to the administration items.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have no
objection if it is conceded by the minister that we have the right to discuss general policy under the other items.
Mr. MACDONALD Pictou):	That is the
usual course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Defence-Administration, $301,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: I was interested some time ago in reading some of the writings of Viscount Grey. All hon. members in this House, especially those to my right, will hold that gentleman in very high esteem. He certainly has never 'been characterized as in any degree revolutionary or radical. In his biography, which he has written in the form of memoirs, I find the following passages occur, and I wish to direct them to the attention of the Minister of National Defence and to this House, as much for the thought they express, as for the fact that they coincide very closely -indeed with the views I hold on this whole question of armaments-armaments alleged to be prepared for the purpose of defence. Viscount Grey has written this:
During the eleven years that I was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, every country had been piling up armaments and perfecting preparations for war. The object in each case had been security. The effect had been precisely the contrary to what was intended and desired.

Supply-Defence
Further on, having surveyed the general result of a policy of arming, that result being the stimulation of that sense of fear in the minds of nationals facing each other across a fortified boundary line, he says:
Such was the general condition of Europe as a result of this sense of fear. Preparations for war had produced fear, and fear predisposes to violence and catastrophe.	[DOT]
He then says:
The truer this comment is, the more force does it give to the conclusion that follows from it. If the allies, victors in the last war, pursue the same policy -viz; of arming-that Germany pursued after 1870 precisely the same untoward consequences will follow.
Those words certainly ought to strike those of us at least who are opposed to arming as a means of defence or as a means of security. In his conclusion, which is also contained in this article, Viscount Grey says:
Yet it should be possible for them, after the last war to find at least one common ground on which they (the nations of the world) could come together :n confident understanding; an agreement that in disputes between them war must be ruled out as a means of settlement; that between nations as between individuals the risk involved in settlement by law or arbitration is preferable to the disaster of force.
Again:
The future, the life of civilization, will depend upon whether a wiser and more instructive spirit prevails now than did before the last great war.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us for a moment examine just what war is. Sherwood Eddy, a gentleman who prior to the entering of the United States into the conflict was an avowed militarist, wrote a book called "The Right to Fight," a most flaming criticism of the American attitude at that time, and in that book he did his best to drive all the best thought of America into an inflamed condition conducive to war. Now war itself taught him, as it taught those who went overseas, and as it ought to have taught those of us who were left, he was wrong. He has since that time become an avowed pacifist, and recently wrote a very splendid book, expressing views the contrary of those which he had written before. He avows bis own mistakes and he defines war as "an attempt to settle international disputes by armed military forces through organized destruction of life and property, in which each side seeks to impose its will upon the other by force. The end may be noble, motives exalted, but the end does not justify them. There are better ways."
I hold that view, Mr. Chairman. There are better ways. The Prime Minister recently gave voice to an utterance which appealed to me. I would hope that he would have brought to bear on a discussion so important as this
one, the great mind which was behind the thoughts which he at that time expressed. In the article to which I refer the Prime Minister said that these questions should be settled by reason, and he believed that we could settle international troubles by the use of reason, I believe so myself, but unfortunately we have never seriously attempted to apply reason to our international disputes.
On the other hand, you have the results of war itself. This gentleman, Mr. Sherwood Eddy, declares that the total cost of the last war, direct and indirect, in money value amounted to $337,000,000,000. He brings it nearer to our understanding by saying that the cost of the war would not yet be paid for if we had begun to pay on instalments of $20,000 per hour from the birth of Christ down to the present day. Twenty thousand dollars per hour! The war destroyed $9,000,000 worth an hour, or $215,000,000 worth a day. Yet, since the conflict is passed, we find all nations in the world employing chemists, employing scientists, employing the brains of human kind to develop more and fiercer implements of destruction.
Mr. Edison was recently asked if he believed the population of London could be killed by gas in twelve hours. He answered: "The thing could be done in three hours."
So impressed was Sir Eric Trithowen, of the British Air Force, by the tremendous power that could be exercised by air force in the event of another* conflict, that he stated recently he would, if he had the power, abolish the air as a means of attack. War is mass organized destruction of material wealth and property, and has left us a world with a millstone of debt about its neck, and with nothing accomplished of good for the human race.
I was interested some little time ago to ascertain just what benefits had accrued to civilization as a result of the last war, and in my studies I found some utterances of Mr. Clynes. In answer to Lord Birkenhead, at a meeting on the Geneva protocol, Mr. Clyne said this:
Look at a few of the great possessions that have come our way as the result of the sword. We have the greatest debt the world has ever known, and it is certain to last for generation after generation. The war has left us with thousands on thousands of acres of the most melancholy cemeteries the world has ever known, which have taken from us and from many other countries the flower of youth and manhood. That is what we have got from the war, debt and death, and the shaking of our moral standards in this and other countries. There is no cause to look to war for securing great possessions. War eats up and shatters possession. We, the greatest of the victors, have suffered loss of men, of money, of general status, and our peace of mind. The whole case against war is that it neither gets you anything nor settles anything.
4S42
Supply-Defence


Charles Gavan Power: Why should my hon. friend not apply those principles in peace-time. Why would he wait for a war in order to bring his principles into operation?


Edward Joseph Garland: Unfortunately when a war comes along neither the Minister of Labour nor my hon. friend have any difficulty in finding ways to get round the British North America Act.


Charles Gavan Power: That is not an answer.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is my answer. In time of peace, the aim, whether it be to secure old age pension or any other revenue, such as looking after the Cape Breton miners-


Charles Gavan Power: I am not asking about that. Why do you not advocate the application of those principles in peace-time?


Edward Joseph Garland: I will be
glad to discuss that with my hon. friend when we discuss the question of capital levy.


Charles Gavan Power: If it is good in war time,
why should it not be good in peace time?


Edward Joseph Garland: Let me
answer the question in this way. If the people who hold in their hands in this parliament the destiny of Canada continue to countenance and to hold up an economic system which is everlastingly beating down one great class and elevating a small minority into a place of power and wealth, then what the hon. member for Quebec South suggests will no doubt come to pass as a result of popular indignation.


Mr. YIEN:: That very system elevated my hon. friend to the position which he occupies to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: Remarks of that kind are after all quite excusable from the hon. member.


Thomas Vien: They are too true.


Edward Joseph Garland: They are
certainly permissible from the hon. gentleman.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: He is certainly here as a result of the system.


Thomas Vien: It is a very serious result, we shall admit.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is my answer to the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles Gavan Power: It is not too bad, but it is not a straight answer.


Edward Joseph Garland: In time of war there should be demanded conscription of not only wealth, but every industry needed by the nation in such a period, and no industry should be allowed to grab off the huge profits in the way they were permitted to grab them off during the last war. Further, if this country would be willing to do it, I would gladly see it enter into an agreement or understanding with other nations to prevent the manufacture of arms by private individuals and the export of arms without the knowledge of the state. To-day, as a result of conflict, we have 'the people, not only of this country, but of all other countries engaged in the war and of many which were not, placing upon the backs of children yet unborn a debt which it will take them their lives to pay. Not only are those who are sitting here guilty of our participation in the past war and guilty for the manner in which we participated in ft, but they are guilty of placing upon the backs of still-to-be born children a debt which we ourselves are unable to meet. I ask that that condition of affairs be not continued, and instead of increasing the estimate for defence, the minister might look to reason rather than to force for the solution of these difficulties and, at least, reduce these estimates to the point at which they stood in the year 1913.


Charles Gavan Power: I want simply to make some general remarks, and they apply more particularly to the question of administration A number of questions have been placed upon the order paper with reference to a diminution of pay of members of the permanent force. I placed one on the order paper some time in April. I have not had an answer as yet; but I understand from outside sources that the pay and allowances of members of the perm-

Supply-Defence

anent force, with the exception always of members of the staff, have been reduced in the past year or two by twenty per cent. I wish to make my energetic protest against any discrimination in favour of the staff. If there is one portion of the militia estimates which should be diminished more than another, it is that which provides for payment of the staff and the fourteen, fifteen or sixteen generals whom we have in the Canadian army. If there is one portion of the militia estimates which should remain as it is, it is that which provides for payment of the underpaid noncommissioned officers, officers and junior officers of the permanent force. That the services of these men are useful to the country is being shown to-day when we have them down in the strike area. We must have some kind of a permanent force, and if we would have them, we must pay them some sort of salaries in order to get the best men to enter that force. At the present moment, our permanent force is top heavy. We are paying the higher officials far too much, and the junior officers, non-commissioned officers and men far too little. I am told that within the past two or three years there has been a substantial decrease in the salaries of those not on the staff and, in many cases, an increase in the salaries of those on the staff. For that reason I make my protest.
I have not in any way changed my views with reference to the annual training. Some years ago I stated in this House that the annual training, particularly of the country regiments, was expensive, useless and a burden on the country, and that it should be cut out altogether. With regard to expenses involved and undertaken by a certain number of militia officers for what some of my hon. friends have been pleased t'o call patriotic motives, may I say that while in a number of cases, perhaps, the motives of our colonels and honorary colonels are patriotic, in a large number of cases, in my humble judgment, the motives are derived purely from those of vanity and of wishing to place the title of colonel after their names and the red tab on their shoulders?


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the title " colonel " not placed before the name?


Charles Gavan Power: It might be, but in all
probability other decorations will come after the name if they are colonels long enough.
I heard one hon. gentleman, I forget who he was, state in this House that in certain regiments they had had a deficit of $6,000 or 87,000. If a number of well-to-do people in this country wish to play at being soldiers, 
wish in order to help recruiting to take their men on trips to United States points or different parts of this country, wish to clothe them in kilts when many of them never had the remotest right to being called Scotchmen, -if that right is anything to boast about,- wish to have them dressed in fine raiment and fancy feathers, let them pay for that. When an ordinary individual wishes to indulge in his favourite recreation, such as fishing or golf, he pays for it. Why should the militia colonels not pay for that in the same way?
With regard to some remarks made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr Woodsworth), I am usually in substantial agreement with him on questions relating to war and the horrors of war, and I do not yield to him in any respect in my detestation of everything that will go to encourage war or hate between nations. But when he reads long articles in which it is advocated that we publish the names of those of our soldiers who were shot during the war on account of military misdemeanours or crimes, I beg to differ with him. May I say first that this matter should never have been brought at this time to the attention of the public in any case, and though it may be distinctly contrary to order, I think it was none of the business of the British ministry to make public the information which they made public that twenty-five Canadian soldiers had been shot during the war and their invidious comparison when they stated that no Australian soldiers had been shot. As a matter of fact, no Australians were shot because the Australian government had expressly laid it down that none of their soldiers would be shot, no matter what crime they committed. Perhaps it would have been the duty of our government to make similar restrictions at that time; but the time is past and it is not for us now to decide on their conduct in that matter. But here were twenty-five men who left their wives and families or their relatives in this country. Are we at this stage, some ten years afterwards, to blazon in all the newspapers of Canada the crimes that they committed? Have not their families suffered enough without our now proceeding to bring tears to the eyes of these men's mothers, and disgrace upon their families, by putting it in the power of their neighbours to say that they were shot for cowardice? Much as I admire the stand taken by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth),
I must say that what he is asking is simply that we bring a far greater calamity and far greater misery on the people of this country than they have already suffered.

Supply-Defence


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I never made any
request that the names be published.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not read Hansard
since that time; in fact I never read Hansard. But I distinctly recollect that in the article read by my hon. friend, which he seemed to endorse very heartily, the suggestion was made that these names should be published throughout the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such
request.


Charles Gavan Power: The article endorsed by
the hon. member made the request.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The article I read
discussed the general question of the shooting of Canadian men but I do not recall that even the article itself requested that the names should be published. Certainly I made no such suggestion.


Mr. GOOD:: Mr. Chairman,-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. member will let this item pass he can speak on the next item.
Item agreed to
Cadet services, $400,000.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I want to outline the
history of the cadet movement which was introduced in Canada by statute only as late as 1904. It was first thought of and talked of and formed by Sir Frederick Borden with the idea of building up a citizen soldiery. It authorizes the following things. First boys over twelve years of age who attend school may be formed into cadet corps; boys over fourteen and under eighteen may be formed into senior cadet corps; senior cadet corps or any portion thereof may be attached to any portion of the active militia for the purposes of drill and training. The principals of the schools may be instructors of cadets or the instructor may be any person having adequate qualifications. The qualifications of the instructor are gained free of charge, the expenses being paid by the state. The instructor in the school receives $2 per head for each cadet up to fifty and $1 per head for each cadet over that number.
I am opposed to cadet training in schools. I am opposed to it first because I believe that cadet training is not a good physical training. Experts in physical training bear me out in this, and I would quote briefly from Dudley A. Sargent of Harvard, physical instructor and medical doctor. He says:
Taking the most favourable view possible of military drill as a physical exercise, we are led to conclude that its strained positions and closely localised movements
309i
do not afford the essential requisites for developing the muscles and improving respiration and circulation, thereby improving the general health and condition of the system.
Let me now read from an extract taken from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal.
This defect, we are pleased to state, is recognized by the great military nations of Europe, and measures are taken to give all the recruits from three to twelve months' gymnastic training to develop them as men, before they are expected to conform to the requiremenrs of the soldier.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is not that exactly what is being done in our schools? All the training we give in the schools here is not confined to physical drill alone but it embraces as well gymnastic exercises.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I want to separate distinctly in the minds of the people physical exercise and military training. I believe in very much more physical education than we have to-day; it should be greatly increased. Indeed, the government would have to go a long way before they would hear me complain about the amount of money spent on physical education. I shall touch upon that point later. But military drill should not be confused in the public mind with physical training because the two are quite distinct things. Dr. Sargent goes on to say that if the people would account for the graceful poise of the cadets at West Point-he is referring to them particularly-they should visit that place in the summer and see the boys under the charge of a dancing master for one or two hours. There they have all forms of physical training and it is a splendid thing. It is not the military drill at all but the physical education which they get that is responsible for the erect carriage and the fine look of many of the cadets who spend four years in the military school. I quote once more from the director of physical training at the normal school at Pennsylvania:
That the military training as we know it now does not give the best physical training is evidenced by the fact that for years our military school at West Point and naval school at Annapolis have employed instructors of physical training to overcome the disastrous results of the one-sided practice of the manual of arms and other military drills.
Another reason against military training in schools is put so concisely by Dr. Sargent that I had better quote his words:
(5) Military drill in schools cannot teach boys the real art of war since they are too young to handle the rea. weapons and undergo the vigors of adequate instruction. Hence it is apt to foster a bombastic military spirit of tin-soldierism and a false sense of patriotism which does not appreciate the seriousness of war nor the glories of the struggles of peace.
Previous to the war a number of Toronto gentlemen, many of them reverend gentlemen,
Supply-Defence

as well as the inspector of schools there, prepared a pamphlet in favour of military training and it gives many reasons. It concludes with this strange reason:
That our system of government is democratic quadruples the force of arguments in favour of military dril. in schools; for the system tends to a disregard for authority, a due respect for which is restored by a reasonable system of universal military training.
That to me is an excellent reason why we should not have military training in schools. Are we afraid of democracy? One would think so when reading such reasons as this in support of military training in order to keep democracy in check. I want to quote again from a work on militarism written by an Englishman. This was at a time just following the war when there was a great wave of military enthusiasm, and when in England they tried to force compulsory military training at school, or cadet training. There was a great controversy on the subject, some taking one side and some the other.
Lord Methuen, writing to The Times advocating
compulsory military training, complacently remarked, "Wo worked on Lord Kitchener's admirable Australia scheme in forming the citizen army in South Africa. Little d'id we anticipate that within three years this force would have scotched a strike and quelled a rebellion.
Once more it would look to me as if cadet training is the real enemy of a democratic form of government. I challenge 'the right of the state to interfere in the education of the child. If we bring a child up to cherish a given ideal, and that ideal always remains the basis of its thought and action, and if by means of schools we repeat that process through all the people who form this or any other nation, we can quite plainly see that that ideal will determine the history of the nation for years. We might well ask ourselves in this young country: Is the child to be the central idea of education, or is the state? If education is for the benefit of the child, then we must think first of what is good for the child; if education is for the benefit of the state, then we must think of the state first, regardless of what it may do to the child. I want to quote Bernard Russell on this point. He too challenges the right of the state to influence or affect education. He says:
Education is a political weapon and could not exist if we respected the rights of children. If we respected the rights of children, we should educate them so as to give them the knowledge and the mental habits required for forming independent opinions; but education as a political institution endeavours to form habits and to circumscribe knowledge in such a way as to make one set of opinions inevitable.
That is what military training in schools does, and I want to point out to hon. mem-

bers that while we are not supposed to have compulsory military training in our secondary schools, that in reality and practice is what we have, and so the child's ideals and habits of thought along very many lines are circumscribed and are not what they might have been if the child were left to grow up unhampered by state interference.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will my hon. friend explain what she means by saying that we have compulsory military training in the practical working out of our school system?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: A boy who refuses to take military training is boycotted, he is discriminated against in sports by the teachers as well as by the pupils. I found that to be true in London, Ontario, and in many other places. I object to military training in schools as an educational feature-and it is supposed to be educational. We hear it said that military training in school makes for discipline. But we must not confuse external discipline with self-control. Self-control must be discipline of ourselves by ourselves; but discipline inflicted from without is not that same thing at all, and the tendency is rather for the children to go to greater extremes of indulgence, almost license, when the pressure of outside force is taken away.
I object to compulsory military training in schools because it confuses the regimental with the co-operative spirit. Boys are put in groups, it is quite true, but not in groups of their own choosing, not groups that gather around them spirits congenial to their own and that make for better mental and spiritual development of the boy, but enforced groups which usually have no social meaning. The president of the New York Evening Post says in regard to cadet training in schools: On moral grounds I believe the argument against :t is unanswerable. It falsifies values, lays emphasis on brute force, and makes directly against the ethical training which is supposed to be the teacher's first duty.
I oppose cadet training as a form of physical braining in schools-and that is what it is thought to mean-because by it girls are excluded from any sort of physical training. It is in reality more important to the future of the race that we should have women with good physique and healthy bodies than that we should have men with strong bodies. I believe that we should have a national system of physical education. If, whatever government is in power in the next parliament, should be willing to bring in a large vote under the Department of Health to set up a system of physical education, patterned possibly after the Swedish plan, I would wholeheartedly support it. After all, public opinion

Supply-Defence
makes governments do that which they languidly do, and I am confident that it would support such a move. I believe the people want physical training for children and youth, they want both boys and girls to have something that will give an outlet for their spirit of adventure. I think that this physical training could have all the lure of colour, of music, of form, that is now woven about military training in our schools. I believe that such a system would result in very much improving the health of our school children, and would leave Canada in a perfectly safe position, because if our future citizens have strong, well-developed bodies and unprejudiced and open minds, then Canada need not fear the future.
I have read quite a good deal on this subject, and I find that those who have made a life study of it claim that military training does not at all compete with sports in the developing of children, such traits as initiative, resourcefulness, co-operation, group loyalty. Games give very much greater chance for the developing of these desirable traits.
Possibly, though, the thing that we should most oppose this vote for is that by having military training in our schools the mind of the child is blinded, it is not led to think of any other means of settling international disputes other than this one method of war -this one method that has been absolutely discredited by all people who know most about it. Under this system the younger generation have no chance of having free ideals and shaping social evolution by their means, but instead they are shaped to the existing forms, to the idea of nationality which it pleases their rulers they should possess. I do not believe that was ever more true than it is to-day, although by this discussion and others that we have previously had in this House we have shown that there is an awakening in Canada, that there is another school of thought growing up in regard to military training. But it is too true that instead of letting the child think its way out, we superimpose upon it our false values, we put upon it what we, if we are honest with ourselves, have found to be unsound and unsafe, and we teach the child that that is the thing that will lead it to happiness in an international way.
Military training relies on force. It does not call out the highest or the best in humanity. It is pagan. I want to quote from a book entitled "West Point," by a man who just loves military training, so in whatever he says he will be perfectly fair about it. He is enthusiastic about military training, and in referring to the wonderful
chapel they have at West Point-he calls it an architect's dream-he says this:
The jewel of the interior is a great chancel window with its noble inscription:
"Erected to the glory of the God of Battles and .n faithful memory of the departed graduates of the United States Military Academy, West Point, by the living alumni".
Then he goes on to tell more about the beauty of it. He says:
There are twenty-seven panels each of which contains an almost life-size figure representing one of the chief militant figures of the Bible.
That is, they go back to pagan times to bring out ideals for the youth of to-day to worship.


William Charles Good: Pagan ideals.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, pagan ideals, and all the while we think of ourselves as Christian people, a people who have left pagan methods behind. It is true that in most things we have, but in this,one tremendous thing, this matter of adjusting international disputes, we are altogether pagan.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: Who was the author my hon. friend just quoted?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Richardson. It is so easy to descend to brute force. In fact, sometimes I feel I have to work very hard to restrain myself from employing brute force, but still, one is always repaid for restraining. It is a much more difficult but a much greater thing to call upon the resources of mind and spirit than it is to bash one another's noses when we do not agree with each other's opinions, and that is what we have not learned to do internationally. Instead of bringing the best of our mind and the best of our spirit, the resources of ourselves, to bear on international questions, we simply descend to brute force. I do not care so much about the old men doing that; really I am not much concerned about it at all. But I am tremendously concerned that the old men before they pass on do not leave firmly imprinted on the mind of youth the impression that this is the highest and best way of settling things. There was a time when disputes between individuals were settled in that way-that is, when a man's honour was reflected upon-they had a duel, and whichever one was best won out and the other passed on. But now we do not have that, and people, I think, are quite as honourable as they used to be.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And quite as polite.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, and quite as polite. Now, I notice that in Canada, if we find that other countries are doing a thing,
Supply-Defence

timid little creatures that we are, we feel it is quite safe to step out in that path where others are ahead of us. France, after her crushing defeat of 1871, began to train her school iboys in the practice of arms, but in 1890, after fifteen years' experience, she abandoned the cadet system, not because the problem of defence was less urgent, but because military training was lessening the physical development of her secondary school boys. Australia tried the military system of training, and after a study of the many systems of Europe, gave it up and substituted for it a system of games and organized athletic sports as the best physical training for school children. I was reading something of what in Scotland they wanted their teachers to do under physical education. This manual pointed out that in order to obtain the best results from a lesson in physical training, the training should be made as enjoyable and as interesting as possible to the children; that all stiff, restraining and unnatural positions should be avoided. And anyone who has watched military training knows that it abounds with stiff, restrained movements.


Thomas Vien: Would my hon. friend cite her authority on the point that France has abandoned the cadet training?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes; my authority is " Militarism and Education," by John Lang-don-Davies. The Minister of Education in the state of Victoria, Australia, has gone much further than that; be has just issued an order that no articles or songs extolling wars, battles, or heroes of past wars are to be printed in the school books or papers. I quote now from the Canadian Railway Employees Magazine.
The Labor Minister of Education in Queensland has issued a similar order for the schools in his state. What he says about war and war propaganda makes interesting reading:
"I am going to exclude from the schoolbooks anything likely to inflame the minds of youth with ambition for war. I intend to explain to the children the causes of the war and the capitalist influences that bring it about. Tha-t, to my mind, will tend toward wiping out war. Too much hypocrisy and jingoism is displayed at present, and not enough sincerity by those called upon to give advice with regard to Australia's welfare/'
Military training in schools, both public and secondary	schools, is not	left	standingalone. If it were simply military training, just plain drill, I do not think it would .last long, because I doubt very much if the boys are interested in the drill itself. I do not want to weary	the House by	quoting	fromthis authority,	"A Public School	in	WarTime ", by S.	P. B. Mains,	who	is	head
master of one of the great public schools in England. He was an enthusiast in the matter 
of military training in schools, and he points out that during the war the boys took an interest in the military drill in schools. It goes on to say that before the war everybody hated the drill, both the boys and the masters, and that when they would come in from the field after the drill they were all irritable; they all had a grouch at something, because military drill did not satisfy any desire either mental or physical. And he is so glad that that has passed away and that they are all now-this was in war time-enjoying the military drill. That, of course, will not be true of this day, eight years after the war.
I had started to say that military training is not left to stand alone; it is surrounded by music and colour and pomp, offers of adventure and class distinction. Possibly that last is one of the great lures, the class distinction offered by military training in schools, and the uniform and the music and the applause of watching crowds-all that appeals to children. When we go to school concerts at Christmas time, or to exercises at the commencement of the term, or to any place where children are performing, we know that they glory in interesting their elders, their relatives and friends. Until recently-it is almost true yet-the state, the school and the church condoned cadet training in schools- that is,^ they approved of it. Before these very buildings we have seen, when cadets were parading the silk hat of the politician, the robe of the divine, and the sober garb of the schoolmaster. I noticed that the schoolmasters trailed rather dismally a long piece behind the state and the church, but they got there just the same. So it is not surprising that the boys who are parading think it is a very fine thing when they can get the leaders of this country to come out and approve of and smile at what they are doing. And yet, pleasant as it looks on the beautiful green sward before these buildings-and despite the charm of colour, music, pomp, and class distinction-we must never forget that the spirit of the thing is the grinning demon of war. Amid all the beauty and all the music and all the colour, that is the dominant thing.
I notice too that the daily press, or most of the daily press, does its part to make as appealing as possible the gentleman cadet I am quoting from the Toronto Globe, or the Toronto Mail and Empire, I think it is the Globe; there is not much difference. In speaking of the visit of the cadets from the Military^ College of Kingston to Toronto just a little time ago, it told how many thousands of children viewed one of their performances, and said:

Supply-Defence
For thousands of boys a new hero was bom on Saturday afternoon, and the name of him was the Gentleman Cadet.
That is quite true. That is the disastrous thing. We hold up a natty looking boy, full of life and adventure and beauty, a splendid fellow, Who knows nothing about war, who does not know what causes it, does not know what it is, does not know what the result of it is, and we who do know sit here and let the children who see that nattily dressed cadet think that there is ideal manhood. To them he is emblematic of war. As one of the reviewing officers said, they are sound to the core. It is true. The boys are all right, but the thing they are doing is false to the core. It has no soundness, and what is more, if they were left alone, they would not do it at all. Boys do not do that silly sort of thing. It is the old fellows who put that into their heads.	_
Empire Day! To my mind Empire Day has been degraded. I am ashamed of it. It is nothing but a flaunting of war in the face of people who would like to see the world live in peace. Why do they not show on Empire Day the things the empire is trying to do for civilzation, and the things that other netiorv' have done for civilization? Empire Day is made the occasion for nothing but a strutty, silly, pompous, bombastic performances by military men and those who are backing them. Do you know-possibly the government does not know-that the common people of Canada laugh heartily, though they know it is a dreadful thing, a tragedy, but they are moved to mirth by the speeches and performances they hear and see on such a day as Empire Day.
There are, though, through the darkness some gleams of light. One that I am very pleased to quote was seen at the first great assembly of the United Church of Canada. On the motion of Judge S. A. Chesiey the following resolution was referred to the conference and was later adopted:
That as the training of young men for war is contrary to the spirit of Christ, it is resolved that we discontinue the officers' training corps in the schools of the United Church, and urge the government to abolish cadet training in the schools of the Dominion.
I think there is an ever-increasing body of people in Canada who are coming to the same conclusion, that military training in schools is bad for the boys. It is bad every way you think of it, mentally and phvsically. It is not an educational force, and should be entirely divorced from education. Among the bodies in Canada that have been protesting and are protesting against it is the
Parent-Teacher Federation of British Columbia-a most interesting thing. The Parent-Teacher Federation of British Columbia this year, helped, too by the Educational department of British Columbia-I almost think there must be some radicals living in British Columbia-put in a goodwill day, on the 18th of May, which was observed in nearly all the schools in British Columbia. It held up the ideal of trying to live at peace with the other nations of the world, rather than arming ourselves to some time attack them, or to protect ourselves against them.
The city of London last year held an interesting mass meeting at which all the bodies of that city were represented, a sort of community gathering of the city of London, and they protested against the whole business ot war and against this cadet training.
The United Farmers of Canada, through the Canadian Council of Agriculture, presented to the government, and I need not read it to them, a resolution asking that we cease this vote for cadet training in schools, that we cease cadet training in schools altogether, and substitute for it physical training that will have no connection with the military authorities at all.
The Trades and Labour Congress and the Trades Councils have for a great many years past been opposed to war, and particularly to this form of putting into our children's minds false ideals.
One could go on and on. There is no end to the material that is at hand. In fact, there is a whole literature to-day on this new school of thought that is coming up as against the old one of militarism, the new school of thought that is determined that the resources of the mind and the spirit will be given a chance to settle international discords. One might say from reading and talking to young people, after hearing the many things that are being said by young people, that a new spirit is emerging, and that that spirit is the spirit of youth. That youth is asking of its elders that they be allowed to find a way out, that they be allowed to think their way out unhampered by their elder's preconceived, and I might add, exploded ideas. If we had to go to the pacifists for proof that the last war amounted to very little now that it is all over, I would not expect hon. gentlemen in this chamber to listen to it, but when you can go to the people who had the most to do with the great war, and when they say the thing was a failure, that it got us out of nothing, that what caused the war still exists and, as Lloyd George says, exists in a greater degree than ever before, the causes
Supply-Defence

being more sharply defined-when that is true, when great military people say that the war did not solve our problems, can we with safety trust that it ever will? I think not. Lloyd George said:
I, all the heroism of miliions, their sacrifice and their sufferings, are to be thrown away, it will be the most colossal, criminal and infamous waste ever perpetrated in human history.
I think surely that is true.
We talk a great deal about being true to the boys who went overseas and who made the sacrifice that we thought and they thought was needed, and we say we want to do something for them, and so mistakenly we stick up silly war memorials all over this country, things that have no meaning but one, and that is they put into childish minds, into the minds of unthinking people, the ideal of war; that it is a great thing. They are memorials to war, rather than memorials to those beloved Canadian sons who paid the supreme sacrifice.
Mr. \ IEN:	In that my hon. friend is
very much mistaken. A war memorial erected to the memory of the soldiers who died for their country is not a memorial to inspire a war spirit in our children.
. Miss MACPHAIL: I know that is not the idea of the people who erect them, but that is the result. I think that is so true that we do not need to argue about it at all We will have to face it sometime, and I might as well do it now.
The causes of war are not the things we thought they were. The causes of war are very sordid things. They are things that are so sordid that they must be covered, or there can be no wars fought. I might quote you authorities on that, but it is not necessary. You can pick up almost any of the new books that came out about the end of the war, and since, and you will find that fact uncovered by those who know best. The great warriors are saying-why, Marshal Foch himself has said what the orthodox people would say is quite a dreadful thing, that when the thing gets too congested, then you have cannons to clear the space that is needed.


Mr. CANNON:: This is no reflection on
me, I hope.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I had forgotten the
presence of the hon. gentleman. And when we consider the cost, which I am not going into, since it has been given, we find that it was enormous. There were twenty-three nations engaged in that war. It cost 337 billions of dollars and 13 millions of lives, and what is the result of that? We are preparing 
again this year for that same thing to the extent of $14,400,000. I am going to quote just two or three authorities. Viscount Grey says:
The real victor in the Great War was war itself.
Sir Ian Hamilton said, speaking about war:
We must not listen too much to the men who made the war, because they are bound to crack it up.
Weil, they have to. What else could they do? If they do not crack it up they let themselves down, and that to them would be the worst thing that could happen. Sir Arthur Currie says:
By the World War, we gained a truer appreciation and a better realization of war's unspeakable waste, its dreadful hardships, its cruel slaughter and its aftermath of loneliness, sorrow and broken hearts. We now know that as a means of solving the world's problems and removing international discord, war is a delusion and a lie.
If it is a delusion and a lie, why do we not say so? Why do we not put that in the school books of this country? Why do we not burn the lies that to-day pass as history, and put out books which tell the truth? Why do we not put in the readers of our country ideals and heroes that will lead us out of the woods and not back into them again. I quote now from Arnold Bennett, the eminent English writer who says:
Everybody knows that war is idiotic, futile, calamitous and settles nothing. And yet everybody says, "There must always be -war." Why must there always be war? In past days people no doubt said, "Brides must always be won by knocking girls on the head and carrying them off senseless. Evidence must always be obtained by torture. Christians must always murder each other in the name of Christ. Little children must always work eighteen hours a day

because human nature will always be like that." Well, they were wrong. Human nature did not continue to be like that.
War is contrary to common sense, and it is therefore absolutely certain that the institution of war will one day be ridiculed and shrivelled out of existence. Human nature will change in its attitude to war by casting out fear. War is not the product of courage; it is a product. of fear. Hence the insane maxim that if you want peace you must prepare for war. If you prepare for bankruptcy, you will have bankruptcy: if you prepare for war you will have war; and equally if you prepare for peace you will have peace.
A brother of Sir Philip Gibbs says that the one thing that we have never called out against war is the weapon of ridicule, and he goes on to sajc
War can be laughed, ridiculed, off the face of th( earth.
He proceeds to say how we read about it in history, and I was reading similar stuff in some of our Empire day books, the "glory of the trenches", the "living bayonets", the "privates who would rather fight than eat". He says further:

Supply-Defence
The ghastly humour of all that stuff appeals to us. We know. But the non-combatants do not. They take it all literally-as it was intended that they should in order to keep the game going.
It is dangerous to put such things as that, into school books and lead little children, who depend on us to tell them the truth, to believe that war is glorious when it is not. There are many things we could do to prepare for peace, and if national defence means to prepare ourselves for peace, I am willing to vote for the fourteen millions of money, but if it is to prepare ourselves against peace, fourteen million dollars is altogether too much. There are many things we could do, there are things we could begin to do and keep on doing consistently until we would through enlightenment see there was another way, and that war must not occur again if future civilization is to exist.
I move that this item be reduced by the sum of $399,999.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sure
the House will agree with me that my hon. and gallant friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has delivered a very eloquent address, and the House will also agree with me, as I am sure every man and woman in the country will agree with me, that the last thing this country wants is war. Who wants war after the terrible catastrophe that overtook the whole world ten or eleven years ago? But war is not to be stopped by eloquent addresses such as that made by my hon. and gallant friend. War may occur from conditions over which neither she, nor any-else in this country, has any control whatever. I learned last year, when the opportunity came to me to visit the continent of Europe, about conditions existing there, under which war may arise at any time. It is conceded on all hands that the settlement and readjustment of the nations of Europe by the treaty of Versailles left conditions out of which difficulties may occur at any time. If that is the situation-and if war results, are we going to be able to stop it by eloquent addresses and by saying that we do not want war? We are dealing with conditions now. Let me remark that the quotations which my hon. friend made from numerous authorities on cadet and military training, and upon war generally, are familiar to us, but they are entirely beside the question which we have to consider in this country, and which the United States is considering, namely, that every nation for the purpose of keeping peace and order within its borders, has to maintain some military force. In Canada, with its boundary line, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
and situated alongside the United States- with which nation I hope we will always live in peace-there are only three thousand men in the permanent force. It is below the minimum strength, and we in Canada pay less per capita for military expenditure than any country in any part of the British Empire, or any nation of the world, except Paraguay in South America.


William Irvine: What does that prove?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It simply
proves that we in Canada are maintaining the minimum force and making the minimum expenditure in maintaining such a force as every country must maintain.


Edward Joseph Garland: I ask the
minister, had we any difficulty in maintaining peace along that three thousand mile border in 1913 when we only spent a little over $3,000,000 on armaments?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the figures for that year, but let me remind my hon. friend that the cost of living has increased enormously since that time, and the expenditure to-day is less in proportion than at that time.


William Irvine: May I ask a question?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. member will let me finish my remarks, and then I will answer his question. I may say that for years previous to confederation, and for many years after, Great Britain maintained at Halifax and Esquimalt permanent military forces, infantry and engineers and artillery men to man the forts. There were infantry there and also infantry in British Columbia. There came a time when, after negotiations between the government of the day and the government of Great Britain, we undertook to take over, as part of our duty to the empire, the maintenance of a reasonable defence force in Canada and we have to carry out our obligation. Surely no one will suggest that we should not do that.
Let me come to the question of cadet training. My hon. friend (Miss Macphail) has made some studies in connection with the matter, but she has not got at the whole root of the question yet. She has assumed too many things, and she has not given to the committee, I concede quite unintentionally, the real situation in regard to cadet training in Canada. She stated that cadet training has been originated in this country by Sir Frederick Borden in 1904. It has been going on in Canada since 1879.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: But not under statute.
Supply-Defence


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the
Militia Act was last passed, the statute provided for what has been going on, as a matter of practice and association, long before that.	The beginning that occurred in
Bishops College commenced in 1879 and continued year after year and expanded until Lord Strathcona in 1908 donated $500,000 to supplement the efforts of the college in encouraging physical and military training in the school. That fund is still in existence, and the interest upon it is used for the purpose of carrying out the terms of Lord Stratheona's trust. My hon. and gallant friend, speaking about military training in the schools, entirely beclouded the issue and, I think, quite unintentionally misled the committee. But the facts are these. There is physical training in the schools with certain military exercises going with it, but physical training is the basis of the whole system of cadet training and the military exercises are only an incident.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: But they are the incident around which all the other is woven, are they not?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was very
much interested in my hon. and gallant friend telling us what the boys of this country ought to do. I know something about boys, and I think hon. gentlemen around me who have fathered some boys know something about them. My hon. friend was bom a little too late because, if she knows so much about what boys ought to do, many of us in this country have been making mistakes in our time.


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not
think the hon. member from Bow River is a Daniel come to judgment to tell us how these things can be improved, nor do I think the hon. member for Southeast Grey possesses all the wisdom in the world as to how boys should be dealt with. I have digressed for a moment from making the point in stating exactly what is the fact, that under the Strathcona trust, which originated the system under which cadet training is carried on now, military training is not the point, physical training is the point with military exercises added. My hon. friend spoke about the school books of the country. We have nothing to do with them. If the statements found in the school books in regard to Empire Day do not suit my hon. friend, I would sug-gets that she should run for the legislature of Ontario at the next election and see that the law is changed there.
[Miss MacphailJ


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I know that quite well, but on Empire Day I saw the picture of the Minister of National Defence taken while reviewing cadets in Toronto. It is rather the climax to the education the children have received through the school books.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend did not see any picture of me reviewing cadets in Toronto. She saw a picture of His Excellency Lord Byng reviewing the cadets and I happened to be there. If these school books are objectionable to my hon. friend, there is a way in which that can be remedied; but there is no use in lecturing this House on the subject because we have nothing to do with it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What has the department to do with the schools in the provinces at all?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon.
friend would possess his soul in patience, I was going to make a statement which, I think, will relieve him from all anxiety. We do not permit a cadet corps to be formed in any school in Canada anywhere unless the school itself asks to have it formed and unless the educational authorities of the particular province in which it is, ratifies the application. That is the situation. We do not take any initiative whatever in dealing with this subject. The individual school first makes the application. That is not granted by the department and we do not interfere nor do anything until the educational authority of the particular province comes along, gives his certificate to that application and asks that it be granted. Therefore, the responsibility for cadets being in the schools of this country rests upon the educational authorities of each and every province and on them alone. Let me go further and show the extent of this movement. The situation shows that the educational authorities in many provinces give the movement their whole-hearted support, and the cadets are distributed by provinces as follows, beginning at the far east:
Prince Edward Island	 883
Nova Scotia	 3,111
New Brunswick	 2 344
Quebec	 52.791
Ontario	 35,273
Manitoba	 5,138
Saskatchewan	 4.789	'
Alberta	 5.572
British Columbia	 5.776
Total	 115.677
In all these provinces, the direct consent of the educational authorities is obtained for the institution of each and every one of those bodies of cadets. Therefore, apart altogether

Supply-Defence
from every other consideration, these gentlemen to whom the power of dealing with education is committed throughout the country in each one of the provinces, take the responsibility with regard to this matter. Moreover, it is very easy to confuse the issue with talk about boys having military training. I want to reiterate that the foundation of this training is*to see that physical exercise is given to these boys, and the military exercises are incidental to that in order that discipline may come to them, in order that they may have the advantage which comes from engaging in physical exercise in a military way, which, for centuries, has been regarded as one of the most effective ways in which to bring up young men so that their physique will be good and that their stature will be all right.


William Irvine: Why is it not good for girls?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The educational authorities in the provinces look after the girls in another way.


William Irvine: Do they not look after them in the same way?


Mr.   MA@CDONALD (Pictou: We have
nothing to do with that.


Mr. SHAW:: Will the minister not admit
that this system of cadet training is an annex to military training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is not.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I heard one of the officers
of the department say so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Henry Elvins Spencer: Could not the men be
commemorated in some other way than by putting up stone monuments?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am surprised that my hon. friend whose tones indicate that he came from the Mother Country, should take the position he now takes in this matter. Has there been some mistake in preserving, in the valhalla of our race at Westminster, memorials to all our great men who have gone, and of whom our empire is justly proud? Is it all bunkum? Well, that is the position these hon. members take. But I do not agree with all that. The theory i3 all wrong, that we should not erect memorials to those who laid down their lives for us and for our country!


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister is rather
unfair, although no doubt unintentionally. My hon. friend (Miss Macphail) did not suggest that no memorials should be put up to the men. She did say that stone memorials were not the only form in which we could perpetuate their memory.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What the
hon. member said was that these memorials, erected at great cost to the country, were a standing lesson to the youth of the land that war was something to be admired. But
Supply-Defence

if we abolished these memorials, would not any other form of monument to the soldiers inspire the same feelings?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: A different form of memorial would tend to put a stop to war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend will not stop wars for a while yet. I would advise the hon. member for Southeast Grey to take a trip over to Europe when the session closes this week and there widen her vision; let her see what is going on in the world and then come back and tell us who was right and who was wrong. Now let me read what the governor of New York said:
Let the men of eligible age under our constitution voluntarily join, as did their forbears, their home defense units on July 4 for parade and patriotic demonstrations and to show those units as we depend upon them in their present strength so they can rely on us to strengthen them in case of need.
Let there be places in all our exercises on July 4 for our school children, so that they, who will hold us responsible for the way we have led them, may imbibe from their elders moral strength to meet their duties and obligations as future citizens.
That is the message which appeared a day or two ago in the newspapers from the governor of New York, and endorsed by the President of the United States.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister allow me-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let my hon. friend possess his soul in patience. He does not like to hear what the great nation to the south is doing now. But that is what they are doing, and we are dealing with facts and not theories. Now that I have submitted the exact situation in regard to the question of cadet training I do not see any reason why hon. members should object to the passage of this vote. The statement has been made that France has abolished cadet training, but that bare statement conveys a wrong impression. What occurred was this. France, realizing how imminent the German menace was becoming, appreciated the importance of increasing her permanent force and as she had to strengthen it to 800,000 men she found that she could not bear the extra expense entailed in cadet training. For that reason she suspended cadet training for the time being.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister mean to say that cadet training is a cheap way of getting soldiers?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say that. I simply explained the reason- for tlie temporary abolition of cadet training in

France. Now, as regards this vote, if the provincial authorities of Ontario, for example, through the superintendent of education intimate to the officials of my department that they do not want a cadet unit in any particular school in the province it shall be abolished immediately. The educational authorities in each of the provinces are responsible for the existence of every unit with which they are concerned. Lord Strathcona's bequest in 1908 originated on a permanent footing the system which has existed since 1879. None of us want to see war again; God forbid that such a thing should occur. But we all want to see our children physically trained and trained properly, and military exercises constitute a part of such training. That is the opinion throughout the country; it is held by most educational authorities, and it is my own opinion. For these reasons I do not think that the motion should be entertained.


Thomas Langton Church: The remarks that have
been made on this subject to-night I regard as an insult to -the soldiers and militia of the city from which I come, andl L am perfectly sure that the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey are shared by very few of the people whom she represents. I would not have entered this debate but for the insults that have been hurled at the city of Toronto where some six thousand mothers mourn the loss of sons who died in Flanders while fighting for us all. I sympathize with the minister and his predecessors in having to meet this unreasonable opposition. The vote of 8400,000 is not too much for the puiposes for which it is intended. Nobody in this country wants to see war; we all want to see peace prevail. But pacifism can be carried too far, and such speeches as that of the hon. lady member (Miss M-acphail) and her colleagues, Mr. E. C. Drury and others in Ontario, are not at all to be commended. Mr. Drury and, his colleagues in the late provincial government went up and down the province of Ontario preaching the same gospel of pacifism. Ontario gave a negative answer to the question shall a province which was saved by a Brock be ruled by a Drury, and I have no hesitation in declaring right here and now that I for one would not want to be a member of parliament if such speeches were countenanced. They certainly do not reflect credit on this deliberative body. You could not make such speeches in the United States, and this must be a very free country indeed where such sentiments can be expressed. The oath which every member

Supply-Defence
of parliament takes and the prayers which are read at the opening of the House every day refer to one king, one flag and one empire. The cadet of to-day is the militiaman of tomorrow. Members to my left, I am sorry to say, do not seem to know what the cadet movement really is, or they would not make the speeches we have listened to to-night. The cadet movement is not a military movement. It started in the public schools and the Y.M.C.A. It instils the principles of respect for authority, love of country and love of empire in the cadets. You cannot have cadet training without some leadership, just as you have in the boy scouts and in every branch of athletic sports-there must be a captain or leader. In the United States to-day the cadet movement is carried on in every school. Even the child in the kindergarten class is taught to love the flag, and at the opening hour a series of lessons on the flag and what it stands for are given to the children. In fact in no other country in the world have they more militarism than in the United States to-day. There is no pacifism there. They have respect for their flag, they instil lessons of patriotism; and that is what I admire the American people for. We are going to continue the cadet movement in Toronto whether the hon. lady from Southeast Grey likes it or not. The taxpayers of Toronto are paying for it, as they pay for everything else, and it is none of her business.
I would not have spoken but for the attack made on the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). He has been a good, progressive minister, and our returned men want to see him in our city as long as he is head of the department. In conclusion, I do not think I can do better than read to hon. gentlemen two paragraphs from an article in the English Review of February, 1925, on the dangers threatening the empire to-day and the need of military preparation. To my regret, we have been cutting down the militia estimates to about nine million dollars. The article to which I refer is written by Captain J. Brifaut, Flight Captain of the Reserve and member of the Belgian Chamber of Representatives. Quoting Dr. Gustave Lebon on The Uncertainties of the Present Hour:
"A /people does not resign itself to defeat when it considers itself superior to its victors. A German attempt at revenge can, therefore, be considered as one of the most certain events of future history."
He says:
Are these words too pessimistic? Ought we to expect a German revenge? The question might have appeared out of place two years ago, four years ago even more so. But to-day? Who would still dare to be astonished and to affirm that a fresh war is impossible,
or even improbable? In order to have the right to do this, one must be unaware of the return of the Crown Prince to Berlin; of the striking manifestations of che monarchists in Prussia and Bavaria; of the political crimes; of the complicated network of secret societies and innumerable organizations of veterans and young persons aiming at military preparation; of the manufacture, clandestine and open, of fresh arms; of the speeches and the results of the last elections to the Reichstag; of the incessant and aggressive threats in deed and in word, which reach us from the other side of the Rhine, and which become clearer and more numerous from day to day.
One must, above all, deny the advantage which Germany, thanks to her genius for organization and to her prodigious industrial power, can derive from the two new arms Tevealed by the last war, and developed since then: aviation and gas.
Then he goes on to refer to the strides made in connection with aviation, and also to what he speaks of as the chemical danger. He says:
Germany possesses the most formidable chemical industry that there is in the world. It is useless to give the production figures of the "Interessen Gemeinschaft". that chemical Krupp's, which is a federation of the great German chemical works.
With her thousands of specialized chemists, with her up-to-date laboratories, with her public and private resources, Germany is pursuing in an active manner, and without any control, researches similar to those which allowed her on April 15th, 1915, December 19th, 1915, and on July 22nd, 1917, to make her murderous emissions of chlorine, phosgene, and yperite, to which we were not in a position effectively to reply until ten months, seven months, and eleven months respectively, after having suffered these disastrous surprises.
Are we threatened with similar experiences in the perhaps near future?
Nobody wants war, but we should take our experience from the past. We have had these same pacifist representations with regard to cadet movements in. past years. Let me point out that in the city from which I come those who are interested in this training, or many of them, buy their own uniforms. The officers have to meet the cost of the organization of the department. Every regiment in Toronto has a cadet service and they pay for their own services, and the Board of Education pays for its services. We are spending less on military training than any other country in the world. Here are some of the figures:
Amount devoted to defence out of every $100 of total expenditure
Canada	 $ 2 99
Great Britain	
19	98Australia	
5	95New Zealand	
2	08South Africa	
5	38United States	
16	96Argentine Republic	
17	55Belgium	
10	96France	
20	16Italy	
15	87Japan	
36	00The Netherlands	
14	17Switzerland	
15	43
Supply-Dejence

It will be noted that the United States out of every $100 of total expenditure spends $16.96 on defence-and this is the country that is so often referred to iby my hon. friends to my left. Here we are spending a little bit of pin money on defence. We have no fleet; and are content for our maritime freedom to sponge on the hard earnings of the British taxpayer that has his food taxed to provide a navay to defend Canada's shores, and we depend upon the Mother Country in a maritime way for the protection and the liberty that we enjoy. Were it not for the British fleet and for the protection which the Mother Country gives us, we would be spending $20 or $25 a head on defence, instead of depending on the hard earnings of the poor British taxpayer. I protest against language in this honourable House of the kind that the hon. member for Southeast Grey has used, and it should be expunged from the records of the House. 'Silly war memorials I " Such an insult to those who lost their all in the Great war and their glorious dead.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I will
not detain the committee long with the few observations I have to make upon this subject. I intend to support the motion made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and I wish to give very briefly the reasons why I do so. First of all I think we should envisage this question properly; we should not exaggerate the situation. We are a country whose military expenditure is reduced to a very low figure. I do not think there is any country in the world which contains less of agressive militarism than this Canada of ours. I do not think any party in the state, I do not think any responsible statesman in Canada, is anything but a lover of peace; where we may differ is as to the methods which we may follow to attain this end.
Now, the minister has referred to a trip he took to Europe, and he says that wdien he was there last year he found things in a very disturbed condition. I am afraid that he is right, but I would like to direct the attention of the commitee for a moment to the reasons why Europe is in a disturbed condition. We fought a great war, we were told, to end war.
I believe the mass of the British people, the people in England, Ireland, and Scotland, the peoples in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who leaped to the call for arms in August of 1914, were inbued with high patriotic ideas.
I believe they had no idea of fighting the war for aggrandizement. I believe they honestly thought they were fighting a war to end war. 
But what happened when the Peace treaty was formed? Unfortunately the high ideals with which the warring nations started, with which the British people started, had been lost. In Great Britain an election had been won shortly before the beginning of the negotiations on an appeal to national feeling and on an appeal to hatred of their enemies, and unfortunately that spirit was brought into the peace negotiations. Unfortunately a peace was negotiated which instead of ensuring peace ensured more difficulty, and that is one reason why Europe is in a disturbed condition to-day. Another reason is that instead of laying down their arms, instead of disarming, the peoples kept on arming one against the other, and I say that the history of mankind shows very plainly that the way to obtain security is not through military preparedness. If there is any lesson which the war has driven home on the consciousness of thinking people, surely that is the lesson. The minister has said that we need in this country some military force for the maintenance of internal order. I am prepared to grant him that. I would like to see our military establishment on such a footing as may be required to maintain internal order, and the more righteousness and justice and generosity and fair dealing obtain between class and class, between employer and employee, so much less will that establishment require to be from year to year.
The member for Southeast Grey has not beclouded the issue. I think she has enlightened the committee. In every great movement there are heroes and in every great movement in the history of the world there have been heroines, and I consider that the member for Southeast Grey belongs to that class. She assuredly has so conducted the battle that she has put the gallant and hon. Minister of National Defence almost on his defence. He says that the responsibility for the existence of cadet services in this country is not on his department but on the departments of education of the different provinces who ask for them. Let them not ask for it, says the minister, and they will not receive.
I would suggest that the responsibility was joint and I would think that efforts should be made in both directions to have these cadet services eliminated. Surely it is patent to all of us that whatever mankind did in the past in the way of ensuring peace by preparing for war, they were wrong, and surely the children and the young people should be given a chance. Whatever is required to secure us by way of military expenditure and military establishment, surely we should give the new gener-

Supply-De fence
ation an opportunity to try another way, the old way having proved to be such a dismal failure.
It is said that military training gives the best discipline. I do not know about that. I do not knew whether military discipline has been shown in the past to be the very best training for mind or for body. It has got some advantages, no doubt., but could not these advantages be obtained through physical exercise, and even physical drill, if necessary, without attaching it to military pomp and military procedure. It seems to me that it could. There is an organization in the country to which an enormous number of young boys belong, the Boy Scouts; it has physical drill; it has physical exercise. It appeals to the gregarious feeling in youth by combining them in companies and subjecting them to a certain amount of discipline and organization, but it is removed in spirit from the spirit of war and the spirit of hate. It depends for its excellence upon entirely another spirit.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the difference between physical training and military training? I do not know; I ask just for information..


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would imagine that
when a boy is given a gun in his hand and a uniform is put on his back, the idea conveyed is that he is to be trained to kill somebody in a certain eventuality.


Arthur Edward Ross: Supposing he has
not a gun?


Andrew Ross McMaster: If we are going to keep
the cadets in jerseys, if we are going to uniform them like the Boy Scouts, if we are going to keep guns out of their hands, then I suppose I would ask the genial member for Kingston, when is a cadet not a cadet?
Both parties in this verbal controversy have appealed to the United States. Some people in the United States are thoroughly convinced that the security of mankind is not to be maintained through military preparedness, and I think they represent the majority of that great people. There are others who make the common error of confounding patriotism with militarism, and who are prepared to denounce those who do not like militarism as being unpatriotic. Well, if that is what the pacifist has got to bear-to be called unpatriotic-then I am prepared to be called unpatriotic.
Let me say just two words in closing. Some criticism has been directed to the member for Southeast Grey because of her desire to
see war memorials take a shape different from the shape they take at the present time. There are those who think it wise to raise stone memorials to those who have fallen and to the beloved ones who have passed over. I for my part have no objection to that, but I think there is a better way. If I may be permitted a personal reference, a college society to which I belonged in my ycuth lost two-thirds of its active chapter during the war, and what we did was this: We raised no brass tablet, we raised no stone monument, but we subscribed until we had a fund of upwards of $20,000, and we founded a scholarship at the university to which we belonged.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my
hon. friend mean to say that the publication every year of the names of the winners of that scholarship and the purpose for which it was founded, does not carry to the mind the very same lesson that would be carried by looking at a war monument?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I think it would carry
the lesson a great deal better because it would show that in better knowledge, with bet'er information, there might be found a way out of the morass which we all wish to avoid. We should try to find the greatest common ground. I do not think there is much that divides us, but what I want to insist upon to the members of this House is that to surround children with a military atmosphere is, I think, a mistake. It has been done in the past, said the minister. Why, everything has been done in the past that we wish to get rid of.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are the
educational authorities in every province in the Dominion wrong?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In so far as the educational authorities ask for cadet training in their schools, I think they are wrong, and I would also say this: I believe that if a vote were taken of all the teachers and all the parents in all the provinces, a very handsome majority would be registered against cadet training. That is my view. We have taken no plebiscite and I may be mistaken, but I think that is the view of the Canadian people.
There is one bright ray in this picture, and it is this, that not only have those who have generally been called pacifists come out strongly in denunciation of war, but it is no longer regarded as the school of hardy virtue. We used to be told when I was a boy that nations required war, that if they did not have war they would become
Supply-Defence

effeminate, that wars were required to build up a strong and virile people. You do not hear that sort of talk to-day except among people who are perfectly crazy. Great generals, like Sir Arthur Currie, General Sir Ian Hamilton, great military leaders like Earl - Haig are just as strong and stern in their denunciation of war, and in their declarations that war never settled anything, and that mankind has to find a better way for settling international disputes. Under these circumstances, is it quite fair to the rising generation to put them in touch with military matters in this way? I think it would be wiser not to do so. After all, as John Bright once said, we are the true ancients-we stand on the shoulders of our forefathers and can see farther, and I think the best of modern thought would be that we might well leave out this expenditure of public money for the purpose for which it is asked this evening.


George Perry Graham: The only sad thing I
see about cadet training is that every twelve months it parts me from the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I do not like to be put in that position, because I knew neither one of us likes it. I would rather be able just to say we agree on everything, and if it was not for this cadet training I think we might always be in what the musicians call close harmony. I feel a good deal as she does about war. God knows I have not any love for war. I am not a militarist, nothing of the kind. I will go further than my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), that is, in a statement of opinion, although I will not go so far into history. I find great difficulty in convincing myself of the great benefits we got from the last war. The further we get away from it the clearer, it may be, our vision becomes, and while so far as I am concerned I feel that Canada would have to do her duty in another war, if we are called on to do so, still I fail to see the great benefits that were derived from the last war. I am not unpatriotic in saying that, but at this distance, I would say the war in a measure resulted from the collapse of proper diplomacy. That is my view.
War has nothing to do with cadet training, as far as I am concerned. I am not talking from any theory. I will say two or three words, and I hope it will not be thought that I am injecting my own domestic affairs into this debate. As to the boys not liking the cadet training, I may say here, as the father of two cadets, that they love the training. I had one son, a very tall young man, who grew very rapidly, and the cadet training made a physical man of him. I do not

care whether he carried a gun or did not. I know that he had physical training at school, and from a long drawn-out younster he became a well developed young man, and I attribute it more to the training he got in the cadets than anything else. That cadet training did not impel him to go to war, but when he felt it his duty to go to war he had the physique that the cadet training gave him to enable him to go to war and do his duty. The other son was of a different stature, but he was very fond of the cadet training, went all through it and became a strong, a stalwart young man, as every person who saw him in the press gallery here knows. Under those circumstances this is what I feel, not theoretically but practically; that I would vote for cutting out every item in the National Defence estimates before I would vote to cut out the cadet training.


William Charles Good: I do not think the importance of the subject we have been discussing this evening can be over-estimated. If we cannot find some way out of the morass that we have been struggling in for the last few years, I see little hope for civilization or humanity. There is, of course, no difference of opinion between any of us as to the evils of war and as to our desire to get rid of them. But I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the House, there is a great difference of opinion as to how we can best get rid of war. That is the vital question we have to consider and decide.
I am free to admit the difficulties of the situation. I am free to admit it is a most difficult subject to discuss between ourselves, because it touches some of the deepest feelings, instincts, prejudices and passions in humanity. I remember reading some few years ago a very significant little tract by the late Professor William James of Harvard University, one of the most eminent psychologists this age has seen. In this tract he stated in effect: That in human affairs reason was a very small factor, while passion and prejudices were the big factors. He said that reason was like a little sandbank in a wild and hungry ocean, but as the sandbank may increase gradually through the drifting of sand upon it, under the action of the storms and waves from all directions, so the accumulation of reason may grow in spite of the fury of the waves of passion and prejudice that beat upon it from all directions. That perhaps is a parable of life and history, and I think our effort ought to be if possible to add some increment to that little sandbank of reason, which perhaps in this instance may

Supply-Defence
preserve humanity from destruction, and also our sons and daughters and the future generation from destruction. In this matter there is a good deal of muddy thinking. We are under an obligation in this, as in other matters, to try to clear our thought from the influence of those waves of passion and prejudice to which I have referred. Going back to the outbreak of the Great war in 1914-


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. gentleman, but I submit that there is a rule that the discussion of the estimates must be confined closely to the item under consideration. The hon. gentleman is giving us a well thought out address on war which I submit is beside the subject of the vote. While I do not wish to be discourteous, I have a hope and desire to get home before the snow comes.


William Charles Good: Speaking to the point of order, I asked the minister some time ago if I would be permitted to discuss the general policy under this particular item. I refrained from participating in the discussion under the previous item on the assurance previously given that I would have liberty to discuss the general question under this item. I submit further, Mr. Chairman, that the general philosophy of the matter is pertinent to this item, and has already been discussed by a number of the hon. members who have taken part in the debate. Surely the hon. member for Southeast Grey discussed more than the one question of cadet training.


Alan Webster Neill: But she should not have.


William Charles Good: I claim I have the right, guaranteed me by the minister, when I refrained on the previous occasion, that I should have the opportunity now of discussing this matter.


Arthur John Lewis: It seems to me very unfortunate that hon. members have discussed militarism in a general way under this item. I think it should have been discussed under any item except cadet training.


Thomas Vien: I was not in the chair when the hon. member made the agreement with the Minister of National Defence. I understand we are now at item No. 97, cadet services, and I suppose the hon. member thus far is lajdng the foundation of his argument on that item. I must draw his attention to the fact that we are now discussing item 97, cadet services.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon.
member did ask me if he could discuss the administration of the department generally, 310
as I understood it. I did not suppose he was going to discuss the abstract principle purely, but that anything relating to my department could be discussed under this item.


William Charles Good: Speaking again to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, unless you have ruled-
An hon. MEMBER Go ahead.


Thomas Vien: The ruling has been given.


William Charles Good: I wish to recall to members of the House the outbreak of the Great war in 1914. At that time I, as I suppose most other Canadians, felt that although we experienced no great satisfaction in the outbreak of any war, we did feel that it was then practically unavoidable, and that we were bound in honour to go ahead with the enterprise when undertaken. I think too, as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has so well said, that most of the people in Canada and in all British countries had the highest motives in participating in that war, but I submit that the upshot of the war is very disturbing to the views then current. I should like to quote one expression which a newspaper friend of mine used at that time and which I think is very significant as embodying the conviction to which I feel myself driven by subsequent events. He was perhaps rather hot, and this is the way in which he put the whole matter:
Scoundrels at the top, fools at the bottom.
That was his summing up of the whole war. I must say that the more I have looked into the records, the more I am convinced that such is a fairly accurate description of that great catastrophe.


Thomas George McBride: I think that is an insult- to our officers who went overseas and did splendid service, and I do not think it should be allowed to pass unchallenged in this House.


William Charles Good: I do not refer to the officers when I mention the "men at the top." I am sure my friend whom I mentioned did not refer to them and I am sorry if he has been misunderstood.


An hon. MEMBER:: To whom did he refer ?


William Charles Good: You will have to ask my
friend.	,


Mr. HARRIS:: Tell us who were the fools at the bottom?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They
threatened to hang one not long ago and they did not do it.

Supply-Defence


William Charles Good: It seems to me that the world has been guilty of what I might call criminal insanity in going into this war. If we had a plague, an epidemic, that took away as many lives and destroyed as much property as the last Great war did, we would not go at the solution of such a problem in the way we have gone into the solution of this one. We would have set our medical men to work-studying. We would have concentrated upon this problem of the epidemic and striven to find the cause, to isolate the germ, if you like, to seek for a remedy and to apply that remedy. Frankly, I do not think the nations have adopted the same sensible method in attacking this awful plague of war that we certainly would have adopted in connection with a physical plague. It is significant that in 1917, during the war-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, in discussing the war of 1914 and its causes, is going very far afield from anything relating to a vote in my department.


Thomas Vien: I must
again draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to paragraph 5 of rule 13, which says:
Speeches in committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Therefore I draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he must limit his remarks to that. The item under consideration is cadet services.


William Charles Good: It is just a question whether
I shall have the right which was granted to me by the minister some little time ago. If I am denied the right to discuss the question, I suppose I shall have to acquiesce.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let us understand each other. As ministers frequently say to hon. members when they want to discuss general matters on general votes:	You
can discuss that subject on one vote although that does not happen to be the particular vote to which the subject is relevant. I intimated to my hon. friend that he could speak on the next item. My hon. friend is talking about the war of ten years ago and reading authors on the subject, which has nothing to do with this vote or anything in the department today.


Thomas Vien: My ruling
has been given that the hon. gentleman must limit his remarks to the item under discussion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have no
objection to his discussing anything in the department.


William Charles Good: That means the gag and I
will stop.
fMr. D. M. Kennedy.]


Arthur John Lewis: It is with diffidence that I
rise to say a few words on this item. It is much easier to follow the line of least resistance or to sail on the wave of popular opinion, but at the same time I think a person has a certain responsibility. Arguments have been advanced against cadet training. The only thing that I am sorry for is that I happen to live in a part of Canada where there is no cadet training and I am the father of five boys.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And a minister of the
gospel too.


Arthur John Lewis: Yes, "and a minister of the gospel, too," the hon. member for Southeast Grey says. I have two boys in the Boy Scouts, and every one of the younger ones is continually asking their mother: "When shall I be old enough to join too?" Just because I believe in physical training for my boys and because I believe they should learn the art of self defence, that does not mean that I want them to enter into every street-corner brawl that happens to occur. But I do not want any of my boys to be sissies, and whether in a foot-ball game, whether it be rugby or soccer, or in a baseball game or lacrosse, I hope they will be able to take care of themselves. I believe physical training is necessary. There is suoh a thing as mental discipline. I have been out with the Boy Scouts a good many years, and I believe those who are in that kind of work have a certain mental discipline. They have physical culture, they have training generally, and for that reason I am going to support the vote.


William Irvine: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he wanted his boys in the cadet movement in order that they might learn to protect themselves. If this is true which I am going to quote-


Arthur John Lewis: Is the hon. member asking a question?


William Irvine: Yes. If the hon. member does not wish me to ask the question, let him say so.


Arthur John Lewis: I do not think that is a question. The hon. gentleman has a right to speak and when I have finished, he can. I am not afraid of questions, but I do not think much of an idealism that evaporates into eternal nothingness. I hate war just as much as anyone else, but I believe it is easy enough to go along with popular opinion.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What does the hon. member mean by "popular opinion?"


Arthur John Lewis: It may be popular in this House to hate war and to sail on that wave.

Supply-Defence
But if war did happen those who take that position would be the very first to call down the government for not being prepared. We have a responsibility. If the arguments that have been advanced in this House were to be carried out to their logical conclusion, they would amount to this. You do not want any morality squad in any city because if you took it away, there would not be any vice. On the same argument, if you did away with the police force, there would not be any crime. The thing is just as ridiculous on the one hand as on the other. Canadians have not sponged on anybody in the past and I do not want future Canadians to sponge upon anybody. We have to bear our responsibility in the world. No nation can live to itself. We have to go on the high seas. We have commerce all over the world, and just as long as the world demands that the world shall be policed and looked after, Canada has her right and responsibility and she must do her ' share. I sympathize with the minister because this is aganist popular opinion, but at the same time he has a responsibility and I intend, even though it should cost me my seat in this House, to support him in this vote.


Mr. ROBINSON:: If I thought military training in the schools or cadet corps training would have anything to do with bringing about a war or with encouraging the military spirit in the young people, I for one would be opposed to cadet training. I do not know whether this is true of anybody else in the House or not, but I have taken the training that is given to those who have to instruct cadet corps, and I have had cadet corps to instruct.
The member for Southeast Grey made the statement that she was strongly in favour of physical training but was opposed to such training as was given in cadet corps, because in cadet corps training obedience was required. In any physical training at all if it is to accomplish anything absolute obedience is required; otherwise it is not physical training. There must be obedience to outside orders in order that there should be any training at all. Again, the statement was made that the cadet corps work was compulsory. Now, in all schools that I have had anything to do with, and I have had some experience in this line, no one is compelled to join the cadet corps if he does not wish to do so. It is left absolutely to the free will of the individual. So far as the uniform or even the carrying of a gun is concerned, this is merely an external matter; it adds to the human interest of the thing. You cannot get children to take part in anything of this kind unless you 310i
can engage their interest. I would not say that the gun was necessary, for some of the best cadet corps I have ever seen, so far as training went, used no guns at all; they simply went through the motions. It has been said that all games are good apart from cadet training. Now, in any game such as football or baseball the element of competition comes into play and you will find that these games arouse feelings of anger and other passions which you never see in the cadet corps. There is no occasion for these passions in cadet training. I have witnessed football games in which the teams seemed to me to hate each other; it was anything but a spirit of love. I cannot conceive of any game such as we have heard spoken of that is not a competition. When it is argued that cadet training has no part in education it is necessary for us to have a clear-cut definition of what is meant by education. It seems to me that we are getting a long way from the subject, and arguments have been introduced that have no bearing on cadet training at all. If I believed that the training of boys in schools in cadet corps fostered a military spirit and inculcated an aggressive temper I for one would oppose it. But from my own experience I know that this is not true.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why then
carry guns and wear uniforms?


Clifford William Robinson: Why do football and
hockey teams wear uniforms?


Edward Joseph Garland: There is
quite a difference in the uniforms.


Clifford William Robinson: There may be, but I
can tell you I have seen more damage done in a hockey game with sticks than I have witnessed in a cadet corps with guns.


Arthur Edward Ross: Do the mothers
object to the boys taking training or do the boys desire it in some cases when the mothers
object?


Clifford William Robinson: So far as my experience goes, if the mothers object strenuously there is no compulsion on the boys to receive training. But I have not often met mothers who objected. There is a feeling among certain people that such training creates a spirit of aggressiveness in the boys, but as I say I have never witnessed any such spirit in cadet corps. And in any case one hour a week is the time allotted to this training. You get a crowd of boys together and have them move in unison and there is nothing in that to arouse any aggressive spirit. On the other hand I have seen football teams where, the men lined up on
Supply-Defence

either side, they are told to go at the other fellows and kick them to pieces if they can.


Arthur Edward Ross: In the hon. gentleman's experience, what percentage of the boys desire this training?


Clifford William Robinson: I should say offhand
about eighty per cent of them. But it does not begin until the boys are about fifteen or sixteen; before that age they are not allowed to enter the corps.


Arthur Edward Ross: And what percentage refuse?


Clifford William Robinson: It is seldom that they
refuse. There is nothing better than having one, two or three cadet corps go through the movements in order to see who can make the best showing, and there is never any spirit of rivalry displayed nor are there any looks of hatred in the faces of the participants such as you see in many games on school grounds. If I did not believe this I for one would not defend cadet training because I dislike war as much as anyone else does. I do think however that the boys derive a great benefit from being put through these harmonious evolutions which have nothing to do with any spirit of aggressiveness that will make one nation grow to hate another.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the difference between military training and physical training?


Clifford William Robinson: There is no difference
at all except that military training is the broader term, including physical training. Physical training leads up to military training.


William Irvine: I agree to some extent with the remarks that have been made by the hon. member (Mr. Robinson). I have not the fear which other hon. gentlemen seem to have of what the boys will acquire from their training. As a matter of fact I think the boys and girls get little training anyway except such as they acquire by themselves through their born instincts and their environment generally. For instance, I believe that most of us went to Sunday school and I have no doubt we attended regularly and drank in all the precepts and idealisms which were offered. I have no doubt the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) did so himself. And what good has it done him?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A whole lot of good.


William Irvine: What good has it done the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis)? He said a few moments ago that all ideals evapor-

ate into nothing. I doubt whether you will make warriors out of boys by giving them a mock gun to carry on their shoulders. I am not afraid of that at all. I do think however that the Minister of National Defence should be absolutely frank with the committee and if this vote is for military training he should say so. If it is not for military training, I want to urge that this vote be renamed and made a vote for physical culture, to be extended to every boy and girl in Canada. Let us be frank and square and honest about this thing. If the vote is for military training, say so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I will give my hon. friend an answer right away. I have already stated that this vote is not for military training, but for military exercises carried out in connection with physical training.


William Irvine: Will the minister then accept my suggestion that this training be extended to every child in the Dominion? '


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, because, as my hon. friend well knows, these military exercises are only given in such schools as the educational authorities of the various provinces designate.


William Irvine: But if it is made clear by the Minister of National Defence that this vote is to be expended, not for military preparations at all, but only in physical and moral training; to inculcate obedience, and so forth, as the hon. member who has just spoken stated, and is to apply to all children, I think the educational authorities will be more than glad to give it wider application.
Now, I wanted to ask a question of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Lewis) -that militant apostle of Mars. He permitted me to do so, but withdrew the privilege before I got the question out.


Arthur John Lewis: I was afraid you were going to make a speech.


William Irvine: I am just going to make it now. The hon. member said that he wanted to have his boys prepared for self-defence. That is what we all want to do. But I desired to >ask the hon. member if the best trained warrior is best prepared to survive to-day, and I also wanted to quote to him the words of an eminent bishop, who in the course of a speech in Westminster Abbey-a shrine already referred to by the Minister of National De fence-said:
England, with its economic dislocation, its millions of unemployed, its tremendous burdens of taxation, its millions of bereaved homes and its uncertain future, is the strangest example of a victorious nation the world has ever seen.

Supply-Defence
I will go further than that. Germany is worse off than Great Britain, and Germany was better prepared to fight than was Great Britain. Will the bon. gentleman say that by giving his children military training he is preparing them to survive in the world today? I would invite him to do a little more thinking along wider and more natural lines. He would then discover that fighting is not the only way of defence. I would rather see my boys able to defend themselves by their creative genius than by merely apeing the tactics of the cave man. There ought to be a method of defence that is in keeping with the intelligence and the moral aspirations of the twentieth century; and if my hon. friend is so very anxious to protect his children, he will have to adopt some other method than that which he is in favour of now.


Samuel William Jacobs: What chance would my hon. friend's boy have with the cave man?


William Irvine: My hon. friend I am sure would put it over any cave man that ever stood up. If I can train my children to be as adept at protecting themselves as is my hon. friend-and he is not a militarist-I will not be afraid of any cave man overcoming them.
Now, there is one other point mentioned by the Minister of National Defence that I wish to refer to. He insisted that we were maintaining the barest minimum of military preparation, and then he emphasized what he says is a fact

and certainly I do not challenge it-that the situation in Europe is extremely grave. But where is the logic of his position? If the situation in Europe is so extremely grave, why should we not rather maintain the maximum of military preparation since we are committed to a force philosophy? Of course, then he would say to us, " That is so, but we are a portion of a great empire, we are associating ourselves together in that empire for mutual protection, and therefore it is not necessary for us to make such large preparations as we would have to make were we standing alone." I reply to that again, that by our association in an empire we are not only associated in protective agencies, but we are associated in bearing the brunt of the blunders of Europe and diplomacy blunders which go back for centuries. Our imperial associations have dragged us into European warn, and I suggest to the minister that if we are face to face with the probability of another grave crisis in Europe, and war be the only means of settlement, then the maximum military preparation is what he should be proposing to this parliament. On the other hand, if, as is the truth
of the matter, our little army is all that we could put up against a great nation like that to the south of us as our only means of defence, we would be practically helpless, would it not then be better for the minister to seek some other way of defence whereby we could at least match any other nation regardless of its numerical strength, not by brute force but by something better? Now, I hope -the minister does not regard what I am saying or what any other member has said as personal to himself. Certainly I am not blaming him for the last war, I am not blaming him for the fact that he took over the Department of National Defence-


Arthur John Lewis: Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled that we are discussing the cadet movement and not the general subject of war.


William Irvine: I am going to connect up my remarks with the cadet movement at this very point, Mr. Chairman, and it is not very difficult to do. The cadet movement, notwithstanding the statement of the minister- and I am not taking that as being absolutely frank-that it is not for military purposes, is undoubtedly associated with militarism and is the training ground for the future soldiers of Canada. Nobody doubts that. If the minister does not know it, he is the only man in Canada without -that knowledge; and I think he ought to know it, seeing that he is at the head of the Department of National Defence. Of course, I know that the instinct to kill, to destroy, is in every child; he enjoys it. And I presume the minister intends to utilize that instinct so as to develop some better qualities. I notice the hon. member far Brome (Mr. McMaster) is shaking his head, but I am making reference to physiological and psychological facts. By that statement I am not attributing anything personally to the minister. I will go further and say that.the instinct ought to be utilized. But this does connect the whole business with our military programme, and I do not think it is possible to discuss the cadet movement without entering the wider field.
But I do not wish further tlo detain the committee. I come back to the one .point that I desire to make, and I am going to insist upon it. I shall be glad to vote for this item if the minister will agree that the money be devoted entirely to physical culture, and the training extended to every boy and girl in Canada. If he will do that, I do not care whether the cadets use rifles in their drilling, I do noit care whether they form fours or form eights,

if he will extend the training in the way I have suggested, I shall be glad to vote
Supply-Defence

far this item. But if the minister will not give the committee the assurance that he accepts my suggestion I shall have to vote against the appropriation.


Jean-François Pouliot: If this training is extended to every boy and girl in Canada, dhould it not be compulsory?


William Irvine: Why so? May I return the question?


Mr. MacLAREN:: One of the most striking facts that impressed itself on the people of this country as well as of Great Britain during the war was the large number of physical unfits that there were among the young men. It was and it is a warning to this country to look after the physical condition of the youth. There seems to me no more practical way, no more feasible way of attaining that end than by this very means we are now discussing, namely, cadet training. Cadet training can really be better described as physical training; that is the essence of the cadet service. I commend physical training in the shape of cadet services for the youth of this country. The development of strong and healthy men is an important thing; it must be done in a systematic way, and here is a means of doing it. I commend the cadet services and I trust that we will long continue to have them in this country.


Jean-Joseph Denis: This vote is clearly a vote for military purposes. The hon. member for East Calgary well defined the situation a few moments ago when he said that this cadet training was an annex to military training. If, then, it is a military vote, we must take it as such. The minister seems to be of a different opinion, but if it is not a vote that has relation to military training why is it placed under this head in the estimates? For instance, it might be in the estimates of the Minister of Health, or under the head of miscellaneous at the end. The fact that it is included in the militia estimates indicates clearly not only that it is a military vote but that the minister considers it as such. I have been rather surprised to hear the minister say that in the province of Quebec 52,000 cadets are training. I doubt whether the object of this training has ever been properly explained to the teachers or to the parents of those children. I doubt very much whether the teachers and the parents would agree to this training-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am afraid my hon. friend did not catch my point. I said there were no cadets in any school in the country, the province of Quebec included,
{.Mr. Irvine.]
where the teachers in charge of the institution did not ask to have them there.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I understood the minister quite clearly on that point, but are the teachers well aware of the object of the training?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I assume
they are intelligent people.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes, I assume they are, but I think those who are doing the training would be more or less inclined to tell them that this training has nothing to do with military matters, and so on. Now, if it is a military vote, I would point out that the militia estimates of this year-and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected-ex-.ceed those of last year by $243,220.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The only
increase in the militia vote is for air services, an increase rendered necessary on account of the obtaining of more machines for fire patrols and carrying out the work of the Department of the Interior in western Canada. As regards military and naval votes there is no increase.


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is to be seen from the estimates, but just the same when you take the estimates as a whole you find they are in excess of those of last year by the amount I have mentioned.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend should not mistake the point. As regards military and naval matters the estimates are not increased. The hon. member can see for himself that the only increase is for the purpose of supplying air machines to be used for peace purposes, in the development of this country.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If it is to be used
for peace purposes why is it placed under the head of National Defence?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because we
are the only department that have aeroplanes. We are not using them for war purposes; we are using them for the development of the country.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Then I am willing to give credit to the minister for the fact that his estimates have not been increased, although on the face of it they would appear to be. Now, we have in addition to that, supplementary estimates to the amount of $2,221,110, so that if we take these into consideration there would be an increase of more than $2,000,000 over the estimates of last year in any case. It will be said that this cadet

Supply-Defence
training is for the purpose of defending the country if necessary.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Who is going to attack
us?	.


Jean-Joseph Denis: There is a book
written by E. B. Lytton, entitled "What Will He do With it?" I ask this committee, what will we do with our militia? What can we do with it? What use is it to us? Is it to defend Canada? Evidently the answer is that it is to defend this country against any aggressor. Well, where is the aggressor? Has anybody ever seen any? Has anybody ever mentioned or named one? Let us look around, if you like. Is our militia intended to defend us against the United States? That is impossible ; whether we had one soldier or 100,000 our fate would be sealed if ever we went to war with the United States. Is our militia to defend ourselves against France or Germany? I should say not, because if ever there is a war in Europe again and if Canada is called upon to contribute to that war- which God forbid-surely it will not be the militia we have here now that will help to make war in Europe. Moreover, we have at this time in Canada about 300,000 men who have been to the war, who are well trained and who could be soldiers at any time.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the hon
member expect the fellows who were at the front in the Great war to go and fight again for him? Does he think those 300,000 men are going to be sent to the front again?


Roch Lanctôt: They would not go.


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, I do not expect we will ever send them back to Europe, so far as I am concerned. What I mean is this: if war was declared and we had to contribute-which God forbid, as I have just said -we have plenty of trained men here in Canada to provide for that, even outside of our militia.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Where are you going to get money to send them again? We are broke.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Therefore, this is
my last word. I would not say the we should have no militia whatever, but I am opposed to increasing the expenditure on the militia At the present time, and always during peace time, the militia serves very little purpose other than to draw salaries and to create pensions for our military men. Under these circumstances I must vote against this item.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is not often I rise in the House to talk on military matters, because
I am essentially not a military man, nor do I come from a race that has ever made a success of the battlefield.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Their success was due to supplying the troops.


Samuel William Jacobs: We supplied troops; we
also furnished the uniforms. I think I ought to be permitted to say a few words on this question, and to declare that I am in favour of military training in the schools. I do not belong to that cult which teaches that when a man smites you on one cheek, turn to him .the other cheek, and therefore, I think I am on fairly good ground when I declare that I am in favour of giving some little military training to the children in the school when they are obtaining their ordinary education.
It has been said that the battles of England have been won on the playgrounds of their public schools. There seems to be a great deal in that. Shakespeare puts into the mouth of one of his characters:
Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but being in, BeaT't, that the one opposed may beware of thee.
Surely that is good doctrine, and it is as good to-day as it was three hundred years ago. Many parents send their children to boxing schools. Why? Not that they should become Jack Dempseys or Benny Leonards or make a living by their boxing prowess, but for the purpose of defending themselves in case of necessity. They call it the manly art, and I am not at all surprised that my good friend the fair member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) is not in favour of it because I do not think she would ever want to engage in a boxing bout with anybody. But we must look at this from the point of view of the man, not of the woman. If I had my way, Mr. Chairman, I would not have women teach boys in school at all. Boys should be taught by men, and girls should be taught by women. They say the secret of England's greatness is that the boys are taught by men, and it is also said that what makes for effeminacy in the people of some countries is that most of the children are taught by women. Now I have no quarrel at all with the female sex, but I think they ought to restrict themselves to teaching young girls, leaving men to teach the boys. If that were done, I think it would be a good thing for the country all round. Women have their limitations in the matter of teaching. They look at things from the feminine point of view, and if you leave a boy in charge of a woman-


William Charles Good: Mr. Chairman, I presume this is strictly in order.
Supply-Defence


Samuel William Jacobs: I say if you have a boy
taught and brought up by a woman, he becomes more or less of a " sissy " when he grows to be a man.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he eliminate mothers in order to develop manliness in the race?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am not in favour of
abolishing mothers.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does not the hon. member
think that if we denied women the opportunity of teaching boys in the early part of their career, -they would have their revenge later?


Samuel William Jacobs: Who would have their revenge?


Robert Alexander Hoey: The women.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is a little too subtle for me. After all, what is it we admire in boys and men? What we admire is the spirit of endurance. We admire the fibre that is developed in the young man. Now in this military training they get all that. They learn something about subordination, something about obedience. They have their various tests of endurance, and for the life of me I cannot see why red-blooded men can object to any such training as that. It seems to me that the whole subject to-night is scarcely worth discussion. It is more or less of a milk and water type, something that is taught in church basements in Sunday schools, but not something that should be brought before the parliament of Canada. I for one am entirely in favour of this grant. I think that the cutting down of the estimate to one dollar is not sufficient to teach 115,000 children.


Mr. EVANS:: I did not mean to take part in this debate, and I shall delay the House but a very few minutes. Let me say at the outset that I feel it my duty to support the amendment, and I want to give one or two reasons for doing so.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it snappy.


John Evans: Yes, I will make it snappy,
and if I am not interrupted I will take my seat perhaps in two minutes.
We need not make any mistake regarding this vote. It is a military vote. The idea behind cadet training is militarism, and I feel that we are creating the wrong spirit in our young people when we are teaching them militarism at that tender age. I say this, not because I or any of my family are of the milk and water type referred to by the hon. member 
for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Three of my own volunteered for service in the last war, and two of them were accepted. Military training creates a spirit of domination in any man, and I think- we can better train our young people in another organization than under the cadet service. I would rather see this House foster by a vote the work of the Boy Scouts. The idea behind that is service, and service is the greatest thing in the world. A nation is not any safer because it is a nation of soldiers. The safety of a nation does not lie in its military training. Safety of a nation really lies in the unity of its people, and it seems to me that we could better turn our attention to unifying this nation than creating at this time machinery to go to war with other nations. We are creating a wrong spirit altogether, and it is a waste of money because the expenditure is made for an improper purpose.


Mr. WOODSY ORTH:: 
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On that
point, my hon. friend wanted some corroboration of the statemenit I made to the House that training only went on in such schools as sought to have -the training there, and- the request was approved of by the educational authorities of the province. I have asked my deputy who is here, in regard to the matter, and he states that that is the rule. I also asked the hon. member -for Rim-o-uski, who was deputy minister for a number of years, and he says that that is exactly the rule, and I want to remind my hon. friend that if the Deputy Minister of Education in Manitoba wanted to get the information he should have written to the Deputy Minister of National Defence, without writing to a subordinate who -had no authority in the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The proper thing was to write to the person who was invading the schools of the province-
-Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou): No, that is not the proper statement. He went to the schools at the request of some of the authorities in Manitoba-


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister stated that the Minister of Education must ratify the application.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon
member knows very well that if I used the word "Minister of Education" I meant the Superintendent of Education or the party in control. In my -province there is no Minister of Education-, buit there is a Superintendent of Education, and he is the one to whom the application should be made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The deputy minister in Manitoba knows nothing about the matter-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If he had written to my deputy he would have known all about it.
Mr. WOO-DiSWORTH:	I should like to
have information -as to the date on which the
Supply-Defence

province of Manitoba gave permission to conduct military training in the schools of Manitoba.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend does not catch the point-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
know the date on which the Minister of Education of the province of Manitoba gave permission to have cadet training in the schools of Manitoba.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend knows very well we have not the information here, but I shall be glad to get it for him. The educational authority in Manitoba writes to the Department of National Defence approving-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just to be specific, who is the educational authority?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will permit me: Each application has to be dealt with. My hon. friend wants to know on what particular date this approval was given. That means on some particular date that a school in Manitoba applied to have cadet training. That cadet training was approved by the educational authority in Manitoba. That record is in my department and I will give it to my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I asked for this
record on June 4, before these military estimates were to come up, and the information was not available. I would suggest to the minister that instead' of writing to one particular school, putting pressure upon the principal and then getting the principal to consent to such an arrangement, the proper course would be to interview the authorities in charge, that is, the Minister of Education of each province. I understood the Minister of National Defence to say a few minutes ago that the Minister of Education must ratify each application. Apparently this has not been done.


Mr. SNOWTBALL:: Is that the same minister who has been there since Manitoba has been established or since the start of the cadet movement?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


William Bunting Snowball: It is a different one?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but the present minister apparently has not the information, nor can he obtain it from the local authorities.


William Bunting Snowball: From what local authorities?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From the local
authorities of the Department of National Defence. I read the letter which the district cadet officer sent:
I am directed by the district officer commanding to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 7th instant in connection with information re cadet services and to state that it is regretted that this cannot be supplied.
And this is the information which was requested to be sent:
1 The number of school principals or teachers in the province who are cadet instructors.
2. The amount of their remuneration by the federal government individually per annum.
3 The number of schools in the province where cadet training is in force, and the number of cadets.
The district officer commanding has the assurance to reply to the Deputy Minister of Education of the province of Manitoba that this information cannot be supplied.


William Bunting Snowball: Why does he not look it up in his department?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not in his department.


William Bunting Snowball: How does the hon. member know that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: So he says.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend said that in certain questions he asked he wanted to know when the first cadet corps were started in Manitoba. I have the questions before me and my hon. friend has nio such question that I can find. I am in the judgment of every hon. member of this committee when I remind my hon. friend that what I say is absolutely correct, that the deputy minister of any department of any province of this Dominion who wants to get information about defence matters or any other- matters, should write to the deputy minister of the department at Ottawa for the information. If the provincial deputj' minister had done so, he would have received the information long ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say that according to the British North America Act, which some hon. gentlemen are so fond of quoting on occasion, that educational matters in each province are entirely within the jurisdiction of that province, and the educational authorities should not need to write somewhere else in order to find out what i3 going on in the schools of that province. As regards my question, an order for a return was issued to the proper officer of the department on June 4. No. 7 of this reads:
Whether the consent of the Department of Education in each province was secured before this cadet system

Supply-Dejence
was introduced into the schools of the province? If not, what provinces have given their consent, and when?
I asked that information on June 4 and that has not been supplied. I would suggest that when I asked for that information, the minister, since as he states, he has all the information in his office, might at least furnish it to a member of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall
undertake to give that to my hon. friend tomorrow.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Thank you. I
have nothing further to add on the general subject which is before the committee. I think the ground has been well covered by previous speakers who are opposed to this cadet training. I would urge that there are many people throughout this country, at least in my province and among the people whom I more particularly represent, who have expressed themselves very decidedly as opposed to this cadet training. I would suggest further that those of us who have any training whatever in educational work, cannot concede the point that a boy is apt to become a sissy if he has not had military training. I do not believe the boys who have become the men in Canada in the past and who have very largely founded this country of ours, have had military training in days past. This is a new policy for us, and we may well pause before fastening permanently upon Canada anything that will tend in any way to promote militarism or to drag us into any future war.


Henry Elvins Spencer: 
William Irvine: Might I suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would be better to send a special message with the resolution to the Minister of National Defence because he did not hear it read?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I shall be glad to hand
this copy to the minister if he wishes to have it, but I believe he has one. I should be glad if the Minister of National Defence would see his way clear to accept this resolution. If not, I shall be obliged to support the amendment.
Amendment (Miss Macphail) negatived: Yeas, 27. Nays, 64.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manufacturing establishments, $420,000.
Robert Gardiner: Where are these establishments?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are two, the Dominion arsenal at Quebec and the one at Lindsay. The one at Lindsay is not in operation.


Edward Joseph Garland: How many employees are engaged in each?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are 250 at Quebec and four caretakers at Lindsay.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are there any private munition factories in Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it the intention of the government to allow the private manufacture ing of munitions


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That matter has not been considered.


Robert Gardiner: What are they manufacturing at Quebec?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: General
munitions for use in training and for rifle shooting.
Supply-Defence


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is Canada exporting any
munitions?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,610,000.
Mr. WOODS:: I am not in favour of this
vote. I have said the same thing in this House before. To my mind this money is practically wasted because it seems to me that it is used merely for the purpose of providing some officers with an outing. In my opinion the men who enlist in this force go into training for a week or two, not from patriotic or even military motives but to have an outing of this kind. I do not think that it makes for the development of soldiers; it is only a means of giving these men an outing for a little while in the summer. In the supplementary estimates this year another 8100,000 is added to this vote. I am opposed to this expenditure and I therefore move that the vote be reduced by $500,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is not fair to these officers and men. In the cities the organizations are kept up by the generous contributions of the officers themselves who spend freely of their own money to maintain them. We are carrying on this force in Canada at a minimum cost. It is a mere skeleton but we must maintain it in the interests of the country, and I am sure the committee will not consider the motion.


Mr. BRETHEN:: Do they examine the men who enlist to ascertain whether they are physically fit?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The medical officer in charge of the camp examines them.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force, $4,800,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I desire to explain to the
committee the case of some permanent men who were in the British army before enlisting with us. There are 149 of them and they claim they have not received all the justice that was coming to them. In the British service they enlist for a period of years with the colours and so many with the reserve, with permission to carry on in the reserve until they have put in twenty-one years when they are eligible for a considerable pension. It appears that these men after putting in a term of years in Great Britain came over here and were taken on our permanent force, and they

have made valuable instructors; an Old Country battalion or company sergeant-major makes a capable instructor. They were taken on with the distinct understanding from the British government that they would be recalled to the colours should war break out and thus were compelled to sign in their attestation paper an answer to the following question:
Do you understand that enlistment in the permanent force does not involve your discharge from the army reserve, but, if required for duty as an army reservist, you will be discharged from the permanent force?
When the war broke out the British
government notified them to join the colours but the Canadian authorities interfered. They said that these men were valuable to us and they asked permission from the British authorities to retain them. The British authorities gave their consent, but they coupled with it a condition that they be absolved from any further liability for pensions and that the Canadian government should take care of any claims in this regard. The men were not consulted as to whether they wished to rejoin their regiments in Britain or not, they were kept in Canada under military discipline, so to speak. As a result, after the war they found they were ineligible for their pensions from the British government, and they were only eligible for very short term pensions in the Canadian service. They also lost the advantages of promotion, and so forth, and they lost a very long period that they had served towards British pension. Their claim is that, under the circumstances, the period they put in with the British army should be counted towards their pension in the Canadian army. For instance, if a man served twelve years in the British army and five years here, he would now only be entitled to five years pension, whereas had he been discharged and gone back to his regipient, he would now have to his credit seventeen years for the British pension. It is a well-known axiom of law dealing with soldiers that, as they are under discipline, their pay or allowances shall not be taken from them without their permission. A civilian can leave his employment if he does not like the conditions, but a soldier has no option. While it is not a very important matter-there are only 149 men concerned-I think the government might well consider whether they should not meet the claim of these men. They have, inadvertently perhaps, been done an injustice.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The matter has been called to my attention, but I found

Supply-Defence
the position to be this. Immediately after the war the Militia Pension Act was amended by the government of the day, having in view all the conditions that were supposed to exist at the time; two years ago the act was again amended; 'but in neither case was provision made for these men. It would be necessary to have a further amendment of the act in order to permit the remedy to be applied which my hon. friend desires, and I have not felt it possible to introduce such an amendment at this session. However, the matter -will be considered in the meantime.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I endorse
what the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has said. I think provision should be made at an eaily date to look after these men, because many of them have now served well over twenty years, ten or twelve of which service was in the imperial forces and is lost to them for pension purposes. There are also several other cases quite different from that mentioned by the hon. member, and these I think might well be considered when the Pension Act is again being amended. For instance, if an officer in the permanent force who graduated from the Royal Military College dies after seventeen years service, his widow and children get no pension, and the service at the college does not count. I will take an opportunity of laying this and other specific cases before the minister.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be
very glad to receive representations from my hon. friend.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: How is the permanent force distributed in regard to provinces? And what is the proportion of money paid to the officers and to the men respectively?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The permanent force in Canada consists of the following units:	Royal Canadian Dragoons, Lord
Strathcona's Horse-located in Winnipeg- Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, Royal Canadian Engineers, Royal Corps of Signallers, Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry,-also located in Winnipeg-Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, Royal Canadian Medical Corps, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, Royal Canadian Army Veterinary Corps, Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps; also the corps of military staff clerks and the Canadian school of small arms. Altogether there are 324 officers and 2,885 men. There are eleven districts, one each in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, two in Quebec, three in Ontario, and one each in Manitoba, Saskatchewan Alberta and British Columbia.
The permanent force is located in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. A small number of men is attached to the commander of the military district in each of the other provinces.


John Evans: This is a very large item, and sometimes I wonder from the reports I receive whether it is economically spent. I would draw the attention of the minister to the following letter, dated March 15, 1925, received by me from a correspondent in Elkhom, Manitoba:
I wonder if you people down there know what is happening out here in regard to military affairs. We have a very glaring case of mismanagement here, as follows:
A few weeks ago it was arranged to have a military school here at this point. There arrived here an officer and sergeant-major who immediately began to recruit men for the Border Horse, and it is a disgrace the recruits that are being enrolled-boys sixteen years cf age, men that are cripled and ruptured, men with large families who, I feel sure, are over military age. There is no medical examination, if so, it is a farce. There is not 10 per cent of the men enrolled who would be fit to go to war. It looks like a criminal waste of public money, and I think there should be something done in the matter. Every statement in this letter can be proved to be correct. I might state that the people here have christened the outfit, "Cox's Army".


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That cannot be the permanent force. We have a very well qualified group of medical men in the medical corps. No man is permitted to enter the permanent force until he has passed a very thorough medical examination. What is referred to in the letter must have been for some other purpose altogether. If my hon. friend will send me the communication I will take steps to inquire into the statements made by the writer.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is there a regiment of that
name?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not recall the Border Horse. Certainly it is not a part of the permanent force.


Robert Forke: There used to be a regiment of that name before the war in the tenth military district. It was a militia unit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have had representations on several occasions from the Winnipeg Musicians' Association with regard to the employment of military bands. I believe there are instructions that these military bands must not enter into competition with civil bands, but it is said that the regulation is evaded in this fashion:
Whenever an employer wants the Princess Pats band the officer obtains a written statement from employer that no other band is considered, and with this covers the point that there is no competition, as no other band is considered.
Supply-Defence

That is clearly an evasion, if it is true, of the regulation. It is stated further that this band takes part in very important and remunerative engagements. It says here that the Princess Pats band officers manipulated this so that their band could take over the exhibition, an engagement for two weeks, and thus shut out the civilian bands. I think all of us in Winnipeg recognize the excellence of the Princess Pats band; there is no question about that whatever. It is a popular band, and as citizens we owe a great deal to it for the services it has rendered. But it does not seem right that a military organization should come into competition in this way with civilian bands and thus put civilians out of the way of earning their living. These are professional musicians who earn their money by playing and I would urge that the regulation be made more stringent so that this competition may be eliminated.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am at
present looking into this matter. It was called to my attention by a delegation of musicians who came from Winnipeg.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Do the military bands make a charge for their services?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I assume
they charge when they do work outside.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is stated that the chief trouble lies in the fact that the officers of the regiment are without any government contributions toward the upkeep of the band, and so are exploiting the band for creation of these funds.


Charles Gavan Power: In 1919, I think it was, the new scale of pension regulations for officers of the permanent force came into effect. Officers and warrant officers who, though they had had a long service with the Canadian permanent force, retired previous to that date received a much lower scale of pensions than those retiring subsequently. During this session the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) introduced legislation whereby officers and others of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who had been retired prior to a certain date should be placed in the same category as those now retiring. I think it is only simple justice that those who have served, for instance, in the Northwest rebellion and in the South African war should have their pensions brought up to the same scale as those who have been retired since the recent war. I know the minister cannot introduce any provision for that in the estimates this year or bring down any legislation, but I would ask him to instruct the officers of his department to make some study of the ques-

tion in order that this discrimination may not continue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I shall be very glad to see that an investigation is made.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The minister stated a few moments ago that there were 324 officers in the permanent force and 2,885 men, or one officer for a little less than nine men. I wonder if the permanent force is not top heavy with officers. What proportion of this total sum was paid out to officers and what proportion to men?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: A return
was laid on the table of the House to-day giving that information in detail. Although the force has been reduced, it is necessary to maintain more officers than would otherwise be necessary because they are the men who carry out the instructions for the militia.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Representations have been made by military men that an amalgamation of the three military districts which are established in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively might well be made, with a resulting saving of overhead expense. Has the minister considered that matter?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some representations have been made to me in that connection. I am considering the matter very seriously.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the present status of the investigation that was held at Winnipeg into the matter of some scandal in connection with a coal deficiency, and also with regard to charges made as to improper conduct in relation to the purchase of horses?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certain
charges were made in regard to sales of coal made to this department, I think in 1921-22. They were investigated by Mr. Campbell, who made a report thereon. That report was referred by our department to the Justice department for action, and I am advised by the Justice department that they have retained counsel with instructions to prosecute either civilly for the purpose of obtaining restitution, or, if necessary, criminally. The matter is now in that position.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What was the amount of the deficiency found to be, and what is the status with respect to the charges as to irregularities in the purchase of horses?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All the
papers in connection with the coal matter were laid on tlhe table of the House a few days ago. My recollection is that there were

Supply-Defence
allegations as to false deliveries of coal and false weighing, and that the amount involved would be something like $50,000 or $60,000. Colonel Poussette, who was one of the officers alleged to be connected with the matter, has been suspended. As to the matter of the horses I have not that information but. I will see that my hon. friend gets it before he goes away.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many officers have the rank of general in Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Fourteen.
These men have not been made generals by me; the great majority of them received their ranks as the result of service in the war.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the total
amount paid annually in salaries to these fourteen generals?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because a
man happens to be a general it does not mean he gets a bigger salary than anybody else. It is the position that gets the pay, not the rank.


Arthur John Lewis: Are these fourteen generals
on the permanent force now?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. Each one of the officers in command of a district holds the rank of general.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps the minister could tell me whether it is correct that the total salary of these fourteen generals is $90,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not the information classified in such a way as to tell my hon. friend right off. But I will be glad to get that information and give it to my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The salaries range from $9,000 down. Is that correct?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. The only one at $9,000 is General MacBrien.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many officers are authorized in each district?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They range from three in some districts to five in others.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: How many officers are there of all ranks in British Columbia?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have
three staff officers in British Columbia. I have not the exact number of men at hand.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
there are only three officers altogether, not merely staff officers but any officers giving
service?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many officers are there altogether in each district?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In the London district, 21; Toronto, 46; Kingston, 37; Quebec, 29; Halifax, 49; St. John, N.B., 9; Winnipeg, 52; Victoria, 30.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport and freight, $160,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Does this include
the touring cars used by the officers?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It includes any motor transport that is used in each of the military districts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many touring cars are there used by officers?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: One car
in each district, except the larger districts. There are two in Winnipeg, and two in Toronto, but in the western districts there only one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the Naval Service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Oana-cl.an Navall Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, $1,400,000.
Robert Gardiner: How much was spent under .this vote last year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The whole amount.


Robert Gardiner: How many vessels were there in commission?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the eastern coast we have the Patriot, and the mine sweepers Ypres and Festu'bert. On the Pacific coast we have the Patrician, the Armentieres and the Thiepval. In addition to that we have the Aurora, which is not in commission, and the two submarines which are not in commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Air Force-maintenance of air stations, operations, air force training, control of civil aviation and a it research, $1,140,000
Arthur Edward Ross: Has the department given a promise or .made an engagement in any way to sell Borden camp and open a new camp in some other part of the province?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The officers of the Air Force have made a report to me that the buildings at Camp Borden are deteriorating in value. In addition to that, as
4S74
Supply-Defence

we all know', some of the buildings were burnt down last year. The officers have also reported that seeing that hydroplanes were coming into almost universal use, and would be more useful in the prosecution of their work it might be advisable to move them to some other- place w'here they would be closer to the water, but no action has been taken in regard to the report.


Mr.   BOSS@Kingston: No promise has been given?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. The air officers have been looking at Deseronto, but no action has been taken. I do not understand what my hon. friend means about a promise.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have a letter here which speaks as if a promise had been given, and the matter w-as to be kept very quiet or it would not go through.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If it was going through at this time, I would have to come to parliament for a vote, and I am not asking parliament for a vote.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How much of this vote is spent on .aeroplanes and hydroplanes engaged in forestry patrol?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All these planes are available for that purpose, and they are being used entirely for purposes of that kind. A certain portion of this amount is used for training and the maintenance of the air stations. The planes are used for various purposes. For instance, for the Forestry branch, Department of the Interior, 1,422 hours of flying time were consumed last year; for Topographical Surveys branch, 477 hours; Water-Powers branch, 10 hours; National Parks 'branch, 15 hours. There was also some flying done for the Department of Indian Affairs, for the Department of Marine and Fisheries in connection with fishing matters in British Columbia, for the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Customs and for the provincial government of British Columbia, but the greater proportion of the work is done for the Department -of the Interior in connection with forestry. It is rather difficult to allocate the cost.


Robert Alexander Hoey: How many planes are engaged in that work in the province of Manitoba in the forestry patrol work?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Thirteen.


Robert Gardiner: Is this for the whole
service?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For the
whole service. We do not charge the department for whom we operate any money.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Purchase of aircraft, technical equipment and provision of ground services, $740,850.
Robert Gardiner: How many aircraft do
you propose to put on this year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Ten-aircraft and we .propose to recondition twelve admiralty planes.


Robert Gardiner: Are they built in Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What is -the average
cost?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They vary in cost according to type from $12,000 to $20,000.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt):: How many
aircraft were wrecked or seriously damaged in operations last year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No accidents occurred and there was no loss of life. There may have been some small injuries caused but nothing of a serious character occurred.; no plane fell.


Robert Gardiner: What is the average
life of an aircraft?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Five or six years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Establishing and operating wireless stations, including buildings, etc, $129,000.
Robert Gardiner: How many wireless establishments are there?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Four.


Robert Gardiner: Where are they?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Dawson,
Mayo, Aklavik and Fort Simpson.


Robert Gardiner: Are they used exclusively for the National Defence department?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. The
connection with my department is this: They are really for the Department of the Interior, but owing to the facilities which we have in the National Defence department for the purpose of erecting stations, they utilize -my department for the work. They are operated bv the Minister of the Interior.

Supply-Defence


Robert Alexander Hoey: Is there a station at Norway
House, or has that been abandoned?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, not yet.


Robert Alexander Hoey: There was one there; it must have been abandoned.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think it
is an air station.


Robert Alexander Hoey: No, wireless. I have been
in it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then it was in connection with the air.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canada's proportionate share of the expenditure matte by the Imperial War Graves Commission, $475,000.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is Canada's share of this expenditure.


Robert Gardiner: Could the minister tell
what condition these war graves are in?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: All the
graves of the boys overseas are being looked after by an imperial commission, of which Sir Fabian Ware is the chairman. He expects to come to Canada next year, and to give the country information everywhere, by moving pictures and lectures, showing the position of the various graves and cemeteries overseas. Our share of the matter, so far as the money is concerned, is that we pay to the central commission of the whole empire a certain proportion of the cost of the graves. We have nothing to do with the expenditure directly.


Robert Gardiner: Have we not a representative on the commission?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Archibald M. Carmichael: What has been done by this imperial commission in the way of taking care of the graves after they are marked out?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation is that this commission gather the bodies of the boys and locate them in a cemetery in the vicinity, as near as possible, to where they had fallen. I happened to be in Great Britain last year and visiled a number of the cemeteries, and I can assure the committee that the care of them by this commission is most efficient, and everyone in Canada can feel sure that the care of the dead has been regarded as a most sacred duty by them, and has been attended to in a most careful way. They collected them all in the various cemeteries, and decorated the graves with leaves and flowers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-National Defence-military services, $400,000, naval services, $25,000.
Robert Gardiner: What claims are these
that have to be adjusted?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Since the
war quite a number of claims between Great Britain and this country have arisen with regard to various matters and they have still remained unsettled. This vote is purely a precautionary vote which may not be called upon. It has been renewed from year to year and some adjustmnts have been made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Nothing was
spent in that regard last year?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not to my recollection. Claims are made, for instance, in regard to war gratuities and matters of that kind, the details of which I cannot recollect at the moment, and they are paid out of this vote. It may seem strange that seven years after the war there should be claims by those entitled to gratuities, and one would have thought they would have got the money but claims are continually coming in.


Robert Gardiner: Are many claims outstanding between this country and Great Britain?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes. Some have yet to be adjusted.


Alfred Speakman: Have these claims any relation to the work carried on by the late Mr. Pugsley?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They have
nothing to do with that.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Has any claim been made
by the republic of France against this government for anything for pensions, or would that be charged to the Imperial government?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have
had no such claim.


Levi William Humphrey: Has any consideration been given to claims of Canadians who enlisted during the past war and who lost to some extent on the rate of exchange between this country and Great Britain?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes.


Levi William Humphrey: Has any decision been arrived at by the department in that connection?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No. I remember a case of that kind being before me a short time ago but it has not been decided. I have not had time to go into the details.

Supply-Defence


Levi William Humphrey: Has the department
received many claims in regard to the difference in the rate of exchange?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the
exception of one case, I do not recall any such claims having come before me since I became minister. I understand many were made before, but they have been adjusted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Military services-to provide for payment to the Governors of McGill University of revenue derived from property on Lome crescent in the city of Montreal, donated to the crown by the late I.ord Strathcona as a site for an armoury for McGill University, tl6.918.90.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite some time ago Lord Strathcona before he died donated to the crown in the right of the Department. of National Defence five houses in Montreal on the understanding that an armoury would be erected thereon for McGill University. No action, however, has ever been taken by the crown to erect the armoury in question. This donation was made in 1914, and as the governors of the university prefer to erect a building which will contain a drill hall on their own land, the property donated by the late Lord Strathcona was returned to the trustees of his estate by special grant dated November 14, 1923. During the time that this property was in the possession of the crown, they received $25,824.62 by way of rent for which there were disbursements for maintenance, repairs and taxes of about $8,000, leaving a balance of $16,918.90. As we were not carrying out the condition of the trust, the money naturally had to be paid back.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia-further amount required to provide for the resumption of artillery practice for mobile artillery at practice camps, Petawawa, Hughes and Sarcee, $100,000.
Robert Forke: Some time ago when I had an opportunity of saying a few words in regard to the military estimates, I stated that I did not intend to support another single dollar in regard to those estimates. We have passed all the main estimates, and I find in the supplementary estimates the sum of $253,-41S.90. Perhaps this item that we have now come to is the best place for me to make my protest against this addition to the military estimates. I do not think for one moment anyone in this House is in favour of war. The only difference between us is as to what we should do as regards military expenditure. Canada occupies a unique position in the world 
at the present time. She has an opportunity to lead the nations in the ways of peace. No country in the world is less menaced by war than our own Dominion. The North American continent, perhaps, will lead the way in regard to peaceful pursuits and show an example to the older world in regard to what can be accomplished by peace, goodwill, a proper understanding, trust-worthiness and good feeling between nations. At this late hour I am going to content myself with moving that this item be reduced by $99,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As I explained when my estimates were before the committee on the first occasion, it was absolutely necessary, in order to prevent the artillery companies from disbanding, that they should be given an opportunity of drilling this year, which opportunity they had not had for two years. The situation as regards artillery is different from that with regard to infantry. The artillery companies have to be brought, with their guns, to a place where the guns can be fired safely. Certain places have been provided in Canada as practice camps, first at Petawawa in northern Ontario and at Hughes and Sarcee camps in the west. This arm of the service is very important. There was a danger of its disbandment if nothing were done at all this year, and I stated at that time that I proposed to ask for this amount. It is absolutely necessary in order to keep this service of the country in any kind of decent shape.


Robert Forke: It is not against the particular item but against the practice of bringing down large amounts in the supplamentaries that I am speaking.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the fact that gas will be used in the next war does the minister think it necessary that we should spend considerable money on artillery?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Artillery
will always be an important factor in war, and the League of Nations is of the view that civilized countries will agree not to use gas.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval service-further amount required to replace stores destroyed by fire, $20,000.
Robert Gardiner: Where did these fires occur?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Several fires of a most suspicious nature have occurred in the last three or four months, some at Borden, one at Winnipeg and two serious fires at Esquimalt. The damage at Esquimalt
JUNE 24, 1925	F ~'
* Sup-ply-House of Comnwns
amounted to $220,000 and at Winnipeg to about $120,000. I have not the detail in regard to Borden.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Did the government carry
insurance?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General services-amount required towards the construction of a magazine and other buildings and services in connection therewith, at Bedford Basin, Halifax, N.S., for the joint use of militia and naval services, $50,000.
Robert John Woods: Is this a new undertaking?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, it was initiated last year. Halifax is one of the old fortified cities and large quantities of ammunition have been stored there. The fort is in the immediate vicinity of the Imperial Oil Company's works and there is grave danger of explosion. The city of Halifax was half destroyed during the war as a result of an explosion and representations have been made by the 'Citizens and various public bodies to have the new works constructed in a safe place where there will foe no danger from any explosion. The land has been expropriated and this is to complete the undertaking.


Robert Gardiner: What is the cost of the land?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The amount we offered was $5,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to the Women's Wentworth Historical Society to complete Stoney Creek tower, $500.
Robert Gardiner: What is this for?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This is to prevent the monument from falling into disrepair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Legislation-Library of parliament, $73,620.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Has any progress been made towards adopting a proper cataloguing system in the library? It is important that this work should' be undertaken. I want to bear my testimony to the efficiency of the library staff. I have had occasion to use the library a great deal and I want to pay my compliments to the officers in charge, but I do think that their work would be much facilitated if parliament authorized and undertook a proper cataloguing system.


Hewitt Bostock: I am glad to hear the remarks of my hon. friend. We have indeed a modest but intelligent and efficient staff in the library. I may inform the hon. member that 31 li
we had a meeting of the Library Joint committee not more than three weeks ago when this very question came up, and the step suggested has already been taken. We shall have a better index than the one we have had for the last two or three years; it will be considerably improved. During the past year I authorized the librarian to send an assistant on a visit to two or three of the largest libraries on the continent to investigate the most modern methods of indexing. I may say that the Hon. Mr. Burrell and Mr. Tache, with their valuable assistants, conduct the library in a very efficient manner.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, I should like to impress upon the House and the government the absolute need of enlarging the library. I know it is impossible to ask the government to add anything to the estimates, but hundred's and hundreds of books are downstairs rotting away in the vaults, and if present conditions continue very valuable documents and books will be destroyed. I wish to add my tribute to that of the member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) and His Honour the Speaker as to the efficient staff; they are performing admirable work under most trying conditions. A much larger sum should be voted for housing the books we have and for adding to the library.


Hewitt Bostock: The question came up at the last meeting of the joint committee of the Senate and the Commons, and we have been able to reclaim-if I may use that expression-much of the parliamentary territory from the Senate. It is true indeed that many of the books are stored in the vaults, but we have made a point of putting on the shelves downstairs collections of old papers, very valuable for the data they contain, but not of practical everyday value, and we have set on the shelves of the library proper the books that are most needed. The enlarging of the building is a live question, but in the present financial condition of the country, 1 do not think it would be wise to spend more money for this purpose. In years to come, when there are surpluses in the treasury, we may undertake the work. For the present we are doing pretty well with the accommodation at our disposal.


Archibald M. Carmichael: If I remember correctly, the joint committee on the Library suggested that a change in the present library could very easily and cheaply be made by putting in an extra gallery to take care of the books for which there is now no further shelf room. Could not that be accomplished?

Supply-House nj Commons .


Jean-François Pouliot: I would suggest that the wooden floor of the library be replaced with a concrete floor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons-
Salaries	
$228,185	00Expenses of committees, clerical assistance, etc	
84,950	00Contingencies	
44,735	00Publishing Debates	
60,000	00F.st:mates of	Sergeant-at-Arms	
178,793	75
Hewitt Bostock: It will be observed that there is a decrease in my estimates of $84,550. At the beginning of the session I appointed four translators from the Press Gallery. I selected these young men irrespective of their party leanings, and I have reports from the head of the branch that they are excellent translators. Their names should be included in the item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
Printing, printing paper and binding	 75,000
Printing, binding and distributing the annual statutes	 16,000
Henry Lumley Drayton: Was there not a question about some order in council as to printing?


Hewitt Bostock: It was about the printing of the House of Commons. Some years ago the House agreed to pay 25 per cent of the cost of the blue books which are printed by the King's Printer. That question has been settled, and there is now no difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation-House of Commons-
To provide a gratuity to W. B. Northrup,
M.A., K.C., on his retirement from the position of Clerk of the House of Commons in lieu of six months leave of absence and in accordance with Order-inCouncil P.C. 2203, dated January 7, 1925.. 6 3,000 Clerical assistance to the Speaker, party leaders, whips, officials etc.-further amount
required	 5,000
To provide for the full sessional indemnity of members of the House of Commons-days lof>t through absence caused by illness, official public business, or on account of death during the present session-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendments thereto-payment to be made as the Treasury Board may direct	 25,850
633,850
Hewitt Bostock: This is the usual vote to provide payment of full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons who have lost days through illness. Hon. gentle-

men will observe that there is an item of $3,000 to provide a gratuity for Mr. Northrup, the ex-C!erk of the House. Mr. Northrup could hardly fill his post on account of deafness, so he accepted this gratuity, which represents a half year's salary. For many years he was a distinguished member of the House, and then he gave yeoman service as our Clerk. If he had been obliged to retire at the age of seventy, under the act passed last session, he would have received a little over $900 a year. I thought it was not proper that an old public servant like Mr. Northrup should be retired on such a small annuity, so, at my request, the House last year voted him a pension of $2,500.


Thomas George McBride: The families of those
members who have passed away get the indemnities in full, do they?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting thi3 House that the Senate doth insist on its amendments made to Bill 182, an act for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, for the following reasons:
That the Senate in its action did not change the directing principle of the bill, which provided not for the satisfaction of a legal claim on the part of the creditors of the Home Bank, nor of a "moral claim in equity" which would have called for full payment of such claims but for a compassionate relief therefor limited to thirty-five per cent of the losses incurred; and for the further reason that the Senate has not in its amendments exceeded its well understood and long established rights in respect of money bills.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate respeotfullly requesting a free conference with their honours to consider certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 182, an act for the relief of the depositors of the Home Bank of Canada, to which amendments this House has not agreed and upon which the Senate insist, and any amendment which at such conference iit may be considered desirable to make to said bill or amendments thereto.
That the Clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 1.25 a.m. (Thursday).

Rural Credits
Thursday, June 25, 1925