1927-04-11

REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Agreement respecting the natural resources of Alberta; correspondence respecting the natural sources of Manitoba-Hon. Mr. Rinfret.

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of the select standing committee on 'banking and commerce-Mr. Sanderson (for Mr. Hay).


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: moved:
That the eleventh report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lilies be now concurred in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt t'he motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I rise for the purpose of opposing the adoption of this report. The report, which will be found on page 2138 of Hansard of April 8th last, reads as follows:
The select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines beg leave to present the_ following as its eleventh report.
Your committee has considered the following resolution referred to it:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived for the commencement forthwith, and the completion in the near future of a direct railway outlet from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast.
Your committee, having heard evidence on the subject matter of the resolution from the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia and from engineers who have investigated this project, and others, is of opinion that building a western outlet from the Peace River area is feasible from an engineering standpoint.
_ The weight of evidence before your committee indicates that, on economic grounds, such construction should not be commenced forthwith, as set forth in the resolution referred to your committee.
Your committee is of opinion that much greater traffic development is necessary in the area to make the building of such outlet economically sound.
Your committee is further of opinion that potentialities of that area are such as to warrant a continuous study of its development.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
It is not my intention to take up very much of the time of the House in connection with this matter, especially in view of the fact that so many hon. members-nearly ail of them in fact-have been working so hard and for such long hours during the last ten

Peace River Railway
days in order to finish the business of the session. But I cannot allow the report as it has been presented to go unchallenged, because I cannot agree that' it correctly interprets the evidence that was adduced before the committee. I am in general agreement with regard to the paragraph which states that a western outlet from the Peace river area is feasible from an engineering standpoint, although certain evidence was brought out before the committee in this connection that ought to be called to the attention of the House, because it affects to some extent the additional clauses in the report. The engineers commenced their report with these two paragraphs :
The undersigned were instructed to outline tile engineering and economic features of the various proposed [DOT] railway routes for a western outlet of the Peace river country to the Pacific coast.
A map showing the location of the various routes, giving distances, gradients, and other physical features would be of very little use, unless information as to costs of construction and comparable costs of operation were also given. We therefore have embraced in this report an economic study of the various routes considered.
We have a definite comparison of three routes any of which might be built to serve the Peace river country with an outlet to the Pacific coast. After having listened to the evidence, I claim that the engineers never made an engineering study outlining the engineering features of the various routes proposed. The first route that was examined and reported upon in the report is the Obed route. The survey in connection with this route is complete and it was in charge of Mr. Hill of the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Hill's official title is exploration and locating engineer of the Canadian National Railways. With regard to this route we have the following evidence by Mr. Hill:
Q. Who did the work in these routes?-A. We had regular surveying parties run over them. On the Obed route we have a complete survey from one end to the other.
Q. A complete survey?-A. A complete triline survey.
Q. Not a reconnaissance?-A. Not a reconnaissance, but an instrumental survey.
Q. In that case, Mr. Hill, you are in a position to speak definitely when yt>u say that the new construction will be 204 miles from Aggie to Sturgeon lake and down to Obed?-A. Within a reasonable percentage.
Q. How much allowance is there for variation-either less or more?-A. We would not . want any more than-it would be within 10 percent, and probably within five per cent.
Q. And would you say the same thing for the capital investment?-A. Yes.
The point that I am making is, that, according to the evidence submitted by Mr. Hill who
was in charge of the Obed route survey, there is a complete survey of that route. One would think that in order to make a proper comparison of this route with any other it would be necessary to have the same kind of a survey, but we find that that is not the case. The next route referred to is the Monkman pass route. We have the following evidence given by Mr. Hill at page 16 of the report of the committee on railways and canals with regard to the Monkman pass route:
Q. Is this a final survey or a reconnaissance or a trial survey?-A. This is a reconnaissance.
Q. What is the difference between reconnaissance, trial and a complete survey; will you kindly explain that? What do you do in the case of a trial survey, for instance?-A. Well, a trial line is generally an instrumental survey; it is an accurate survey.
Q. A trial survey is accurate?-A. Yes.
Q. What is a reconnaissance survey?-A. Well, they just trust the man that goes over it.
Q. He goes out with a pack on his back, is that it?-A. Well, they have different forms of transportation.
Q. Is a reconnaissance survey a question, of making a trip there to see if it is at all likely a railway can be built?-A. Yes.
Q. A trial survey is a survey that actually gives you the level?-A. Actually gives you the levels and the relative positions.
Q. What is tins Monkman pass survey? Is it a trial survey?-A. A reconnaissance.
Q. When we come to the question of costs and grades how re liable are these figures in connection with the Monkman pass as given in this report?-A. Jusc an engineer's guess, that is all.
So they make a comparison between one route, the Obed route, where there is a complete survey, and another route, the Monk-man pass route, Where we have an engineer's guess. The third route that was dealt with was the Peace River pass route. The gentleman who was in charge of this survey, such as it was, was Mr. W. A. James, assistant chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who gave this evidence before the committee on railways and canals:
Q. You are the C.P.R. engineer who signed the report?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you over the route from Spirit river right west through to Hudson Hope and from Berwyn west of Hudson Hope on the north side of the pass, and then through to Stewart?-A. On the north side of the pass I left Port George and went up to Summit lake and down the Crooked river, the Pack river and the Parsnip, down the Peace river to Peace River Crossing and then northwest from Peace River Crossing, which is a station on the Peace river, and then back to Peace river and to Carcajou point. I drove west from there and down paralleling the Peace river about 20 miles as far as Fort Vermilion, then I came up the Peace river from Fort Vermilion to Peace River Crossing again. I was over two months on that trip.
221.4
Peace River Railway

Q. You were actually over the route, were you?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the actual location of the railroad that is called Stewart to Prince Rupert and Vancouver via Peace pass?-A. I went by the Peace pass but I did not follow what you would call the actual route; I was on the river.
Q. We have no trial survey of this route, have we?-A. No, sir.
Mr. James made most of his exploration of this route from the Peace river which is in a valley 800 feet below the level of the territory to be served by the railway. As a matter of fact in the evidence he admits that as regards about 200 miles of the line that is projected on the map west to Stewart on the Portland canal, he was not over that route at all. We have what purports to be a serious comparison of the economic and engineering features of three routes, as regards one of which there is a complete survey and as regards the other two, we have simply engineers' guesses. The engineers claim to have made an engineering study and an economic study of these routes, but how can one claim to have made an economic study on the basis of an engineering study of that kind? This is the first time that I have ever known that a guess could be called a study. The two things are entirely different, and for that reason I am in complete disagreement with that paragraph of the report which reads:
The weight of evidence before your committee indicates that, on economic grounds, such construction should not be commenced forthwith, as set forth in the resolution referred to your committee.
As a matter of fact the resolution did not set forth that construction should be commenced forthwith. The wording of the motion is "commencement forthwith." Commencement does not necessarily mean actual construction of railway mileage, although I think as I go along I can show that even that will be justified.
In connection with this whole question there has been constant confusion as between the relation of the outlet and the branch line mileage. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), in his speech on this question in the House of Commons, made this statement as reported on page 256 of Hansard of February 14, 1927, and I am in entire agreement with this part of his speech in which he refers to the need of 'branch lines:
[DOT]-but I think my bon. friend will also agree with we when I say that the problem is not in the main one of branch line construction to serve settlers now farming there. Only a relatively limited number of the farmers are now long distance from existing lines of transportation, and the problem is really one of providing a more economical way to the markets 
of the world for those situated within reasonable distance of those existing lines of transportation. I want to qualify that by saying that, as the engineers' report demonstrates, there is undoubtedly need for some further branch line construction on the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia system in order to enable the country to fully develop, in order to assist in its settlement and encourage immigrants, but in the main the problem is one of providing a more economical outlet to the people already there and within a reasonable distance of the existing lines of railway.
The outlet and the branch lines are not two separate and distinct matters at all; they are simply two parts of the same problem Everybody will agree that that part of the outlet that would best serve the Peace river country in the way of branch line mileage would be the proper portion to build first, and I may say that it is because of the indefinite nature of the engineer's report that I would have to waive my pressure for the immediate commencement of construction of an outlet at the present time, because I do not believe that even an engineering st-udy of the outlet question has 'been made, to say nothing of the economic study, which must be based upon a proper engineering study.
We all know that that country is being served at the present time by the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway. We all know that the branch line mileage that will properly serve the country as it is settled to-day and connect with the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, will not fit in properly with an outlet to the Pacific coast. Mr. Czowski admitted that in his evidence, and I think everybody will agree that a branch line system constructed with oqe outlet will not necessarily, and will not likely, fit in with another outlet. I do not wish to take time quoting from the documents in support of that, because I think it is generally agreed. What I ask at the present time is that a real study be made of the Monkman, the Peace, and the Pine passes, and that a definite policy be laid down with regard to the permanent development of the Peace river country and an outlet to the Pacific coast. Then we can lay down the branch line mileage that is necessary to serye the Peace river country as it exists today, or will exist in the near future, in such a way that our branch line mileage will fit in properly and economically with that Pacific coast outlet when it is built, but I submit that it is absolutely impossible for the government of the province of Alberta or of British Columbia or the Dominion government intelligently to lay down a system of branch lines that will be of the proper ceonomic

Peace River Railway
advantages to the Peace river country and the Dominion unless that policy is laid down with a full knowledge of where the Peace river outlet is going to be.
We all know the problem that has arisen in this Dominion because of the duplication of railways. We have an example of that west of Edmonton, where about 200 miles of track was torn up because duplication rendered one track absolutely useless. We want to avoid that thing in connection with the development of the Peace river country, and as a matter of fact the engineer's report shows that it can be avoided, because the estimate which they have worked out in connection with the various routes is based on the branch line mileage serving a country with about 6,000 acres of economic land in the Peace river country tributary to each line of railway, as compared with some 5,200 acres in the rest of the prairie provinces. I am anxious that we should study the question in the light of our past experience, in the light not only of our past mistakes but of our past successes, so that we may evolve a railway policy for the development of that country that will be best not only for its immediate future but for its ultimate future as well.
With regard to the contention that it is economically unsound to build an outlet at the present time, I have this to say: The engineer's report seems to lay down the principle, by inference at least, that until such time as the necessary tonnage is available to justify the route from its commencement, it is economically unsound to build. I know of no railway in the Dominion of Canada that has been built on that basis. I think it was stated years ago when the building of the Canadian Pacific railway was under discussion, that it would not pay for the axle grease used in running the trains across the prairies. Neither is the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway being tested by that principle. I am quite sure that it was not the principle on which the feasibility of the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern was decided, nor is it the principle underlying the branch line program of the Canadian National Railways that was presented to parliament this year, because the roads are there referred to as development and colonization lines.
What I want, Mr. Speaker, and what I think is in the best interests of the country, is to complete the survey of these routes and have a policy determined upon so that we shall know where to build our branch lines, and let me say that once we have built a mile of branch line that fits in with a policy for a permanent outlet we can be said to have 32649-140



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
commenced construction of the Peace river outlet. In that sense I say that the time is ripe for the commencement of that outlet, for we need at least 100 miles of branch lines in that country.
It is the last clause in the committee's report to which I particularly object, reading:
Your committee is further of opinion that potentialities of that area are such as to warrant a continuous study of its development.
The previous clause reads:
Your committee is of opinion that much greater traffic development is necessary in the area to make the building of such outlet economically sound.
Now if the last clause of the committee's report is adopted by the House of Commons and the government, it will simply mean that we do not mean to do anything, because it obligates the House of Commons and the government to do more than every member of parliament is already obligated to do with regard to every problem facing the Dominion of Canada. A continuous study of the development of the Peace river country is an obligation upon all the members of this House without any report being submitted to us from the committee on railways and canals, just as a continuous study of the problems and development of the maritime provinces or of Ontario or Quebec is the duty of all members of this House, whether from the west or elsewhere. That is all that clause obligates the House and the government to do, and I submit that either a mistake was made in drafting this report, or else the report is an attempt to shelve this Peace river question.
With regard to tonnage, it was pointed out in the committee, I think, that the engineer's estimate was that in the years 1919 to 1923 we had moving out of the Peace river country about 48,000 tons of grain on the average each year. Then they set down the immediate traffic that would go to the Pacific at 35,000 tons.
The evidence of Premier Brownlee based on grain shipments up to I think March 31st of this year, shows that about 130,000 tons has gone out of the Peace river country in the last crop year, from an area of only 270,000 acres of land, and we have about 2,000,000 acres of land of the very same type in the Peace river country in the area served by railways or that can be easily served by branch railways. Again 50,000 tons of grain produced oni the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway in the years 1919 to 1923 about 150,000 revenue tons of other traffic and yet the engineers state in their

[Stage Direction]
Peace River Railway
[Stage Direction]
economic study that only grain traffic is going to be considered in connection with this Peace river outlet. They seem to rule out altogether the development that would take place in the Peace river country as a result of the construction of additional branch line mileage and the ultimate completion of the outlet itself. I submit that the committee has not given proper consideration to the engineering and economic features, and that the House is not justified in adopting its report. This question is of great importance to Peace river. The report says that all we are going to do in the immediate future is to study and watch the development of the country. I am glad the Prime Minister is in his seat, because he was not present when I spoke on this question before. I do not think we can say that the Prime Minister's statement cannot mean anything in view of the findings of the engineers, or the recommendations of the president of the Canadian National Railways. I am going to read again the statement made by the Prime Minister at Edmonton, and I hope that if he votes against the amendment which I propose to move, and for the report of the committee, he will at least tell the House, and especially the people of Peace River and Edmonton, what this statement meant. This statement appears in the Edmonton Bulletin of 11th October, 1924-I think it should be 12th October-and is headed:
King pledges self to Peace river cause.
Then there is a heading:
Premier promises outlet to Pacific.
Then sub-headings as follows:
Just as soon as humanly possible.
Railway will be built, declares Prime Minister at mass meeting here.
Government has but minority in Commons, says times now are different and everybody must have a little patience, but Liberal party is not falling down on any of its pledges.
The quotation reads:
"It is the policy of the government of which I have the honour to be the head to introduce a vigorous policy of immigration which will people the vast areas of undeveloped country in the great west" declared the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Premier of. Canada, when addressing a mass meeting of citizens in the First Presbyterian church last night.
The future prosperity of this country is bound up in the development of its great natural resources, and to develop these resources it is necessary to have a large increase in the population of Canada. There is to the north of this city a great tract of land that is crying out for development. The Peace river country is amongst the richest in Canada, but before the proper development of that country can take place an outlet to the Pacific coast is an absolute necessity. I pledge myself that as soon

as it is humanly possible the great Peace river country will be given that measure of railway relief that will bring to the pioneers of that country the outlet they have been so long denied, and will open up the country for prospective settlers.
"I must however, sound the same note to you here as I did to the citizens of Saskatoon."
I suppose that is in connection with the Hudson Bay railway.
"The times that we are passing through are very difficult, and I would ask you to have a little patience, and in as short a time as possible, a railway outlet will be provided for the Peace River and northern Alberta districts that will open up an era of prosperity for that country which will not be equalled by any other province in Canada."
In view of the Prime Minister's promise, in view of the needs for additional branch line settlement, some of the settlements being twenty, thirty and sixty miles from' the railway, where there has been settlement for sixty years, and in view of the fact that branch line mileage cannot be constructed economically and properly unless we know where the Peace river outlet is going to be, and because I believe that such branch lines should be laid down as a part of the outlet, I am opposed to the adoption of this report and I therefore move the following amendment:
That the said report be not now concurred in but that the same be referred back to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines with instructions that they have power to amend it by striking out the three following paragraphs:
"The weight of evidence before your committee indicates that, on economic grounds, much construction should not be commenced forthwith, as set forth in the resolution referred to your committee.
Your committee is of opinion that much greater traffic development is necessary in the area to make the building of such outlet economically sound.
Your committee is further of opinion that potentialities of that area are such as to warrant a continuous study of its development."
And substituting the following three paragraphs therefor:
"The evidence shows that there are four possible outlets but that a complete survey has been made of two only.
"Your committee is of the opinion that a complete survey should be undertaken of the Peace pass. Pine pass, and Monkman pass and that on completion of this survey a definite policy of railway development for the Peace river country should be decided upon.
"Your committee further believes that the potentialities of the Peace river district justify the commencement of a permanent outlet as soon as the best route is definitely ascertained."
Mr. DUNNING:: I understood my hon.
friend t'o make a change in the wording of his motion.

Questions


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, after the words
" Peace pass " I have inserted the words "Pine pass," so as to make it read "Peace pass, Pine pass and Monkman pass."


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Just before the amendment is proceeded with I desire to ask His Honour the Speaker whether the motion is in order. No notice has been given.


Hewitt Bostock: I intended to inform the
mover of the motion that it was out of order because no notice has been given under rule 40, and if the motion is out of order the amendment is also out of order.


William Irvine: It can be taken as a notice of motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Very well, it will appear
on the order paper as a notice of motion.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	Are the following parties in the employ of the Vancouver harbour commission: Charles 0. Julian; Mr. McCall, Ex-M.L.A.; Maurice Quain; C. L. White; K. G. Burns; John McLeod; Reggie Webb: Norman Harvie?
2.	When was each one appointed and what is salary in each case?
3.	What duties does each one perform?
4.	How many of these are new positions?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	All in the employ of the commissioners with the exception of Norman Harvie.
2.	Name-Date of Appointment-Salary
C. 0. Julian, October, 1922, $250 month; J.
A. McColl, March 20, 1925, $225 month; M. Quain, August, 1923, $300 month; C. L. White, February, 1924, $400 month; K. J. Burns, September, 1924, $8,000 year; John McLeod, February, 1924, $225 month; R. A. Webb, November, 1923, $175 month.
3.	C. O. Julian, Trade Representative; J. A. McColl, Trade Representative on Praries; M. Quain, Chief Electrician; C. L. White, Comptroller; K. J. Burns, General Superintendent; John McLeod, Genei-al Superintendent's Clerk; R. A. Webb, Cost Clerk.
4.	C. O. Julian was appointed to present position February 5, 1926. The position occupied by J. A. McColl was created on March 17, 1925. The posticn of chief electrician was created in July, 1923. C. L. White assumed the duties of comptroller in October, 1925. K. J. Bums succeeded R. E. Beattie as general superintendent in September, 1924. J. McLeod was made clerk to general superintendent
32649-140J	I ,
January 1, 1925. R. A. Webb, position created on recommendation of auditors on October 1, 1926.


CALGARY POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. ADSHEAD:: 1.	Did the Dominion government purchase one or two lots to the east of the Calgary post
office site?
2.	If so, was the price $412,000?
3.	To whom was the money paid?
4.	How many buildings were on the lots?
5.	Who was the vendor?
6.	When was the deal made, where is the steel and other material that was salvaged, stored?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: I,	2 and 5.
Lot No. 4 purchased from C. A.
Wallace for	 $ 65,215
Lot No. 5. purchased from J. C.
VanWart for	 61,250
Lot No. 6 purchased from J. C.
VanWart for	 52,200
Lot No. 7. purchased from J. C.
McNeil	 100,000
Part of lot No. 8 purchased from J. A. McKenzie for	 33,800
Total	 $312,465
3.	To vendors.
4.	Five.
6. (a) Lots 4, 5 and 6 were purchased] in April 1913, and lot 7 and part of lot 8 were purchased in June 1914; (b) There was no salvage from the buildings purchased as they were sold by public auction.


BONDED WAREHOUSES-NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	Has the Department of Customs and Excise received advice of the passing of an order in council by the government of Nova Scotia, advising that the government of Nova Scotia does not concur in the right of bonded warehouses in Nova Scotia to ship liquor duty paid?
2.	If the Department of Customs and Excise has received such notification, what action has been taken in respect to same?
3.	If no action has been taken, what does the Minister of Customs propose to do about the matter ?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


WEST POINT BREAKWATER-P.E.I.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	Is the Department of Public Works proceeding with repairs to the West Point breakwater in Prince Edwnrd Island?
2.	Is this work being done by contract or otherwise ?
3.	Were tenders called in connection with it?
Questions

4.	Give the names of tenderers, and amount of each tender, respectively?
5.	If no contract is in force under what terms is the work, being carried on?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By contract.
3.	Yets.
4.	Andrew Martin & Alfred Peters, $6,690; Henry J. Phillips, $6,826; John T. Stewart and Vernon Matthew, $7,778.
5.	Answered by No. 2.


SOURIS BREAKWATER-P.E.I.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	What is the condition of the breakwater at Souris, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Was a contract let for repairs to this work in the year 1925? If so, to whom, and why was the work not proceeded with?
3.	Is it the intention to revive at this session the vote of $36,500 placed in the estimates of the year 1925 for repairs on said breakwater?


Hon. Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Face of outer block showing signs of weakness and gradual settlement has taken place in the stone slope along middle section.
2.	(a)Yes Ob) John E. Campbell (c) Owing to lateness of season and inability of contractor to secure stone, contract was cancelled.
3.	Matter under consideration.


GERMAN REPARATIONS-INTERIM AND FINAL REPORTS
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Is the so-called interim report of the reparations commissioner final in respect to the 1,497 awards mentioned therein?
2.	Does the reparations commissioner agree with a statement made in the House of Commons that the so-called interim report was subject to revision in the final report on the 13 remaining claims?
3.	Has the final report of the reparations commissioner on the 13 remaining claims been delivered to the Secretary of State or to his department ?
4.	Has the commissioner advised when the final or supplementary report will be ready?
5.	Is the government aware of the fact that a great number of these claimants are in impoverished circumstances?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The statement made in the House on 24th February referred to an apportionment of the moneys on hand from the Dawes payments and not to any changes in the report.
3.	Report has been delivered upon seven of the remaining 13 claims.
4.	No.

5.	Correspondence on files of reparation commissioner and of Department Secretary of State discloses that some of the claimants are in impoverished circumstances.


ERNFOLD POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: 1.	Has any change been made in the postmastership at Ernfold, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, for what reasons?
3.	Have any charges been laid against the said postmaster?
4.	If so, of what nature and by whom?
5.	Will the said postmaster be granted an investigation into any charge made against him?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Active political partisanship.
3.	Yes.
4.	Member for constituency stated that he had personal knowledge of the postmaster's political activities and also submitted declarations from S E.. Lowrie, W. P. Cornell and Jas. Manning of Ernfold preferring charges of active political partisanship.
5.	Not the practice in cases in which a member is prepared to state that of his own knowledge an offence contravening the provisions of the Civil Service Act, respecting political partisanship, has been committed.


T. B. RICHARDS
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Was T. B. Richards discharged as overseer of Murray canal?
2.	If so, by whom was the charge laid against him?
3.	Was there an investigation?
4.	If not, why?
5.	Is it the policy of the government to dismiss civil servants without investigation?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	R. H. McCrudden.
3.	Yes.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Investigation is customary unless charge is made by the sitting member of his own knowledge.


MONTMAGNY RETURNING OFFICER-TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES
Mr. LAFLAMME:: What transportation expenses (mileage) were paid to the returing officer for the county of Montmagny in the general elections of 1926?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Telesphore Coulombe, the returning officer for the county of Montmagny in the general election of 1926, was paid $79.70 as transportation expenses.

Questions


CROWN LANDS SETTLERS-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. BIRD:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to reintroduce tile measure of last session dealing with financial assistance to settlers on crown lands?
2.	If not, wdiy?


Hon. Mr. FORKE:: 1.	This bill will not be introduced this session.
2.	The bill as introduced last session might be of some benefit to settlers on crown lands. It is probable, however, that legislation will be introduced next session that will meet the situation in a more satisfactory manner.


CANADLAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1927
Hon Mr. BENNETT:: What sum does the Canadian National Railways require during 1927 for, (a.) construction of branch lines; (b) additions and improvement of railway; (c) equipment; (d) other capital expenditures?


Charles Avery Dunning: (a)	On former branch lines (to complete), 11,660,000; on new branch line program, $7,336,000; the latter is to make possible 337.8 miles of grading, 94.3 miles of track and 56.3 miles of ballast.
(b)	$17,834,418.32.
(c)	Government loan (estimates of 192627 passed February 10, 1927), $5,000,000; equipment trust issue for fifteen millions will provide balance of requirement.
(d)	No capital expenditures other than those enumerated.


RODNEY POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has a vacancy recently occurred in the post office service at Rodney, Ontario?
2.	Has an appointment to fill the vacancy been made? If so, is it temporary or permanent?
3.	Who is the appointee?
4.	What part does the Civil Service Commission play in rural post office appointments?
5.	Will returned soldiers be shown any preference when filling the position permanently?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A temporary appointment has been authorized pending the Civil Service Commission's selection.
3.	William Tolmie.
4.	Civil Service Commission makes selection of permanent incumbents in cases where salary exceeds $200 a year.
5.	Appointment will be made according to provisions of Civil Service Act.


CAMPBELLFORD POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Has the postma.stership of Campbellford, Ontario, been advertised?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Has an appointment been made?
4.	If so, what is the name of the appointee?
5.	If not, what is the cause of delay?


Hon. Mr. YENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From the 22nd to the 30th of September, 1926.
3.	4 and 5. No. Matter before Civil Service Commission.


ISAIE V. LEGER
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Was Isaie Y. Leger dismissed from the postmastership of St. Gregoire, county of Kent, New Brunswick? If so, when?
2.	In what year was he appointed?
3.	What was the remuneration of his office?
4.	Who recommended his dismissal?
5.	On what charge?
6.	Was an investigation held?
7.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes, 29th March, 1927.
2.	January 1, 1905.
3.	$60.
4.	Member for constituency.
5.	Active political partisanship.
6 and 7. Not the practice in cases in which a member is prepared to state that of his own knowledge an offence contravening the provisions of the Civil Service Act, respecting political partisanship, has been committed.


STEAMSHIP SERVICE-MULGRAVE-ARICHAT SUBSIDY
Mr. MACDONALD:: (Richmond):
1.	Has a subsidy been awarded for the steamship service between Midgrave and Aricbat, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, to whom has such subsidy been aw'arded ?
3.	What is the name of the steamer that is to perform such service?
4.	Has the government any information regarding the qualifications of such steamer for such work?
5.	What is amount of such subsidy?
6.	Will government table report of Inspector Tapper re steamer Prince Albert?


Hon. Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Prince Albert S.S. Co. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.
3.	Prince Alberta.
4.	Yes. The Prince Albert is reported, with certain repairs and alterations, which the com-
Questions

pany has agreed to make, to be suitable for the service.
5.	$13,000 per annum.
6.	Yes.


GERMAN REPARATIONS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Did Germany undertake in the treaty of Versailles (expressly set out in article 232 and annex 1 of part VIII of the treaty of Versailles) to make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their property?
2.	Was it the duty of the Reparations Commissioner to investigate and report upon all claims submitted to him for the purpose of determining which of the said claims rvere within the said annex 1, and the fair amount of such claims?
3.	When was the first Reparations Commissioner appointed and who was he?
4.	Did Germany undertake in the treaty of Berlin (United States and Germany) to make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the United States and to their property, and does Canada receive similar compensation under the treaty of Versailles?
5.	Is not this undertaking expressly set out in article 232 and annex 1 of part VIII of the treaty of Berlin (Reparation), and also as relates to Canada in the treaty of Versailles?
6.	Was it the duty of the Mixed Claims Commission at Washington to decide upon all claims submitted to it for the purpose of determining which of the said claims were within said annex 1, and the fair amount of such claims, in a similar manner to the Commissioner on Claims in Canada?
7.	Is Germany carrying out the pbligations assumed in article 232 and annex 1, of both treaties; namely the treaty of Versailles and the treaty of Berlin?
8.	If so, is she carrying out such obligations by means of the Dawes payments, made under the so-called Dawes plan?
9.	Are great Britain and the overseas dominions receiving their share of the Dawes payments ?
10.	Are the United States receiving their share of the Dawes payments?
11.	Is Canada receiving her share of the Dawes payments?
12.	If so, from what source?
13.	What amount has Canada received under the Dawes plan to date?
14.	What is the total amount which Canada is entitled to receive as her share of reparation payments under the Dawes plan during the next few years?
15.	How much each year?	.
16.	In addition to what has been received under the Dawes plan, is not Canada entitled to receive immediately from the British government a sum approximating $4,000,000 as her share of reparation payments in kind as announced in the British House of Commons a short time ago?
17.	Hoiv soon will this amount be paid over?
18.	When this amount is paid over, w'hat will be the total amount on hand immediately available for reparation?
19.	What is the intention of the government with regard to payment of the awards made by the Reparations Commissioner?

20.	Is it the intention of the Secretary of State or any minister of the crown to reintroduce this session, the bill providing for payment of the commissioner's awards out of the Dawes money received and to be received and out of said amount winch is to be received by Canada immediately as her share of reparation payments in kind?
21.	Has there been an act passed recently in the United States providing for payment out of the Dawes money of all claims held to have been within the provisions of annex 1 of part VIII of the treaty of Berlin (reparation), and are such claims not exactly similar in character to those which the Canadian Reparations Commissioner has held to have been within the provisions of annex 1 to part VIII of the treaty of Versailles (reparation) ?
22.	Was there an act passed in Great Britain either during the war or shortly afterwards setting up a commission to adjudicate upon reparation claims and to provide a fund of 15,000,000 out of which to compensate claimants, and do any Canadians benefit from such funds?
23.	Did the Canadian government make any claims before the Canadian Reparations Commissioner under categories 5, 6 and 7 of annex 1 of part VIII of the treaty of Versailles (reparation) ?
24.	Did the United States government make any claim before the Mixed Claims Commission at Washington under categories 5, 6 and 7 of annex 1 of part VIII of the treaty of Berlin (reparation), and did the government of Canada make any claim before the Canadian commission for reparation?
25.	Was it stated by the Mixed Claims Commission at Washington, in their opinion, in the "Lusitania" eases of November 1st, 1923, that while under that portion of the treaty of Versailles which has by reference been incorporated in the treaty of Berlin, "Germany accepts" responsibility for all loss and damage to which the United States and its nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the wrar, nevertheless the United States frankly recognize the fact "that the resources of Germany are not adequate-to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage," but requires that Germany make "compensation" for specified damages suffered by American nationals, and does the government of Canada share this view?


Hon. Mr. RINFRET:: Unopposed Motions for Papers
view held by the Canadian government is that claimants for losses above referred to have no claims against either Canada or Germany. If there is any claim it is in the right of Canada against Germany under the treaty, and this right is being enforced as set out in answer to questions 8 to 12. This view is also held by the government of the United Kingdom. The Canadian government has under consideration the making of gratuitous payments to claimants, and if it is so decided, parliament will be asked to make an appropriation for that purpose.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMERALD JUNCTION-STANLEY BRIDGE BRANCH LINE
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: No. 9.
1. Have petitions been received from residents of Cavendish, Hope River, and Stanley, in Prince Edward Island, asking for an extension of the Borden branch of the Canadian National Railways from Emerald Junction to Stanley Bridge?
_ 2. What is the intention of the government in relation to the prayer of such petitions?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, the
answer to No. 9, sub-question (1), is:	No
petitions have been received.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. SINCLAIR (North Wellington):: 1. How many passenger motor cars have been purchased by the government since January 1, 1926?
_ 2. For whom were they purchased and what is the make of ear and price in each instance?
3.	How many passenger motor cars are now in use by deputy ministers, by whom are they used, what is the make of car and price in each case?
4.	How many passenger motor cars are on order at the present time, for whom, what make and what price?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to make further purchases of passenger motor cars? If so, for whom, what make and at what price ?


CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES-OTTAWA
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What is the total number of civil servants, officers and other employees in the service of the Canadian government domiciled in Ottawa?
2.	What was the total yearly salary and wage paid during 1896 to such servants, officers, and employees ?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, documents, correspondence, memorandums, and evid-

ence in the Post Office Department relating to the dismissal of Thomas J. McMullen as postmaster at Canterbury Station, including the evidence and finding of any hearing held as a result of such charges.



NIPISSING-CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr. LAPIERRE:: For a return showing the names of federal government employees who are holding positions in the constituency of Nipissing, the salaries paid and the date of their appointment.



COST OF LIVING BONUS

Mr. CHEVRIER:: For a copy of all correspondence during 1918 and 1919 between the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Public Printing and Stationary in regard to the cost of living bonus.
2. For a copy of all correspondence between the Civil Service Commission and the Department of Public Printing and Stationery in regard to the classification of employees during the years 1918 and 1919.
j. c. DAIGLE


Mr. PRICE:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of J. C. Daigle, as postmaster of Grande Aldouane, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



ANTOINE CORMIER

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of Antoine Cormier as postmaster of St. Lazare, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



JOS H. BOURQUE

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of Jos. H. Bourque as postmaster of Cocagne Cove, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



ISAIE-V. LEGER

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of Isaie-V. Leger as postmaster of St. Gregoire, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



DAVID VAUTOUR

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged betw'een the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of David Yautour as postmaster of St. Theodule, county of Kent, New' Brunswick.

Inquiries jor Returns



THADDEE LEBLANC

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of Thaddee LeBlanc as postmaster of Petite Chockpish, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



MRS. LILLA M. BTEEVES

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of Mrs. Lilia M. Steeves, as postmistress of Birch Siding, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



THEOTIME D. LEGER

Otto Baird Price: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Post Office Department, and others, with reference to the dismissal of Theotime D. Leger as postmaster of Renaud's Mills, county of Kent, New Brunswick.



NEWSPAPER REPORT OF DEBATE IN SENATE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a copy of the morning Citizen of Monday April 11, and at page 17 I find certain statements made with refernce to the citizens of Ottawa, whom it has been my privilege with my colleague to represent in this House, because of the conditions-
Hon. H. II. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It is quite evident from what my hon. friend is saying that he proposes to make a reply to some statements made by someone regarding the citizens of Ottawa. I submit that at this stage of the proceedings the hon. gentleman has not the right to make any such reply.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, because of
the place where these statements were made-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I gather from the remarks of the hon. gentleman that he is referring to a report published' 'ini one Of the morning newspapers purporting to be an account of a debate which took place in the other House. He is out of order. No reference can be made to the debates of the Senate.
ITALIAN IMMIGRATION On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. II. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary): At the request of the Canadian Legion and the
Trades and Labour Council of Calgary I wish to ask the government if any agreement has been entered into under which a large number of nationals from Italy have been recently brought into Canada. These two bodies are very apprehensive that the employment situation may be influenced because of this fact.


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I am not aware of any arrangement having been made, with reference to the entrance into Canada of a large number of Italian nationals.
INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.): On Saturday last, in the absence of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), I was requested to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) when the hon. member might expect certain returns with reference to the destruction of hogs belonging to a man named Oberle at some point in Ontario. The hon. member wished me to impress the minister with the fact that we are getting near the end of the session and that he would like to have these returns brought down as soon as possible.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: The file was completed this morning and will go to the office of the Secretary of State some time to-day, from whence I expect it will reach this House to-morrow.


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) when he will table a return passed by the House on March 30 in regard to the Chilooten ordnance reserve lands in the Cariboo district of the province of British Columbia. I understand this is a short return and I am anxious to have it brought down before the end of the session.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I assure the hon. member that the matter had escaped my attention, and I am very glad he has reminded me of it. I will see that it is tabled at once.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: I would ask the Minister of Public Works when the return passed on March 30 with reference to the telegraph operator at Bella Coola will be available.


John Campbell Elliott: The return is now in course of preparation, and I hope to be able to lay it on the table before the session is concluded. It must be remembered that a great many
Inquiries jor Returns

returns of that kind have been passed, which entail a great deal of work. This is a comparatively recent request, but I hope to be able to lay it on the table soon.


John Alexander (1883-1945) Macdonald: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with reference to question number 27, having to do with the report of Inspector Tupper, when that report will be tabled?


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report was tabled this morning.
Buctouche branch of the Canadian National Railway from Buctouche to Loggieville in the county of Northumberland? If that recommendation is favourable to the project, when will it be put into effect?


Charles Avery Dunning: No recommendaition has
been yet received from the present -board of directors of the Canadian National Railways in connection with the project mentioned by my hon. friend.



CUSTOMS INQUIRY COMMISSION

Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: Owing to the noise in the chamber I did not hear the answer of the minister.


James Malcolm: For the 'benefit of my
hon. friend I will repeat that if he had' been in the House he would have known that I tabled the report a few moments ago.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the
Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, there are two
matters to which I would like to draw the attention of this government, particularly as we have nearly reached the conclusion of the session. The first question is as to when we may expect an answer to question number 14, which to-day was made an order for return. This question was asked' on April 6, and is not one whioh will require much time to answer. We would like to have that return tabled before the House prorogues, and I would ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rin-fret) to oblige us in this respect.
The 'other question is in regard! to the supplementary estimates. This morning I spoke to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) on that question, because I think the House should have these estimates at the earliest possible moment if there is any idea of proroguing in the near future.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: With regard to the supplementary estimates,
I hope to be able to table those to-day.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
MONCTON-BUCTOUCHE BRANCH On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. BOURGEOIS (Kent, N.B.):: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways whether he has received a recommendation from the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways in connection with the request of the citizens of Kent county, New Brunswick, supported by resolutions and petitions strongly urging the extension of the Mon-cton and



INTERIM REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskofca-Ontario):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the House may expect an interim report of any kind from the Customs Inquiiy Commission before the session is concluded?
Right, Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I would prefer to have the Minister of Customs answer that question, but he is not in his seat at the -moment. So far as I am aware it is hardly probable that an interim report will be presented.



LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go intc committee on Bill No. 229, to amend The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923
Motion agreed to and the House went intc committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2

Definitions.
William Richard Motherwell: I desire to move
a slight amendment to subsection (i) of this section. This question was discussed very fully in committee and since that time I have discussed it further with a number of members who desire the act to remain in this respect as it formerly was, and they are agreeable to the insertion of the two words "for export " after the word " meat."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Richard Motherwell: Very well; we will discuss it further. The members of the committee who were anxious to leave it the way it now is, will probably desire to say something also. I have had some correspondence with one of the provincial premiers whose government has passed concurring legislation, and he thought it would not be fair to make this change until the provincial governments were consulted. It must be remembered, Mr. APRIL 11, 1927
Live Stock Act
Chairman, that the very life of this act depends upon the concurring legislation enacted by each province, and I assured them that no radical change would be made in this act without first consulting them. This is an extension of the application of the act to local trade, and I think the committee will agree that we are playing fair with the provinces, because the amendment will leave the act as it at present stands with regard to exports.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: As a matter of fact there is far more chance of exploiting the people of Canada with ungraded bacon than of exploiting the people in the Old Land, because our bacon going over there comes directly into competition with Danish bacon as well as meat from other countries, and must conform to a fairly high standard. This amendment will enable the packers to do as they please with the Canadian consumer.


William Richard Motherwell: For the sake of argument I will agree with my hon. friend, but it is still more important to preserve intact the concurring legislation, of the different provinces, for the time being.


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: I am sorry the minister cannot see his way clear to allow this bill to go through as it came from the committee. The bill was approved by the committee exactly as it was brought in here, and these few words which prohibit the grading of meat products in Canada in reality take away the entire effect of the bill. We have passed acts for the grading of fruit, and for the grading of wheat, but when it comes to the live stock, to which the farmers feed their grain, there will be no grading at all if these two words "for export" are inserted in this bill. I think the time has arrived when the principle of grading live stock and live stock products should be established. Perhaps the time is not opportune for the enforcement of grading; perhaps that can only be brought about gradually. But a year will elapse before we shall have another opportunity of amending this bill if it goes into law, and I think, therefore, that we should now establish the principle of grading live stock both for export and for home consumption. I should be sony to see a backward step taken in that regard; but I am afraid that if something is not done we are going to jeopardize the beef industry and seriously injure the bacon trade as well. I would urge the minister to allow this bill to go through as it came from the committee. Afterwards he can, by regulation, bring the act into force as he sees fit. In my opinion that would be the best course for him to pursue.


William Richard Motherwell: I agree with most of what my hon. friend has said. I should like to see the bill worded that way too, but it must be remembered that we are cooperating in team play with the provinces on this question. One of the most important provinces of the Dominion has drawn attention to the fact that this bill goes further, and in a more radical direction, than it did before, and that there has been no conference on the subject either with that province, or any of the other two provinces that were represented at the recent conferences at Regina and Ottawa. We all know the difficulty that we had in the matter of the grading of eggs. The greatest difficulty has been overcome but perhaps it would not have been but for the teamplay in that case also. I feel satisfied that we should do everything we can to avoid the possibility of weakening the confidence of the provincial governments, all of which have passed concurrent legislation, or of breaking faith with them. If the proposed legislation went through and it affected the principle of grading for the retail trade any of the provinces could say: You have defaulted in your undertaking with us by taking this authority. That is the point I wish to have borne in mind. But for that I should be inclined to leave the wording as it is. But adherence to the assurance I have given is of far more importance to me than having the two words in question left in the bill. There must be teamplay with the provinces if we are going to do the best work possible.


Mr. COOTE:: Was the same wording in the old act?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: I do not think the words "for export" were in the old act.


William Richard Motherwell: They were not in the interpretation clause, but if my hon. friend passes on to clause (c) of section 9 on page 4 of the old Live Stock Act, he will see a reference there to live stock and meat intended for export. In order to make the matter clear, we are putting these words into the interpretation clause so that it will apply to all sections of the bill. In the last draft of the bill those words were inserted showing that was the intention.


George Gibson Coote: If the words are left in the
present bill the grading of meat will not come into force in Canada until the department passes a regulation.


William Richard Motherwell: Do you mean if the wording of the 'bill is left in the way it is?
Live Stock Act


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: If the bill is left the way it is it will give authority to grade all meat for home consumption, a question that has never been discussed with the provinces. That is why they are objecting.


George Gibson Coote: Could that be done if the
federal department issued regulations to enforce it?


William Richard Motherwell: Surely.


George Gibson Coote: Then surely it will be all
right to pass the bill as it is, and the department can wait until it gets the consent of the provinces.


William Richard Motherwell: I know, but in a communication I got from the premier of one of the major provinces, while admitting that he pointed out that according to our 'agreement before this power was taken the provincial assent and approval should be obtained, and I think he is right. The regulation of any matter is a thing that fluctuates. You can put a thing in to-day and take it out tomorrow, and regulations may be passed without persons interested being notified. Sometimes we confer with the provinces if the matter in question is very important; at other times we do not confer so mudh. My correspondent in this 'Particular matter, being a provincial minister, knows that the regulations might, be adopted and put in force and he would know nothing about it.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Would the minister
mmd telling us which province it is that
objects?


William Richard Motherwell: It was the last one that cams in, Ontario. It is most important that we should keep in accord1 with Ontario because the act was challenged in that province and there were two decisions given by provincial supreme court judges.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the present Minister of Agriculture in Ontario very sympathetic about the matter of 'grading?


William Richard Motherwell: I think he is, but they are not all like Hon. Mr. Martin. He is sympathetic, lie understands the matter, but just like any other minister of agriculture he has to have the support of his colleagues in any undertaking. I should not like to give the province of Ontario any excuse or justification for saying that I had defaulted in any arrangement I had entered into with Hon. Mr. Martin.


Mr. TOLMIE:: With regard to this amendment, I want to say that all of us-par-
ticularly those who are away from home a good part of their time and have to depend on the tender mercies of people who provide provender for politicians throughout this country-have all experienced the fact that there is a great deal of tough beef placed on the table in Canada. After experiencing this for a number of years I have come to the conclusion that we are a strong-jawed, hardy race in this L)ominion, Now while it is very desirable that we should have grading applied in this country at the earliest possible moment, both to meats that are being exported and also to meats for local consumption, let me say that we should first have a clean-cut plan. Before we attempt to put this legislation into effect, let us have something to offer. Those countries that have been carefully investigating the grading of meats, particularly the United States, have not yet got a definite plan that can be applied; and what they are doing at the present time is to carry on experimental work hoping that something may be evolved from their investigations that will be of practical value. I would urge for Canada that this amendment be passed so that before going farther we may have the benefit of the experience gained in the grading of meat for export. After grading these meats for export for a year, or a year and a half, or two years, we shall be in the possession of much more knowledge than we have at the present time, and with that as a basis, we can introduce such legislation as will have a practical effect in improving the quality of beef in this country. This is a most important matter because at the present moment the consumer is as a rule a very poor judge of the quality of meat. In the first place this legislation when brought into force will have the effect of offering to the man who is willing to pay a little higher price for quality, an opportunity to secure what he wants, &nd that price will be reflected back to the man who produces on the farm. Tne general trend of the whole legislation is first-class but we should not attempt to put such legislation through now without a clean-cut, definite plan which we can apply with reasonable assurance of success.


George Gibson Coote: If we can grade meat for
export, why can we not apply the same grades to meat that is to be sold at home?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We export about 15 per
cent of our cattle and we consume about 85 per cent at* home. Is it not much easier to try out our new plans on the smaller quantity of export meat than to try it on what is consumed at home? After a year or a year and

hive Stock Act
a half of experiment in this regard we can amend all those parts of our legislation that' are not practical, and from our experience during that period we can evolve something that will be of real use in connection with handling the larger quantity.


William Russell Fansher: Following up the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Tolmie), I would say that there is no mandate from this committee to the Minister of Agriculture to conduct an investigation should these words " for export " that are referred to be inserted after the word " meat " in paragraph (i) of section 2 of the proposed legislation. We would place those words there for no other reason than to stall off a thorough investigation, whereas if the bill is passed as it now reads, we should have ample opportunity to take one, two or even three years to investigate the matter thoroughly. This will be enforced by regulations and it is entirely in the hands of the department to issue those regulations when they see fit". In order that a thorough investigation may be conducted, I think this particular paragraph should remain as it is now printed.
The minister spoke of breaking faith with some of the provinces. I should like for a minute to review some of the work of the department. The department have very efficiently introduced in connection with nearly all live stock products a grading system whereby they are educating the producers to turn out a high quality product. After the quality product is put on the market, the producer has to accept the mean average price for his product although it is superior to the product of which the exminister (Mr. Tolmie) spoke. In keeping faith with the provinces, let us not lose sight of the fact' that we should also keep faith with those who have gone to considerable expense in producing this high class product. I have correspondence, telegrams, from producers in western Canada urging the very thing for which this legislation calls, and I would impress upon the minister the necessity of seriously considering their request. No drastic change will be brought about if he takes plenty of time to investigate the matter before he issues regulations in order to cany this out immediately. I would strongly urge upon him to consider seriously the fact that t'he live stock men of this country are vitally interested in this matter. They have gone to great expense; they have studied the situation, and they are becoming discouraged in producing a high-class product. I am not speaking only for one section of the country; I have been in touch with many sections, and this is the impression I have gained. I have correspondence speaking very favourably of this particular clause as it
now stands, and I would urge upon the minister, if he can see his way to do so, to let the clause go through as it is now printed.


The CHAIRMAN:: I wish to get the
amendment clearly before the House. It is moved by Mr. Heenan that the words "for export" be added after the word "meat" in paragraph (i) of section 2. Shall the amendment carry?


William Richard Motherwell: I think the main
feature, at least from my standpoint, has been lost sight of. The provinces have entrusted to the Dominion the making of certain regulations regarding farm products, the understanding being that before any radical changes are made, we shall consult with them as to what those changes will be. We consulted with them in regard to all the rest of this legislation, but we did not consult with them in regard to this particular phase. It did not catch my eye at the time this bill was being drafted or it would not have appeared without the words "for export." The future of this legislation depends upon our living up to our agreement with the provinces.
I cannot make the matter any plainer. Since the bill was introduced I have received a letter from the Hon. Mr. Martin drawing my attention to the fact that this change was not considered when I was consulting him in regard to the matter. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by playing fair. Before two years pass by this bill is bound to be up again, because a number of new phases agreed to by all parties will be introduced into it. Before this legislation comes up again I shall have an opportunity of consulting not only Mr. Martin and Mr. Caron but every other provincial minister of agriculture, and then we shall have an opportunity of making changes in accordance with the wishes of everybody. Without their consent this legislation is a dead letter and we do not want to give them any excuse for withdrawing their consent.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Is the legislation not
also ultra vires?


William Richard Motherwell: Without the concurrence of the provinces it is. There are two decisions against the act.


Thomas McMillan: We share the opinion
of our friends across the way that it would be well to have our products graded, but the matter is placed before us in a very reasonable way by the Minister of Agriculture when he says that, legislation on this subject having been held to be ultra vires, it is of first importance that we should have an agree-
Live Stock Act

ment and come to a common understanding with the departments of the several provinces. Otherwise, as the minister has said, this legislation W'ill be of no avail.


Mr. GARDINER:: I understood the minister to say that this question had not been discussed with the provinces. Is it the intention of the minister to take this matter up in the near future and to discuss it with the provinces?	.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the whole matter be held up if one province objects?


William Richard Motherwell: I would not say
that. This whole bill is the result of two conferences differing considerably in their conclusions,, but we have them pretty well harmonized and given visible form in this legislation. The fact that only one or two minor changes were made in the agricultural comp mittee indicates that on the whole the bill is a good piece of legislation. Why then create a major difficulty by declining to meet Mr. Martin in this regard? Mr. Caron has not made any representations, but I gave him the same assurance.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister will not
be doing any more than taking power to do certain things.


William Richard Motherwell: No, but they do
not like that.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: As a matter of fact we know there has been a strong agitation in any event amongst Ontario producers of pigs for this very thing. I do not see why we ought to strike it out. It is where the packers score against the producers.


William Richard Motherwell: Not at all. I would
be in agreement with my hon. friend if it were not for the necessity of having concurrent legislation. My view is along the line of our own legislation during the last five years, and along the line of my own wishes, but we have these limitations.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If this section stays in the act as it is, and the proper regulations are drawn up, none of the provinces will be hurt, and it will not be breaking faith with the men at all.


Mr. EVANS:: This request of the minister this morning looks like another case of special privilege to a certain class.


William Richard Motherwell: What special privilege does my hon. friend think I am espousing this morning?


John Evans: Well, we provide for the grading of practically all other products, and I do not see why this should not come into line. Some years ago when this matter was discussed in the committee of agriculture, the then member for South Oxford made a splendid argument for the inspection of all meats. It is a fact, I believe, to-day that at times our packers import a certain class of hog from the United States. I think we call them razorbacks for short, though they are more adapted for speed than bacon, as a rule. This meat is handled in such a way that it will not stand inspection, and I say to this House that the people of Canada do not know what they are getting on their breakfast table. I would like to see the House pass this measure. If it is found to work any injustice upon the packers, they can come back to the House in a year or two and have it corrected.


William Richard Motherwell: But if in the meantime some of the provinces repeal their concurrent legislation because I have not lived up to my engagement, what will happen?


John Evans: Has this understanding all taken -place since the bill went tnrough the committee?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. My original intention was to let the bill go through the House the way it went through the committee, but I have since had communications from the Hon. Mr. Martin. I would be pleased to put them on record, but I have not his permission. However, I have shown the correspondence to a number of hon. members on the other side of the House, and I must say that his request seems to me very reasonable. It will not make any difference as to the results, but it will have a tremendous effect on the team play between the provincial and federal governments. I think this is the first time in the history of Canada that the nine provinces have passed practically the same concurrent legislation as the federal parliament. It is an experiment, and are we going to spoil it all at the very first opportunity by breaking faith with the provinces? There is something far bigger in those two little words "for export" than the question of whether we shall grade for export only or for home consumption as well, and that is the question, shall we be able to carry on along these lines in the future if we -break faith now? Unless we accept this amendment I fear that the act is going to be dead, just like the Lemieux Act is dead practically, and a number of -other similar acts.

hive Stock Act


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would like to point out to the hon. member for Rosetown who has referred to this "speed" bacon, that in the exchange of meats between the United States and Canada we have a mutual arrangement whereby the meats coming in from the United States bear the brand of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and our meats going into United States bear our government brand, so there is no question at all as to the wholesomeness of these products.


Mr. NEILL:: I would like to point out to
my hon. friends who are opposing this amendment that the issue is not simply shall we have the inspection of meats intended for export or of ail meats, but rather, shall we have an inspection of export meats or no inspection ait all? That is the inevitable result of refusing this amendment. I am not interested in the grading of beef, but I am interested in the grading of eggs, and there was a decision given by Mr. Justice Grant last October, I 'believe, in connection with egg grading in Ontario that the whole of this act was ultra vires as it concerned domestic and inter-provincial matters, and not only the grading regulations but everything provided under the act fell flat. That had an immediate effect in British Columbia. I had an interview with the minister, and it was found that wre could not bring into force the egg grading regulations of the Dominion unless the provinces passed concurrent legislation. The minister was able to get all the provinces to pass concurrent legislation', very much to my surprise. As he says, it is almost a new departure for all the provinces to pass concurrent legislation with the Dominion. If we pass the act without this amendment it will mean that one or more provinces will break loose and be no longer bound by this agreement, and then not simply this particular section goes, but the whole act goes by the 'board so far as domestic and inter-provincial trade is concerned. So it is not a question of whether we shall have beef grading in the provinces, but whether we shall or shall not have export grading, because this act does govern exports, but it will not produce the results hon. gentlemen want unless we have this amendment. Without it, the whole thing will be in peril. I have no doubt that the minister will submit this matter to the Ontario Agricultural department during the next few months, and probably he will get their consent.


George Gibson Coote: I think the hon. member for Comox-Albemi is rather mixing up eggs and beef.


Alan Webster Neill: Don't ham and eggs go together?


George Gibson Coote: But eggs are not beef. I
think there are good grounds for striking out beef altogether, because if the minister is going to grade beef for export and not beef for home consumption, you will find that the best beef will be exported and the tough beef will be left at home for Canadians to eat. No packer would ask to have his product graded for export if he thought it would be graded No. 3, and he will take care that what he ships for export will be of No. 1 grade. But I am not going to oppose the minister's amendment any further, because I see that he has certain grounds for asking for it. I think, however, he could facilitate the acceptance of the amendment if he would pledge himself within the present year to ask the different provincial departments of agriculture to agree to such legislation being passed.


William Richard Motherwell: Surely. I will do my best.


George Gibson Coote: If he will agree to that and give us their answers next year, so far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing to allow the amendment to pass. I think, however, the House is agreed that if it is desirable to have meat graded for export, meat for home consumption should also be graded.


William Russell Fansher: I understand
from what the minister says that there was a conference held in western Canada between the representatives of the producers' associations and the departments of agriculture in the western provinces. I know that a similar conference was held in eastern Canada, and that the representatives of the producers in eastern Canada are in favour of this bill being passed as it is now before the House. I have no doubt this bill was drafted after these two conferences had taken place at which everything was threshed out, and it seems to me rather strange that we should first of all have the bill provide for the grading of all meat products, which was approved by the committee, and then suggest this amendment when the only persons to object probably were the representatives of the packers and the live stock exchanges. I aim thoroughly convinced that the representatives of the producers want this bill to pass in its present form. It may be a few packers or representatives of the slock exchange do not think it is in their best interests to have it pass. I think a good deal of the opposition is coming from that quarter-from interests Which are against the producers of live stock in this country. We have to consider both. I think that the principle should be established in this bill that all meat should be graded and regulations brought in as conditions warranted in the years
hive Stock Act

to come. It has been pointed out that the provinces must pass concurring legislation before this bill will become effective. We must have something to work to in the future if we are going to improve our live stock, and unless we establish the principle of grading and showing the producer where he can obtain more for a first-class beast when he produces it we are not going to improve the live stock industry of the country as we should. It is a question of dollars and cents. If a man can feel that it pays to produce good stock he will produce it. We may talk about grading and publish pamphlets and do all we like to try and convince the producer that it is a good thing to produce a first-class article, but unless he can receive some compensation for his efforts when he sells his animal, the argument is largely in vain. We have to tackle this question at, some time; we should establish the principle now and work out the regulations in the years to come as they can be worked out in conjunction with the various provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Provisions to be included in by-laws.
John Frederick Johnston: There is an amendment to subsection (7) of section 4, to add, in the fortieth line, the word "only" after the word1 "minister", and also a new subsection, as subsection (8):
Complaints the investigation of which necessitates an examination of books and records shall be made in writing to the minister and shall be supported by such evidence as may be available.


William Richard Motherwell: That merely indicates the method of making a complaint.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Regulations.
Robert Gardiner: I understand they have a practice on the stock exchange, when they start to bid in the morning, that the different commission men toss up a coin to see which buyer they will take first.


William Richard Motherwell: I heard about that.
1 think that is a little regulation of their own. ft is not in the by-laws.


Robert Gardiner: Is it not a fact that to all intents and purposes it is just as effective as if it were in the regulations?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I think so.
When they come to draft the new regulations I intend to make very extensive inquiries into

that practice. Mr. Rice-Jones indicated in one of his interviews that it was the practice. Does the hon. member think there should be a regulation against that.


Robert Gardiner: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: I am disposed to
agree with the hon. gentleman.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 171, to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act.
Robert Gardiner: What is the nature of
the amendments?


Mr. HEENAN:: The amendments are quite acceptable. They are simply to make clear the designation of " union label." Where the word "label" appears this amendment places the word " union " before it, and provides fees to be charged for the registration of the union label, the same as in the case of a trade mark. Another provision is that the use of the union label shall be granted to any applicant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 323 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Falko.
Bill No. 324 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Edna Thompson.
Bill No. 325 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Edward Thompson.
Bill No. 326 (from the Senate), for the relief of Halsey Vanderleith Welles.
Bill No. 327 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry Raymond Mugridge.
Bill No. 328 (from the Senate), for the relief of Laura Gertrude Sutherland.
Bill No. 329 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edith May McColl.
Bill No. 330 (from the Senate), for the relief of Katherine Alison Pomphrey Weldon.
Bill No. 331 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marion Scott.
Bill No. 332 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian Maud Oram.

Oil and Gas Rights
Bill No. 333 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur James Carey.
Bill No. 334 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Robert Kendrick.
Bill No. 335 (from the Senate), for the relief of Richard Thomas Keeth Stinchcombe.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of supply.
['Stands as a notice of motion.\nOn motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 2.15 a.m. (Tuesday).\nTuesday, April 12, 1927']
George Gibson Coote: Oil and Gas Rights

a matter of fact, the odour is quite noticeable five or ten miles away from this particular district.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: More than that.


George Gibson Coote: 
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I will be glad to answer the
statement of my hon. friend when my estimates are up for discussion.
Motion agreed to- and the House went into committee of supply, Mr. Bouchard in the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
National Defence-cadet services, $500,000.
John Frederick Johnston: The
item we are considering is:	Cadet services,
$500,000. When the committee rose at six o'clock on Saturday evening an amendment had been moved by Miss Macphail to reduce this item by $499,999.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In rising to speak to the question, in order to avoid making a number of short speeches, I propose to discuss briefly not only this item but the estimates for national defence in general. Before doing so I wish to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Cdntre (Mr. Woodsworth) in congratulating the House upon having obtained the services of the hon. gentleman who administers the Department of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I am sure that the minister's genial and affable manners, and the clear and lucid way in which he speaks have earned for him the admiration and respect of hon. members in all corners of the chamber. And then, in connection with our opponents, may I say that after all it appears to me we are both working for the same end. They think that peace will be attained and maintained by the methods which they
32649-Hli
propose, while we here, who are just as sincere in our desire for peace, think it will be best secured by other means than those which they advocate.
Now in regard to the cadet movement, I think, perhaps that the most objectionable feature is the fact that it is supervised by a military officer in the schools; and after all the objections that have been stated by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), and the leader of the Labour party in this House (Mr. Woodsworth), I think it is only fair that we should look at the question from all angles. The responsibility for the cadet movement does not rest with the Dominion government, nor does all the opposition to the cadet movement come from a few cranks, shall I say, in the House of Commons. There is no doubt that there is a concerted movement among the churches, and among other bodies, protesting very loudly, very sincerely and very emphatically against the cadet movement in this country.


Mr. GOTT:: Cite a number of those that are protesting.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I could cite several, for
instance the United Church of Canada in the province of Alberta has gone on record as protesting against such things. I need not name all the particular organizations which have done the same. I simply mention the fact to show that the movement is not confined to a few labour cranks in this corner of the House.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. member spoke
of "churches". What other church has protested?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I said I did not wish to give a list of all the people that are protesting. I will simply add that I have received a number of letters along that line and leave the question there. At the same time it is only fair to say that the whole responsibility for this movement does not rest upon the Dominion government. It is optional-and it is only fair to put it that way-with the provincial governments to take what stand they please in the matter; and I am rather sorry to say-I wish to be absolutely fair-that I believe the Farmers government of Alberta have failed to make a protest against the cadet movement in connection with the schools of that province. The cadet movement is not a compulsory matter. If any school desires to adopt the cadet movement it is open to it to do so, if a school does not wish to take it up its wish will be respected. Therefore wherever the cadet movement ob-
2232	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
tains, responsibility must be shared by the province, the schools and the homes; it should not be fastened solely upon the members of the Dominion government or the members of this House. There appears to be a feeling that the opposition to the cadet movement is inspired by antagonism to the returned men. I want to say that there is no such attitude in my own mind. There is an old saying that "It is an ill bird that would foul its own nest"; and in view of my own experience in 1914, when I and a number of others marched down the streets seeing our own sons off to the war, it would ill become me to cast any reflection whatsoever upon the men who have returned from the war. As for the returned men, I believe the last thing they want in their inner hearts is another war such as the one that was brought to a conclusion in 1918.
In the discussion the other day an hon. gentleman to my right presented a simile to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said to him "Would you not insure your house against fire"? and of course the answer came "yes". "Well," the hon. member in question said, "the military and naval organizations are an insurance against a conflagration of the kind of which you are speaking." I take issue with that position right now, and I wish to carry out the simile to what I believe to be its logical conclusion. Let us take it for granted that we are trying to insure ourselves, as well as our sons and our grandsons, against such a conflagration as occurred in 1914. Now when a fire occurs we do not damn the firemen but we curse the fire. We do not seek to cast any reflection against the fire brigade, but we try to remove all combustible materials lying around that would permit that fire to spread. So in this case we do not damn or condemn the soldiers, but we do most heartily damn and condemn war. Our object should be to use preventive measures in order to prevent the occurrence of these things in the future.
One of the first things a fire insurance company does is to come around the house and see if there is anything that might cause a fire and, if so, it asks that it be removed. If in a city there was a large fire and if some time after the fire you saw combustible materials lying around from which there was danger of another fire, you would not simply go to the city council and say: Let us increase the fire brigade; let us increase the number of fire engines. They would say: That is foolish; let us remove those combustible materials. That will be the proper procedure in that regard.

Let me carry this question a little further. If you had a fire so serious that it had devoured half your buildings and half your fire brigade, and if experts came to you some years afterwards and pointed out that the aggregation of combustible material was becoming so dangerous that, if another fire broke out, not only would all the buildings bo destroyed, but the whole fire brigade and the whole city would go up in smoke, what would be your answer? What would be your earnest endeavour, the earnest endeavour of any serious-minded, sensible man? Would you go once more to the city council and say: Gentlemen, let us increase the fire brigade; let us increase the number of fire engines? No, the fire insurance companies would insist that you bend your efforts to removing the combustible material that might cause another fire. Their answer would be this: The next fire will be so far beyond you that no fire brigade, no fire engines, will ever be able to extinguish it and the city and the city brigade will all go up in smoke. Therefore, applying that as a principle, we should bend our utmost efforts to remove from Canada and an fact the world at large those combustible things that might cause such another war conflagration in which not only the fire brigades, that is the armies, but our citizens and civilization itself would be swallowed up.
I wrant to read just a few extracts so as to turn the attention of the committee to what I consider is the most serious thingt in regard to war. I am not speaking of my own authority; I have in my hand a message from no less a gentleman than Sir Oliver Lodge, who, in speaking about these combustible materials in Europe and indeed the world at large, made this. statement. He appealed to "world statesmen to curb the international tendency to produce instruments of destruction." He said that "aerial locomotion presents possibilities of overwhelming entire cities in vast destruction," and it threatens a return to the old days when populations, women, children and all' that there is will be entirely wiped out.
The Montreal Herald, in connection with this matter, states that in the next war, about which some people talk so glibly, if it ever should come on this continent, "Montreal or New York wonld be a hell on earth before the newspapers could come out with the text of the declaration of war."
The London Observer comes out with a similar statement. It says:
The object would be to reduce permanently the population and resources of any conquered country and to prevent it by force from ever

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
being a danger again. Next time there could be no faith in peace or humanity. Were it once proved that the peace movement after the great war of 1914-18 had failed in spite of the league, there could be no rational belief whatever that any new peace movement could succeed. Yet armies, navies, air-fleets are being organized all over the world on the assumption that such a "war of the future" as we have just described is a possibility of the world in which we live.
We have the position of France in the matter. France has entered into a mutual engagement with the United States, not to make it necessary to increase cadet forces and military accoutrements, but to outlaw war.


James Arthurs: Is France not rather increasing her navy and army rather than decreasing them?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I believe she is increasing her air force, but that does not alter the fact that as a nation she has entered into an agreement with the United States to outlaw war, and that is more than we have done.
Sweden and Belgium have entered into a solemn obligation never again to go t'o war, no matter what may happen, but always to resort to arbitration. They have seen the results of war and they realize what the increasing of armaments and military institutions will bring to them. The Citizen of February 7th of this year makes this statement:
If chemical agencies furnish such means, they will be used. When the Germans used gas in 1915, the world recoiled in horror and alarm. But did the Germans stop? Not only did they not stop, but their opponents bettered their instruction-and invented deadlier vapours, more revolting gases.
1 he remedy is not to prohibit any one form of warfare, even assuming such prohibition could be enforced. It is-and apologies are hereby tendered for suggesting it once more-to abolish war itself.
I have one more extract to read and it comes from our former enemies. The Germans, seeing the destructive force of war and what it has done, have taken a line of action that I wish we would take. This extract states:
A chair of pacifism has been established at Kiel university. Doctor Walter Sehuecking, member of the Reichstag, has been assigned to Kiel by the Prussian Ministry of Education as professor of international law and of the history of international pacifism.
Thus we have our old enemies the Germans seeing that peace is absolutely necessary for the world, and they have set us the example that we should bend our energies more toward the attainment of peace.
So far as Canada is concerned, so far as I am concerned, not for myself but for my children and grandchildren, for the children
of my neighbours and their children's children, what are we doing in the direction of peace? The estimates show that we are appropriating about $13,000,000 for this year for military armaments iand services, for the fire brigade, if you like. I will leave that question in abeyance. What are we doing for the prevention of another war conflagration? I have looked all through the estimates and on page 61 I find the only mention of peace:
Grant to the Inter-parliamentary Union for Peace, $200.
There is the magnificent sum of $200 for peace. My protest to-day is perhaps not so much against the items that we have in the estimate of the Department of National Defence although part of my protest is against that. I say that we ought to wake up to the danger and not live in a fool's paradise; that we should do what any sensible fire insurance company would do, what any sensible man would do if the whole city was surrounded by combustible material. We should bend our best efforts to endeavouring to prevent such a conflagration rather than to cure it after it has taken place. It is said that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." The whole tendency in medical science is to prevent sickness rather than to cure it. In forest conservation the idea is to prevent fires rather than to put them out after they have started. So I would plead with the House to make for the maintenance of peace at least half the appropriation that we are making for protection against war.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I would like to make a few remarks in regard to this question that is now occupying the attention of the House. We may take it for granted that, no matter what views any hon. member may express in this House, those views are the ones that prevail in the constituency which that hon. member represents, and therefore the views expressed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maopihail) may be taken as expressing the sentiments of the majority of the people in that constituency. Similarly the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whether we agree with them or not, and I am sure that most of us do not, may be taken as expressing the sentiments of that particular part of Canada, and the same may be said in regard to the views which have been expressed by the hon. gentleman who has juist taken his seat (Mr. Adshead). We can in this way learn something of the viewpoint of Canada as a whole, and we can by giving due consideration to these views guard against the dangers which

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
these members indicate as existing in certain parts of the country which they represent. As Kipling puts it, I think we might say:
And the things that you learn From the yaller and brown 'll 'elp you a lot with the white.
So the things we learn from the distorted, 'warped and twisted views and attitude of hon. gentlemen like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) may help us somewhat in dealing with more reasonable people in other parts of the country.
I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the eulogistic tribute he paid to the hon. member for Southeast Grey. It is perfectly within his right to say that the hon. member for Southeast Grey represents the women of Canada. That,
I daresay, is hi3 view, but I would not be dealing squarely, it seems to me. with the women of the part of the country I represent if I allowed that statement to go unchallenged. While willing to concede that the hon. member for Southeast Grey in the views to which she has seen fit to give expression may represent a considerable body of women in Southeast Grey, I unhesitatingly declare that the opinions which she voices and the attitude which she has taken at various times do not represent the sentiments and opinions and aspirations of even a small fraction of the women of the Dominion of Canada. In other words, in one sense the bon. member for Southeast Grey does represent the people of Canada in that She is the only woman having a seat in this House, but I repeat, in my opinion, that is the only respect in which she does represent the women of Canada. The hon. member for Southeast Grey in her remarks the other day used these words:
I do object to imposing upon boys our own ideas instead of letting them think for themselves.
And further:
Education is being used as a political institution to form habits of thought in such a way as to make one set of opinions inevitable.
And in her opinion that was disastrous to the minds of the 'boys of this country. When I read that expression of the hon. member in Hansard to-day, I wondered just when the hon. member had come to that conclusion, that she objected to imposing on boys our own ideas instead of letting them think for themselves. I wonder if the hon. member for Southeast Grey was letting the boys and girls in the schools in the constituency she represents think for themselves when she was loading up their youthful minds with the kind of stuff-I say that not in any offensive way,

but simply because I cannot find any other word which expresses it better-which is contained in the letter which she sent to the school children in Southeast Grey. I hope the hon. member in her generosity did not go beyond the boundaries of her own constituency with that letter, because its contents are certainly contrary to the facts of history. It is a letter which is very generous in its regard for Russia and China, but, I repeat, it is perverting British history and is loading the minds of the school children who read it or have had it read to them with a lot of poisonous stuff that does not make for good citizenship in this country and is noit in the interests of the children who hear it. In that letter the hon. member says:
Russia, seeing that a rebellion was coming in China, wisely gave up all her rights *nothin that country, and the Chinese are very grateful.
There is a fine impression to be conveyed to the minds of school children, to give them a good opinion of Russia in that regard, and then in the next sentence the hon. member says in her letter:
There is little doubt that Russia is urging the Chinese to rebellion.
While Russia is largely at fault for the bloodshed and the war which is going on in China at the present time, the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I repeat, in her message to the school children, was very kind in the impression she wanted to convey to their minds of Russia and her activities in China, but was very harsh in perverting British history and loading up the minds of the children with poisonous untruths or misstatements of facts as to British history and the part Britain has played in international affairs.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey is very strongly opposed to cadet training. That is evidently the view held by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I do not hold that view myself. I believe that cadet training in this country is one of the best and one of the finest things that has ever been inaugurated in the Dominion of Canada. I believe it is a good thing for the boys to come under a certain amount of discipline and be taught to play the game and cooperate with others. To say that a boy who is taught to march and countermarch and go through some of the simpler elements of drill in the schoolyard is having his mind filled with a desire to slaughter and that it makes him want to kill people is the most utter nonsense that ever was uttered

Supply-Dejencc-Cadet Services
by anybody in the world. To say that to teach a boy to shoot straight is to fill his mind with the idea of killing his fellowmen is colossal nonsense. We all can recollect the times in the past when the little boys wore a broad white collar about a foot wide, and a long flowing tie, with a little hat on the side of the head, and how pretty they were i How we loved those little fellows-little Lord Fauntleroys! We all admired and loved those little chaps, but where I differ, and where I think most other members of this House differ, from the hon. member for Southeast Grey is that while it is all right for these little chaps to be little Lord Fauntleroys when they are six and perhaps eight years old, we do not want them to be little Lord Fauntleroys when they grow up to be men, and to have an extra cookie when they go to bed at night and have grandma sing lullabys to them to put them to sleep. We do not want a class of men in this country that you might call she-men.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I think it would be
very much better for a lot of men, possibly for the hon. member who has the floor, if they could be called she-men. If that meant they had some of the attributes of women, it would be a very good thing for the men. I resent very deeply that the hon. member's insult to women calling boys whom he wishes to discredit she-boys. Since when did the male become greater than the female?


John Wesley Edwards: Far be it
from me, Mr. Chairman, with such evidence of female superiority as we have in this House, to suggest for one moment that the male is superior to the female. I know, of course, that that is impossible, but, being a mere male, I still ding to the desire to have some of the attributes of a male and not to be led around by the apronstrings of any female, even when, rightly or wrongly, she possesses not only the attributes of the female sex and superiority, but also those of the male sex. I do not want to see boys grow up to be little Lord Fauntleroys all their lives. I do not want to see a class of boys grow up to be men who will be taught that the only resentment a boy must show when offered an insult is to slap the other fellow lightly on the wrist, and then go home and tell his grandmother, who will probably give him an extra cookie that night and recite some nursery rhyme to him. We have got to have both sexes in this country and I would be the last one to suggest otherwise. No person has a deeper or more abiding reverence for those of the opposite sex than myself. Any person who has lived in the world nearly as long as I have will understand me when I say that we appreciate their superiority and bow to their judgment and often to their authority, even when we think otherwise. As a matter of diplomacy it is a wise thing to do, and while that may be a good thing in individual eases I will tell the hon. member from Southeast Grey I do not want it to become wholesale. We may tolerate a few cases here and there, but we d'o not want our boys to grow up with the idea that it is their duty in life to shoot straight to kill their fellowmen, or with the idea that in the little drill they get in the school they are being trained for the purpose of killing their fellowmen, but we want them to be taught-and I believe from my knowledge of the school teachers of this country that they are taught-the horrors of war and the dreadful thing that it is, but they are also being told, and properly so, that it is a good thing to be prepared for contingencies if they arise.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to England as being prepared. The hon. member quoted the amount that a number of countries were paying out for national defence or armed preparations. ' He quoted what England and France were paying out for this purpose and judging from what we see at the present time and what we know of the storm cloud which is hanging heavily over Europe, I ask what would be the result if England and France to-day scrapped all their warships, took the uniforms off the boys and destroyed all the aeroplanes they possess? I venture to say that inside of thirty days we would have a war -in Europe, and the powers which had not destroyed their means of defence would take advantage of the unpreparedness of England and France, and that war would result to the (Jestructicn of England and France and the breaking down of civilization.
Let us look a little further if I may for a minute or two into the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Speaking here day before yesterday on this question, in opposing. this vote, he was heartbroken over the thought of voting money for such a purpose. Tears coursed copiously down his bronzed and weatherbeaten face as he thought of voting any money for this purpose. He was a veritable apostle of peace- that same hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said, "I could understand the attitude of hon. members in this House, professional militarists, whose job is to keep this sort of thing going." But what about professional bolshevists and agitators, whose job it was to bring about a strike in Winnipeg in
2236	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
1919? The hon. member asked the question, "Against whom are we preparing? Against whom are we arming?" The last world war was fought to make the world safe for democracy, and now the problem is to make democracy safe for the world. That causes a little laughter by certain hon. members in this House. I am glad they feel so highly elated and so humorous over it. But just so long as people, especially members of this House, give expression to the views voiced by the hon. member for Southeast Grey and just so long as we have members of this House educating the school children of this country with the kind of propaganda the hon. member has given out,, just so long as we have members in this House, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague from North Winnipeg, looking with an encouraging eye on such events as the Winnipeg strike, I can give an answer to his question:	Against whom are we arming? It is
not perhaps so much against trouble from outside.. We are not arming against anyone or any nation in particular; but I repeat that it is important that the boys of this country should grow up with their minds filled with the idea that it is up to them as citizens of Canada to be prepared to meet just such contingencies as arose, apparently with the approval of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the Winnipeg strike a few years ago. One can understand the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in opposing the vote. May I call attention to the fact that when that strike took place in Winnipeg the strike committee undertook to control the delivery of milk and bread, they proposed to establish depots which were to give preference to the families of those engaged in the strike, and they were not concerned about others, or about the families of others. On the 17th May the strike committee issued this bulletin:
It is impossible to distinguish between the sick children owing to the fact that it would take days to establish a card system, and reports are fast coming in that children are on the verge of death for the want of milk.
So they issued this bulletin to explain to the strikers that they could no longer follow their former objective of looking after the children of strikers. They said, "We have not time to discriminate, and some of our own children, the children of strikers, are dying of starvation. If we could only discriminate or differentiate, if we had our card system perfected, we need not care about the children of those not striking; they might die of starvation, but we cannot discriminate" And

they issued this bulletin. I wonder if the children of the member for Winnipeg North Centre were suffering from hunger or from the lack of milk. Or were the children of the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) suffering in that regard? Possibly not. Their prominence in the line would see to it that they and their families were looked after. Such things are among the horrors of war- children dying from starvation, and so on. That is a terrible thing. Do not vote anything in this House to provide against contingencies of that kind. But it is all right in the estimation of the hon. member if it occurred as it did in Winnipeg in the strike conditions that existed at that time. Is there any doubt about that?
On the 7th of February the hon. member, speaking in Vancouver, said:
The ultimate object of the federated Labour party is the collective ownership and democratic operation of the means of wealth production. This involves a complete revolution in our whole economic and social structure.
So the object was collective ownership and a complete revolution if necessary by such means as were undertaken in the Winnipeg strike. I am sure hon. members will understand why.
Mr. WOOD8WTORTII: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for a moment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have a right to ask a question. I have also a right to check statements.


Mr. STEVENS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have a right to check statements with regard to myself on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington has not only made the most glaring misrepresentation in regard to the charge-


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, this is not a point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order.


John Wesley Edwards: State your point. You are not going to make another speech until I get through.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman is absolutely correct in his statement as to what I said, or at least I presume I said, and as to my attitude with regard to the necessity for our proceeding along the lines of complete economic changes in our industrial and social system. But he is absolutely wrong in interjecting the means by which he says

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
I propose to secure those changes. I protest that he has no right to put words in my mouth. That is my question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member retract that interjection.


John Wesley Edwards: What interjection have I to retract? I think it is natural that I should ask that question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


John Wesley Edwards: Just possess yourself in patience. If hon. members do not object I can keep this going with you from now until to-morrow, and enjoy it. The hon. gentleman says that he did state what I quoted, that he favoured:
The collective ownership and democratic operation of the wealth of production.
He does not object to that. The other part of the quotation was:
This involves a complete revolution in our whole economic and social structure.
Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he did not use those words?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am quite content with that- statement.


John Wesley Edwards: That is-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I ask that a certain statement made by the hon. member be retracted, to the effect that I have indicated the means by which that could be done-the means used, as he states, in the Winnipeg strike. That is not so. I ask that the statement be retracted.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to retract. I have driven the nail in and I will clinch it on the other side before I get through.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
absolutely deny the statement and I ask that it be retracted. I have a right to make that' request.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman who has the floor made a statement which the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has denied in toto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not'. He said it
was true.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman is showing unnecessary heat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We saw you last year.


Edward Joseph Garland: I ask for
your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us have your Cromwell.


John Wesley Edwards: I would be
the last to ask consideration from the hon. gentleman who bobbed up a moment ago. I am quite capable of taking all the blows as they come, but-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: Rule 19, subsection 249, states:
It' has been formally ruled by speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within his own knowledge must be accepted, but it is not unparliamentary to temporately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts.
I am at a loss to see that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) has said anything which has been directly contradicted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
appeal against your ruling, and-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -I will explain my position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have a right to
do so.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: There is no debate on an appeal against' the ruling of the Chair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have a right to
explain.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman
is within his right in appealing against the ruling of the Chair, but the appeal is not debatable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Vote.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Vote.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Vote.
2238	.	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


John Frederick Johnston: Do I understand the
hon. member Sor Winnipeg North Centre wishes to force his appeal?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
I appeal against the ruling of the Chair.


John Frederick Johnston: To clear the matter
up, I must ask the hon. gentleman clearly to state to the House just what he is appealing against.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Put it in writing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was going to
proceed to do that. I appeal against the ruling of the Chair. I will give the grounds of my appeal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -may I say that is not a correct statement of my position. That is not the point I objected to-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I object that that
is not-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: No discussion can take
place on a ruling of the Chair.


John Frederick Johnston: On what point?


James Shaver Woodsworth: On your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington is in order. I rose to a question of privilege on the ground that the hon. member had alleged that I had made certain statements, which statements I absolutely denied.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You admitted them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member
for Frontenac-Addington declined to take my denial; he refused to retract. The right which I have in this House, Mr. Chairman, a right which I do not intend to surrender, is to insist on a retraction by the hon. gentleman. You deliberately ruled against that right.


James Arthurs: Mr. Chairman, I submit
there is nothing, before the Chair at the present time.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an appeal.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I read a moment ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair and submitted the question to the House in the following terms:
During the debate on item No. 92, being a vote for $300,000 for cadet services, Air. Edwards (Frontenac-Addington) alleged that the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. V\ oodsworth) in a speech at Vancouver stated that there should be a complete change in our economic conditions which might necessitate the taking of revolutionary methods.
JJr- Woodsworth objected to the allegation that lie was ready to take revolutionary methods, and asked that Air. Edwards retract his allegation. The Chairman ruled that Air. Edwards was not bound to make any retraction.
r rom this ruling Air. Woodsworth appealed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.

++YEAS
Alessrs:
Arthurs,
Auger,
Barber,
Bell
(St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Bettez,
Black
(Halifax),
Blanchard,
Boivin,
Bothwell,
Boucher,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,
Brady,
Cahan,
Cannon,
Cantley,
Cardin,
Carmichael,
Casgrain,
Casselman,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Chevrier,
Clark,
Cowan,
Delisle,
Denis
(St. Denis),
Denis
(Joliette), Descouteaux, Deslauriers,
Dickie,
Dionne,
Donnelly,
Dunning,
Edwards
(Frontenac-
Addington),
Edtvards
(Ottawa),	[DOT]
Edwards
(Waterloo South), Elliott,
Embury,
Ernst,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser,
Garland
(Carleton),
Gervais,
Girouard,
Goodison,
Gott,
Grimmer,
Guthrie,
Hanson,
Hodgins,
Ilsley,
Jenkins,
J ohnstone
(Cape Breton North-Victoria),
J ones,
Kaiser,
King	[DOT]
(Kootenay East), King. Alackenzie (Prince Albert), Lacombe,
Ladner,
Laflamme,
Lapierre,
Lavigueur,
Lennox,
Alacdonald
(Glengarry),
AlacDonald
(Cape Breton South), Alacdonald (Kings),
Macdonald
(Richmond-West Cape Breton), Afacdougall,
AlaeLaren,
AlacLean
(Prince),
AIcLean (Alelfort),
AfacNutt,
AIcGibbon,
AIcKenzie,
AlcPhee,
AIcRae,
Manion,
Alatthews,
Alotherwell,
Odette,
Perras,
Pettit,
Pouliot,
Preston,
Prevost,
Price,	(Stormont),
Quinn,	Smoke,
Ralston,	Spence
Rennie,	(Maple Creek),
Rinfret,	Stevens,
Robb,	Stewart
Robinson,	(Edmonton West),
Robitaille,	Stewart
Ross	(Leeds),
(Kingston City),	Stirling,
Rutherford,	Thompson,
Ryerson,	Tolmie,
St.-Pere,	Totzke,
Sanderson,	Tummon,
Senn,	Vallance,
Short,	Veniot,
Simpson,	Verville,
Sinclair	White
(Queens),	(London),
Sinclair	White
(Wellington North),	(Mount Royal),
Smith	Young
(Cumberland),	(Saskatoon).-124.
Smith	
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Adshead,	Hepburn,
Bancroft,	Howden,
Beaubien,	Irvine,
Bissett,	Kellner,
Bourassa,	Kennedy,
Bradette,	Lang,
Brown,	Luchkovich,
Campbell,	Maephail (Miss),
Cayley,	McDiarmid,
Coote,	McMillan,
Evans,	Millar,
Fansher	Milne,
(Last Mountain),	Neill,
Gardiner,	Spencer,
Garland	Steedsman,
(Bow River),	Thorson,
Gersliaw,	Ward,
Glen,	Woodsworth,
Hall,	Young
	(Weyburn).-36.


Hewitt Bostock: The Chairman's decision is sustained.


Mr. GLEN:: Before you leave the chair, I should like to have your direction in this matter.


Hewitt Bostock: There is no appeal after the opinion of the House has been taken.


James Allison Glen: I am rising to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The House is now in committee.

The House again in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


James Allison Glen: I should like to get a direction-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As a matter of
privilege I should like to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
11, 1927
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to
state here and now that if I have said at any time anything which any hon. gentleman in this House states is not in accordance with his own statement, I will be the first to correct what he might regard as a misrepresentation, for I have no wish to violate any rule of the House. I shall place upon Hansard again that part of the quotation which was accepted as correct by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so that we may have the connection. I quoted him as saying-and to this he did not object, although I understand he objected to some conclusions I drew therefrom:
The ultimate object of the federated labour party is the collective ownership and democratic operation of the means of wealth production. This involves a complete revolution in our whole economic and social structure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let it go at that.


John Wesley Edwards: Perhaps
some gentleman did not get the whole of that sentence-"a revolution in the whole economic and social structure". Those are the words I read before, and Hansard will show to-morrow that I read them. Now I want to add to that the rest of the quotation:
The federal authorities control the military and the courts, and labour is not going to get what it wants until it, in some way, gets control of the military and the courts.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I maintain that there is a very direct connection between that statement of the hon. gentleman and the item under discussion, and I think that we can very clearly estimate the reasons why the hon. gentleman is objecting to this estimate which he claims is for militaristic purposes. Naturally in view of that statement he does not want to see the federal authorities control the military and the courts, and he tells us plainly that labour will not get what they want until they get control of the military and the courts. I just want to say in this connection that I do not regard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, or his colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) as in any sense of the word expressing the sentiment of labour in this Dominion. May I add to what I have already read to show the kind of company the hon. gentleman was in, a quotation from a speech by the hon. member for North Winnipeg. Referring to the strike, which he called "a peaceable strike," he said:
We were having beautiful weather, and we were having a beautiful strike, when the citizens butted into the game and began to attempt to assert their authority.
It was very inconsiderate of the citizens of Winnipeg that they should butt in on such

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
a beautiful day when these people were having such a fine time. So I say that -gives us an indication again of what they stand for.
Let me quote another bosom friend, and one who took an active part in the strike, a man by the name of Russell:
The blood that is spilled in Canada will depend on the working class. We must establish the same form of government as they have in Russia so that we may have a Russian democracy here.
"Oh, it is a terrible thing to vote any monev in this House for military purposes, it is all tending in the direction of war," says the bon. gentleman. He objects to that very strongly. But here is one of his bosom friends and colleagues in this strike that took place in Winnipeg, whose words I have quoted- that the blood that is spilled in Canada;" not the blood spilled in war with any other nation, but "the blood that is spilled in Canada."


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


John Wesley Edwards: I am noc
quoting the language of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
ask whether the member for Frontenac has any right to quote a Mr. Russell, and say that he is a 'bosom friend of mine-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That !is not a Ipainit
or order.
Mr. Vi OODS'W ORTH: -and imply-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -that I am in this position. I should like to ask if the hon. gentleman is in order.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the hon. member for Frontenae-Addington is certainly in order in quoting the remarks of a Mr. Russell.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is not the
point again.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not understand
that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre denies that this gentleman made the statement. Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deny the statement that Mr. Russell is a bosom friend of his?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I deny that the
statement at all represents my position.


John Wesley Edwards: Very well, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so far forgets the claims of comradeship as to state emphatically that Russell was not a bosom friend of his, I would accept his statement at once, but I am quoting from a man that he does not repudiate, who TMr. J. W. Edwards.]
was one of h-is -bosom friends during that "peaceable strike" that took place in Winnipeg, when people were starving and infants could not get sufficient milk to nourish them.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is this: What has the Winnipeg strike got to do with the item under consideration?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: A good deal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down; take
your seat.


John Wesley Edwards: I will answer that question in a very few words.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I should like to have a ruling on my point of order, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman
is speaking to the point of order.


John Wesley Edwards: In regard
to the point of order I would merely say that reasons have been advanced why this item should not be voted. I am giving reasons why in my judgment it should be voted, and some of those reasons have been furnished by what has taken place within the bounds of Canada, Surely if anything is pertinent to the question, that is. When we find hon. gentlemen saying that certain parties or classes must, in order to prevail, get control of the military and the courts of this country,
I certainly think we have a right to discuss this vote from the standpoint of maintaining recognized authority in Canada.


John Frederick Johnston: Regarding the point
of order raised by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), since I have been a member of this House it has always been the custom to allow great latitude in discussing the estimates, but I thought both on Saturday and to-day that the discussion in connection with this item was going rather far afield. In my opinion the hon. member who now has the floor has not travelled further afield from the item than other hon. members, but I hope he will confine his further remarks more closely to the item before the committee.


John Wesley Edwards: I want to
quote from one person who took a very prominent part in the Winnipeg strike in order that I may demonstrate to the committee reasons why we must make preparations against such things in the future. I quote from a man by the name of Ivens:
The storm is about to break and this time the hglitning is about to strike upward instead of downward. I think the parliament buildings on Kennedy street would make a good labour temple and the way things are going we will soon move in.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
In such utterances as those reasons are furnished why we should back up a movement which will instil into the minds of the boys of this country some definite ideas as to their responsibilities and duties as Canadian citizens. But since an objection has been raised to my quoting from Ivens and Russell, we had an indication right in this House of the autocratic, if not the militaristic spirit last year when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) himself gloried in the fact that complications arising from the groups in the House at that time enabled him to dictate to the government regarding certain 'legislation. If that is not an indication of militaristic tendencies, it is an indication of an autocratic tendency to which I object and which I think we should endeavour to school our boys in this country to avoid. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in those trying days, when that peaceable strike took place, took very few risks himself. Seeing that he was a Canadian-born citizen he ran no risk of being deported. In regard to going into prison, I quote his statement at Calgary under date of October 29, 1919:
I am not worrying as to whether they keep me in the pen or not. We'll win anyway. I don't think the workers of this country will let us stay' in anyway.
There is not a great deal of courage behind a statement like thatl He wants to gain control of the military and the courts in this country, so we can understand why he is opposed to the item at present before the committee. I do not intend to detain the committee any longer than to say this:	I
quoted from Kipling a little while ago and I have given indications of what Kipling perhaps had in mind when he said:
And the things that you learn
From the yaller and brown
'll 'elp you a lot with the white.
The things we have learned not from "the yaller and the brown," but from white gentlemen who have given their encouragement, at least not their discouragement, to such things as took place in Winnipeg in 1919, will help us a lot in managing the affairs of this country, if we only properly appreciate what they did or attempted to do and keep them in their place.
It has been my misfortune during this debate to refer to another hon. member, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) in a way which evidently that hon. member did not approve. I have nothing whatever to say against the person who represents Southeast Grey. When I refer to that hon. member I am referring to the person who represents the constituency of Southeast Grey, just as I would refer to any other member in this House who represents any other constituency. I am speaking, not against the personality of the one who made the remarks any more than against the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but against the teachings and the general attitude of mind of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, which I think are not in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada. I would not have said so much about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he had confined his remarks to Winnipeg North Centre. But he has been speaking in various parts of this country and I want the people of Canada to understand him as I think I do. I would refer him to a statement which he made as reported on page 1732 of Hansard of last year in reference to singing the national anthem. He said
I remember that I became conscious that the tune was "God Save the King", but I paid no attention.
I represent people of the opposite class. When I recognize the fact that the national anthem is being sung I feel like standing to attention as I believe all loyal subjects will do, and in that way showing my respect for the head of the British empire.
It was my misfortune to bring down upon my head the wrath of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. In that connection I will close by saying that if before I came here this afternoon I did not appreciate the truth of Kipling's statement, I certainly do now when he said:	"The female of the species
is more deadly than the male."


Edward Joseph Garland: Having
listened to the provocative speech of the hon. member (Mr. Edwards, Frontenac), there will be no longer any wonder in the minds of those who have wondered in the past why Ireland was such a distressful isle. The hon. gentleman has undoubtedly ability to stir things up and I think he has succeeded this afternoon. The reverberations of his utterances will not for some time cease to sound throughout this chamber. However, not having been referred to personally by that person I am not going to take issue with him because on this particular item of the estimates, while I may be no more obtuse than others, I did not hear him produce any worthwhile arguments as to why we should keep on increasing our appropriations for cadet training or for other military purposes.
I would like to ask hon. gentlemen and the minister concerned: What after all do we gain by the enormous increase in our military esti-
2242	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
mates this year? I have in my hand an editorial from a humble western newspaper, one of those little things that crop up from time to time showing signs of reasoned intelligence and logic. This paper which is called the Western Producers has this to say on the question of the advantages or disadvantages of continuing to arm. It asks itself: What have we gained by arming? And on the basis of that question it writes this:
It is certain that there is a large and growing sentiment in Canada that the policy of individual nation-arming, with the hope of being able to conquer any possible foe at any time, is a hopeless task, and in contradiction to the spirit of the age. The policy adopted by the Navy League is the old policy governing the conduct of all nations at all times since the beginning of history. It is the policy which has failed to protect past empires and past nations. It is the policy that has brought on war and increased the ferocity of war. It is the policy that has led to intense national pride and consequent international bitterness. It is the policy that has destroyed millions of lives and devastated continents. It is the policy which the Great war was supposed to terminate. It is generally accepted that the policy has worked well for the British Empire-
Hon, gentleman to my right have argued that again and again:
-but even that may be subject to challenge. Great Britain, largely as a result of her naval and military preparations, has been swamped in taxes. It can be imagined that if Great Britain had devoted her brains and her money to social improvement and industrial development-
And I might add international harmony and brotherhood:
-the million or so men now out of work and miserable would he employed and happy.
One million is too small a figure. Other eminent economists have put the figure as high as ten millions out of work and unhappy :
England has protected her shores and her commerce, but she cannot protect millions of her citizens from starvation and abject squalor. Her freedom, as it is called, has been maintained, but the freedom enjoyed by the destitute families of desperate men, is a doubtful asset from the standpoint of the workless.
I ask again, whait do we hope to gain from this additional expenditure on armaments in this country? What excuse there was for Britain does not exist in this country. What excuse Great Britain might have had for adding to her army and navy and increasing her military and naval expenditures year after year does not exist in this country. We are in a geographical position that relieves us from the menace of European conflict. We have no enemies who wish to injure us. We have even the voice of some of the greatest statesmen that England has ever produced in

support of our attitude. No one questions the brilliance and depth of thought of Arthur Ponsonby, who during the MacDonald administration was Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Referring to the dominions, in his book, Now is the Time, he has this to say, and I commend these words to the minister and to the administration at page 82:
Any disposition on the part of our dominions to refuse to join in these wars of European origin will be all to the good. The deadweight of a reasonable pacifism from that quarter might have a moderating effect on the home government.
There is no question about it:
If the jingo does not want the break-up of the empire, he must moderate his tone and abstain from converting inter-governmental disputes into causes of war. In any ease, however, so widely different are the circumstances-
This is the point I want to emphasize:
In any ease, however, so widely different are the circumstances of life and world relations in our dominions, that it can only be a matter of time for them to have complete control over their own destinies. For us to prevent them from reaping the inestimable benefits of peace which their great distance from the European powder magazine would naturally allow them, must indeed, sooner or later, strike both the governments and the peoples of the dominions as intolerable.
There are many other references pf like character in that volume and in other volumes that you can find; they were referred to by the hon. member for Southeast Grey when she was speaking. Lord Grey, Lord Milner, and many other of the greatest thinkers and statesmen that England has produced denounce the madness and insanity of war and of continuing preparations for war, because the result is always and inevitably the same. Some gentlemen sing of glory and victory and triumph. The hon. member for Frontenac this afternoon quoted Kipling. Let me answer him by quoting from one of our Canadian poets, Robert Service, in a volume dedicated to his brother, Lieutenant Albert Service, who was killed in action in France in August, 1916:
Victory! there can be but one, hallowed in every land;
When by the graves of our common dead we who were foemen stand;	.
And in the hush of our common grief hand is tendered to hand.
Triumph! Yes, when out of the dust in the splendour of their release
The spirits of those who fell go forth and they hallow our hearts to peace,
And, brothers in pain, with world-wide voice, we clamour that War shall cease.
Another tribute:
Glory! Ay, when from blackest loss shall be born most radiant gain;

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
When over the gory fields shall rise a star that never shall wane;
Then and then only our dead shall know that they have not fall'n in vain.
When our children's children shall talk of war as a madness that may not be;
When we thank our God for our grief to-day, and blazon from sea to sea
In the name of the dead the banner of Peace .	.	.	. that will be Victory.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, and that is the direction in which I hope every effort of mine will be placed. In a peaceful country like this, without enemies, I do not want to see these estimates increased, for that increase in turn creates a psychology so inevitably drawing the nation sooner or later into military competition and into war itself. Would it not be much better that we should devote the moneys we have to other and worthier purposes? We find, for instance, that it is difficult for the returned men who fought in the last war to get the justice they feel is theirs. The Minister of Finance rose in the House on Saturday morning and referred in a very autocratic manner to the position which he was prepared to take if certain amendments to the Pension Act were not at once accepted. There are other questions that arise. There is need in this country for expenditure on post offices and other public works. There is need for expenditure in many districts that are awaiting development, to add to the prosperity and wealth of this nation, but we have no money for these things, while for war and preparations for war we have millions of dollars to spend.
I was interested enough to place on the order paper some little time ago an order for a return showing the total of appropriations for the fiscal year 1925-1926, both on capital and consolidated accounts. I asked that the figures be tabulated in various divisions showing, first, appropriations relating to past wars; secondly, appropriations relating to future wars, and other divisions showing expenditures on public works, science, social and ethical improvements, and so on. I received that return a little time ago. I have taken some trouble to analyse a part of it; I have not had time to go through the whole of it yet. But I find this: Cut of the 1925-1926 appropriation we spent for past wars, and this will practically be the same as this year, $163,639,165.24. We are now preparing for another war in that we are spending nearly $14,000,000; $13,774,805 to be exact, on military preparations. In order to get a fair idea of how our development is tending, let us see how much is being spent by the federal government on science. The total amount spent in all departments of government on science during that year was
the paltry sum of $2,944,000. How much was spent on social and ethical development? A total of $2,541,000. We spent $14,000,000 preparing for war, and $163,000,000 on account of past wars, and before we have measurably reduced our war debt, before we can spend hardly anything on science or on social and ethical development we are proceeding to add another $3,000,000 in one year to the military expenditures of this country. I do not think there is any defence that can be put up to support the hon. minister in the increase he is asking in these estimates this year, and I hope that when he speaks he will give us really worth while reasons that will appeal to common sense why this increase is being asked for.
I will give him another reason why there should not be an increase in these estimates. I have in my hand the Canadian Forum, one of our brilliant little publications in Toronto, whence other thoughts come than those emanating from the hon. member for Fron-tenac. One of the editors of this publication indicates that there is a psychological effect which is at once developed the moment we become a busily arming nation. He puts it this way:
But the cardinal argument against Canada, at this of all times, beginning to build up defensive forces is psychological. The success of the league is bound up with the cause of disarmament. It is true that as yet little has been done towards the limitation of armaments, and it is possible that the next disarmament conference will be little more successful than other attempts in the past.
But the forces working towards disarmament are strong and confident; we believe that they will triumph, because they represent the spirit of the age; but even those who have not that faith must admit that there are good grounds for hope that they prevail, although their first victory may not be until the time when France is faced with the near prospect of a Germany free to arm against her-and that time is not quite yet. At the present time and under these circumstances if Canada were to take measures towards arming herself, which she never previously considered, the adverse moral effect on world opinion might but out of all proportion to the importance of the measures taken.
I think that is only too true a statement. The adverse pyschological effect on the work of those who at the present time are pressing forward in the cause of peace is something the administration of this country might well pay some attention to.
Even if those measures were merely to make a direct contribution towards Britain's forces which would relieve her and leave the total British armament unchanged, the facts would be distorted by every enemy of the commonwealth and the league, perfidious Albion would again be painted in sinister colours on the front

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
pages of every Anglophobe news-sheet, and the forces working for disarmament would suffer a definite reverse.
The administration might consider the value of that argument. To me it is a very powerful one. One of the greatest contributions this country can make to the cause of peace at the distance we are placed from the continent of Europe, free from the constant touch of hate that influences the feelings of our statesmen on the other side of the water, free to view matters in a broader way and clearer light and weigh up incidents that occur from time to time, and free as we are to bless ourselves with a peaceful future, is to encourage disarmament by our own example and so add weight to the efforts of others in foreign countries in this great cause. It is to be condemned that a country like thi3, with such vast possibilities for peace advancement in its own home, should now, in this of all years, increase to such an enormous extent the armaments of this country. There are many deplorable things coming from Toronto, but some good things too.


James Arthurs: Has the hon. member
considered the present naval armament of Canada, consisting of one or two mine sweepers? Do you base any argument along that line?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
think we need worry in the least about our navy and our army in this country unless it be demonstrated that the purpose can be served in line with the argument used by the hon. member for Frontenac. I fail to see why we should carry a burdensome, top-heavy army or naval force.
I have in my hand a communication which I received this morning from Toronto,
headed-
Fellowship of Canadian Youth for Peace.
When I read dt I had a glowing feeling of satisfaction. I felt that there was creeping into the people a realization of their destiny, and the need of the development of a desire for peace in the country. After all human nature is not what it is said to be. The healthy boy does not want to go out and kill. -All he does is to arm himself with a wooden sword because he sees pictures of armed soldiers, he sees pictures of men on horseback gaily decked in glittering war array. It is not with a desire to kill that he marches round. It is not to train for future conflict. But if you are going to band your boys together in the way proposed, give them real guns and show them the easy way in which they can destroy life, pleading speciously that IMr. E. J. Garland.]
they should only use these guns when occasion arises, you are creating the probability of the very thing we desire to avoid. A letter I have received this morning is in the following
terms:
I have the honour of sending you a copy of a resolution, which I am sending to the Minister of Militia on behalf of the Fellowship of Canadian Youth for Peace (Toronto Branch).
We hope you will give this communication your earnest consideration.
Yours sincerely,
(Mrs) Amy Guyot,
Secretary.
And the letter to the minister reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
With an ever increasing number of people becoming alive to the fact that the greatest and most important task of our generation is the abolition of war; and as in the words of the League of Nations Union, "armaments are the chief obstacle to goodwill and peace among the nations," this fellowship views with alarm the increase in the Military estimates for this country of over $3,000,000.
We believe that the only effective "defense" is by the promotion of international understanding and goodwill and suggest that all such money should be used for this purpose.
On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Fellowship of Canadian Youth of Peace (Toronto Branch).
Yours sincerely,
(Mrs.) Amy Guyot,
Secretary.
I add that to my contribution to Hansard as an indication of the development of a splendid psychological condition in the minds of the youth, at least, of one part of our country.
I now come to another stage in this matter. I have no doubt hon. gentlemen who support these estimates will support them for many reasons, among others those argued by Premier Bruce of Australia at the Imperial conference, and renewed by him when he visited this country shortly afterwards. He was eloquent about it when he came to Canada to instruct us as to what we ought to do as our contribution. Not having had an opportunity of concluding my speech on the Imperial conference to date, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the speech he made in Toronto in which he deliberately and very splendidly castigated the Prime Minister of Australia for the unquestioned impertinence that that gentleman displayed when he came here to tell us what we ought to do in the matter of empire defence.


Mr. JACOBS:: I hope the Prime Minister did not put it that way.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not worried about the way he put it; he put it

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
very well. I listened in over the radio. With that part of the address I was in agreement. Mr. Bruce's argument was the imperialistic argument. He said that we had to make a contribution, give them support and throw our lot in with the rest of the empire in the matter of armaments.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to finish my remarks, the hon. gentleman can speak later. He then proceeded to offer a great many figures. For example, he quoted Great Britain showing that the total per capita expenditure on war-that is the army and navy-was 51s. Id., but Canada was contributing only 5s. 10d., as compared with 51s. Id. He rebuked us very much for that, especially when he came proudly to announce that Australia was contributing 27s. 2d. for 1925-26, England 12s. lid., and South Africa 2s. 6d. I am glad to see that one country was slightly below us, or we would have got a dreadful spanking from Premier Bruce when he was here. If hon. members would look at Premier Bruce's figures from the point of view which, in my opinion, they should be looked at, they would not find so much to complain about, nor could we. Does anyone realize what it should cost us to maintain an armed force in order to be secure? Of course it is a form of insurance, just as we insure our buildings against fire and just as we insure our lives against death. We are endeavouring to insure against some danger. Does it not follow then that the nation in the greatest danger, in constantly present danger, would naturally pay a very greatly increased premium over those which would be paid by the nation that was not in any way in danger, or with, the possibility of danger so slight that it could be regarded as being almost negligible? It appeals to me that if more security is the basis for our armament this contribution Great Britain makes for her security, situated as she is in the midst of national hates, is not at all too high. On the other hand I refuse to admit that the contribution we make to our security is too low. In support of that I should like to quote from an article that appeared in the Manchester Guardian Weekly of Friday, March 18, 1927. It is headed, The Burden of Armaments-The Premiums paid for National Security, and is written by Walter G. Layton, editor of the Economist. The article is well worth reading. Mr. Layton has this to say:
It is surely very unsatisfactory that the removal of the menace of a world conflagration should not have been followed by a much greater easement of the burden of armaments 32649-142
than this. There is no way in which the taxpayer can hope to get a more substantial measure of relief than by a drastic cut in the scale of armaments as a result of the international conferences shortly to be held.
In this connection it is worth while pointing out the extent to which different countries are carrying the burden of armaments. According to the most recent and authoritative estimate, the national income of Great Britain in 1924 and 1925	(1926 was, of course, abnormal)
amounted to about 4,200 millions. Our expenditure on war preparations (including certain items carried on other votes than those of the three fighting services) amounted to well over 120 millions. In other words, the premium paid for insuring national security was three per cent.	[DOT]
Three per cent of the income was devoted as a form of premium to guarantee security in so far as armaments would do it; that arming does ever guarantee security is again debatable.
This is a slight improvement on 1913, when the premium worked out at three and a half per cent, but is much worse than in the last three decades of the nineteenth century, when a premium of about two per cent was all that was considered necessary. (It should be remembered, in passing, that while this is a perfectly reasonable method of representing the burden of armaments on the population of Great Britain, it is not a true index of the military effort of the British Empire; for the figure would work out at a much lower rate for the empire as a whole, seeing that the dominions are taxed for war purposes at a very much lighter rate than the mother country-namely one-half per cent to three-quarters per cent).
Now we come to this point:
At the present moment France is paying a premium of some three and a half per cent, with a war budget of nearly 5i milliard francs, as compared with a national income which M. Berenger put at 130 milliard francs, but is probably nearer 160 milliard francs. Italy is paying a security premium of over four per cent with a war preparation budget of over four milliard lire and a national income of about 100 milliard lire. The figures for Germany are in striking contrast, and her war expenditure, at 560 million marks out of a national income estimated by the Berlin Chamber of Commerce at 35,000 million marks, is equal to a premium of li per cent.
Of course, we all know why that is. Germany is not allowed under treaties to arm, on the scale she would like to. Otherwise I have no doubt the premium in her case would be higher.
This national income figure is, however, probably on the low side, and the premium therefore is rather less than this figure. The low-est premium of all the great powers is that of the United States,-
And this is where the comparison comes in. -which works out at about one per cent, the national income being at least 6,000 million dollars and defence expenditure under 600 million dollars.



Supply*-Defence-Cadet Services
The premiums naturally vary-like all forms of insurance premium-with the degree of risk, real or supposed, to which the insurer is subject; but it is fairly evident that the heaviest burden is being shouldered by those least able to bear it, and for this reason there is a real inducement for the nations of Europe to make a substantial reduction.
Now you have this situation. You have Italy with a four per cent' war premium, England with a three and a half per cent war premium and France with a four to five per cent war premium. Why? Because they are all centered in a seething caldron of hate, they are in the heart of a continent where the unfortunate injustices of past wars and past treaties have inflamed race against race until there is no hope of peace while that hate continues. This is in direct contrast' with the conditions on this continent, where we are free from that form of hate and are living in amity with the United States and the world. We are an industrious, peaceable people, and desire to remain so. I think to-day the greatest power in the world is the United States of America, and it pays a war premium of one per cent. Why? Because relatively she is secure in her geographic position. Then let us consider what should be the policy of Canada. Why should we be asked to pay the higher premium when we possess a security certainly equal to that of the United States of America?
I am satisfied because of our geographical position. We have the friendliness of those who are on one side of us, and our relations with world countries are always friendly- unless we happen to have been involved in unfortunate affairs of the mother country. We are not a quarrelsome people, we wish to trade with other countries, not to fight with them, and so long as Canadian resourcefulness and progressive thought continue, there is in my opinion no excuse, certainly no reason, for increasing in one single year our defence estimates by some $3,000,000. Nor do I think we are justified in adding to the armaments of this country for almost any reason whatever. I find hon. gentlemen t'o my right, and indeed a few opposite-not so many as there used to be, although there are still too many-prone to argue that after all human nature being what it is we must' prepare for war. They tell us, You cannot stop people wanting to fight. I am not so sure. I will admit that if the member for Frontenac-Ad-dington is around anywhere it sort' of helps to liven things up a little bit and we may not be able to keep out of the scrap as long as we otherwise would. But I cannot admit that human nature is the secret of these war preparations. I have watched children, including
tMr. E. J. Garland.]
my own, long enough to realize that there is no instinct in them to quarrel, no desire to kill one another. They like to play with flowers and with their fellow boys and girls, they love t'he sunshine and generally have a good time. What changes them is enrolling them into this sort of cadet training where they drill in stiff military attitudes and t'he Prussian spirit is developed in them. Then the little child becomes imbued with the war slogans, military jargon, the dreadful spirit of war that poisons life for him, and that some day or other he spews up in gasping death on the battlefield. That is the pitiful thing of it all. No one has put what I feel about this in better words than Shelley in his immortal Queen Mab, where he has this to say:
*-yet fear not;
This is no unconnected misery,
Nor stands uncaused, and irretrievable. Man's evil nature, that apology Which kings who rule, and cowards who crouch set up
For their unnumbered crimes, sheds not the blood
Which desolates the discord-wasted land. From kings, capitalists, and statesmen, war arose,
Whose safety is man's deep unbettered woe, Whose grandeur his debasement. Let the axe Strike at the root, the poison-tree will fall; And where its venomed exhalations spread Ruin, and death, and woe, where millions lay Quenching the serpent's famine, and their bones
Bleaching unburied in the putrid blast,
A garden shall arise, in loveliness Surpassing fabled Eden.
He turns then to the children and says again:
Nature! No!
Kings politicians, and statesmen, blast the human flower
Even in its tender bud; their influence darts Like subtle poison through the bloodless veins Of desolate society. The child, [DOT]	/
Ere he can lisp his mother's sacred name, Swrel!s with the unnatural pride of crime, and lifts
His baby-sword even in a hero's mood.
This infant-arm becomes the bloodiest scour-age
Of devastated earth: whilst specious names, Learned in soft childhood's unsuspecting hour, Serve as the sophisms with which manhood dims
Bright Reason's ray, and sanctifies the sword Upraised to shed a brother's innocent blood.
I wish, Mr. Chairman, I could have put into such immortal words my feelings in this matter. I will, however, express my opinion by voting in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Southeast Grey.


James Layton Ralston: I would like to say just
a word in view of what has already been said by other hon. members. I do not think the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-

Supply-Dejence-Cadet Services
phail) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswcurth) or the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) can claim to have a monopoly of those sentiments which have been enunciated1 ever since the sermon on the mount.


Edward Joseph Garland: Enunciated but never practised.


James Layton Ralston: That is just the point;
my hon. friends have their heads in the clouds, while I want to keep our feet on the earth.


Edward Joseph Garland: With an
additional S3,000,000.


James Layton Ralston: I will give my hon. friend a chance for discussion later.


Peter McGibbon: Don't do it; he never
lets anyone interrupt him.


Edward Joseph Garland: I beg your
pardon for the interruption.


James Layton Ralston: I have listened for two
days to the enunciation of principles to which I believe every hon. member of this House can subscribe, in relation to the horrors of war and the desire for peace, and I am sure there are hon. members of this House within reach of my voice who are just as anxious for peace and just, as intimate with the horrors of war as are any of tho hon. gentlemen who have so far spoken, one of whom made a magnificent contribution to the war. I refer to the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), to whom I 'wish to give great credit.
I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I could make the speech which my hon. friend has made against war and in favour of peace, if I had his eloquence and his quotations, in the hope that the world would realize that seme day we must adopt this principle; and the next moment I could ask this House to vote the small amount which is being asked by the defence department of this country, because I believe the two things go hand in hand, and because I do believe the hon. members of this House and the people of this country do not quite realize exactly what is the duty which has been imposed upon your humble servant in filling this portfolio. I am presiding over the Department of National Defence, not over a department which has to do with the propagation of the principle of the abolition of war, and1 I do resent the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he said we have professional militarists whose job is in this thing, men who are at it in season and out of season, trying in every way to use their influence to perpetuate war. I say to my hon. friend that I do not believe that to be the
case in the Dominion of Canada, and that 1 have yet to meet a professional militarist. I say to him, Mr. Chairman, and to other hon. gentlemen, in all sincerity, that I believe at least ninety-nine per cent of the men in the Department of National Defence and in the militia generally throughout Canada would be delighted if the time came when this country could do without its defence forces and disband them entirely. I want to say further that so far as I am concerned this portfolio o: national defence is in the hands of my leader and of His Excellency the Governor General, because I do not propose to be here any longer than is absolutely necessary, in my humble judgment, to see that we have at least some form of defence such as that which is regarded as necessary having regard to conditions in the world.
Now let us get our heads out of the clouds, because I think we all admit and agree to the principles which my hon. friend has enunciated. Personally I was guilty on one occasion of using a good many quotations and a good deal of eloquence-and I was just as earnest and sincere as my hon. friend from Bow River-in delivering an address on international goodwill, and I say that I can occupy this portfolio and ask this House to vote these estimates while I still believe in every principle which I enunciated at that time. International goodwill is not being disturbed at all because some nations see fit to put a lock upon their front doors in the shape of a defence force within those particular countries. International goodwill is going to be maintained and furthered when we see to it that the will of war is uprooted from the hearts and minds of our people, and when we see to it that the things we have to say now, which perhaps are said thoughtlessly but are nevertheless said, do not engender hate and suspicion in the minds of those about whom we speak. We are too free in making snap judgments about other nations; that is one of the things working against international goodwill, and when our people realize that we can live together without criticizing one another, and that each nation can have its own peculiar customs without being made the butt of ridicule and criticism from other nations, then it seems to me we will have laid at least one stone of the foundation of international goodwill. So, Mr. Chairman, although I speak very earnestly, I believe sincerely that when I come to parliament-and I am going to discuss the whole subject if I may be permitted to do so, for a few minutes, since that is what other members have done-and instead of

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
busily arming, as my good friend from Bow River suggests, I ask this House to be good enough to grant to His Majesty a sufficient sum of money to provide one permanent force soldier for every 3,000 inhabitants of the Dominion of Canada; when I ask that they grant a sufficient sum of money to provide for the training for about nine days of one citizen out of every 300 in this country, it seems to me that after all the charge of being busily arming can be harly sustained. It seems to me that I have been about as modest in my requests as I can be, and notwithstanding the opinions which have been very freely expressed around this chamber by those who, if they were asked, would not sincerely pretend to be military experts and who do not claim to have studied international conditions in order to know exactly the circumstances surrounding us which make it necessary for us to arm-notwithstanding these opinions I do prefer to take, as I should, the opinions of those who advise me in connection with this matter, and they advise me that this is the minimum which any self-respecting and self-reliant country in our position should expect to (provide for its defence services.
Now let me give the figures whish were mentioned by the hon. member for Bow River, and when he talks about busily arming let us just compare ourselves for a moment with the other countries of the world. I know that in continental countries conditions are distinctly different, because of their situation, but I think we should know exactly where we stand in relation to the other countries of the world. A comparison will show that the percentages of the total budgets of the different countries, together with the amount per head devoted to their defence forces, is as follows:
	Percentage	Amount
	of budget	per head
France	. 15	$5 70Italy	. 19	4 90Belgium	. 81	2 61Japan	. 271	3 93Germany	. 91	2 28Russia	. 16i	2 37Spain	. 26	5 67Turkey	[DOT] 34J	3 38United States.. .	. 10	5 11My hon. friend	made some	reference
the insurance premium of one per cent; he will see now that 16 per cent of the total expenditure of the United States is devoted to the defence forces of that country. Further comparisons are as follows:

Great Britain..	Percentage of Budget . . 144	Amount per head $13 17Australia	. . 10}	6 46.New Zealand..	.. 4J	4 00South Africa. .	. . 31	2 86Canada	. . 3Vio	1 45Now let me tell	my hon. friend	somethin;
else. We have talked a lot about the professional militarists of this country, although I think perhaps only one hon. member used the expression. But, when my hon. friends speak in that way I do not think they s.re being altogether fair to the men who make up these defence forces, so-called, of this country, and I want hon. members to know what is being done in that regard. I realize these things now as I did not realize them before, because I want to tell lion, members quite frankly that I was not a member of the militia; I knew nothing of the non-permanent active militia, and was not aware of the interest which was taken in these matters by the citizens of this country generally. When I began to make inquiries I found that the men who were in command of or who were officers of units, and even those who were simply friendly to units, were giving freely of their time and money in order that the interests of these units might be secured and that the support of the men might be maintained. I found further, strange to relate, that in a great many instances the money which is being voted for the pay of these officers and men of the militia was not being drawn by them at all, but was taken by them and put into this pool, into a regimental fund, as they said in order to provide comforts and attractions for the men. I know of one particular commanding officer who spent no less than $3,000-he is only commanding the battalion for three years-in order to take his men on a little trip, and I understand, he proposes to do the same this year. So I had a questionnaire sent out to the various districts to find out how general this thing was. I have before me a table 'giving the result and, to put it briefly, it is this: We have in Canada altogether, in artil- ' lery, cavalry, infantry, signal corps, and everything, 870 units. In 219 of these units 24 per cent, both officers and men, pool all their pay and do not draw any of it at all. In 57 of the units the pay is pooled by the officers, while they draw nothing whatever themselves. In some other units part of the pay of the officers and men is pooled, running from five per cent to one hundred per cent. That applies to 79 units in all, and in 47 units, that is 5J per cent, a portion of the pay of the officers is pooled; making, in all, a total of nearly 50 per cent of the militia units of Canada in which

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
the officers and men pool the whole or a portion of their pay. I do feel that people ought to realize that: They ought to recognize that there are men in this country just as honest and sincere in their views and just as desirous of the peace of the world as any others, who feel that they should give their time and their money in order that Canada may have, in some respects, what they consider to be an adequate defence force, and I pointed out the limitations of that force, which I do not think hon. members of this committee perhaps realize.	'
Now I have spoken of the general subject, and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) asked me to give some brief particulars of the matter in connection with which there are increases. I will just run over them in the hope that perhaps it may supply hon. members with information so as to avoid discussion when the items come up; but I assure hon. members that I shall be only too happy, if they think it necessary, to give all the information which can be given in connection with them when the proper -time arrives. With regard to the $100,000 increase for cadet services, I have already stated that it is required to provide for the authorization of 49 cadet units which have been organized for the past year. Sixteen of these are in the province of Quebec, which province by the way has a considerable majority of the units in Canada, and splendid units they are. The increase of $100,000 is in order to provide for the expenses of these units for the past year, and to furnish money to meet their expenses during the present year as well as to meet the normal increase in the cadet service. It is for that purpose and for nothing else.
The increase of $237,000 in connection with engineer services and works-I am mentioning only the larger items-is in order that we may do what is absolutely necessary to preserve our property in this country, and see that it does not go into absolute rack and ruin. I have had a statement prepared showing the value of the property which we hwe in Canada, and I find that there is 2i per cent, or somer thing like that, of an allowance for depreciation in connection with the juildings which the department own. I want to say that the vote which I felt I should ask for was an amount of over $1,000,000; but I realize that the House has not been making large votes in this respect, and I endeavoured to cut it down in every way possible. Therefore the amount in question has been finally agreed upon and submitted to the House for its approval. In connection with military property-I may as well mention the fact now-
I find there is a considerable amount which I think can be disposed of. I shall be only too happy to take the matter up during the coming summer, but I want hon. members of the committee to remember that although the Department of National Defence itself owns the property, the moment it is disposed of the money goes into the hands of the Receiver General. I am endeavouring personally to get in touch with the whole situation as to the property of the department, which runs straight across the country, and will then come to a sound conclusion, in the light of the best advice I can get, as to the advisability of retaining some of these properties.
With regard to general stores, the increase there is logical. It is due to the fact that the stores of clothing we had during the war are now practically exhausted, and we have to buy more. It is not because we are preparing for another war; it is only that we may have sufficient stock in order to outfit the force that we have.
The next increase is in connection with the non-permanent active militia, and the increase has to do with the training of the force. I have felt, and I think it was generally felt throughout Canada, that the most which this country can hope to do is to train a small skeleton of officers and non-commissioned officers. We cannot hope to train any more, a very large body of men, and we are not trying to do that. But we have to have enough men to make a camp, and1 to make it possible for officers and non-commissioned officers to train, and to have their training made effective. A'l'l over this country there are rural units that have not been to camp for two or three years. We cannot send them to camp-I am sorry the vote does not permit of that-but I am endeavouring to make some further provision so that, a limited number of men may possibly be taken into camp for a short time, and hope to be able to include in that some of the rural units. With that object in view I am hoping to look over the list of units. I do not want hon. members to carry this statement home to their constituents and say that this or that unit is going to be disbanded. Whatever is done in connection with this matter, although we have a most modest force, should be done along the lines of efficiency and I would rather have an infinitesimally small force, possessing efficiency and some esprit de corps, than spread1 my butter too thin all over the Dominion. The increase in this vote is to have a limited

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
number of men in camp and make it possible for a certain number of officers and noncommissioned officers to be there.
As regards the increase to the naval service, I will give the details when that comes up. I will also deal with the vote for the air force in the same way. I will merely point out to the hon. member for Bow River that with respect to the 83,000,000 about which he is so shocked, 82,000,000 of it is taken up in the increase in the air force vote, and the greater part of it is in connection with what we call civil operations.	When the time
comej I will endeavour to go over these items with any hon. gentleman who cares to have the information. I have gone over them a/lready with the officers of the department. I have had the recommendation of the civil committee on air operations, and I think we shall be able to satisfy the House that that vote is necessary and sound, and is in the interest of this country.
Now I come back to the cadet vote. My hon. friend for Southeast Grey suggests the cadet movement began with Sir Frederick Borden. But it really dates back to 1862, and at the time Sir Frederick Borden was head of the department over which I have the honour now to preside, there were 100 cadet units in the Dominion. Very soon after that what we know as the Strathcona trust, to which the hon. member for Southeast Grey referred on Saturday, was formed. The Strathcona trust was created to carry out the provisions of a trust fund established by the late Lord Strathcona, amounting first to 8400,000 and afterwards to $500,000, and these wore the objects of the. fund as set out by the trustees:
Not only to improve the physical and intellectual capabilities of the children by inculcating habits of alertness, orderliness and prompt obedience, but also to bring up the boys to patriotism, and to a realization that the first duty of a free citizen is to be prepared to defend his country.
I could go on and read further objects, but that is sufficient for my purpose. I am glad to say that my native province of Nova Scotia was the first to combine cadet training and physical training, and that was before the Strathcona trust, was organized. Immediately Sir Frederick Borden sent out a circular under date of November 10, 1909, in wlhich he invited the cooperation of the school authorities in the various provinces.
This circular reads:
With regard, however, to the question of military drill and rifle practice for boys, a somewhat important misapprehension appears to exist in certain quarters, to the effect that the Strathcona Trust is designed to be used as

the vehicle for the introduction of compulsory military training into the schools of the Dominion. I am directed to state, emphatically, that such is in no wise Lord Strathcona's intention, nor that of the executive council of the trust.
As stated above, one of Lord Strathcona's main objects is to inculcate a spirit of patriotism in the youths of this country, together with a realization of their duty as free citizens in its defence, and, consequently, their training in the rudiments of a soldier's art is, in his opinion, desirable, in order that they may be able to give proper expression to that spirit in time of national danger; but His Lordship does not seek to insist that this military training should be made compulsory. All he asks is that the government of a province should undertake to encourage, as far as possible, the formation of cadet corps and the practice of rifle shooting in the schools under its control, leaving it to the parents themselves to decide whether their sons should join these corps. The proper military instruction and care of the cadets corps when formed is a matter which falls within the province of the Department of Militia. The Department of Militia, however, asks that the educational authorities will encourage, or, at least, place no obstacle in the way of their teachers becoming officers of their school cadet corps.
He goes on with the other conditions What was the result?	I have under my
hand agreements or memoranda signed by the educational authorities of every province in the Dominion except Quebec, and as regards Quebec I have under my hand the minutes of the Protestant committee of tlhe Council of Public Instruction and a Catholic committee of the Council of Public Instruction, both agreeing to the terms and agreeing to carry them out. Quebec has made the greatest strides of any province in the Dominion in regard to this matter of cadet training. Here is a memorandum signed by the provincial authorities of Manitoba and dated at Winnipeg, March 22, 1911:
The education department encourages the formation of cadet corps including the practice of rifle shooting under suitable conditions by the older boys, in all educational establishments under its control. A boy, however, before joining a cadet corps must first obtain his parents' or his guardian's consent.
Later the province of Manitoba sent a letter in which they said that they left it free to the individual school to make the application, but tlhey did not in any way suggest that the terms of this agreement were to be repudiated. Further than that I may say in connection with Manitoba that Mr. Fletcher, I think the deputy minister of education, is a member of tlhe committee of the Strathcona Trust which adminsters this trust from time to time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister mind reading the letter from Manitoba?

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


James Layton Ralston: Certainly not. The letter reads:
I am instructed by the minister to acknowledge receipt of your letters of August 29 and September 4, enclosing copies of circulars sent out by the district cadet officer at Winnipeg under dates of February 27 and March 27, 1925: and to advise in connection with the letter addressed to the principals of schools, that we take the position that the establishing of cadet training is entirely a matter for the various school boards of the province to determine for themselves; the consent of the parents in all cases we presume to be implied; consequently exception is taken to paragraph in the letter circular beginning "The Department of Education has endorsed the movement". We kindly ask you to have this paragraph withdrawn or in the alternative, the circular to the principals in its entirety be withdrawn.
Your truly,
(Signed) R. Fletcher, Deputy Minister of Education.
Mr. WOODSWORTH * I think the minister would say there is distinctly a repudiation, of the original agreement.


James Layton Ralston: Absolutely not. I will
quote again from the letter I have just read: Consequently exception is taken to paragraph in the letter circular beginning "The Department of Education has endorsed the movement."
The school authorities had under their hand the agreement of 1911 in which they say they encouraged cadet training. They say now: We leave to each school to do as it thinks tost. I. point out further for the information of my hon. friend1 that Mr. Fletcher, who is the Deputy Minister of Education of Manitoba, is on the Strathcona board-which is the trust which encourages cadet training and provides grants for that purpose, and which says that the first duty a boy should be taught is to defend his country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is he there as
Deputy Minister of Education?


James Layton Ralston: I understand he is. I
understand three members of the committee are from the Educational department. I have from I think every other province the same sort of provision and this has worked out exceedingly well. Let me mention to my hon. friend who is interested in Manitoba the fact that in that province I think only last year two of the schools on the honour roll, not simply for Canada but for the empire, were from Manitoba. I am referring to the cadet corps. They were No. 897, the tenth Canadian Army Veterinary Corps, Cadet Corps, and No. 230, St. Margaret's Church cadet corps, Winnipeg. I am wrong in saying that they are school corps; they are cadet corps connected with those two institutions, but they are cadet corps in Winnipeg.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any cadet corps connected with the public schools in Winnipeg?


James Layton Ralston: I have not the list.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there a single
cadet corps in connection with the public schools of Winnipeg?


James Layton Ralston: I thought my hon. friend heard me. I said: I have not the list. I have no idea in the world. Perhaps my hon. friend could tell me. Further, one cadet unit in Manitoba won the Imperial Challenge Shield, another won the Governor General's trophy, and twenty schools in Manitoba were recommended for the efficiency grant of the Strath-cona trust.
What is the nature of the work which is being done? The Department of National Defence provides an instructor who with the consent of the school authorities goes to the normal schools and teaches physical training to the teachers attending those schools. Those teachers go to the various schools for which they are qualified and they carry on physical training in those schools. There have been thus trained 65.000 teachers and at the present time 6,144 teachers are being instructed. That work is being carried on in every province in Canada, and of the amount which the hon. member for Southeast Grey suggests should be struck out I have counted up and I find that more than $300,000 is for the physical training side of this work. Some of the appropriation of course is a joint vote for the benefit of both the cadet training and the physical training.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In connection with
the training of teachers, I notice that in normal schools statements regarding physical exercises are signed by officers of the district. Are all the teachers taking training in the normal schools included in those who are being trained by the military department?


James Layton Ralston: I am sure I cannot tell
my hon. friend. [DOT]


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister was
speaking of the training of teachers. Does that include normal students?


James Layton Ralston: It does. But my hon.
friend asked me if all trained. I cannot tell him, except that I understand in Ontario- and I presume he is speaking of Ontario- not only do they provide for physical training of teachers but they may make grants by statute for cadet corps.

Supply-Defonce-Cade t Services


James Shaver Woodsworth: And the normal
students are included in the six thousand.


James Layton Ralston: I assume so. These
teachers are trained by the physical training instructors supplied by the department, and time and time again it has been suggested that the physical training should be taken over by the provincial authorities, but the provincial authorities realize quite clearly, I think, that it is not possible to provide the same efficiency in the matter of physical training as is provided in this way.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey held up on Saturday morning as a desirable system of physical training the Swedish system. I have in my mind the syllabus for physical training in the schools as taught by the physical instructors, and I want to assure my hon. friend from Southeast Grey that what is being taught is the Swedish system, prepared and approved by the British Board of Education, and adopted by every province in Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: But why link it up
with militarism? I want physical training, and I am not objecting to the amount of money spent on physical training.


James Layton Ralston: I understood that the
hon. member moved to strike out all but one cent of this vote, $300,000 of which is for physical training.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: They are so badly
mixed, one cannot tell.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend they are not mixed in any way. I have stated what the provinces are doing. We are providing physical training, and we will encourage cadet training, and any school that wants cadet training will get it and any school that does not want it, will not get it. Any parent who wants his child to take cadet training may have him take it, so long as there is a corps in the school, and if the parent does not want his child to take it, that is all right. Speaking as one parent who had a boy in the cadet corps, I can only say that I am very proud to have had him there, and I do not feel that he received any injury from such training, but on the contrary was greatly benefited by it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Will the minister
admit that the fact of the instructor of cadets receiving two dollars per head for each cadet up to fifty, and one dollar for each cadet over that number, will have the effect of increasing the numbers in the cadet oorps throughout Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I will not admit anything about it; I do not know. I would not think that the increase of $50,000 in this vote over the $450,000 which was the vote in 1923 is a very substantial increase, in spite of the inducement my hon. friend suggests.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is it or is it not true that the department is doing everything it can to stimulate cadet training throughout Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I have no idea of what they do except what I have stated. They do provide cadet instructors, and in each district a cadet officer, who goes around to the schools where there are cadet corps. I presume they expect that the provinces will carry out their part of the bargain to encourage a cadet corps, but I have not heard of anyone being taken by the neck and forced into a cadet corps, nor have I heard of any province having physical training refused to it because it did not form a cadet corps. The provinces have got the benefit of all that, and I think my hon. friend will be the first to acknowledge that the physical training given has been splendid in every respect. That is the way this cadet corps works, and that is the service which the department performs. We are endeavouring to carry out the ideas of the founder of that trust. For myself, as a parent,
I cannot see anything wrong with cadet training. I want to see every side of our national life, and I do not want to do anything which will inspire the spirit of militarism in our schools or in anybody else, but I do want to suggest that this word "militarism" has been pretty badly manhandled in this country for some time now. Militarism means the man or the country who puts the social and economic and commercial side of life second, and the military side first, and I have yet to find very much of that spirit in the Dominion of Canada. I think it is because of the free and, I think, improper use of that word, that some of us have got very far on the wrong track. I have seen the cadet corps; everybody has seen them, and I believe that the boys of the cadet corps are 'clean-limbed and cleareyed, boys who would tell the truth, boys who are alert and will answer the call promptly, boys who have respect for authority and have some idea of obedience, boys who are polite. I do not think there is anything rough or Prussian-that word has been used to-day-about them. It seems to me it is pretty good training for any citizen, but any parent is at liberty to differ with me and say to the cadet instructor: I do not want my boy to take up that training. When we have

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
that situation, where it is optional with the parent, optional with the school, and optional with the province, and when the physical training accounts for pretty nearly three-fifths of this vote, I submit that the criticisms which have been offered have not perhaps the foundation which they might appear to have had when lion, members first addressed this House.
I just want to say, in conclusion, in connection with this whole matter that I am trying without offending the feelings of anybody to make the department as efficient as possible in a small and modest way, and I do commend this vote personally to hon. members for their support.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: With the explanation and defence of these estimates that has been made by the Minister of National Defence I find myself in perfect accord. As one who has had actual experience of war, I want to assure the members of this House that I do not stand and speak as I shall do this afternoon in favour of cadet training because I love war. I do not at any time expect that my course will lead any boy or any citizen of this country to undertake tasks or training or sacrifice with the spirit of hate, murder or destruction in his heart. Those of us who have seen three or four years of actual warfare resent very much the words which have been used in this chamber to the effect, that these votes are passed especially for the preservation and maintenance of men with jobs. I want to say that the men at the head of that splendid Canadian corps were not experienced or practical military men. They were men who had realized in years gone by that a part of our citizenship was the necessary preparation for the maintenance and defence of that citizenship. As a member of the medical corps which in twenty-four hours had passed through its hands 5.900 wounded, it would be the last wish of mine, and I believe of the whole medical corps, that war should ever again be participated in by this or any other country. But as the minister says, we must look at these things from the practical and common sense standpoint.
We have listened to many speeches in this chamber denouncing war, but I fail to find one who has had experience in the sacrifice and has been in the service opposing the meagre amount requested by the Minister of National Defence for the protection of this country. The hon. member for Southeast Grey has been most aggressive in her opposition to these estimates, not merely this year but on many occasions. The hon. member and her supporters persist in setting up a case simply to be knocked down. I do not believe that any person connected with cadet training has * any idea of making militarists of the citizens of this country, if by the word militarist you mean one who seeks war, one who seeks by hate to murder and destroy, but that is the case conjured up against cadet training by those who are opposing this vote.
The minister, I believe, went to the root of the matter when he read the Strathcona regulations stating that the object in cadet training is a twofold one. In the first place, it is to teach the boy that he is a unit of the country. This work implies a twofold duty on the country and on the men in connection with the care of boys. One is the teaching of patriotism, the idea that he belongs to a country, and the first principle to be inculated in that boy is the lesson that it is his duty to protect his country. I know no country that' has ever become great, or that has ever been established as a nation of some reputation, which has not made this the primary teaching in the education of the boy. Above family, above individual interests, there is the interest of his native land, bis country, and as a citizen it will be his first duty to protect that country. The next duty is that he has been given a body endowed with certain functions and it is his duty to develop that body along the best lines. I think it is accepted by every person that if we could place two schools together, one having physical training, or cadet training as they like to call it, and the other without it, the result would impel every parent in the country to ask for physical or cadet training for their boys. There is no mother that I know of who does not wish to see her boy develop physically along right lines, and if there is a defect, if there is a weakness in his respiratoa-y tract or digestive tract, that that should be removed; and I know of nothing that will remove it so quickly as physical training. These two things lie at the bottom of all physical and cadet training. Greece, Rome and Sweden all adopted this system of training. At one time Sweden was the most militaristic country in the world. She has established herself now, she is still carrying on the training, and it is her system which we have adopted. In fact no country is so well known or highly respected for its physical training as Sweden, notwithstanding the remarks of the bon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail).
The opposition to this vote is based on something more serious than we see at first. I cannot help bringing this out, and I believe it is the duty of every member in this House to

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
look beyond the mere verbal opposition to these votes. There are principles deeply rooted in the systems of those who speak against it. Shriek after shriek has gone through the chamber, demanding to know against whom are we arming. I know of nobody arming in this country. I know no work of arming against any country, because I realize .that every nation that has fallen has done so from causes within the nation and not from without. Histoiry has shown that those who decry their constitution and country and race, who teach the people wrong principles, who would sacrifice loyalty and patriotism, who would sell tradition and make easy the way of our enemy, are the people we fear most in regard to all our considerations of defence. Those are the people who are ready to open the doors for our enemies, to lull to sleep public opinion, and it is now time and I believe this is the place to speak about it. If the present Minister of National Defence had been in this House during the last four years he would have found a spirit with which he could not have agreed, and I am glad now that one with experience and one who seems to have some weight has come forward to improve conditions as they exist in this country.
I should like to dTaw attention of the members of this House not only to speeches which have been made in this chamber, but also to a matter which has been much talked of in this country within the last few days. I refer to a letter which has been written, and which profoundly affects this subject, because this is the kind of insidious secret work that tends to destroy national spirit and to interfere with those who would like to protect their country and their native land!. I propose to read this letter clause by clause.
, Progress reported.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1927-28
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1928, was presented by Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the committee of supply.
[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: It being six o'clock. I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Chairman,
when the House rose at six o'clock I had expressed my complete agreement with the words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston); I had approved of the spirit of the Strathcona trust fund and of the twi principles which underlay the granting o! that fund, namely, the inculcation in ou: youths of the spirit of patriotism and loyalty the willingness to sacrifice themselves if necessary in the defence of their country and the willingness to develop their bodies and minds, which are claimed to be the results of cadet and physical training.
I had also dealt with the speeches delivered in this connection, and had expressed my opinion that there was something behind the verbal opposition to these grants. While we admit and grant to every person the privilege of their own opinions so far as service to the country is concerned, yet we do not grant the privilege of interfering with and taking unfair advantage of our young people. In this connection I made mention of a letter which was sent to me by a lady in the constituency of Southeast Grey, which letter I intend first to read and then to analyse. The letter is dated Ottawa, March 28, 1927. and is as follows:
Dear Teacher and Pupils:
This letter we will talk about the Chinese war. The Chinese use a great deal of a drug called opium. It is a very bad drug, much worse than liquor on the person who takes it. It gives them pleasant dreams; they live in a sort of a dream world, and are very happy, but when the influence has worn off they are nervous wrecks, and are sick. Then they want more opium to make them nice dreamers again, and if they do this thing for some time, it spoils their health, and they are not any good for anything. There was a war in China between 1839 and 1842, which is called the Opium war. The Chinese wanted to make the use of opium in China illegal, to keep it out of China, but Great Britain insisted that the Chinese government make the use of opium legal, because Great Britain own India and India sells opium to China. This made the Chinese angry. Then, too, nearly all the great ports where the big ships come in are controlled by Great Britain, or some great power like Japan, and in these Chinese cities the Chinese have no vote. The police are foreigners, the "whole show" is run by people who are not Chinese, and the Chinese have no rights.
The Chinese revere their dead, and their graveyards are a very sacred place. When western civilization came they ran railroads through the graveyards. This made the Chinese mad; and caused them to rebel. This rebellion was called the Boxer rebellion. The Chinese were defeated in this rebellion, and made to pay money called an indemnity, and Great

Supply-Dejence-Cadet Services
Britain, to make sure she got this money imposed a five per cent tax-that is, five cents on the dollar-on goods coming in. This is called customs tariff. She always controls the post offices.	.	.
Many countries, Japan, Great Britain, and before the war, Germany, had factories in the big cities of China. The living conditions in these factories are horrible; the children work as young as six years, and are often hurt and killed. The Chinese government can do nothing because these are European factories and the * owners of the factories will do nothing. A group of Chinese students walked the streets of one of their big cities about a year ago as a protest against the awful conditions of the children in factories, and the British police shot them down. You can quite easily see how all these things made the Chinese determined to put the British out of their country to bind their many provinces together in one federal government, to control their own customs, tariff and their own post offices, their own railways, etcetera. Russia, seeing that a rebellion was coming in China, wisely gave up all her rights within that country, and the Chinese are very grateful. There is little doubt that Russia is urging the Chinese to rebellion, but the conditions in China are so bad that one cannot wonder that these people rise in rebellion. Germany used to have much control in China, but according to the peace treaty of the Great war, she was forced to give up her privileges. I wish very much that Canada, who is a member of the League of Nations, would protest against what has been done in China. We have a right to try to stop anything that is breaking the peace of the world. We must remember that it is only a few very rich people in England who want to do these dreadful things in China, that most of the British people are very sad and grieved over what is being done, and that meetings are being held there in protest and some of the leading papers are saying that the action of the government and the big interests is all wrong and so we are in good company if we do say that we think the Chinese are being unfairly treated.
Many of the patriotic Canadians say over and over again, "We want Canada for Canadians". Then, if that is true, why do we not want China for Chinese? We send missionaries to teach them of Jesus, and his love, but unless we love them and act toward them as brothers, how- can they know that we believe in Jesus and his love to all.
Thursday was my birthday and I had a lovely birthday party. We have two hours for dinner between six and eight. I had a party of fourteen. I got lovely flowers, three dozen roses, three boxes of candy, some nice maple sugar, hand-kerchiefs, and all sorts of good things.
I had a very gay time. My office has been much brighter with the flowers. The gardener of the House of Commons keeps flowering plants on my window, but the roses are even more beautiful than they are.
I must close for this time.
Agnes C. Macphail.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have read that letter in its entirety, and I would ask you to study it. Read iit over clause by clause, and paragraph by paragraph, and what" do the contents of this letter constitute? Nothing more or less than a direct attempt to defame Great Britain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Nonsense!
Mr. ROSS (Kingston); Nonsense? Before I am through I will prove my assertion. It is nothing less than a distortion of historical facts, and I know nothing worse than to place such a distortion before pupils in order to give them a lesser opinion of their race, of the constitution under which they live, and of the empire with which they are connected.
Now I want' to take this letter up paragraph by paragraph. The first paragraph deals with the Chinese war, and it goes back to the time of 1839 and 1845, and to a war to which the name " opium war " is given. Now there are none except those who wish to strike at and injure Great Britain who will call that war the " opium war." There is just enough truth in it, it had just enough connection with opium, to allow some person to make the statement without being open to the charge of asserting a complete untruth, and I want to give the facts as far as I can take them from history. The issue is one of Chinese cosmogony more than anything else. It is claimed by the Chinese that' the emperor and his immediate advisers are direct sons of heaven, and when a request was made by outsiders to trade with their country, the Chinese took the attitude that trade was an inferior thing for them and they could not touch it. " Therefore," they said, " you must not go near Pekin; you must stay and trade in Canton, the farthest city away from Pekin, where you will be under the Canton officials."
The second issue in the war was this: There was a claim for port rights, and for the regulation of ports. The right to trade was granted. Before the British came there were Portuguese and there were Dutch trading there, but they had never been able to secure what they called 'treaty rights. There was also some demand for a schedule of customs. Up to this time it was up to the Canton officials to put on any customs duty they liked; to enforce a certain tax against a nation one day, another the next day or the next week to apply a different one. There was also the question of extra territoriality. That' means that the Chinese demanded the right to try a British subject, or any foreigner who was in that porit. There is a very celebrated case of where a salute was being fired and a gunner was charged with having killed a Chinaman. The Chinese demanded that this gunner be brought before them. For some time their demand was resisted, but under duress Captain Elliott, a very weak official who was in charge of British affairs in Canton at the time, handed this gunner over to the Chinese, their demand being that he should appear before them and offer an explanation. What was the result? The gunner was immediately

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
strangled. From that day Britain adopted a different attitude anad never permitted any British subject to be tried by Chinese authorities. She was not autocratic about this because she accepted the situation later and said: "If you will establish Chinese courts, and will satisfy us as to the fairness of those courts then we have no reason to oppose it." These were the questions that brought on this war. But opium played some part in the matter. For years opium had been brought into China from India, not by Britain only but by the Chinese themselves. For every British vessel there were thousands of Chinese vessels engaged in the trade. Many long years before, there had been a law passed against' the importation of opium but here was the situation: Opium was being brought in, not by the British but by their own people, and the son of the Canton governor was the biggest bootlegger in the business at the time.


Mr. PARENT:: I should like to know if
this discussion is in order. What connection has the situation in China got with the item we are discussing just now?


John Frederick Johnston: If I am asked to give a ruling, I certainly must rule that the discussion is not in order; it' has no relevance whatever to the item now before the committee.


Arthur Edward Ross: I take this stand
that there was insidious, secret work being done against the passing of these votes, and one of the worst features that I know of in connection with it was the circularization of this letter. I contend that this is absolutely relevant to the subject under discussion.


John Frederick Johnston: Well, the rule is very explicit. Subsection 5 of rule No. 13 states:
Speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Arthur Edward Ross: Very good. Now
then, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with military estimates are we not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Regarding the question
of order, the rule, if strictly interpreted, might apply, but I would call your attention to this-that the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), the hon. minister himself-
I think quite properly-and other hon. members have been speaking in general terms of the estimates. I think there has been a rather tacit understanding that the discussion of all the estimates should take place on this item. It would seem to me to be rather unfair to rule my hon. friend out of order now after others have taken advantage of a general dis-

cussion and introduced matter which is of a very serious character.


Georges Parent: The Chairman having given his decision, I do not think it can be discussed.
The CHAIRMAN It is not the desire of the Chair to restrict debate in any sense. But when I am asked for a ruling I must decide in accordance with the rules. If it is the desire of the committee that the remarks of all the speakers should be strictly relevant to the matter before the committee, my hon. friend is certainly out of order. Up to the present time the scope of the discussion has been very wide, but it is for the committee to say whether they want to continue to extend such latitude.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Chairman, the question was asked:	Against whom are we
arming. I am endeavouring to answer that question and my remarks are strictly relevant to the military estimates.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the hon. member
permit me to ask a question. He says that there is a secret, insidious propaganda being carried on.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do you mind saying
what the secret propaganda is?


Arthur Edward Ross: I am dealing with it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What you are dealing with is of a public character.


Arthur Edward Ross: What I am dealing with is a wrong instruction given to the children in the schools, a distortion of historical facts, simply to aid opposition against these estimates.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It certainly is not secret; it is public.


Arthur Edward Ross: The whole letter is an endeavour to prevent children from joining cadet organizations. I am trying to prove that in this letter history is distorted, and in contradiction of the statement made in the letter that this war was one of opium, I have simply to read Queen Victoria's letter to the Emperor of China on the subject.


Georges Parent: I rise again to a point of order. That has nothing to do with the item under discussion.


Arthur Edward Ross: The Queen of
England in her letter to the Emperor of China states:

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
The Queen of England desires that her subjects who may go into foreign countries should obey the laws of those countries; and Her Majesty does not wish to protect them from the just consequences of any offences which they may commit in foreign parts. But, on the other hand, Her Majesty cannot permit that her subjects residing abroad should be treated with violence, and be exposed to insult and injustice: and when wrong is done to them, Her Majesty will see that they obtain redress.
That is the reason for that war of 1839-42. Great Britain realized and took the position that her subjects must be protected wherever they were. Those who wish to strike Great Britain call this an opium war, but in the treaty settling that war there is not one mention of opium and there is not one reason for calling it an opium war. Therefore I would say that the first paragraph of the letter is absolutely misleading and is a half truth which is more destructive to children than an untruth.
Let me deal with the next clause of this letter which is another endeavour to keep children from having any sympathy with cadet movements. She says:
The Chinese revere their dead, and their graveyards' are a very sacred place. When western civilization came they ran railroads through the graveyards. This made the Chinese mad; and caused them to rebel. This rebellion was called the Boxer rebellion.
This is another distortion of historical facts, another attempt to mislead children's conception of Great Britain, to lead them away from any sympathy, loyalty, or patriotism in serving their country. As regards the question whether the Boxer rebellion was due to railroads being built through graveyards, I want to read from the Story of the Nations, the History of China. In this book it will be found that at this very time the Dowager Empress of China was in charge of affairs in Pekin. She was well known as being antagonistic to the foreigner, and it was her wish to get rid of the foreigner, to get him out of China. She was looking around for some reason and this is what is stated:
The Chinese have no notion of declaring war on a question of policy. They prefer the more subtle method of instigating banditti to attack the foreign settlements, in the hope that in the consequent confusion they may find their
opportunity	On this occasion the lot
fell on the "Boxers" or "Fists of righteous harmony".
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about preventing arming and preparation for war. This was a society arming and preparing in their own way in China:
The Boxers were, therefore, a fit instrument for the Empress' use, and after making full and exhaustive inquiries as to their numbers, equipment, and the sincerity of their professions, she determined to employ them.
The empress determined to employ the Boxers only in an attempt to get rid of the foreigners in China., yet we are told that the Boxer rebellion was a protest against the building of railways through graveyards. What happened? The empress told her officials to be sympathetic to the Boxer associations. As a result, with that declaration they began to march on Pekin. What happened? Under pretence of opposing their march on Pekin, the loyal troops were sent out and as soon as the loyal troops met the Boxers, they immediately fell in with the Boxers and marched on Pekin. What was their object? It was to attack the foreign residences in Pekin and nothing else. That was the cause of the army and of the expedition sent against the Boxers in China, and yet we are told that the cause of it	was	the	building	of
railways through graveyards. Not only Great Britain but all foreign nations who had interests in China joined in this expedition: it was an international affair. The letter states:
This rebellion was called the Boxer rebellion. The Chinese were defeated in this rebellion -
It was nothing but their own troops, the loyalist troops joined with the Boxers.
-and were made to	pay	money called	an
indemnity, and Great Britain, to make sure she got this money imposed a 5 per cent tax.
One would think from this paragraph that Britain was there to impose a tax for the purpose of getting money. I want to quote an explanation of that, just with the intention of contradicting this paragraph and proving to the committee that it is nothing but a distortion of historical facts. I read this from China and The Powers. Mr. Norton, an American, writing	on	this	question	andthe supposed cause of	this	war,	deals with it
as follows:
Whatever the moral questions might be, the result embodied in the treaty of Nanking in 1842 was the opening to foreign trade of Canton and four other ports, including Shanghai, the cession of the barren island of Hong Kong to Great Britain, and the agreement that China should levy a 5 per cent tariff on both imports and exports. As the 5 per cent provision still left room for bargaining as to the value on which the 5 per cent was to be levied, a schedule was drawn up of the specific duties collectable on all articles of trade. This was the beginning of the conventional tariff".


Mr. WARD:: Mr. Chairman, you ruled
some little time ago, and yet the hon. member continues to read ream after ream of what, by any stretch of the imagination, is entirely irrelevant to the item before the committee.
2258	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


John Frederick Johnston: In my opinion the point raised by the hon. member is well taken. Further, in my humble judgment no one discussing this estimate has gone so far afield as has the hon. gentleman who has the floor. I would again draw his attention to subsection (5) of rule 13 which states:
Speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Arthur Edward Ross: The item under discussion is cadet training. There is an attempt throughout this country to mislead the children of our schools and to prevent them from joining or having any sympathy with cadets corps. I have been dealing with a letter written to all the schools in a certain constituency with the intention of encouraging this opposition. In that letter it was pointed out as a reason for preventing children from joining or having sympathy with cadet corps, that there were in China factories in which children under six years of age were employed and that these factories were all run by Great Britain; that as a result of that certain students in protest marched through the streets and Great Britain shot them down. This is an absolute distortion of historical facts made apparently with the deliberate attempt to mislead the judgment of the children, to wean them away from a spirit of loyalty and patriotism, which is a spirit that should be encouraged in this country and not destroyed. I say that those students were not marching there in protest against child labour in British factories, but they were marching in protest against the killing of a Chinese by a Japanese citizen, and in marching through the streets they took occasion to make themselves obnoxious to the British section of that city. The whole letter I might say is a continued distortion of historical fact, in order to warp the children's minds and to wean them away from a sympathetic relationship with Great Britain and the empire generally.
There is also an attempt in this letter to lead the children to believe that only the influence of the rich counts in Great Britain. There is no attempt to justify the position in which Great Britain found herself in China, which was this:	Great Britain was the
champion of all the foreign elements in China, and she had to take upon her shoulders the burden of the whole situation. I think Great Britain came out of at with great credit to herself, because not only did she establish in China a customs tariff that was fair to all, but she insisted upon the post office administration and revenues being entirely under 
Chinese rule. But those facts which are creditable to Great Britain have not been touched upon in this letter. On the contrary, anything discreditable that can possibly be laid on the shoulders of Great Britain is mentioned, to wean the sympathy of the children away from Great Britain. So much for this attempt, which I believe will be resented throughout the Dominion just as much as it was resented by this lady who sent the letter to me, and who believes (that this House is the proper place to deal with this matter. In my opinion the permission of the school boards should first have been obtained before this letter was allowed to be read in the school by teachers.
I want now to take up in general some statements that have been made in this debate. It has been said that men whose jobs are in this movement are at the bottom of the demand for these estimates and for this cadet training. I want to say to this House that soldiers and trained men are the last people in the world to cause any war. Wars, we know, have been caused by politicians, not by soldiers and trained men. It has also been pointed out that England was prepared in the last war. How well prepared was England in the last war? If it had not been that all the nations joined together against the enemy, preparation would have won out. England was not prepared, and for that want of preparation 100,000 trained men laid down their lives in an attempt to stay the onrush of the enemy until some kind of training had been done.
It has also been s^ked, what has war ever done for anybody? Well, we might go back to Britain, and say that in Britain's wars she has established liberty and equality in most parts of the world. We can say also that there are some wars which have been brought about for religious and moral reasons. The Covenanters fought for moral and religious reasons, and secured results satisfactory to them. Cromwell fought for moral and religious reasons, and won out. Again, a great war was fought in the United States for the abolition of slavery, and I do not believe that that fight could have been won in any other way.
In conclusion, I want to point out as a reason for passing these estimates the new position in which we now find ourselves. We are asked to expend a small amount here in the way of the defence of our country. It has been declared by the last Imperial conference that we have an equality of status with Great Britain and every other dominion in the empire. Now if we are the equal of every

Sup-ply-Defence-Cadet Services
member of the empire, then we are all equally responsible for the defence of the empire. I do not hold with some criticisms that have been made of the premier of Australia and others who have come to Canada and made speeches in this country. I think it is up to us tcnday to ask the Prime Minister of this country, and I think it is up to every member of the empire to ask the Prime Minister and the government of Canada, what is our position at the present time with respect to empire defence. If we are to continue to reap the benefits of our empire connection, have we no responsibility for the maintenance ol the empire? Have we not some little share to take in the protection of the interests of this empire and the lives of our citizens? I very much disagree with those who would look to the United States or to the Old Country for our defence. I do not think that is a satisfactory training for our children. I think we had better get back to the old principle that we are in the empire, that we belong to the races which make up the empire, and that we must take our share of responsibility for its defence. I hold that this government, in view of that declaration of equality of status, should satisfy the people oi this country and the other members of the empire as to what our position will be in regard to the defence of the empire, and if that is done I think that the majority in this House will be, like myself, in accord with the Minister of National Defence, believing that we are only doing our duty in assuming the training of some part of our citizenship in the protection of this country and of the empire. I would regret if we ever lost sight ol that first principle, and that a child should fail to realize that he belongs to a country, and that his first duty is to defend that country, because that is the basis of all these estimates; it is the principle upon which they are founded. I am sure that we will do credit not only to ourselves but to posterity and to our ancestry if we take upon ourselves this responsibility.
I am glad that the minister has placed upon Hansard the work that the province of Quebec is doing in this direction. Some three or four years ago I spoke on this matter, and I was very glad to see the excellent display made by the boys. I am sure there was no attempt tc instil into them the principles of hate or the desire to kill their fellowmen or destroy the property of others. No, they were taught that they belonged to this country, that their home and their work was here, that their fathers and their mothers were here before them, and that in the interests of their ancestry
they should be willing to take upon themselves some share in the defence of this country.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: First I would like the Minister of National Defence to know that I, and I am sure that in this I am speaking for other hon. members, have the very greatest respect for him personally. We all admire his ability and his sterling qualities of character. I feel that he is a man who will be well known in Canada in the days that are to come. Indeed, I think he is too great a man to administer the sort of department he has been asked to administer.
I remember reading an article written by Mr. Lloyd George describing events just previous to the outbreak of the war in 1914, in which he said that the military machine was relentlessly driving the politician towards the abyss and that the politicians were quite helpless. When I allude to the military machine I do not for one moment wish to be understood as referring to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston):	He is capable of better things than managing the Department of National Defence. When reviewing the facts he said that we must not attack him, and that he was taking the advice of some of the officers in his department. Now, after his statement we must not be led to think that the word "democratic" is what it is commonly thought to be. We must not assume that policy will change when the government changes. We cannot change things in the Department of National Defence by putting one government out and another in. It is the permanent officials in the department who frame the policy, and they are not responsible to the people. These permanent officials are not of half as much consequence as they think they are. I say that with all understanding of the seriousness of my word's. If we have a democracy then it is the voice of the people of Canada that should count, and not the voices of two or three people in the department who urge certain things upon the minister which he himself says he does not like. I am glad that the minister has made that statement. I thought he said that I was not correct in stating that Sir Frederick Borden instituted cadet training. Will he agree that this matter was not mentioned by statute until Sir Frederick Borden became Minister of National Defence.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think that
statement is correct. I have before me the statutes previous to that, and I think my hon. friend will find it in the Militia Act previous to that time.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Macdonald said
not.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will find
that in the regulations and in the order in council in 1879. I have one of them here, regulations and orders of the militia of Canada, 1887. There are some considerably earlier than that.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Since the letter I have written to the school children in my constituency has been placed on Hansard and an attack made upon it, may I make a reference to it now? Whether the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) was in order or not, I have a right to reply to the attack made upon me and to make a reference to the letter I wrote to my constituency. First, however, I want to thank the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and the hon. member for Kingston for the courtesy they have extended to me in giving equal rights in this House, because I desire that women have equal rights in regard to criticsm, equal rights in matters of abuse, as well as equal rights in the best things of life. May I tell the House now how that letter came to be written? When I came here in 1921, fired with zeal in the service of my constituency, and finding that the wheels of justice turned very, very slowly-one might say provokingly slowly- and seeking for some way to help my people, I thought of trying to inform the children in school as to what went on in this House and I wrote a series of letters-I am not sure of the number, possibly twelve or fourteen- discussing government matters and the form or government we have in Canada. Whether the letters were good or not is not for me to say, but normal schools in Ontario have ordered them by the hundred from that time to the present, and I have been asked by teachers to put them in book form so that they might be used in the public schools. After finishing that series of letters I did not do much in that line, in fact I did not write a letter last session or the session before last, and during my campaign last year many teachers said to me: "If you are elected I hope you will write some letters again. We like them so much." I wrote one letter this session previous to the one under dispute- quite a lengthy letter, dealing with two subjects altogether unrelated. I told them about the new Governor General and his wife, how very much I liked them, and the impression I received when I was entertained at Rideau Hall. If hon. members do not believe me I can quote from a letter from one of the school children. I received dozens of them. The

child said he was pleased to think my impression of the Governor General was so good, and he said:
I am glad the Governor General is a fine man and that you like him.
I was patriotic in that one thing anyway. The letter proceeds:
I hope the bill passes about the soldiers' farm lands, because it is much needed.
Then he said he hoped I had a good time when I entertained some little girls at dinner which I had told about. I described my visit to the penitentiary. Unless I tell hon. members about the work I carry on in my constituency, it may seem odd to them that I should deal with such a thing as a birthday party, but I know children, and I know they enjoy hearing of a birthday party. In the last letter I said that I had covered the form of government thoroughly, and there seemed to be so little in connection with parliament to talk about that I would be glad if they would suggest subjects for me to write about. I got ten or twelve letters suggesting that I should tell them what I thought about the Chinese war. I had not thought of it until it was suggested by letters that I received from my constituency. However, I must tell hon. members the whole thing, so that they will understand the matter. I sent them a little poem about two roosters having a fight and I suggested it was a very good thing, if two people wanted to fight, to let them fight it out and let the rest of the people alone. A little boy named John McMillan said, "Hiked the poem;
I thought it referred to the Chinese trouble, and would like to know what you think of it? That is the reason I wrote the letter. I have no apology to make for that letter. There may be one or two inaccuracies in it in detail, but it is substantially correct, as I hope hon. members will realize shortly. The hon. member for Kingston does not want to call the war in 1839 and 1842, the opium war. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 6, page 199, it is indexed under the "Opium War."
I want, however, to go into it more fully. In 1830 permission was given by the Lieutenant Governor of India to extend the cultivation of the poppy with a view to increasing the supply. This alarmed the Chinese emperor of that time. He knew it was a growing evil in his country, and he instructed Commissioner Lin to go from Peking early in 1839 to Canton, and his orders were to get rid of the opium evil. Mr. Lin did go there, and he took from the British merchants 20,283 chests of opium and destroyed them. This led to the war. I will quote from Black Opium, a book

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
by the Rev. Eric Lewis, B.A., published by Marshall Brothers, Limited, London and Edinburgh. At page 21 they give this story, which I have told in briefer form, and then they cite several great British authorities. Dr. Arnold said:
This war was so wicked as to be a national sin of the greatest possible magnitude.
Mr. Gladstone denounced it in these words:
A war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated to cover this country with permanent disgrace, I do not know and I have not read of. The British flag is hoisted to protect an infamous contraband traffic; and if it was never hoisted except as it is now hoisted on the coast of China, we should recoil from its sight with horror.
Those are strong words from Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Lewis goes on to say:
This, our first war with China, has been justly called "the opium war", for the opium traffic was the prime though not the only, cause.
Let me give the committee one more authority. Sir R. Alcock, who was the British ambassador to Pekin soon after, was a witness before the House of Commons East India finance committee in 1871, and in the report of that committee at page 283 I find these words credited to him:
We forced the Chinese government to enter into a treaty to allow their subjects to take opium.
I think that about proves my point. But that was not the only war. There was a second and a third opium war. I am going to quote only one authority in regard to these, Lord Elgin. He conducted these wars, and of the second he wrote in his personal letters in very frank terms. Under date of December 22, 1857, I find the following:
When we steamed up to Canton and saw the rich alluvial banks covered with luxuriant evidences of unrivalled industry and natural fertility, I thought bitterly of those who for the most selfish objects are trampling underfoot this ancient civilization.
On December 9 he wrote:
Nothing could be more contemptible than the origin of our existing quarrel. ... I have hardly alluded in my ultimatum to that wretched question of the "Arrow" which is a scandal to us, and is so considered by all, except the few who are personally compromised.
On December 25 he wrote:
Canton doomed to destruction, through the folly of its own rulers, and the vanity and levity of ours.
On August 30 he wrote:
This abominable East; abominable not so much in itself, as because it is strewn all over with the record of our violence and fraud.
And under date of November 6 he wrote:
In our relations with China we have acted scandalously.


An hon. MEMBER:: That will hold them.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I hope so. I am
quoting now from the New Leader of January 25, 1927. Speaking of this opium evil, it says:
The foreigners are entrenched in the treaty ports where they live under the protection of a system of injustice euphemistically termed extra-territoriality.
That quotation relates to the close of the opium war, which was terminated by several treaties. These treaties opened up what are now known as the treaty ports. Possibly it is worth pausing to say that the same treaties that legalized the sale of opium gave privileges for the " propagation and practice of Christianity."


Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the hon. member in what part of the treaty can she find the word opium?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not quoting from the treaty. I can quite understand that the people who were instrumental in bringing about the war would keep the word out of the treaty. That would not be hard for them to do.
Mr. ROiSS (Kingston):	If that was the
whole subject matter of the treaty would not opium be mentioned therein?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It was not the whole
subject, but it was the prime reason for the war. I am sure it must cause everyone who believes in Christianity to blush with shame to think that the same treaty dealt with these two things: legalizing the opium traffic and the teaching of Christian doctrines.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the hon. member mention the clause in the treaty which legalized the opium traffic?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: AH the authorities on
the question agree that the treaty legalized the opium traffic. I have not the treaty under my hand.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Chairman, I
would insist-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would ask the
hon. member to read the treaty clause dealing with opium.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not quoting from the treaty, I am quoting from authorities deal-

2262	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
ing with the subject of legalizing the sale of opium in China. As I stated a moment ago, the teaching of Christianity and the sale of opium were included in the same treaty, Rev. Mr. Lewis, author of Black Opium, quotes from official documents. I wish to quote for a moment from British Imperialism in China, a small volume published last year by t'he Labour Research Department. It can >be procured at 162 Buckingham Palace Road, London.


An hon. MEMBER:: A good road.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: 
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Will the hon.
member .permit a question? In the opinion of the hon. member, would these indignities have been heaped upon China if she had been in a position to defend herself?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, I do not think so. But I think that if Great Britain had been as anxious about her Christianity as she was about the opium,-not all of Great Britain, but the ruling faction-China would not have had to defend herself while trying to get rid of something harmful to her own people. Who gave us the right to trot around the world settling the difficulties and quarrels, or imaginary	difficulties, of the different
countries?	I have Often wondered about
that.
It was not at that time that the five per cent customs tax was imposed, but rather that the foreign powers undertook the administration of the customs after the Boxer rebellion. They collected the customs and used the moneys thus collected as a guarantee of the indemnity, turning the surplus over to whatever governmental body they chose. By controlling the customs they controlled trade; they would not allow an increase in that

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
tariff. Fancy how the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) would feel if the United States controlled our customs tariff and would not allow us to raise it higher than five per cent. In the Western Producer of January 27, 1927, which is published by Harris Turner, ia returned veteran and a well known Canadian who gave his sight in the service of his country, and who could scarcely be called anti-British, appeared the following -article:
The Boxer war ended with the occupation of Pekin by allied forces for a period of one year and the extortion of enormous indemnities extended over forty years. The payment of the indemnity was guaranteed by the institution of a foreign controlled customs service; surplus funds being handed over to the central government. In addition to the Boxer indemnity, various foreign loans have been secured against customs receipts.
The hon. -member for Kingston had scorn in his voice when he said that in my letter I stated that living conditions in the factories were horrible. On this point I wish to quote at some length from the Globe even at the risk of wearying the House; I do not weary it very often. The Globe is now very much interested in my letter, and I want -to recall the things it printed in earlier days. The Globe of March 5, 1923, contains the following :
A hopeful sign in China is the demand of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai for higher standards of human welfare in industry. The chamber urges all firms and factories to employ no children under twelve, to permit one day's rest in seven and to safeguard the health of the workers by limiting working hours, improving sanitary conditions and installing safety devices for machinery.
Then they quote from Doctor Sherwood Eddy, as follows:
There are at least fifty cotton mills around Shanghai and more are going up. Thousands of children down to the age of eight or nine are employed. Little girls, eight or nine years of age. were standing between double rows of whizzing, unguarded machinery, steadily but wearily feeding the machines. One mite, perhaps eight years of age, was curled in an exhausted heap on the cement floor sound asleep. Over in a corner, under a pile of waste, a tiny baby was spending the night, while his mother worked at a machine near by. . . .In one small hospital there were one day this winter three children under ten years old. The arm of one had been caught in an unfenced machine and was all but torn off. The leg of another was smashed from hip to ankle by the teeth of a machine. The third, a little girl, had been caught by the hair in her machine and her scalp torn off. Not one of these accidents would
have happened had the machines been fitted with safety devices. Most of the accidents happen in the night shifts, between two and four in the morning. Such are the terrible conditions in Chinese industry.
Then the Globe continues:
At Chefoo, where 17,000 women are engaged in the hair-net industry, the wage is six cents for a ten-hour day. In the forty pongee silk factories in the same city 26,000 men and boys work a thirteen-hour day for the same amount. Only Christian employers close their mills on Sunday. At Tientsin 15,000 boys in the weaving factories work an eighteen-hour day, from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., the majority receiving no pay but their food. In the match-making industry in the city, eighty little workers must go to the hospital each day to be treated for the effects of cheap phosphorus and sulphur on the lungs and eyes. Better chemicals would prevent this, but profits would not be so great.
It is difficult to believe that a century ago, in the first stage of the industrial revolution, conditions in Great Britain were little better than in China to-day. There are few more poignant chapters in history than the victimization of British children by the rise of the steam engine and of mechanical invention. The abuses were gradually abolished by the public conscience and the growing power of labour organization, but such forces are still weak in China. The chief hope for the present generation of Chinese workers will come through international effort. The movement set on foot by the League of Nations for equalizing, so far as possible, labour standards throughout the world has borne fruit already in Japan and India, though the state of things m these countries is still deplorable. It is in the interest of all nations that industry in no nation shall be built on sweated labour. Economic and humanitarian reasons join in demanding the protection of the oriental labourers against the application of western industrialism without the safeguards that western countries have found it necessary to devise.
_ Then I come to the incident of the shooting of the Chinese students; this was just a year ago, and I think we can all recall it. The Chinese students were protesting by a peaceful parade against conditions to be found in Japanese lactories, and they were shot down by Indian Police on the orders of British officers. The Indian police certainly would not have shot them down had it not been for the orders of their officers, so I think I am not very far from the truth when I say it was the British police. I was in error, however, and I very gladly accept the correction. An inquiry was made into this shooting incident, because the Chinese made a charge that they had been shot down, which charge u'as found to be substantiated in a very long account which is to be found in the London Times of June 16, 1925. This covers several pages and any hon. member can verify what I have said by reading it.
2264	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
Much more recently than that, however, the anti-national forces in China as recently published in the New Leader of February 6, 1927, shot down those who were opposed to them. Sir Percival Phillips, writing to the Daily Mail, of which he is correspondent, describes the happenings in the following words:
The executions have been terrifyingly informal. Pickets and agitators, including ignorant coolies and spectacled students, are quickly beheaded wherever they are found intimidating shopkeepers or scattering Cantonese leaflets.	.
A runner is sent to summon the "execution patrol," which comes up with the headsman swinging the bared blade. The culprit is forced to his knees as the soldiers keep the crowd back.
A moment later his head is being fastened to a wooden cage, which is all ready, and is nailed to a pole for the contemplation of the populace.
Further on the New Leader, which is the official organ of the Labour party in England, saya, and the words are in italics:
They would not have happened if the British forces had not been massed at Shanghai.
I think I am only stating a fact when I state that Russia wisely withdrew and gave up her concessions. I said she did it wisely. I do not think she did it from virtuous motives; she made a virtue of necessity. I have an article here which appeared in the Weekly News, published1 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on Friday, March 25, 1927, in which this statement is made:
Russia was shrewd enough to make a virtue of necessity, and give up her privileges in China while the other powers were holding tight to theirs. Naturally, the Chinese appreciated this move.
Later on the article says:
Germany's privileges in China were taken away from her by the treaty of Versailles. As a consequence, though before the war Germany was probably the most unpopular western nation in China, German trade in that country is thriving while British trade is at a standstill, and even American commerce seriously embarrassed.
I want to quote just one more paragraph:
The moment western powers give up special privileges and base their intercourse with China on commercial grounds, there will be an end to drives and boycotts, and China will trade most with those who best meet her economic needs.
Such, at least, is the doctrine of European liberals.
I said in the letter that I wish Canada, which is a member of the League of Nations, would protest against the breaking of the peace of the world, or taking a chance at breaking the peace of the world, by the action of the powers

in China. Under article XI of the treaty of Versailles that is possible:
It is also declared to be the friendly right of each member of the league to bring to the attention of the assembly or of the council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
And so Canada would be well within her right in protesting against anything that tends to endanger the peace of the world. There was an interesting report in the McGill Daily, a student's paper issued at McGill university, of a speech recently made, by Captain Brace-who I believe was connected with the Young Men's Christian Association and who is a returned man-on conditions in China at the present time. He said:
The cause of the trouble in China to-day is the white man, who exploits the oriental and breaks all laws of civilization in doing so.
We as Britishers must take our just share as a consequence of so serious a charge. I want to close this defence, if it can be called a defence, of my letter to the public school (Children of Southeast Grey by quoting again from Bertrand Russell. He says this, in relation to the forces going out to China:
If we were fighting for a great cause, the prospect of loss might be faced with heroism. But the exact opposite is the case: We are fighting against everything progressive, upright, and intelligent in China, in favour of everything ignorant, reactionary and corrupt. We are fighting to keep civilization under in a great nation, in order that it may be the easier to exploit. We are fighting for the right to shoot down young unarmed students when they protest against the killing of Chinese workers by Japanese capitalists in labour disputes. We are fighting to prolong anarchy and civil war among self-seeking militarists dependent upon foreign support. We are fighting to preserve everything that is bad and to prevent the growth of everything that is good. This, alas, is our position throughout Asia. This is the ' sacred cause which we pursue with a pigheaded obstinacy that must, before long, bring ruin and national disaster upon us. Both as a patriot and as an internationalist, I view tho situation with feelings little short of despair.
I want to say, regardless of what the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) and the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, (Mr. Edwards) may think, that I consider myself a patriot. I have no desire in the world to mislead the school children of Southeast Grey, or the school children of Canada, or the people of Canada on any question whatever. To the extent that any details of the letter were inaccurate I regret it, but the spirit of the letter was true and I stand by it be the consequences what they may.

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
Mr. MaoLAREN:	I rise to express approval of the vote now under discussion for the cadet services. I do so partly to take the opportunity of giving general approval to the votes under t'he heading of national defence. Hitherto in the last few years these grants have been entirely too small to effect efficiency, and the increases in many items which we notice this year will, I believe, give the Department of National Defence an opportunity to bring about efficiency, something which is very desirable.
So far as the cadet services go I believe that the great mass of thinking people in this country recognize the value of the cadet services and the physical training connected with them. I believe most of the fathers and mothers of this country recognize the qualities that the cadet service and physical training give to their children. As a result the great improvement in t'he physical condition of the youth of the country is noticeable. Not only is there a physical improvement but there is instilled into the children obedience, the sense of discipline, manliness and independence. All of these qualities contribute to form what we believe is one of the most desirable objects to be obtained in educating our youth, and that is the building up of character.


Mr. BOTJRASSA:: I have a word to say
just with reference to t'he vote which is supposed to be under discussion. I partly agree with the minister on one point-that it is not essentially nor exclusively the training of cadets which makes for militarism. It is t'o be regretted, I think, that the two objects in view-physical training and the cadet corps organization-are not separated, because some of us might be disposed to approve of the grant given for physical training and not for the organization of cadet corps.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if my hon.
friend would permit me to interrupt at this point? It has been pointed out to me that I did not read the full policy of the Strath-cona trust. It gives ray hon. friend t'he reason why the vote cannot be separated. If my hon. friend will permit me, the objects of Lord Strathcona were set out in certain provisions. I read only part of those this afternoon and I wish to read the rest. What I read this afternoon set out the objects as being:
Not only to improve the physical and intellectual capabilities of the children by inculcating habits of alertness, orderliness and prompt obedience, but also to bring up the boys to patriotism, and to a realization that the first duty of a free citizen is to be prepared to defend his country.
This is the rest:
The intention of the founder is that, while physical training and elementary drill should be encouraged for all children of both sexes attending public schools, especial importance is to be attached to the teaching of military drill generally to all boys, including rifle shooting for boys capable of using rifles. All boys should so far as possible, be made to acquire a fair acquaintance while at school, with military drill and rifle shooting.
Mr. BOURAlSSA: I thank the minister for giving me this information because it puts me into a satisfactory position to support the amendment of the hon. member for Southeast Grey.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the hon. member had any trouble before.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Perhaps I had more
trouble than the minister realizes. To a large degree I am in favour of encouraging physical training, but I am opposed to joining the two things together. The minister says that the educational institutions and the parents are free to accept or to refuse the offer of the government. But knowing how things work, one realizes that, with the object of giving physical training to their children, people are being led into accepting, against their wishes, this military organization. In some institutions, in Quebec, the organization of cadet corps was presented to the people exclusively from the point of view of physical training, and it was accepted as such. Both the parents and the children were induced to accept it; then the cadet corps were formed, and once started, once the rifles had been received from the government, they were kept up.
As I said at the beginning, I am not prepared to say that the cadet corps organization is in itself a source of militarism in its most obnoxious form. For instance, take a country like Switzerland. I do not suppose there is any other democratic country in the world so thoroughly peaceful, and where, at the same time, such attention is given to inducing all classes of the population from youth to old age to prepare themselves for the defence of their country. Once we have a standard of national patriotism well inculated in the minds of our population, then of course we will have to do something in the way of preparing our youth for the defence of their country. But in the uncertain state of mind in which we have been for the last twenty-five years, not knowing whether the duty of our people is to defend our country, or to go out and fight wars that have no relation to national defence, then everything which tends to the development of the military mind, to inducing the youth of
2266	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
the country to enter those cadet corps and later on to enter the militia, makes them so-to-speak food for militarism, imperialism, and service to foreign countries, to the detriment of their own country. I do not want to say any more on the subject at the present time, because I think it is rather unfortunate that the whole scope of our military policy and foreign military ventures should have been brought under discussion on this item.
In Quebec many people are in a state of disquiet at the ultimate result of this training of the youth in our colleges. Undoubtedly it does not immediately make for the worst kind of militarism. I admit with the minister that even with some of our young men it has a better effect; it teaches them a sense of discipline which, if we are to have some kind of military organization, is certainly better than the kind of militarism which is developed at the approach of war or during war with no sense of discipline, when all sorts of inducements are held out to get untrained people to enlist. But there is also this other consequence. Once boys have been accustomed in colleges to military training, they get into their minds, precisely as is mentioned in that report of the 'Strathcona trust which the minister read, the idea that military duty is the primary duty of citizenship. It is against that spirit that a growing number of Canadian fathers of families are protesting, men who are thinking of the future of their sons and of their country, men who believe that the future of this countiy depends, not upon following the footsteps of European nations, but, on the contrary, on this generation taking full advantage of the dour experience of the war to induce our people to work for peace, to realize that their best contribution to the peace of the world is to make peace at home not only possible, but if we can, to make it unavoidable, to make the world understand through the League of Nations of which we form a part, that Canada is not prepared to follow any country, foreign or British, in launching the world once again into military ventures such as those through which the world has passed Therefore I think it is time, not only to talk of peace, but to work for peace. It is not sufficient to say that this military training has been going on for twenty or thirty years, and that the minister is simply asking for a small increase to meet new requests. If this government meant what it said through its representatives at Geneva and London, namely that it is prepared to help the British government, the governments of the other dominions and foreign nations in the development of a spirit of peace, it should

begin at home and show in the estimates and in dealing with the public money that Canada means peace in fact and not only in words.
Therefore, instead of encouraging the development of those cadet corps in the colleges, we should on the contrary work towards changing that organization into a purely peaceful one of physical training. If it comes to that, then we have to remember the order of things as it was created and as it is maintained by our constitution. Everything which relates to civil education belongs to the provinces. This government and this parliament should have no business to come into the various educational institutions in this country and take the lead in introducing one branch of training into any educational institution. We have heard very often from the other side eloquent and even ferocious pleas in regard to absolute provincial autonomy in matters of education. Why should the federal government step in and subsidize physical training, if we mean only to prepare the youth of the country for the works of peace? But if this is connected with military organizations, if we are taking advantage of the trust first, and these estimates afterwards, to encourage the development of a military spirit in the colleges, then the minister must admit that the objection raised by the hon. member for Southeast Grey is well founded; that this government is stepping out of its normal functions; that it is entering into a field which is under the control of the provinces in order, through those institutions and under the pretence of physical training, to instil into our youth the spirit of militarism. I do not say that it is the worst kind of militarism; I do not say that all these young men will go out from these colleges with the idea of killing and murdering; I do not go to that exaggeration; but undoubtedly it creates in their minds what prepares them in after life to respond to the call of militarism. It turns their mind in that direction. Therefore I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, first because I think it is logical that we should invite the provinces out of their own funds to look after the matter of physical training, and secondly because I do not believe it is the duty of this government to take advantage of the sj'stem of physical training to introduce military training into the educational institutions.
With regard to the option of parents, I might give this information to the minister. I know of at least one, and I presume it is only one out of many, educational institution in the province of Quebec where they started with the idea of having physical training, but

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
were induced by a representative of the federal government to organize a cadet corps, in connection with which the teachers received that premium which is offered to them. After the thing was launched, after a number of young boys had joined the corps, there was a certain spirit developed in the institution to try to make those who stayed out feel ashamed of themselves, to make them feel they were not patriotic, that they did not want to prepare for their patriotic duty, and all that kind of thing. The moment you create an organization of this kind in a school you cause a cleavage between those who join and those who refuse; and you put into the hands of those who receive help from the government and receive visits from the military instructors from the department a weapon which they use to force others to join the corps against their own wishes and against the wishes of their parents. For that reason, and especially in view of the attitude taken by most, if not all, of the government candidates in the province of Quebec upon this question, I have no hesitation in voting for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, and in doing so I feel that I remain faithful to the Liberal platform as it has been propounded in the province of Quebec in many elections past.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
make a brief statement before the vote is taken in order that my position may be made clear. This afternoon the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington made an attack upon me; he went into the history of the Winnipeg strike. From my standpoint his statements entirely misrepresent the situation. I had no chance to protest against them. Further than that, he entirely misrepresented my connection with that strike. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the matter tonight, but I might say that on one date which he quoted, on the 17th of May of that year, I was on the Pacific coast when these things were happening in Winnipeg, and' I had absolutely nothing to do with what oc-cured in Winnipeg at that date.' I do not want to go into that matter to-night, but I could, I think, put up a very strong case for the workers. May I merely suggest in passing that one hon. member of the House last year who attacked me on that matter is not in the House this year, and the vote to-day showed that I had the support of the entire Winnipeg and Manitoba group who happened to know the situation much better than do the people in the east. I do not want to be too hard on outsiders with regard to this matter, because I know that propaganda
was sent out through the press that misrepresented the entire situation. However, I leave that to one side.
I was anxious to speak on this question to-night because the vote on the Chairman's ruling this afternoon was not taken on the point to which I had raised objection, and I had no opportunity then of setting myself right. Later on, after the vote was taken, the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington-I want to give him credit-gave a fairly accurate statement of the case, but I think there was a decided misunderstanding on his part as well as on the part of the chairman as to just where my objection lay, so I want to make that clear. The hon. member for Frontenac-Addington quoted from what he said was a speech of mine. I think it was in reality a quotation from the preamble of the platform of the Labour party of British Columbia of which I was then a member, and where I happened then to be living. It runs as follows:
The ultimate object of the confederated labour party is the collective ownership and democratic operation of the means of wealth and production. This involves a complete revolution in our whole economic and social structure.
Apparently the word "revolution" frightened or scandalized the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington. I might point, out to him that according to the historians there took place in Great Britain about one hundred and fifty years ago what was known as the industrial revolution; that was the change from hand production to machine production. Every student of historj' knows that revolution is a term constantly used in industrial history and economics. A great many of us in the labour movement who have tried to study historical developments are of opinion that sooner or later the industrial revolution must be . followed by an economic revolution, meaning a change in our way of controlling this huge machinery of production. I think I would be speaking in terms that would be best comprehended by gentlemen here if I should say that we believe that in the days to come public ownership is inevitable, and if you change from private ownership of a lot of little concerns to public ownership on a large scale by municipalities or by the state you are bringing about what might be termed an economic revolution. That is the point of view of the Labour party, and so far from wishing to repudiate anything of that kind,
I might say that is the reason why I am in this House, for that is the platform of the Labour party both in Canada and in Great Britain. Let me read a paragraph of something
2268	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
I wrote in 1919 which explains our position. I pointed out that a great many people were dragging in the Russian situation and I said:
Now, if instead of thinking so much about the dreadful things that are happening in Russia, suppose we consider the remarkable changes that are likely to take place in Great Britain. Within the last few days, several men prominent in civic affairs and in the Citizens' Committee, have confessed that they know nothing of the platform of the British Labour party. Yet, this party is now in opposition in the British House of Commons and, it is generally conceded, will before long become the government of Great Britain. Their policy is then already a matter of practical polities and may in the not distant future be carried into operation. Either this, say students of social movements, or the deluge!
And I quoted from the platform of the British Labour party:
The view of the Labour party is that what has to be reconstructed after the war is not this or that government department, or this or that piece of social machinery, but, so far as Britain is concerned, society itself.
That is what we belive: there has to be a general social reconstruction. I commented:
"Revolutionary!" certainly. But the exponents of this view are not persecuted as British and Scotch anarchists. A goodly number of them have been elected to parliament.
Then I went on to quote further from the British Labour party manifesto:
The individualist system of capitalist production based on the private ownership and competitive administration of land and capital with its reckless "profiteering" and wage slavery; with its glorification of the unhampered struggle for the means of life, and its hypocritical pretense of the "survival of the fittest"; with the monstrous inequality of circumstances which it produces and the degradation and brutalization, both moral and spiritual, resulting therefrom may, we hope, indeed have received a death-blow.
I went on:
We must insure that what is presently to be built up is a new social order, based not on fighting, but on fraternity-not on the competitive struggle for the means of bare life, but on a deliberately planned cooperation in production and distribution for the benefit of all who participate by hand or by brain-not on the utmost possible inequality of riches, but on a systematic approach toward a healthy equality of material circumstances for every person born into the world-not on an enforced dominion over subject nations, subject races, subject colonies, subject classes or a subject sex, but, in industry, as well as in government, on that equal freedom, that general consciousness of consent, and that widest possible participation in power both economic and political, which is characteristic of democracy.
Some of us were urging upon the labour people that they ought to bring this about in this country as far as was possible by partici-

pation in politics. I do not know whether it is possible for economic changes to come about in that way, but we were urging that the labour people should take advantage of this means of advancing their cause and go into parliament. Reference was made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to some statement by Mr. Ivens in which he suggested that labour should get control of the parliament buildings. He said, "We shall soon mov* in". That was a horrible thing to say! As a matter of fact, Mr. Ivens did move in before very long; he is a member of the provincial house to-day, with four or five of the men associated with him. They were urging political action. It is true that some labour men believe that the only way to bring about these social changes is by force. Some of us have taken the opposite stand. I do not know whether we are correct or not, but we have tried to oppose military force, both as a means of settling international difficulties and also as a means of settling class difficulties, and we have said frankly that we hoped that reason would prevail rather than events would be allowed to drift from bad to worse until there was a cataclysm. That has been the position we have taken. It then seems strange that the hon. member for Frontenac, when I was trying to reduce our own national armament-and I was elected on that platform, it is not only my personal view, but our party platform-should accuse me of wanting to build uip a force for political revolutionary purposes. He made a statement to which I took exception. After quoting me correctly he said words to this effect:
So the object was collective ownership and a complete revolution if necessary by such means as were undertaken in the Winnipeg strike.
That was the sentence to which I objected. I said nothing Whatever in this connection about the Winnipeg strike. I had not the Winnipeg strike remotely in my mind when at that time I used the platform of the Labour party of British Columbia. I 'had not a political revolution in my mind. I was getting *back to the question of an economic revolution which we believe should succeed an industrial revolution. The only thing that makes me wonder whether there will be a political revolution is the stupidity of many of our people who refuse to see the changes that have come about. I want to make myself clear on this. I stand for this platform which has been read several times in the House. I urge the bringing about of this platform if possible by political means; whether or not it will come about in this way largely depends,

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
on the men now in control of our business life. I wrote in 1919, during the time that feeling ran high:
Do our Canadian business men suppose, with revolutions going on all over Europe, and with this program offered in England as a substitute for sudden and perhaps violent revolution, that we in Canada are going to be permitted to go with undisturbed step along the accustomed ways?
No! we too must face the new situation. Whether the radical changes that are inevitable may be brought about peaceably, largely depends on the good sense of the Canadian business man who now controls both the industry and government of this country. We confess the. prospects are not overly bright.
I trust that this statement will help to straighten out the tangle into which we got ourselves this afternoon, and I must thank the House for giving me an opportunity for explaining my position.
Mr. RiOCH LANCTOT (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I have listened with much attention to the debate which has been going on since eight o'clock. My hon. friend from St. John, N.B. (Mr. MacLaretn) discussed just now the cadet question; he told us that the training which cadets received was an excellent thing for their health. I do not differ much from his opinion, for he is a doctor and a better judge than I am of these matters. However, in my part of the country we have other remedies to administer to our youth, it is the help given to us during their two months' holidays, and I contend that it is worth much more in promoting health than the one or two days' training per week in colleges. That is the reason why I am opposed to this item.
While on the subject, I wonder why the present government demands from us extravagant outlays for aviation and all kinds of military ends. I wonder how it is possible that intelligent people are so willing to spend the public funds for purposes which will not bring a cent to anybody. This, however, can be explained: I am aware that in the Department . of National Defence there are "jobbers," people receiving salaries of $8,000 and $10,000 per year, who wish to enlist others; I contend that there lies the reason why they are always willing to claim larger sums for military purposes. If they had to contribute like we the poor people of this country have to, perhaps they might go slower on that subject nnd they would seek to have the least soldiers possible in order to bring down the expenses of those who have to stand the racket.
I have not spoken on this question since 1922. I had thought that once a grit government was returned there would be no more necessity to bring up the subject. The old time grits were sufficiently cautious, they seem to have almost entirely disappeared from the government of this country, yet there are some left. This is a very extraordinary year; ever since I have been a member of this House, I have never seen so much extravagance and to ,cap our misfortunes we are now asked to vote $3,500,000 of military estimates more than last year. When all the great countries of Europe seek to abolish militarism which the last war was to suppress forever, here we start all over again and must arm ourselves. Against whom? Against the countries of Europe? What have they been guilty of in the past against us; to what extent are we indebted to them?
Training young men in summer during six or seven days, spending millions to keep them ,jn military camps where they remain for a week, I ask you, what is it worth? Instead you should be asking the farmers of this country to take these young men and train them. They may not be able to take them (all at the same time, but all the farmers could take a few and pay them as much as they would get in training camps, their health would benefit and many families would be better off for it.
With the useless outlays inserted in the 1927 budget, you will be spending more than you will receive, and what shall be the outcome? Burden the people with new taxes. If you continue discussing aviation and militia, what shall become of us? We shall have to incur new debts just like during the war, and, on this point, I differ from you Liberals; I side with the hon. member for Southeast Drey (Miss Macphail) and I shall vote with her this evening as I have done in the past.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry that I do not share the views of my hon. friend. I am not in favour of extravagant expenditure for militia purposes, but if there is an item which should receive the support of this House it is certainly this particular item. I would tell my hon. friend that all our scholastic institutions in my province, including the college at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere and the Academie de commerce and the seminary in the city of Quebec, take advantage of the militia grant for cadet training. Therefore I support this vote with great pleasure, for undoubtely cadet training is well thought of in my province and in the city of Quebec from which I have the honour to
come.
2270	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Defence-Cadet Services


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman,, I should like to relate to the committee, particularly for the benefit of hon. gentlemen to my right, an incident of the election campaign of 1925. In a mining town of my constituency a supporter of the Conservative candidate, a naturalized Canadian, was in the lobby of one of the hotels and I heard him make this statement several times:
Vote for the Conservatives. They are the rottenest party there is, and if we put them in power we will get a revolution all the sooner.
Hon. gentlemen to my right can make what use they like of that statement.
I am opposed to this vote. Our schoolboys are not lacking in warlike spirit, in fact you can get up a fight in the schoolyard any day on the least provocation. One of the greatest problems our teachers have is to keep the boys living peaceably together. I am speaking from my own experience when I was a schoolboy. I think we all favour physical training for our boys and girls attending school, but I do not think it is right to use the bequest of a lord who has been dead many years to induce us to consent to have this military training imposed upon our children. No doubt, as the hon, member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) stated, parents can keep their children out of the cadet corps, but this places the youngsters in a very embarrassing position, because they are looked at rather askance and treated very coldly by the cadets. I do not think our boys should be put in that invidious position. Let us give our boys physical training by all means, but if we want to give them military training let us do it outside the school. Our schools are under provincial control and the Dominion government has no right to impose military training on the young people attending those schools.
Amendment (Miss Macphail) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works, $803,900.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What is the object of the $237,900 increase?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my hon. friend was in his seat this afternoon when I explained that this is in relation to buildings belonging to the department which have been getting into disrepair from year to year until at last some more active steps must be taken towards repair. I have prepared the most modest allowance in order to see that the buildings are properly kept up.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Are the buildings in Ottawa?


James Layton Ralston: All over the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores, $607,799.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What is the increase of $217,799 for?


James Layton Ralston: I explained that also this afternoon. The increase is mainly on account of the fact that clothing and other supplies of which there has been a considerable stock since the war have been gradually depleted, and we have now to make new purchases. This applies also to other stores.


Mr. GEARY:: Has the minister taken any steps to supplement the existing stock of coloured uniforms?


James Layton Ralston: I have not, but the matter is under consideration by the department. Representations have been made by some units, particularly the infantry association, with respect to this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manufacturing establishments, $472,395.
Mr. STINSON:: How is this vote to be applied?


James Layton Ralston: It has to do with the
Dominion arsenal at Quebec and a similar building at Lindsay. The latter we are not using at present, we are simply maintaining it.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: How is the amount divided between the two?


James Layton Ralston: About $464,000 for the Dominion arsenal at Quebec, and $8,000 odd for the Lindsay establishment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $2,084,300.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Why the increase of
$424,300?


James Layton Ralston: That also was gone into this afternoon, but not in detail. As I explained this afternoon, an endeavour will be made to train officers and non-oommissioned officers throughout these various militia units, and this simply provides for sufficient personnel in order to enable that training to be carried out. Probably 33,000, all ranks, officers, non-commissioned officers and men, will be trained this year, and I may tell the committee that that is out of a paper establishment of something like 127,000, which is a very small proportion.

Supply-National Defence


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I notice in the report
of the Imperial conference that all the prime ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada, agreed upon the following:
The Imperial conference regrets that it has not been possible to make greater progress with the international reduction and limitation of armaments referred to in these resolutions.
That refers to the resolutions adopted at the conference of 1923-
It is the common desire of the governments represented at this conference to do their utmost in pursuit of this object so far as this is consistent with the safety and integrity of all parts of the empire and its communications.
By the comments which were made and the speeches delivered by the various prime ministers, as well as the remarks appearing in the press later on, everyone understood that the result of the conference would be that in each of the countries represented, an effort would be made to reduce t'he expenditure on armaments. Now I see that this item, which refers to our force proper, the non-permanent active militia which is our real force-


James Layton Ralston: No; the active force.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is the permanent
force also, but there is no change there. So the result of this pious desire, if I may so call it, expressed by the various governments represented in London, to reduce armaments, results, so far as we are concerned, in a straight increase. It would therefore seem to me that we are not responding to the wishes of the conference upon which all t'he representatives agreed, by increasing the amount devoted to our militia by about 20 per cent.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I see that this item
has been increased by $424,300, and I understand that this is for training?


James Layton Ralston: For the training of t'he
non-permanent active militia.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Would the minister
say where this training is to be carried on?


James Layton Ralston: We are endeavouring to
arrange more training in camps than there has been. In the past there has been very little training in camps, and an endeavour is being made to reestablish at least a few of the camps and have the training carried on there for a short period. It is felt that the rural regiments have not really had a fair show in that respect.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Is it the intention of
the minister to utilize Valcartier camp this year?


James Layton Ralston: I am not sure whether
Valcartier can be utilized this year; the matter is under very serious consideration, and a decision has not been arrived at as yet. We have in mind the advantages of Valcar-tier, of course, and the expenditure which has been made, the only thing which deters the department is the fact that it will cost a considerable amount of money to put that camp in shape, because it has not been used for some time.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: What other camp
could be utilized in Quebec?


James Layton Ralston: I think the usual encampment is at Levis.


John Evans: I think it would be only
reasonable for the government at this time to give us some statement regarding their policy in this matter, seeing that we have such an increase this year. I would like to know why the government sees fit, at a time such as this, to increase this vote in this way.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know that I can add very much more to what I have already said. I only want to add that I think this vote is less this year than it was before the war. Perhaps some hon. members of the committee may not understand that this is purely a non-permanent active militia vote, and is only to provide for the training for nine days of about one-quarter of the paper strength of that force.


George Reginald Geary: I would like to ask the minister if there is any increase in establishment.


James Layton Ralston: No.


George Reginald Geary: There is no increase in the establishment; the only thing is that you are trying to train a greater proportion of the paper strength. As one who has had some occasion to learn of the work of the militia, I desire to say that the militiamen generally, and those who are interested in the defence force of this country, approve very highly of the action of the government in this regard. The rural battalions, particularly, have not had a fair chance in regard to instruction; a very small proportion of the paper strength of the rural battalions has been instructed at all. Now if we are going to have a force, even on paper, which can be called upon for the defence of our shores, for instance-and I think the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) would not object to that-that force must be trained in order to be effective if such an occasion should unhappily arise. Instructors are sent out; militia officers have devoted their time and money almost without stint trying to make the non-permanent force
Supply-National Defence

of this country as efficient as possible. Some pay is given to officers and other ranks, but I think in almost every case that pay is turned in for the good of the service. I cannot recall a case where any rank of the militia has taken the pay allotted to him for training and devoted it to his own use; that money is diverted to the service of this country in keeping up the different militia units. In the cities, while we have a good deal of trouble, we do not face anything like the difficulties which confront rural battalions, which under the previous appropriation could only train a very few of their men. There is no building up of a military spirit, as the hon. member for Labelle knows; it is purely a matter of preparing men should the time come when our shores must be defended.
I have only a further word to say, and I say it because I am not in the militia now and therefore am not talking of anything in which I am concerned. These men who have interested themselves in the permanent force of our country are deserving of the greatest possible praise and credit for the work they have done, for their sacrifices of time and money in order to keep up in some degree the potential forces of this country. I think the hon. member for Labelle may rid his mind of the notion that this is an increase in armament, because it is not an increase in any way; it is only an attempt to make a greater proportion of that paper strength trained and effective for the purpose for which they were raised. As forcefully as I can, I desire to support this vote, knowing that it meets with the approval of those who have the interests of their country at heart, as reflected in the establishment of the non-permanent active militia.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to ask the minister whether the armouries come under the control of the officers of the permanent or non-permanent forces?


James Layton Ralston: The non-permanent.


Robert Gardiner: I would like some information, then, as to the method of renting these armouries for meetings, dances, and all that sort of thing. Who is responsible for that.


James Layton Ralston: I had a statement prepared, Mr. Chairman, by the Quartermaster General in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) the other day, but I have mislaid it for the moment. Speaking generally, the local officer in charge of the armouries has to do with the renting of it, subject to the approval of district headquarters; as the hon. gentle-

man knows, the country is divided into military districts. An application to that officer through the military district is generally all that is necessary. Sometimes an application is made by the officer in charge of the military district to headquarters.


Robert Gardiner: Where do the funds go that are received for the rental of these armouries?


James Layton Ralston: The funds are sent in
through the military district. There was a case mentioned by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, which I had investigated immediately, where the funds were kept by the officer in charge and used by him for payment of the caretaker, for the payment of fuel and so on. He rendered an account but did not give the account in until the inspection was made. But the proper way is that these funds should go in through the military district to the Receiver General.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister ever heard of a case where the armouries have been rented for the game of badminton, and the rent paid was transferred to the mess account?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think that that has ever been done. I am informed that there may have been a case where some person contributed to the mess fund.


Robert Gardiner: I mean where armouries were rented for club purposes.


James Layton Ralston: No, I have no knowledge of any case of that kind.


Robert Gardiner: I will make further inquiries, and as soon as I have received information I will bring it to the minister's attention.


James Layton Ralston: I should be glad if my
hon. friend would do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force, $4,800,000.
George Gibson Coote: I should like to ask the minister if he could give us the number of officers of different ranks and the number of men that are in the permanent corps, also the pay they are drawing.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend the different ranks. I can give him the number of officers and men. There are 334 officers and 2,995 men, a total strength of 3,329 of all ranks.


George Gibson Coote: What rate of pay are the
men receiving?

Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: The average rate of pay is $994.79 per annum.


George Gibson Coote: I do not know that the minister understood me correctly. Can he give me the pay of the privates?


James Layton Ralston: The total pay and allowances for a single man over 18 years of age on appointment amount to $876. For a married man the pay and allowances total $1,131.50 that is when he is out of quarters. After he has been three years in the ranks the single man receives $912.50, and the married man $1,168.


George Reginald Geary: That is pay and allowances?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, pay and allowances.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the minister how men are secured for the permanent force?


James Layton Ralston: They are recruited. They are examined, and if they pass the examination and there is a vacancy they are accepted. The establishment is very small, and there are very few vacancies. When there are vacancies they are very quickly filled.


George Gibson Coote: Is there any trouble in keeping the force up?


James Layton Ralston: Not with a force of 2,900 men.


George Reginald Geary: WTould the minister tell me
what reduction was made in the pay of the private soldier following a report made some two or three years ago, and whether the amount of the reduction has been restored?


James Layton Ralston: No, it has not been restored. The reduction was about five per cent.


George Reginald Geary: Has the reduction not caused the force to lose many men? I think it was reported by the then minister two years ago that it had resulted in the loss of a good many of the force.


James Layton Ralston: I am instructed that quite a number of men did drop out, but that a great many of them have reenlisted.


George Reginald Geary: Is there any possibility of
restoring the former rate of pay to the
other ranks?


James Layton Ralston: I have not taken it into
consideration up to the moment. That is to say I have not taken it into consideration with the possibility of giving my hon. friend any hope just now.


George Reginald Geary: Perhaps the minister will be good enough to say he will take the matter into consideration in the future?


James Layton Ralston: I will go that far.


George Gibson Coote: Is this amount all required
for pay?


James Layton Ralston: No. It is also required to pay for transport, transferring stores, equipment, printing and stationery, and miscellaneous.


Robert Gardiner: What is the total pay
list?


James Layton Ralston: The estimated pay list in this vote is $4,020,000.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Is there any increase
in the strength of the permanent force compared with last year?


James Layton Ralston: No, none.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us
approximately where the units of the permanent force are stationed?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the units with their numbers are as follows:
Ontario-
District No. 1			 District No. 2	 District No. 3	 Quebec- District No. 4			 216 	 452 	 387 	 242 		 260
New Brunswick- District No. 7				 56
Nova Scotia- District No. 6			 568
Manitoba- District No. 10			 483
British Columbia- District No. 11			 285
Saskatchewan- District No. 12			 53
Alberta-* District No. 13			 169


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Topographic survey, $40,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is this topographic survey made for military purposes alone?


James Layton Ralston: .Some of these maps
are sold for civilian purposes. They are very detailed and very good maps.


Robert Gardiner: Does this survey overlap the Topographic survey of the Department of the Interior?


James Layton Ralston: No, it is not the same work at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-National Defence
[Stage Direction]
Transport and freight, $165,000.
Mr. DICKIE :: Perhaps I might introduce,
under this item, a resolution which has been sent to me, without going much farther afield than previous speakers have done. The resolution in question is from the Cowichan branch of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, and reads as follows:
Owing to the fact that Canada has large trade interests in China, which are likely to expand, also to the fact that there are many Canadians in China who are being protected by the imperial troops-
Be it resolved that the Canadian government be requested to pay entire costs of transport, maintenance and treatment of all imperial service men invalided to Canada from any cause whatsoever due to service in China.
I am in complete accord with this resolution. We look to the great British navy for defence in all parts of the world, but we contribute very little towards its upkeep and wre of British Columbia feel ashamed that we do not contribute more. We can call ourselves an autonomous nation or anything else we like, but the fact is that we are simply a unit of the great British nation and I am glad that such is the case. Therefore I do not see why we should not contribute some modicum towards the upkeep of that splendid navy which protects us and our ships which sail at least some of the seven seas.
When that wonderful warship the Blake sailed into Esquimalt harbour, I am sure the rank and file and officers of that ship must have been greatly impressed. Our regular army consisting of two hundred and fifty or three hundred men were there to await the arrival of those officers and men and there were perhaps one hundred and fifty others, boy scouts and naval reserve men, making a total of some five hundred men to meet that great warship. When the officers were landing, the band at the head of those men played "0 Canada, we stand on guard for thee." I am sure those men must have been favourably impressed with our Canadian regular army of three or four hundred men who stood on guard.
Those are good men, willing to do their share, all that they can do, but we think they should receive better treatment than they are receiving. We have naval reserve men, naval instructors, a number of them, men that we have borrowed from the Imperial (army. They did good work in the Imperial army; they came to Canada and gave us their services, and have a grievance in this respect; they wish the time they spent in the Imperial army added for pension purposes to the time they have given their services to Canada.

That is a reasonable attitude on their part. I took the matter up last year, but as hon. members know, in the hectic days of last session little was accomplished. I wish the department would take this matter under consideration.
I wish the department would take under consideration also the resolution which has been received from the great Canadian league. Surely we should have some national pride. We do not want protection for nothing. This "peace at any price" movement stops at the Rocky mountains; we have very little of it in British Columbia. We hold in absolute contempt men who have no national pride and who belong to the "peace at any price" party as we call them in this country. We do not want them in British Columbia, and I would suggest that we set aside at Port Nelson-and I know of no more unfavourable place-a colony to which to transport those people along with the Doukhobors and bible students. I do not know that Port Nelson will be useful for any other purpose, but it would be of some use in that regard, so let us send them there. I was going to say: Let us send a few free traders with them but when I come back to consider the matter, practically every fanatic in Canada is a free trader and therefore that branch of politics would be well represented at Port Nelson. We want no "peace at any price" people in British Columbia and we have very few of them there.
If we are part and parcel of that great British nation, let us do something towards the upkeep of the navy which protects our ships. Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all contribute many times more than we do towards the upkeep of the British navy. Surely we have some national pride. We call ourselves a nation; we say that we have perfect autonomy. I say this is hardly correct. Some day we may have; some day we may make this a great nation and we may have complete autonomy. I know of no reason why we should wish to separate from the great British nation. We receive from them more than we do from any other people in the world; they are our best friends, and we have an immense balance of trade with them. But we take their money and hand it over to our neighbours in the United States. Some of my weak-kneed friends to the left pay that we can place reliance on the Monroe doctrine. What kind of a Canadian is one who would expect the United States to defend Canada on the seas or anywhere else? There is no need of war between Canada and the United States; the United States is at present effecting an economic conquest of this country.

Supply-National Defence
Wherever you go you see great institutions owned by United States capitalists who come to Canada because they know this is a goodly land, and they are bringing capital into this country ad lib. In British Columbia most of our pulp mills, many of our great sawmills and our mines, are under the control of United States capitalists. It is said and it has never been disputed that 70 per. cent of our timber belongs to United States people. They are effecting an economic conquest of Canada without going to war with us, as I am sure they never expect to do. I would be ashamed of any Canadian who said that we should come under the protection of the Monroe doctrine. Let us stay with the great British Empire until the time comes when we may break away and I hope that time will never come.


[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 Canadian naval reserve and the Roval Canadian naval volunteer reserve, $1,725,000.
John Evans: I would like to say a word at this point, not because I am going to oppose the item, but because of the insult that has been thrown out to this part of the House by the hon. member (Mr. Dickie). Patriotism throughout British Columbia does not end at the Rocky mountains. Members in this part of the House to-day have perhaps somewhat more patriotism than the hon. member himself has. Saskatchewan was one of the first to heed the call; it sent more men to meet the enemy at the front than did British Columbia, and moreover we did not talk about it. When the hon. member throws out an insult of that kind, it is only one of many that we have had to stand this year and last year. Saskatchewan has done its share, and when the hon. member throws out a blanket insult of that kind, it hurts everybody at this end of the House. I do not have to accept a lecture from the hon. member regarding my loyalty to the British Empire. I was brought up in Great Britain and I am glad that I was. I am British to the core to-day, and 1 want to tell the hon. member that two of mine went out of my home and1 faced the enemy for three years and a half in Europe. I do not know whether the hon. member can say that or not. Whether he can or can not he is not entitled to lecture us on our patriotism.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I said nothing at all against the patriotism of the hon. member.


John Evans: I want these hon. gentlemen
to sit down and keep quiet while I am
speaking. As regards charging anyone in this part of the House being weak-kneed, let mo say that Saskatchewan to-day is making her own living, finding her own income and furnishing as large a part of the national income as any other province in Canada. More than that we are doing that by selling our products against the competition of the whole world, whereas the hon. member says that he cannot make a living in that way. We can do it, and to-day when we advocate peace, we are advocating peace through trade methods that will make for peace instead of war. I want the hon. gentleman to understand that when the call for war came, Saskatchewan was the first to answer, and more men while they were particularly needed, went from Saskatchewan than from any other province in Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What is the reason for the increase in this vote?


James Layton Ralston: The increase is shown as $225,000, but it really is only $125,000, as there was a supplementary vote last year for $100,000. There is a slight increase, of five, in the number of the Royal Canadian Navy proper, and ap increase of eighty in the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve. As hon. members know, that is a reserve of professional seamen, who are on what you might call a small retainer each year for service in the navy. There is also a slight increase in the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, which is still considerably below strength. Then the supply of fuel oil accounts for about $102,000.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There was a special despatch from Ottawa which appeared in one of the Montreal papers last week to the effect that the government contemplated a renewal of practically the whole naval force, the scrapping of what remains at present of the so-called naval force, and the purchase or building of two new cruisers and a flotilla of destroyers. That was given as being the program of the government to be announced shortly. Can the minister give us any information as to that?


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend that there is nothing in this vote which would justify any such suggestion.
Mr- BOURASSA: I do not say there is anything in this vote, but surely if this is the program of the government the House is entitled to know upon this vote if there is anything in the rumour.
Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: There has been no decision as to the future provision of naval craft or as to the policy which will be adopted in that
respect.


Mr. CLARK:: Can the minister tell the committee what is the relative per capita expenditure on naval defence in Australia and Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I have not those figures at hand.


John Arthur Clark: Perhaps the minister could state whether the figures stated by Premier Bruce at the Montreal conference are correct. He states that the per capita expenditure in Australia is 17 shillings and 2 pence, and in Canada 8 pence; in other words 16 cents in Canada, as compared with $4 odd in Australia.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend is about right with regard to the Canadian estimate. I cannot say as to Australia.


George Gibson Coote: How many ships have we in the Canadian navy now?


James Layton Ralston: The question was answered in the House the other day. There are two destroyers, the Patriot and Patrician; and four mine sweepers, the Ypres, Festubert, Armentieres and the Thiepval.


George Gibson Coote: Do these ships make any cruises in the summer months?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, training cruises.


George Gibson Coote: Has the government considered the advisability of sending them up to explore ice conditions in the Hudson strait and Hudson bay, so that they can bring back a report to us as to the feasibility of that route, and as to whether there is safe anchorage at Port Nelson and Fort Churchill?


James Layton Ralston: The answer is in the negative.


George Gibson Coote: Does not the minister think it would be a good idea to use these boats for that purpose? A great controversy has been waged in this House for years as to how many months of the year the Hudson strait is open. We have this navy, and we are passing a. vote for it every year, and I understand from the minister that these vessels are making cruises anyway; so would it not be the part of wisdom to use these votes for that purpose? I am sure it would be good training for the men on the ships, and they might bring back some useful information.


Mr. MANION:: Is my hon. friend anxious to lose the little navy that we now have?


George Gibson Coote: I am not at all anxious to
lose the navy, because if we did we would have to provide more ships. I really think I have made a worth-while suggestion which the minister might well accept.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid that I could not accept it at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air force vote (Service)-for air force operations and training, including training for work for other government departments, $1,669,694.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is an increase in
this vote of $875,000 odd. Will the minister explain that?


James Layton Ralston: The increase of $675,000
is largely due to making provision for replacement of the obsolete military air craft which are now used for the training of the Royal Canadian Air Force by craft of more modern types. Hitherto the training has been carried out entirely on war type air craft. If any reasonable efficiency of the force is to be maintained, the personnel must have experience in the modern types. Hon. gentlemen will understand that a man cannot fly in a machine which has a maximum speed of 100 miles an hour, and then be expected to handle a modern machine flying at 175 miles an hour. It is proposed to replace these more or less obsolete craft with a very small flight of modern machines.


Robert Gardiner: How many new aeroplanes is it proposed to buy altogether?


James Layton Ralston: Twelve.


Robert Gardiner: Where are they to be purchased? Are they made in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: Any machine the name
of which begins with a "V" is made by Vickers. Four will be purchased from Vickers probably, and the other four probably from the Armstrong, Whitworth Company, of England.


Robert Gardiner: Is that the Vickers in Montreal?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What do they cost per unit?


James Layton Ralston: The cost depends upon
the style. Would my hon. friend like the
details?


Robert Gardiner: Perhaps the minister
would give the total cost of each type.

Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: The cost of the four
planes which will probably be bought in England is $33,250 and of the four others $21,440 apiece. For Vancouver there are two machines and S engines, at a cost of $73,996; Camp Borden, two groups of four machines to be purchased in England with engines, at a cost of $316,852; Ottawa, one machine with two engines, costing $19,794; spare parts, $102,661; customs, sales tax and freight, $94,295; or a total of $607,598.


Robert Gardiner: At which point is most
of the training done, or is it all done at one
point?


James Layton Ralston: Most of the training is
done at Camp Borden.


Robert Gardiner: How many officers
under training at the present time altogether?


James Layton Ralston: Eighty-four.


Robert Gardiner: Are you increasing the
number from year to year?


James Layton Ralston: That is the way it grows. There is some increase in this vote. The total number in this vote is 527 altogether, 97 officers and 430 men. You will understand the personnel has to carry out all the work on the civil side. In connection with the next vote there is an increase of something lik' $2,000,000.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister taken
into consideration the advisability of separating the civil force from the military force? I understand there is a great deal of contention between the two services and that we are not -getting the service which we might expect if we separated the civil from the military force. Has the minister any information about that?


James Layton Ralston: The government has under consideration now the general idea that my hon. friend has mentioned. No decision has been arrived at.
Mr. AD8HEAD:	There is no part of the
military estimates with which I am more in sjrmpathv than this, but as so much of the expenditure is said to be due to civil rather than militarj' purposes, does the minister not think in fairness to his department that a large part of this should be charged to some other department rather than to his, because the result is that it makes the military estimates larger than they ought to be?


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend
is right about that,


REVISED
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will my hon. friend take that into consideration.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Is this program of organization carried on in conjunction with the British government-the increase or the reorganization?


James Layton Ralston: We are on item 103.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is one of the items
of this vote.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was agreed upon in
London, with regard to the air service especially.
. Mr. RALSTON: It is in the next vote.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: But this is in regard
to the air force. The next vote is for the civil and this is for the military.


James Layton Ralston: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, it is in the report
of the committee on defence, dealing with the cooperation of the officers for the land forces, for the naval forces and for the air forces.


James Layton Ralston: I think I can say that
the only connection with the British government in this regard is as to the experimental civil air service which it was suggested might be established between England and Canada. The suggestion was made at the Imperial conference that Canada would cooperate to the extent of providing a landing field and mooring house in connection with what would be strictly a civil, not a military service.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is a pity that in the report of the conference it has been mixed up with all the decisions taken with regard to cooperation in military affairs, because the part referring to the air service is put under the readoption of the resolutions already adopted at the conference of 1923. Now, one of the resolutions of the Imperial conference of 1923 on defence was as follows:
(e) The desirability of the development of the air forces in the several countries of the empire upon such lines as will make it possible, by means of the adoption, as far as practicable, of a common system of organization and training and the use of uniform manuals, patterns of arms, equipment and stores (with the exception of the type of aircraft), for each part of the empire as it may determine to cooperate with other parts with the least possible delay and the greatest efficiency.


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
[Stage Direction]
That is all relating to the military air force. Another paragraph reads:
The conference takes note with satisfaction of the substantial progress that has been made since 1923 in building up the air forces and resources of the several parts of the empire.
That is military. Another clause of the report reads:
(b) Recognizing that the fullest mobility is essential to the effective and economical employment of air power, the conference recommends, for the consideration of the several governments, the adoption of the following principle:-
The necessity for creating and maintaining an adequate chain of air bases and refuelling stations.
Is that not includted in this vote-refuelling stations and air bases?
James Layton Ralston: The only provision which, so far as I know, has any relation or anything more than an incidental relation to the matter to which my hon. friend refers is a provision in vote 103a for a preliminary amount for the establishment of an air field and mooring mast in Canada for an experimental airship service. These purchases of air craft would be made irrespective of the policy laid down at the conference. They have nothing to do with the suggestions in that report, except with respect to the mooring.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think
this is one vote with which most of us can agree, but I dislike frankly the inclusion of the civil air force. We are discussing that at the moment, are we not?


James Layton Ralston: No. It is the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air force vote (Civil)-for operations for other government departments, including fire protection and suppression, photography, transportation, investigation of forest and grain pests and fishery patrols for Department of Interior (forestry branch, topographic surveys branch, water power branch, parks branch, geological surveys branch) Department of Indian Affairs; Public Works Department; Department of Agriculture; Department of Customs and Excise: Department of Marine and Fisheries; Department of Mines, $2,222,539.
Edward Joseph Garland: I think the civil air force in this country has been doing a remarkable work, probably preeminent in their line. I am glad to notice that some of the members of the civil air force are doing a great deal of propaganda work and educating the people as to just what this thing is going to mean to us in Canada. There is a tremendous field for the air force in the destruction of insect pests that are destroying our forests. I understand an attempt is to

be made this year to smother the spruce bud worm. Also, I understand we are going to use these airplanes to try to stamp out wheat rust. I hope that is to be part- of the policy of the department in the coming year. But although I am glad to see the department going ahead with these things, I should like to ask the minister if he considers it wise to continue the evolution of our civil air force within a military department. Frankly, I am opposed to it. I am of opinion that you will hamper its development, you will so strangle it with red -tape that its propellers will not work properly.


John Arthur Clark: They worked all right during the war.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend is always thinking in terms of war.


John Arthur Clark: They were fairly capable
men there. Don't you think they will be capable now?


Edward Joseph Garland: I should
like to see it kept out of military control-


John Arthur Clark: May I ask a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, when I finish my sentence. I should like to see this thing kept altogether out of the hands of military administration. My impression of military administration is that every tin pot general has t'o have a staff of batmen around him; every little brass hat has to have a little staff of servants officially to do saluting and that sort of business; a lieutenant' cannot sleep in the same room with a sergeant; the sergeant has doubts whether i-t is right for him to sleep with a corporal, and that sort of thing. It strangles the civil development of aviation. Now, if the hon. gentleman has a question to ask me I am perfectly willing to answer him.


John Arthur Clark: Of course, my hon. friend
must always become insulting to anything connected with the army.


Edward Joseph Garland: I disagree
with my hon. friend.


John Arthur Clark: You certainly used insulting language to officers of His Majesty's service, very insulting.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
moment.


John Arthur Clark: The question I want to
ask


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman cannot' use that language to me in this House. I insulted no

Supply-National Defence
officer of His Majesty's army or anybody else. I ask that the hon. gentleman's statement that I insulted any officer of His Majesty's service be withdrawn.


John Arthur Clark: I certainly will not withdraw what I said. You were most insulting.


Edward Joseph Garland: Most insulting ! The hon. gentleman really must keep within the rules of this House.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There is no rule for
the Tories here.


Edward Joseph Garland: I submit,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman's reference to my language as being insulting-


John Arthur Clark: Certainly, it was insulting
to His Majesty's forces.


Edward Joseph Garland: I deny that my language was insulting, and I ask the hon. gentleman to point to a single sentence of mine which can bear that construction.. If he cannot do so I ask him to withdraw his remark.


John Arthur Clark: There is nothing to be
withdrawn. The question I would ask my hon. friend is this: Does he not think that a force that fought as the air force did in the war is capable of any work in civil life?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I do
not. I will be quite frank with you. I have given you some reasons why.


John Arthur Clark: They seem to be doing
fairly well in civil life to-day, some of those who fought.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, but
they are being crippled by the military administration. If you could turn these men loose you would give them a chance to develop their own ideas with respect to civil aviation. They possess immense capacity if given proper surroundings, but I submit that you strangle their initiative by keeping them as a military unit and subjecting them to the desciplinarian methods of militarism.


John Arthur Clark: If you had a little of that
discipline you would be a better man.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend is peeved. Aviation must appeal to the imagination of all youth to-day. One gentleman in this country I think deserves a good deal of credit, Mr. Chairman, for the work he has been doing in the last few years in endeavouring to develop public opinion along these lines. I refer to Mr. J. A. Wilson, Secretary of the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have in my hands several articles from his 32649-144i
pen, that have appeared in various papers, and I think if more such work was done to develop the psychology of the public in respect to this evolution of the service would be much more rapid. In one of these articles Mr. Wilson relates an incident which I think is worth bringing to the attention of hon. members. A mining engineer travelling on the train from Winnipeg to Toronto received a wire from his principals to stop off en route to examine newly staked claims in the Red lake mining district. He left the train in the afternoon at Minaki where the Federal Airways Service, a Toronto company, had an aircraft ready for him. He then flew 120 miles northeast to the camp, where he was able to examine the claims and to fly back to Lookout, where he joined the same train that he had left at Minaki four and a half hours earlier. In the meantime he had undertaken his survey, and when he got on the train at Sioux Lookout he was asked by the aviator if he felt tired. He replied, No, I have spent my time writing my report. It shows what can be done in. reaching out of the way places where no other means of transportation is available. I hope the minister will give sympathetic consideration to the suggestion I have made. I think civil aviation should be taken out of the National Defence department altogether. If you want to know where to put it, I would submit the best place in the world would be a department of transportation, which would take over not only air transportation, but railways and canals and all the work of the Marine department that is similar to this sort of thing, that is, the setting of lights, airway guides, flying fields, and so on, which after all cover very similar work. If all these were bulked into one department we would' hot only have a more efficient and economic administration, but we could possibly do without one or two ministers with whom at the present times we have the pleasure of conversing.


Mr. SPENCE (Maple Creek):: In advocating the -separation of the military from the civil air service, does not the hon. gentleman disagree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), who asks that naval cruisers be used to investigate the navigability of the Hudson straits?


Edward Joseph Garland: We are
talking of airplanes, not cruisers.


George Spence: The same
principle is involved.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I do
not disagree. I think it would be a good
Supply-National Defence

thing to shoot a few airplanes up there to look over the ice field in order to find out the nature of the floating ice and whether the channel is blocked for a greater or lesser period.


John Arthur Clark: Is it the intention to investigate the Hudson bay route by means of this vote?


James Layton Ralston: No. The committee will remember that last week there was a vote in the Marine and Fisheries estimates for the purpose.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I suggest it would be a good idea for the minister to confer with the Minister of Railways with a view to establishing an air service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. On account of ice conditions the island is sometimes isolated from the mainland for days together. In fact, last year I remember going home from here on May 24, and the boat could not cross to the island because of ice conditions. The utility of the service could be demonstrated very well in getting mails and passengers across. A few days ago the car ferry was tied up on account of ice conditions. I hope the minister will consider the advisability of establishing such a service at this point.


George Gibson Coote: I wonder if the minister
would be good eonugh to give us the amount to be spent in each of these departments which are named?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid I could not give that in dollars and cents although I can tell my hon, friend the work to be done and the provinces in which it is to be done; I have three or four pages of it here. I can say that I think the only item here which is not for some other department is that item which I mentioned to the hon. member for Labelle, with regard to the provision for the mooring mast.


George Gibson Coote: We are asked under this vote to spend $1,416,539 more than was spent last year; as a matter of fact, we are spending about three times the amount spent last year. I am not going to press the minister for these figures-


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I cannot give them.


George Gibson Coote: -but probably he can get them some other time. I want to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that if this work were done by a department of civil government rather than by military men it

could be done at a much lower cost. I distinctly remember being told by a gentleman who has had a great deal to do with the administration of military affairs in this country that military men do not know the value of a dollar. The expression he used was, "They seem to have the idea that dollars grow on trees, and we just go out and pick them off." I suppose it is only natural that military men should not realize the value of a dollar, especially the men who have grown up in the service and who simply draw their pay at the end of each month. Whenever they want a new gun or a new aeroplane or something else, they simply put in their order and it is given them. I have been told by a man who has a great deal to do with the administration of a department of civil government in this country that so far as his department was concerned, it was his opinion that if they were allowed to hire their own aeroplanes and their own pilots and to do their flying on their own account, it could be done for approximately one-half of what they were charged by the Department of National Defence, and I think he is quite right. I do not know whether the minister has gone into that, whether he has asked these departments if they would like to have a grant of money with which to do their own air work, or whether they would prefer to have it done by the Department of National Defence. I will admit that I do not know much about it except what I have been told, but that is to the effect that it would be much cheaper to have this done by civil government rather than through the Department of National Defence.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend means by a government department?


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Under contract?


George Gibson Coote: Allow the civil government department to have charge of it; they could do it either by contract or by hiring their own men. In the forest patrol of the state of Montana, which is just south of us, I have been told that the work is done by their own force, and that they do it at a lower cost per unit than we in Canada are spending, and I have every reason to believe that statement is correct. That is my reason for pressing this upon the minister now. Of course, if he is going to have this money spent through his department anyway and wants to give positions to all these pilots and the men who are training for this work, there may be some argument in favour of con-

Supply-National Defence
tinuing it in this way, but if that is not the case I contend that it would be much cheaper to let these departments provide their own services for the work rather than to have it done by the Department of National Defence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that t'he government has been carefully considering the point he has mentioned, the separation of the civil from the military aviation. We are entirely of one mind that the two should be separated, but as t'o whether they should be under a different minister than the one who now has charge of the Department of National Defence is a matter which we will have to consider further. As to keeping the two services distinct there is but' the one view in the cabinet.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does the statement of the Prime Minister mean that we are going to have one air force which will be absolutely a service force?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, absolutely distinct from the service force.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand that this is
the case in the United States, India and Great Britain. If we follow this example we shall certainly be in good company.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is true.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do I understand that
this will change the position placed before the Imperial conference by the Prime Minister? I think if the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the hon. member for Mae-leod (Mr. Coote) had looked at the appendices of the Imperial conference, they would have found the reason why the two forces have been kept together. However that may be, when the question of the co-ordination of all the air forces of Great Britain and the dominions in time of war was discussed, we find that the Prime Minister made this declaration:
The organization and training of this force-[DOT]
The Canadian Air Force-
-has followed closely that of the Royal Air Force, and very substantial progress has been made. Two training centres and six stations (three temporary, during the summer months) have been established in various parts of the country, so as to carry out the several duties of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Then later on:
Officers of the Royal Canadian Air Force are in attendance at the Air Force Staff College, Andrew, and at the Naval Staff College, Greenwich. Others are taking courses at various schools in England.
An exchange of officers has recently been arranged, and liaison visits are also carried out periodically.
Still further on the Prime Minister says:
The Royal Canadian Air Force has made commendable advances in the civil side of its work. As I mentioned at a previous session of the conference, immense areas are being surveyed annually, and millions of acres of valuable forest land protected. The work on the civil side is of such a nature that it provides practical training for the air force personnel.
Civil aviation has a direct relation to the creation of a military air force, and serves to create a reserve thereto.
By the Air Force Regulations an individual who obtains a pilot's certificate automatically becomes a reservist.
So it must be well understood that the personnel of the so-called civil air force is under the authority of the Department of National Defence, and if the Prime Minister has been correctly reported, these pilots automatically become members of the reserve. In other words, the civil air force is nothing but a training body for the preparation of a military air force, which I can understand quite well from a military point of view. Of course, if the object of this whole organization is to recruit aviators, train them for civil work and then keep them in the reserve so that in time of war they come under the authority of the Militia Act as a part of the air force, well and good. But I think the people of this country should be informed of that fact, otherwise we are simply beginning a repetition of what took place some fifteen years ago with regard to the naval force. It was represented in some parts of the country that this force was to be organized for the defence of the country, while in other quarters it was declared to be the most effective contribution Canada could make to the Imperial navy. One side was shown in Quebec, the other side was presented to Ontario, and there went on quite a good deal of equivocation which did not do much good, I think, for the moral unity of the people of this country. I hope we are not on the eve of a repetition of the same comedy of errors. If we mean to participate in the movement which some countries of Europe are undertaking, that is replacing the naval force, and to a large extent the land force, by aerial preparations, not only for the defence of the country but for participation in all imperial wars in cooperation with the British nation and the other nations of the empire, it is just as well that we should know it now. It is not a policy of peace, but at least it is a policy. If it is the policy of the government, those of us who are not in favour of such a policy should not be given to understand that this vote is merely the preparation of a civil air force and has no connec-
Supply-National Defence

tion with the military air force. If the declarations made in London are to govern our air forces-or should I say our aerial policy?-then it means that the civil organization is nothing but a preparation for a military organization. That is what is taking place in France, that is what is taking place in Italy, that is what is taking place-I think to a certain extent although I am not quite sure-in England. As to Germany, everybody in Europe knows of course that if Germany is ever in a position to take her revenge, it will be precisely by the transformation into a military force of the enormpus civil air force she is now organizing.
Mr. AD8HEAD:	Has it not always been
the case, in connection with naval matters, that steamships and men of the mercantile marine have been subject to conscription for service in war time?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not the personnel. The ships themselves have been subject to conscription. But in Canada nobody has ever thought that the men engaged, for example, on the government tugboats, or on small boats used for lighthouse purposes, or on vessels of the mercantile navy, formed a reserve for a war navy. Nobody has ever suggested that, and there is nothing, I think, in our laws which could make it possible. But here we have an undefined position. We have a declaration here to-day that the government is contemplating a complete separation of the civil organization and the military organization; and we have a report from the Imperial conference making the Prime Minister declare in London that there is a direct and close connection between the two services, and that as a matter of fact the civil force is a reserve for the military force. So I would be most happy-I am not criticizing; I am simply putting the two positions forward-if the Prime Minister himself would clear the matter up right at once.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I mentioned
that' in connection with our defence organization a part of the air force was doing civil aviation work; that under their regulations where the military were doing civil aviation work and the pilot received his certificate, he became a reservist in defence work. That all relates to defence; that has nothing to do with civil aviation as distinct from defence. I have just stated that the government was considering the separation of the two branches, the military and the civil aviation. What I have said will remain true as regards the military force should they continue to do civil work. But it is not proposed that they shall do civil work; it is proposed that civil work
'Mr Bourassn.]
shall be carried on by aviators under a civil department of the government. A man who has learned to fly in civil aviation will be undoubtedly a useful man in time of war if men are needed for the purpose of flying in connection with the defence organization work. I do not think anyone will object to a man becoming qualified in as many directions as he possibly can. But let me point out to my hon. friend that the conference of 1923 laid down emphatically that the nature and the extent, if any, of the cooperation which this country should give in defence organization work beyond the shores of Canada was a matter for this parliament to decide, and nothing has been done at' the Imperial conference that could imply we were in any way to go beyond what this parliament itself declares to be the extent to which we shall go. Nothing has been said1 in the conference to bind us in the matter of the use of the defence forces either on the military or on the civil side. I think that is clear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I thank the Prime Minister for his declaration. If that separation is made, the young man who will enter the civil air force and become expert will no longer be automatically a reservist?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh no, that
relates to the military side only.
Mr. BOURASSA. Yes, but as the matter was put before the Imperial conference, and as it applies to the present system, it means that every pilot we employ, whether for civil or military purposes, becomes a reservist automatically. Once the separation is made, those who enter the civil air service will thereby incur no responsibility and no obligation whatever to form part of the military force?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite true.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The present estimate is entirely for defence purposes, it doesn't at all touch the proposed civil aviation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: As to the
suggestion I made, I should like to have some expression from the minister as to whether he thinks it feasible and whether it will receive consideration.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows
that I am acquainted with the general geographical location, and all these matters are worthy of consideration. It means a discussion of the subject between the Department of Railways and some other department, and would need pretty careful consideration before one could commit oneself. But the question is certainly worth considering.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand that
up to the present time a very considerable portion of our air force has been used, for a period at any rate, by the Department of the Interior, and other departments, for civil purposes.


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If this vote is to
be used for defensive purposes, it is not really an increase of S675,000 odd', but an increase of a much greater amount. That is, it means the creation of a purely defensive force which will devote all its time to defence purposes.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, but to the extent
that the overhead and the training of the air force personnel is for the benefit of the service which is represented in 103 and 103a, it is impossible to separate them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields memorials, $200,000.
Hugh Guthrie: There is a vote for battlefields memorials, and in the supplementaries which we have not yet reached there is an item in regard to the walls of the city of Quebec. I understand that while we are voting money for the restoration of those
walls, there is being built in Quebec a theatre called the Auditorium theatre and they are actually using the material of the Quebec city wall in order to build that theatre. Would the minister make some inquiries about that and let us have the facts?


James Layton Ralston: I shall be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Customs and Excise-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.-[DOT] and temporary buildings and rentals, $6,919,181.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection, preventive service and in connection with the board of customs; the latter including salaries of $1,000 each for three members and $500 for the secretary, $862,510.
Miscellaneous-printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds, and uniforms for customs officers, $600,000.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service, $370,510.
Special preventive service-amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate	reported	frauds against the
revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act; also to provide for expenses of such officers and for the purchase or charter of vessels and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws, $350,000.
Amounts to be paid to Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service,-amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $100,000.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and the staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act and salary of $6,500 for the Commissioner of Income Tax, $2,000,000.
Mr. ERNST:: Are appointments to the special preventive service to be made as a matter of political patronage or on the basis of efficiency?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise):: The item explains itself; it says: "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act".
Supply-Customs


William Gordon Ernst: In my constituency on the recommendation of the former member a man was appointed a preventive officer who was twice convicted of being a boot-legger.


William Daum Euler: If that is the case and the hon. member can prove it to me, that man will be discharged immediately.


William Gordon Ernst: He has been discharged, but I did not want a repetition.


William Daum Euler: I am glad to know he has been discharged. Efficiency is to be the first consideration in the employment of any of these men.


William Gordon Ernst: He was discharged during
what the minister might call the interregnum.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the appointment made on the recommendation of a member of parliament?


William Daum Euler: I am quite willing to accept recommendations from members of parliament.


Mr. MacNUTT:: Do I understand the minister to say that the government will dismiss an official on the recommendation of a member of parliament? I have received this morning from a friend in the county of Guys-borough a letter which I wish to place on Hansard. It is dated Sonora, Guysborough county, April 6, 1927, and it reads:
Dear Mr. MacNutt:
I am forwarding you letters re my dismissal as customs and excise officer for Sonora. You will note by the letter I have been dismissed for political partisanship. This charge is not true as I have been following section 32 of the Civil Service Act, 1918.
And' so on. This letter is signed Clarence Frank Bums. The letter dismissing him is dated March 4, 1927, and reads as follows:
I have the honour to advise you that an order in council was passed on March 1, 1927, dispensing with your services as customs-excise enforcement officer at the preventive station of Sonora, N.S., for active political partisanship, contrary to the provisions of section 32 of the^Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended.
Your services will therefore require to terminate immediately upon receipt of this letter.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) G. W. Taylor,
Acting Deputy Minister.
Mr. Burns wired 'bade denying the charge and asking for an investigation. His request for an investigation has evidently been refused, for he received the following letter from
!Mr Euler.]
the Acting Deputy Minister of Customs dated March 30, 1927:
Sir:
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of the 10th instant respecting your dismissal on account of political partisanship.
You are advised in reply that when a member of parliament has made a charge, in writing, that to his own personal knowledge an officer has been guilty of active political partisanship, the policy of the government is to dismiss such officer and your services were dispensed with in accordance with such policy.
I happen to know this young man very well and I am very much surprised to find that he has been charged with political partisanship. I would like to know if the minister has refused to give this young man an opportunity to disprove the charges made against him.


William Daum Euler: I would say to my hon.
friend that the minister would1 never refuse a hearing to anyone who has any complaint to make. At the same time it is only fair to say that the practice and policy of the government is outlined in the letter. If a charge of political partisanship is made by any member of the House, and he states that of his own personal knowledge the man has been guilty of political -partisanship, dismissal takes place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If any member of the
House takes the responsibility of making such a charge, the minister's reply is that that officer will be dismissed without further investigation?


William Daum Euler: That, I understand, is the
policy of the government. At the same time, I repeat what I said at the outset, that there is no intention whatever of refusing an investigation to anyone who asks for one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to ask the
minister with respect to this vote of $350,000, having regard to the vote of $881,835 in the supplementaries. That is a huge sum of money to ask parliament to vote without any adequate explanation. The two votes cannot be separated; one is supplementary to the other, and here is nearly $1,000,000 which the minister asks to spend. I think we ought to know what he is going to do with it.


William Daum Euler: I would have made an explanation earlier if hon. members had not taken the floor. This item of $350,000 which appears in the main estimates is exactly the same amount as was voted last year, and I think the year before. The reason why we have an additional sum in the supplementaries is that at the time when the main estimates were made up we had not decided just what further amount would be required. The work

Supply-Customs
undertaken by the consultative committee appointed by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre, who was then in office, has been of considerable magnitude, as well as the duty that has fallen to myself to decide just what measures we should take with regard to the special preventive service. In the meantime the main estimates had to be made up, so we put in the same amount as we had in last year. In the supplementary estimates we have an item of $800,000 odd, which I will explain, if it is the desire of the committee, when we come to the item. As every hon. member will understand, it is the wish, I think, of parliament, as it certainly is the desire of the country, that we take every measure possible to curb and stop smuggling. The $350,000' which was voted in former years is not sufficient to do that work properly. It may be that the amount we are asking in the suppJementaries is more than we shall need, but it was our intention to ask sufficient from parliament so that -we could carry out the work properly. I want to assure my hon. friends also that it is not the intention to spend one dollar more than is necessary, but we would like parliament to show sufficient confidence in the department to give us sufficient money in order that we might carry out the object which the whole country and parliament wants to serve, namely, the stopping of smuggling.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not objecting to the
department taking the money to prevent smuggling, but what are they going to do with the money? In New Brunswick, on the gulf of the St. Lawrence, we are in close proximity to St. Pierre, Miquelon, and wholesale smuggling has been going on from these islands into the county of Kent, and from there distributed not only through the adjacent counties, but all over the province of New Brunswick and into the state of Maine. That smuggling has been going on without let or hindrance for months, yes, for yeare, until it is a byword in that province of New Brunswick. No real business-like attempt has been made to meet the situation. What is the minister's plan with respect to that traffic, which I can assure him has assumed wholesale proportions, so great indeed that it is alleged that one man in the traffic has practically become a millionaire?


An hon. MEMBER:: What is his name?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I could name him if necessary, but the hon. member for Kent can tell you his name because this man elected him.


Mr. CANNON:: Is the hon. member referring to Doucet, by any chance?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


William Daum Euler: If I may be permitted, it is perfectly well known to myself, as it is to every other hon. member who is following the course of events, that there is a great deal of smuggling going on such as my hon. friend refers to, and more particularly in the maritime provinces, and I am now trying to obtain the money so that I can get the men to enable us to put a stop to that traffic. Up to the present time we have not had sufficient money to get the organization to do the work as we want to do it, and that is exactly the purpose of bringing in these estimates. Our plans are not complete, being still subject to some qualification and variation, but we propose to put along the whole boundary line of Canada and the United States, in the maritime provinces and on the seaboard, a force of men which we think will be sufficient to cope with that evil, in a reasonable way, at least. It means not only putting on a force of several hundred men, but the obtaining of vessels to be used in the prevention of smuggling. It means also the obtaining of automobiles, perhaps 25 or 30 in number, for the purpose of patrolling the border and the roads in the maritime provinces. That is the organization we propose to build up as we are able to do so once the money is voted and the men can be obtained. For the benefit of the committee I may say that the framework of the organization is fairly well completed, but we have not yet clothed it with the men and officers. Nor have we been able to secure vessels. It is not so easy to secure suitable vessels, and it would take too long to build them, so we shall have to arrange to purchase or charter these boats. We propose to divide the whole country into districts: Nova Scotia combined with Prince Edward Island will form one district, under a sub-chief; New Brunswick another district, with probably the inclusion of the Gaspe peninsula in Quebec; Quebec another, Ontario another, the three prairie provinces another, and British Columbia still another. That gives a very brief outline of what we propose to do.


William Irvine: Has it been the general practice since the Civil Service Act was passed to make these appointments regardless of that act, or is this a special departure?


William Daum Euler: We are asking for the passing of these estimates in exactly the same way as they were passed last year and the year before.
Supply-Customs


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: How much time do these preventive officers devote to their duties? Are they full-time men, or do they work one day or one week, or how much?


William Daum Euler: With the exception of about half a dozen officers, we propose that they shall use all of their time in this work.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Take the case of a man who devotes all his time to a very large mercantile business. Would the minister consider him a suitable man to appoint as preventive officer, particularly when he was formerly associated with the liquor trade.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend suggest that he carries on his mercantile business and is also expected to give all his time to the preventive service? That is impossible.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He is carrying on the mercantile business, and is giving none of his time to the other work.


William Daum Euler: Is he a full-time man?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is what I am asking.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will give me the particulars I will see that that is remedied.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: He gets $100 a
month, and is supposed to be a preventive officer under the department in my county.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend will give me his name privately-or publicly, if he wishes-I will investigate the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to pay the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth for work in connection with the reorganization of the Department of Customs and Excise, $50,000.
Mr.   POAVER@: I would like considerable
explanation from the minister as to the future progress of this investigation. This is a vote of $50,000 to pay the firm of Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth. In another item we have a vote of $60,000 I think. Moreover we have two votes of well over $150,000 to defray the cost of this investigation. How much more are we going to pay for this investigation. We have been inquiring into the affaire of the Customs department for well over a year. I do not think we have wasted our time or our money, but there should be some finality. The minister has come down with a new law, the most drastic, I think, (hat has ever been brought before this House. He assured us that with this law he thought he could cope with the smuggling. Moreover, he has completely re-
organized his department because he did not like the name of it. He thought there was a blot on its escutcheon and he changed the name. What more can we obtain by further investigation? AVe have found out that bootlegging is rampant in this country and that smuggling has been carried on almost unchecked. We know that. I do not know what in the world is to be gained by inquiring into it further.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We might assist in the enforcement of the Volstead Act.


Mr. POWER:: We may be able to be of some assistance to the United States by showing them just where the liquor from this country flows into the United States. But why spend good Canadian money for that purpose? Without entering into the details and without seeking to criticize a brother member of the bar, I think it is time that we put a stop to the large fees paid in this connection. I would be the last to criticize a fee of $200 a day to a member of the bar who was carrying on work proper to a member of the bar, but when he is delving into the filth and dirt of bootleg business, for purposes which are peculiarly his own, in order that he might be able to show to the people of this country that this business has been carried on extensively,-something that we all know-I do not think we should pay him $200 a day for his own enjoyment, and that is what it amounts to. The gentleman who is carrying on this investigation must, I am sure, obtain the greatest possible enjoyment out of it. For years he has been preaching prohibition and prohibitory legislation. He now has a chance to chase the demon rum right into his lair. He can show the evil effects of it, and hold himself up to the citizens of the United States, as he has already done, as being the greatest champion of temperance throughout the world. It seems to me the government of Canada knows enough about smuggling and that we need no longer pay $200 a day to this gentleman in order to find out more. Personally I object to any further expenditure under this head. The people of Canada are nauseated with the details of this investigation, and I think it is the duty of the minister, now that he has reorganized his department, changed its name, and knows just what steps he should take in order to stop the nefarious traffic, to close up the investigation at the earliest possible moment. Will the minister state how long he expects this commission to last, and how long he expects to be obliged to pay $1,500 to $2,000 a day in order

Supply-Customs
to gratify the desire of one or two gentlemen to show the people of Canada that in their uplifting, reforming legislation of some years ago they were quite right?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid my hon. friend is labouring under somewhat of a misapprehension. The item under discussion has nothing whatever to do with the gentleman to whom he has referred, nor to the royal commission investigating the customs department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom did he refer?


William Daum Euler: I do not know, but I draw certain inferences of my own. This investigation has nothing to do with the royal commission; it deals only with the reorganization of the department. I will give the House the items very briefly. It does not deal specifically with smuggling at all, but with the reorganization of the department right here in Ottawa and the bringing of the whole department up to date. Certain investigations were carried on with regard to importations at Vancouver. There was a prosecution of certain offenders at Montreal in connection with irregularities, and prosecutions of persons and firms as recommended by the special committee of the House last session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, to E. D. Lennie, acting collector of customs and excise at Montreal, $1,200.
Hugh Guthrie: Can the Minister of
Finance say how he stands in regard to these estimates?


James Alexander Robb: I have not looked at them yet.


Hugh Guthrie: Are they in order for discussion is the point.


James Alexander Robb: I am told by the Clerk that
the resolutions are not prepared. If the House is ready to accept them, though, there is no objection to their going through.


George Gibson Coote: We cannot hear that down
here.


Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation for this item?


William Daum Euler: Mr. Lennie was sent to
Montreal to act as collector after the position there became vacant. This is additional pay to compensate him for additional responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Customs and Excise-special preventive service-amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act: also to provide for expenses of such officers and for the purchase or charter of vessels and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against other revenue laws-further amount required $881,835.	. .
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other _ officers on inspection, 'preventive service and in connection with the Board of Customs-and amount required to create positions and make appointments of Dominion appraisers notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said	act-further	amount
required, $100,000.	,
To pay Mrs. Charles E. McDonald, the widow of C. E. McDonald, sub-collector of customs and excise at Port Borden, P.E.I., who was killed, a compassionate allowance, $500.
To pay Mrs. W. J. Irwin, the widow of W. ,T. Irwin, customs excise examiner at port of Edmonton, Alta., who was killed, a compassionate allowance, $500.
To pay Mr. Joseph Laurent Doiron, customs excise enforcement officer of the preventive service staff at Matapedia, P.Q., a compassionate allowance for the loss of his right arm, due to an accident while on duty, $500.
To provide for expenses of maintenance ot revenue cruisers and for preventive service-further amount required for the appointment of Mr. E. W. Cowan as chief, customs excise preventive service, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, with salary at the rate of $5,000 per annum, effective March 1, 1927, $5,416.66.
George Reginald Geary: Why are these appointments excluded from the Civil Service Commission?


William Daum Euler: We are following the same
practice as last year. But I might add that it would be utterly impossible to get the service organized within five or six months if we had to depend upon the Civil Service Commission to make the appointments. In order to get quick action it is necessary to make the appointments outside the commission.


George Reginald Geary: What happens to the returned soldier's preference in such cases?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pay no attention to it.


George Reginald Geary: I hope the minister is
keeping in mind that the policy of this parliament has been to give the returned soldier preference in civil service appointments.


William Daum Euler: When the appointments are
made I think the hon. member will find that
228S
Supply-Customs

a very large proportion of them will be returned soldiers. I am not giving any particular guarantee at the moment. I am anxious to get absolutely efficient men as quickly as possible.


Robert Gardiner: Is it the intention to bring them under the civil service eventually?


William Daum Euler: I am not prepared to say
that at the moment.


Hugh Guthrie: It is just a hand-out to their own friends.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are political handouts.


Robert Gardiner: Is it the intention of
the government to bring these appointments under the Civil Service Commission eventually^ in view of the statement made by the minister that under the present conditions it is impossible to secure these men from the Civil Service Commission in time to reorganize the staff? That would indicate it was the intention of the government to restore these positions in time to the control of the commission.


William Daum Euler: It would not be a case of
restoration because these appointments never have been under the Civil Service Commission. It' is not the intention that these appointments should be made by the commission, for the reasons given and for others that I could give. As to what might be done next year, or some following year, I am not in a position to say now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister says it is
impossible to have these appointments made through the Civil Service Commission. Has he ever consulted with the commission in regard to the appointment of the staff under this vote?


William Daum Euler: The plan we are working
under now was advanced by a committee of which the chairman of the Civil Service Commission was a member.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Why does the
minister think the Civil Service Commission cannot get competent men just as quickly as he can?


Charles Gavan Power: They don't know the bootleggers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would remind the minister that there is a large number of names on the civil service list of men eligible for appointments such as these. I happen to know several young men that have gone through the universities and taken special courses in ^ 
commerce and economics, hoping they might secure employment in their own country. My attention has been directed to four or five young men particularly for whom there are no vacancies, but their names are on the eligible list. I do not say this offensively, but to reward political services with appointments of this character is not quite fair when a large number of eligible names are on t'he civil service list, especially when those men have endeavoured-to qualify themselves for positions of this very character. They will be shut out.


William Daum Euler: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know human nature.
The minister, strong man though he is, will not be able to resist the pressure of political friends who will say, now, here is our chance, let us take advantage of it. The minister knows this is so, and I was hoping he might not put himself in a position where pressure could be exercised upon him. With his back against the wall and the grim determination that characterizes him he will make a valiant fight; but what is the use when he will yield in the end? These young men should be taken care of.


William Daum Euler: It does not follow that the
young men my hon. friend refers to will not have an opportunity to send in their applications. '


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid they have not much chance.


William Daum Euler: A university education is not necessary to qualify men for these jobs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say so.


William Daum Euler: We will need men who will
be more or less policemen. I do not say they will be disqualified; they might be suitable. To the extent they are they will get consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be political consideration.


William Daum Euler: I am not saying that.


Hugh Guthrie: If the minister will look at the wording, he will notice that after enumerating the offices the item reads:
And the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act.
That is the Civil Service Act.


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no question that
by passing this vote we take all jurisdiction from the Civil Service Commission. I am aware, and so is my friend the minister, that there is a long list of applicants now before the

Supply-Post Office
Civil Service Commissioners, and many of those men are eligible for appointments. Will the minister undertake to consult with the chairman of the civil service board and see if he cannot get a considerable number of his appointees from that list? It will clear the list up for others.


William Daum Euler: Those men are at perfect
liberty to make their applications just the same as others. I suppose we have nearly a thousand from men who are anxious to enter this special preventive service. It will not inconvenience me particularly if they are added to the list. They will be considered the same as others.


Hugh Guthrie: But this list in the Civil
Service Commissioners' office is a list of men who are qualified, and they should be entitled to a preference on that account.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are on the eligible
list.


William Daum Euler: There are more qualifications than are needed for the civil service itself. Those engaged for this preventive service must be men of good physique, they must be young men, they must if possible have had certain experience in this particular kind of work.
I am quite sincere when I say we are anxious to get men specially fitted for this service. The ordinary civil servant-and I do not use the word ordinary in any offensive sense-is not in my opinion adapted for this work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One could understand
that with respect to the preventive officers who patrol the border, but one finds it rather difficult to follow the minister with respect to what he calls the staff. Certainly there must be correlation between what you may call the office work on the one hand and the patrol service on the other. Some of these men are appraisers, who certainly should have a rather wide knowledge of the theory and practice of business.


William Daum Euler: For the office wtork, of
course, men must be found with a fair degree of executive ability.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Daum Euler: As far as the office people
are concerned, their number is comparatively small in relation to that of the whole force.


George Reginald Geary: Why cannot the Civil Service Commission make sufficient speed in this matter? By the time you cut out a few more departments the size of this, you might as well provide for the decent interment of the remains of the Civil Service Act.


William Daum Euler: The position is the same
as that of the mounted police; no one would suggest that the Civil Service Commission should select the mounted police, and this work is very similar.


George Reginald Geary: I quite agree to that, nor
should they select the men for the permanent force.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT Post Office-outside service-salaries and allowances, including amount required to provide for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions and increases which may be authorized by the Civil Service Commission, and amount required to cover provisions of order in council P.C. 1099 of June 27, 1924, $15,918,384.40.	.
Mail service, including proposed mail service by air, $14,655,000.
Miscellaneous, including Lucien Pacaud, secretary of the High Commissioner's office, as the representative of the Canadian government on the Pacific Cable Board at $1,000; and $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties, or to dependents of employees killed while on duty such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council. $1,125,675.
Yukon Territory, $150,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to have an
explanation from the minister with regard to the wholesale manner in which he is beheading postmasters in the province of New Brunswick and particularly in the so-called French counties. As I understand it, there have been cases of the most gross injustice perpetrated since the present Postmaster General took office, particularly in his own county. I have only one case in my own county; that is the case of the postmaster at Canterbury Station, but I anticipate that before the minister is in office many years I will have a great many others. The case of which I have particular knowledge is the case of a returned soldier who was appointed by the Civil Service Commission about two or three years ago, a man well qualified for the work, who served his country overseas and who was appointed because he possessed the necessary qualifications. In the same village where he lived was another person who aspired to the position at that time, but who did not succeed in getting it; he is a man who has since gone into bankruptcy and who is to-day an undischarged bankrupt. This man who was appointed has been relieved of his duty after a hearing which was nothing more than a farce; the evidence against him was that he was taking returns on election night over the telephone, and giving them out to the neighbours; that was the only offence
Supply-Post Office

of a political character reported to me. I know of my own knowledge that he took no part in the election; I especially warned him not to do so, because I knew his head would come off if anything happened.


Mr. VENIOT:: How did you know who
would win?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I expected to win without question. I warned him against having anything to do with politics, because I thought discretion the better part of valour. He has been dismissed with no evidence of political partisanship, in the hope of putting another man into office who has been named to the minister by the Liberal Committee of Canterbury Station, and who has been installed as temporary postmaster. He is a man who owes everybody he can owe in that community, and a man who should not and, I think, will not be appointed to the position of postmaster. I do not think he will receive the appointment because as I understand it there is another good Liberal in the community, a returned man, who is applying for the position, and I believe that in justice to that returned soldier the Civil Service Commission will appoint him rather than the other person.
A return was brought down the other day which was very interesting. I did not know these estimates were coming up to-night or I would have brought it with me to put on Hansard. It showed that from September 24 to March 28 there have been some sixty-three dismissals of country postmasters in the province of New Brunswick. That is a very large number, and they are probably all in the northern communities. I cail to mind the case of one George Chalmers, the postmaster at Charlo Station, commonly known as Charlo. I would like to explain to the House that George Chalmers is a first-class citizen and was a brother-in-law of James Reid, who for many years was a respected member of this House, sitting on the Liberal benches. If George Chalmers has any political sentiments at all they are undoubtedly Liberal, because he owed his appointment to Mr. Reid. Chalmers was dismissed, so far as I am aware, with no adequate investigation; speaking from memory, I think an inspector was sent up from Saint John, and was directed to a certain person who would give evidence against Mr. Chalmers. On the file there is a letter from that very person saying that he knows absolutely nothing as to any part taken by Mr. Chalmers in an election contest. There is also the frank admission on the part of Mr. Chalmers that he drove 
his family and some neighbours to the polls on election day, and did nothing more. I want to tell the Prime Minister that that man is not receiving justice. More than 90 per cent of the people who use that post office wish him to be retained. The general manager of a lumber company, the only mercantile firm in the community, a former member of the local legislature, has written to the department, and his letter is on file, to the effect that his company provides fifty per cent of the entire postal revenue of the office, and they abject to the dismissal of Mr. Chalmers. I think this is a case of grave injustice, and I ask the Prime Minister himself to take ten minues and look over the file, from which he will find that this man should not have been dismissed. I do not remember who has succeeded him; I do not think anyone has been appointed permanently, but the man who wanted the job has been made temporary postmaster. Ninety per cent of the people of that community have signed a petition asking that Chalmers be reinstated, and if the Prime Minister is faithful to the memory of an old supporter and old friend he will look into the matter and will not allow such an injustice to be perpetrated on Mr. Chalmers.


Peter John Veniot: I am a little surprised to hear the hon. gentleman pleading the case of a Liberal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I don't know what he is.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member just
stated that he was a Liberal, which reminds me of the devil rebuking sin. My hon. friend will remember that a policy was laid down in 1923 and concurred in by this House, that the certificate of an hon. member stating his personal knowledge of political interference on the part of any civil servant, would be sufficient for his dismissal without an investigation. That order in council was passed in 1923; the leader of the opposition brought it to the attention of the House, and after a full discussion it was concurred in. That is what I am acting on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall any such thing.


Peter John Veniot: I do, because I read it, and if the hon. member will look up Hansard he will find that to be so. The then lea,der of the opposition asked the Prime Minister if that applied to both sides of the House, and the answer was yes. Now that goes back as far as 1897. Now my hon. friend seems to be very solicitous with respect to postmasters and the justice they

Supply-Post Office
should receive. Allow me to say that my hon. friend's own friends, from the 30th of June up to the end of their short reign on the 25th of September last, were not so solicitous of postmasters in this province as he himself appeared to be.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can only say that I asked
for no dismissals of postmasters.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend feels that
an injustice has been done Mr. George Chalmers, a gentleman that I know better than my hon. friend does. If he considers that an injustice has been done to that gentleman because he was dismissed on the recommendation of the member for the county, having a personal knowledge of his political activities, what does he think of the dismissal of postmasters in my own county during the election campaign with absolutely no notice except the receipt of a telegram?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Two wrongs do not make a right.


Peter John Veniot: I want to say to my hon. friend that I accept the principle that two wrongs do not make a right. I also want to say to him that he ought to be consistent, and if he condemns me for having done that, then he should condemn the previous Postmaster General for having done worse than that.


Robert James Manion: I should like the minister to give the cases that he refers to. General statements are not quite sufficient.


Peter John Veniot: I am prepared to give them. There is the case of Mr. Frenette, postmaster at Petit Rocher, twelve miles from my own home. Hon. gentlemen opposite assumed power on the 30th of June, if I mistake not, and on the 3rd of July there was an inspector at Petit Rocher, and Mr. Frenette was dismissed on the orders of the Postmaster General of that day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who was the Postmaster
General on the 3rd of July


Peter John Veniot: I think it was Dr. Manion.


Robert James Manion: I do not think so, not on the 3rd July.


Peter John Veniot: Oh yes you were. I wish
the hon. member for York-Sunbury to remain in the chamber.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not leaving it.


Peter John Veniot: Let me go a little further.
During that election not only were postmasters and postmistresses dismissed, according to the record I have here, but mail contracts were cancelled and new contracts awarded
without any adherence to the principle of calling for tenders. Moreover, during that very period the then Postmaster General did not hesitate-and I do not see why I should be blamed when I took my time about it-when travelling in Nova Scotia to wire from Bridgewater to his secretary here in Ottawa to dismiss so-and-so as postmistress in Nova Scotia, and to wire him when he had reached New Glasgow to see that the thing had been carried out. These are some of the incidents which took place under hon. gentlemen opposite, and yet forsooth, because I took my time about making a change, after I felt satisfied that a change was necessary in the public interest, it is a crime on my part but it was a virtue when my hon. friend opposite was in the same position that I occupy today. I know that it has been spread abroad -I have heard it in the corridors of parliament, I have heard it in the corridors of my hotel-that our friends of the opposition were going to give me a hard road when my estimates came up.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that why you brought them up after midnight?


Peter John Veniot: No, it is not. The hon. member for York-Sunbury knows I never was scared or afraid to meet my political opponents. The hon. member knows that I can take care of myself in pretty nearly any sort of combat, so that I am not afraid to bring my estimates up at twelve o'clock midnight or three o'clock in the afternoon. It so happens that they have come up and I am prepared for the onslaught of my hon. friends.
Now, my hon. friend who brought this matter up wishes to go into the history of dismissals. We have got the whole record here, and I am able to give full information. I hold in my hand a list of the dismissals made by my hon. friends-not all of them, because there are some I see before me now who were not Tories at that time; they were Liberals-but by those that were Tories when they assumed power in 1911. I have the record here of the period from 1st of October, 1911 to 31st December, 1912, and I find that there were 908 postmasters and postmistresses dismissed without investigation at that time.


William Richard Motherwell: Making hay while the sun shone.


Peter John Veniot: Then I find that from 1st of January, 1913, to 30th September, 1917, there were 696 more.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Go back to 1896. How many were there then?
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Go back to where?


Richard Burpee Hanson: To 1896.


Peter John Veniot: If I go back to 1896 I do not think my hon. friends will find there were so many dismissals of postmasters.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There were 1,100.


Peter John Veniot: But what about the ten or twelve thousand that were dismissed throughout the whole civil service of Canada by my hon. friends after they came into power in 1912? Our Conservative friends hold up their hands in holy horror because the Liberals have made some dismissals, but out of some 14,000 postmasters in Canada there have been somewhere around 168 dismissals made in the last six months, and those dismissals, or changes rather, were not made for political purposes. Out of the number recorded only 68 were made and stated to be made for political reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were there not 75 in
Gaspe county?


Peter John Veniot: There were not 75 in Gaspe county; there are not that many postmasters in the county.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the only reason, is it?


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps if there had been that number they might have been all dismissed. The Lord only knows; I do not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thirty-six on the
Speaker's recommendation.


Peter John Veniot: No, it was not on the
Speaker's recommendation, but on the recommendation of the member for Gaspe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought. They are different people I know.


Peter John Veniot: Quite a distinction-perhaps without a difference but a distinction just the same. Take the province of Quebec. My hon. friends dismissed in a very short time no less than 600 in that province, and my hon. friend from West Calgary wants to know if there were not 75 dismissed in Gaspe. In their time they dismissed no less than 600 in that province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is young yet.


Peter John Veniot: I have a good memory,
I think my hon. friend from York-Sunbury said I had dismissed somewhere around 63. I want to say to my hon. friend that is not all. I want to say to him that I am going to follow the Conservative practice,
and wherever I find that an official in my department takes an active part in politics, or has taken it and I have the evidence- after an investigation has been held and the proof is forthcoming-he is going to go.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All right.


Peter John Veniot: That is the way I was
treated when I was in the civil service. I was kicked out on five minutes notice in 1911,


Richard Burpee Hanson: You have never complained about it.


Peter John Veniot: So I learned in a very
good school. I learned my lesson from my hon. friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You admit you deserved
it?


Peter John Veniot: Of course I did. I never
blamed the Conservative party. I took part in politics, and I have laid down the principle that a public official who will take his official life in his hands deserves to lose his positidn. I want to thank the Conservative party for kicking me out at that time, because if they had not done so I would still be a collector of customs of the Dominion of Canada. I have no quarrel with my Conservative friends. They all know I did not blame them for doing it, because I have always laid down the principle that an official who takes part in politics has a right to expect to lose his job. If more of that sort of thing were done, there would be less interference in politics by public officials.
I want to be fair in this matter. I did not want to bring up these matters until they were brought up against me, and I feel that in self defence I have a right to 'bring them up. I do this without any ill-feeling at all, and without wishing to have any recriminations in the matter but merely to show what the record is. I know a number of questions will be put to me in connection with these dismissals, and I want to say that in no case where a dismissal has taken place since I have been in charge of the -Post Office Department, has that dismissal occurred without my making some searching inquiries.
As regards Canterbury in York county which was referred to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), I know the two gentlemen in question, and although the one who is now temporarily in charge of that office may have been a bankrupt, that has been the case of many a good and honest man in York county. My hon. friend has no right to reflect upon the standing of that gentleman because perchance he may have got into financial difficulties.

Supply-Post Office


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said that he was an undischarged bankrupt.


Peter John Veniot: There was no necessity to
refer to that, but there was an object in doing so. An investigation was made in regard to the gentleman who held the office and the report of the commissioner shows that he was found to be guilty of political interference or activities. Acting upon that report I had an order in council put through dismissing the postmaster.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about George
Chalmers' political activities?


Peter John Veniot: He was dismissed on the
certificate of the member for the constituency stating that he had personal knowledge of the political activities of Mr. George Chalmers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: After the failure of an
investigation to disclose any political activities. Is that not correct? I have the file under my hand.


Peter John Veniot: All I look for is the report of the commissioner. Does he not state in that report:	"I find the official guilty of
political partisanship"?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a copy of the file,
which opens with a letter from the Postmaster General to the deputy under date of January 8, 1927, stating:
I desire to have an investigation made into the conduct of George Chalmers, postmaster at Charlo station, Restigouche county, N.B., and I submit as one of the principal witnesses, the name of Louis Giroux, Charlo station, N.B.


Peter John Veniot: That is a request for an
investigation into the conduct of the office, not into political activities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The letter does not say so, and I have read it all. A letter follows on the file from the chief superintendent of the postal service to the district' superintendent at St. John, N.B. stating:
Will the district superintendent please have immediate inquiry made into this matter, it being understood that Mr. Louis Giroux, of Charlo station, will be one of the principal witnesses.
That investigation was held and I think Mr. Griffiths was the gentleman who made the investigation. The file contains a copy of his report, which I would like to read. This is the report of the superintendent when the investigation was made. It is dated at St. John under date of January 27, 1927, and it
is addressed to the chief superintendent of postal service. It reads:
Re Charlo Station, N.B.
Dear Sir:
In reply to departmental memo, of the 13th of January and in compliance with instructions contained therein that an investigation be held into the conduct of Mr. George Chalmers, postmaster of Charlo station, and that Mr. Louis Giroux of that place would be one of the priniepal witnesses, the chief superintendent is informed that inspector H. B. Peck visited the locality on the 24th and 25th instants, and herewith submitted are copies of evidence obtained by him.
The inspector called on Mr. Louis Giroux who expressed surprise that his name was mentioned in the matter and stated that he being the mail contractor between Charlo station and post office, as well as River Charlo, was in close touch with the way the affairs of the office were conducted by the postmaster with whom he was on intimate terms and could only speak in the highest manner of his efficiency.
Mr. Louis Giroux not having any witnesses to produce was asked by the inspector if he could refer him to anyone else in the community who might have complaints to make and was advised to see Mr. Alexander Giroux.
I might say in passing that the file discloses that Mr. Alexander Giroux was the gentleman behind the guns who wanted the job and who is now, I believe, temporary postmaster. The report continues:
The latter was seen and stated he -was an applicant for the postmastership and would make a statement himself and obtain evidence from others of political activity on the part of the postmaster.
Enclosed affidavits are from patrons of the office produced by him.
The inspector interviewed the postmaster in regard to these charges and he freely admitted that he used his car on election day and hauled voters on both sides of politics to the polls and that apart from this he had refrained from taking any part in' the election and did not canvass or try to persuade any one to vote for any party.
An inspection of the office -was made and the affairs of same found very satisfactory.
The inspector could find no one who had any complaint to make in respect to the conduct of the office or the postmaster and all spoke highly of the manner in which the public was served, the only charge being as stated in the declarations submitted that the postmaster used his car on election day to take voters to the polls.
This is the statement of Alexander Giroux, the man who was an applicant for the position, taken under oath on the 25th January, 1927. He said:
I, Alexander Giroux, of Charlo station, make oath and say that on the day of the last Dominion election I was driving a car in the interest of the Liberal party, and I met George A. Chalmers, postmaster of Charlo station post office, driving voters to the polls in his automobile.
I have no complaint to make regarding the manner in which the post office is conducted by him.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Before whom was that
taken?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before Mr. H. B. Peck, inspector of postal service; the file as brought down does not disclose that there was any other investigation into this case, and I take it for granted that is correct.


Peter John Veniot: There was none.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not read the file for a few days, and subject to further pesusal of it I want to say that the only thing on file is a statement from the member for the county that the man was guilty of political partisanship on election day. But, this is the evidence that he drove voters to the polls of both political parties and no more. Surely he has the right of citizenship.


Mr. POWERS:: He is guilty of double
political partisanship.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He denied absolutely that he had taken any partisan position, but he had driven his family and some of his neighbours to the polls. Surely that is not denied to him. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he remembers James Reid? This gentleman was his brother-in-law, appointed by him.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Georges Parent: What difference does that make?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It shows that he was if anything a Liberal. I have many friends in the Liberal party, and I hope I shall always have.


Mr. POULIOT:: It is a case of transfusion of blood.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. member for
Temiscouata had better keep quiet. He opens his mouth and puts both feet in it. AH the evidence that the man who wanted the job produces is that he saw this man driving voters to the poll in his car. He went on and swore that he had no complaint to make with regard to the manner in which the office was conducted. There are other documents here. There is a statement of Donald Poirier which absolutely proves nothing. There is a statement of Joseph McIntyre. He swore that he saw him in the car and that it was going to the polls. There is the statement of Louis Giroux, whose name was given to the Postmaster General as being the man who was convicting this postmaster of partisanship. He states in his memorandum-I do not see that it is sworn to-that he was not at that poll that day and knew nothing of what Mr. Chalmers did on that day, and had

never discussed politics with him. I do think this is a case of injustice. I believe the minister has done wrong, and I wish he would be frank enough to correct the injustice. I have no personal knowledge of George Chalmers; I do not know him at all, but the people of River Charlo, the Continental Lumber Company, the Hon. Mr. Currie, an exSpeaker of the legislature and a Liberal to the backbone, as the Postmaster General knows, all feel very strongly about this, and furthermore, Mr. Currie believes that the public service has suffered because of the removal of the post office from its previous location to the place of business of Giroux, which they say in the petition filed is not a fit place for the post office to be. I do not know anything about it personally.


Peter John Veniot: I do not want to continue
this discussion at any great length, but let me say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the post office inspector was not sent to Charlo to investigate into the political activities of the postmaster, but into his administration of the post office. He perhaps went a little further, but I might say to my hon. friend that no investigation is ever held by any post office inspector into the political activities of a post master or postmistress. That kind of investigation is held by a special investigator named by order in council under the regulations adopted in 1923. So far as Mr. George Chalmers taking no political part in the election is concerned, my hon. friend is restricting his remarks entirely to polling day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is all the file shows.


Peter John Veniot: I know more about Restigouche and political activities in that county than does the hon. member or any other member of this House, and I know just about who those are who take an active part in politics in that county not only on election day but on other days of the year, and when the hon. member for Restigouche writes me a letter over his own signature to the effect that he has personal knowledge of the political activities of this gentleman, I will accept his word before the word of those who merely sign a petition. Further, I have received a counter-petition, marked "Confidential," signed by a good many of those who signed the Chalmers petition, telling me that they did not want their names used, but that they could not refuse to sign the petition.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister should not
i-efer to a confidential communication unless he is prepared to put it on the table.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I can when I do not name
the individuals.


William Gordon Ernst: Table it.


Peter John Veniot: I only refer to it to show
how easy it' is to get people to sign a petition for or against. Having acted in this case, I can assure my hon. friends that I feel perfectly justified in having taken the action I did. My hon. friend refers to Mr. George Chalmers as being a brother-in-law of Mr. James Reid, who was once the representative of Restigouehe in this House. I know Mr. Reid. I conducted his campaigns in RestS-gouche county when he ran his first and his last election, and I want to. say to my hon. friend now, in the presence of all these members and have it go to the country, that Mr. George Chalmers, although he is a bro-t'her-in-law of Mr. Reid, was not supporting him when he was running his election, and I know it. I cannot state that Mr. George Chalmers lately has taken any part in politics; I do not know of my own knowledge, but I do rely upon the word of the hon. member for that county, and I feel that I acted properly when I brought about this dismissal. Since my hon. friend has brought up the bad qualities of the Liberals, and suggested all sorts of political intrigue and patronage on their part in trying to get jobs for their friends-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say that.


Peter John Veniot: Oh yes, you did. What is the use of trying to get away from it? Let me draw the attention of my hon. friend to some of the intrigues of his own political friends when they were in power. I hold in my hand a letter written by one of the most important members of the opposition touching a mail contract, when they were in power in 1921. The list of contractors shows that there were no less than six or seven tenderers. One man in particular tendered for SI,500 for that route. Three others tendered below him, the lowest tender being $543 below him, but the $1,500 tenderer got the contract. Why? Because the following letter was written:
Some time ago you told me that you had two tenders for this route at $1,500 each, and asked me which should get it. I said I was going out to that part of the country and would make inquiries regarding the two men and let you know. I did so and found that every person, and I consulted eight or ten-
It must have been a very small district: -wanted Mitchell to continue. I told them their wishes would be complied with, and it is of the greatest importance to me that he gets the contract.
And he got it:
The man mentioned by your assistant as having tendered is not considered reliable, and the people of Bedford township do not want him at any price.
He was a Liberal; that was the reason. The letter continues:
I hope you will -award the contract to Mitchell at once and greatly oblige.
That' was signed 'by J. W. Edwards, the member for Frontenac, I guess. Let me go a little further.


William Gordon Ernst: You will have to go a lot
further before you are through.


Peter John Veniot: I have nothing to fear from my hon. friend in that respect.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is young.


Peter John Veniot: He is rather young.


William Gordon Ernst: I have not learned those
ways yet, and I hope I never will.


Peter John Veniot: Well, I want to say to
my hon. friend that he did try to learn them, because I 'have received a letter from him.
Mr.	ERNST:	Quote it.Mr.	VENIOT:	Let	my	hon.	friend	keep
his seat.


William Gordon Ernst: Read the letter.


Peter John Veniot: I received a letter from
my hon. friend in connection with a mail contract in Nova Scotia.
Mr.	ERNST:	Read	it.Mr.	VENIOT:	My	hon.	friend	laid	down
the principle that a government, any more than a private individual, could not terminate a contract at will, and he wanted to know why I had cancelled a certain contract in his constituency.


William Gordon Ernst: Several.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, and I will cancel more if I find them the way I found that one. I wrote to my hon. friend that I 'had cancelled the contract following the very principle he had laid down, that his party when it came into power had cancelled the contract which had been duly signed and executed.


William Gordon Ernst: I should like the minister to read my letter to him, read his reply, and then read my letter in reply to his. There is a file of three letters.


Peter John Veniot: I wrote my hon. friend concerning a notice on 12th October sent by Mr. McLellan, the district superintendent, to
Supply-Post Office

Walter McDonald, mail contractor in Nova Scotia. My hon. friend wrote me saying:
Mr. McDonald is at the present time enjoying a contract for carrying mails between Port Joli and St. Catherine's River. This contract was renewed for a period of three years during the time that the Hon. Doctor Manion was Postmaster General.


William Gordon Ernst: No. '


Peter John Veniot: Yes, and Mr. Manion, Postmaster General, stated here that he cancelled the contract on request of my hon. friend.


William Gordon Ernst: Nothing of the kind.


Peter John Veniot: I am sure he would not have done it of his own motion.


William Gordon Ernst: There was no contract cancelled. There was an expiry.


Peter John Veniot: The notice referred to was a notice of termination at the expiration of three months; that is to say your department appears to have dispensed with Mr. McDonald's services after the 15th of January, 1927.
I would be very pleased if you wall inform me for what reason this has been done. Mr. McDonald is, I believe, a faithful servant and has given entire satisfaction. Further, I cannot understand why a department of the government any more than a private individual can terminate a contract at will.
That is a reason I could understand. That is why I terminated this one. The letter continues:
I do not, however, wish at the present time to press the matter of Mr. McDonald's right of action, but merely to try to secure justice for him through you, by having the notice of termination cancelled. If this is not done, I assure you that I shall have no alternative other than to press the matter further by every means at my disposal.
That did not scare the Postmaster-General. He wrote my hon. friend for Queens-Lunen-burg on the 17th of November as follows:
I beg to acknovdedge receipt of yours the 26th ultimo, with reference to the contract for mail service formerly held by Walter McDonald. I note you wish to know the reason why this contract to McDonald was cancelled, and you add:	"I cannot understand why a department
of the government any more than a private individual can terminate a contract at will".
McDonald held a contract which was to expire on 30th September, 1926. As usual the notice of its expiration was given three months in advance, around June last. Mr. Duff, who was then member of parliament, recommended that renewal be given to Mr. Mark Therian, service to begin October 1st.
That is the practice in the department- renewal or calling for new tenders three months in advance.


William Gordon Ernst: May I ask-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Gordon Ernst: I was wondering about the tenders.


Peter John Veniot: There were no tenders. I am not trying to hide anything. It was transferred, just the same as my hon. friend during the last campaign transferred 254 contracts without tenders. The letter continues:
These instructions were issued June 26th and the contract executed in the usual way, effective September 1st. On August 5th you wired recommending that this contract be renewed with Mr. McDonald. Your request was submitted to Doctor Manion, then Postmaster General, and he issued instructions to renew contract with McDonald, completely ignoring contract entered into with Therian. Going on the principle that you "cannot understand why a department of the government any more than a private individual can terminate a contract at will", an order was issued on October 2nd restoring the contract to Mr. Therian.
This is the history of the case. It is not my intention to cancel that order as you would seem to suggest, because I claim there was justification in the first place to cancel the Therian contract.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the minister read my reply to that letter?


Peter John Veniot: I have not my hon. friend's reply, I am sorry to say, but the reply was along the lines of his first letter, only a little more severe and threatening.


William Gordon Ernst: Not threatening, but asking why the minister did not ask for tenders in accordance with the practice of the department.


Peter John Veniot: Why did my hon. friend not ask the former Postmaster-General why he did not call for tenders?


William Gordon Ernst: Why the change without
even asking for tenders?


Peter John Veniot: It is done right along on small contracts.


William Gordon Ernst: It is being done now certainly.


Peter John Veniot: It was done to the tune of 254 by my hon. friend's friends between the 3rd of July and the 14th of September.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a question of privilege. The minister has been making statements many of which he cannot substantiate. He has brought me into this discussion half a dozen times to-night. He thinks he can dismiss everything we say on this side with a wave of his hand. He has just made a statement that we cancelled 254 contracts.


Peter John Veniot: No.

Supply-Post Office


Robert James Manion: The suggestion is that we cancelled 254 contracts.


Peter John Veniot: No, no.


Robert James Manion: What did my hon. friend
say?


Peter John Veniot: I said that during that time 254 mail contracts were renewed without calling for tenders.


Robert James Manion: That is a different matter altogether.


Peter John Veniot: That is what I said.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend1 did not
give that impression to hon. members on this side of the House. I wish to say a few words now, in order to do justice to myself. I have sat here for an hour listening to' the minister delaying his own estimates, talking big and throwing out statements about my having dismissed many officials and changed contracts, and giving us no substantiation whatever for the assertions made. I make the statement that there was no wholesale dismissal of postmasters in any shape or form in my time. I do not say that there were not some dismissals. I admit frankly in some eases where people came to me pointing out that a certain postmaster had been made president of a Liberal association or something of that kind, there would be a dismissal. I remember one or two cases but cannot remember the details. The minister has a great advantage over me because he 'has all kinds of papers and I have nothing but my memory. I remember on two or three occasions members telegraphed or wrote in that a certain postmaster had accepted the position of president of some political organization. Naturally it would be a Liberal organization. When a civil servant accepted the position of president of a political organization and took the chair at the meetings, that was sufficient ground for dismissal when the matter was investigated. I do not think anyone will deny that. There were a few dismissals of that kind. The minister mentioned a case and I could not stand up and discuss the matter at once because I could not remember the details, and that case shows how unjust he was. I consulted the member for the district after the hon. minister made the charge, and largely on his statement I remember the facts as he brought them back to me. These are the facts:	A man
named Fraelick was postmaster at Pleasant-ville for fifteen years. He was a cripple and his daughter did the work. He died just about the time of the smash-up here last session. He was replaced by a political henchman, and his daughter was cast aside. Practically every person in the community signed- a petition requesting that the girl be given back her late father's job. That is the case which I had taken uip once before on a wire from my hon. friend the present member. As apparently the case had not been considered I wired at once to Mr. Gaboury, who is sitting in front of the minister to-night, and demanded 

having looked into the facts on the ground -that the petitioners should ibe granted their petition to have the girl re-appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: She was a Liberal.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend interjects that she was a Liberal. I do not know about that. But the proof that her appointment was a good move is that the present Postmaster General has not dismissed her, and she is still postmistress.


Peter John Veniot: She is not there now because she got married, and consequently her office became vacant.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is a smooth politician and is an adept at getting away with a great deal of oily, slippery, political material.


Peter John Veniot: There are two of a kind.


Robert James Manion: Thank God, no. I am not in the hon. gentleman's class at all, I do not pretend to be a politician. I repeat here tonight without fear of proof to the contrary being produced on the floor of the House that there were no wholesale dismissals during the time we were in office. I do not deny there were a few dismissals where proof had been given to me that officials had so acted as to justify their dismissal. But I resent the attitude of my hon. friend. I have enough sense of humour to take a joke, but I certainly resent his trying to put me in his class, because I never was and never will be in his class as a politician.


Georges Parent: What proof did my hon. friend require?


Robert James Manion: I required at least as much proof as my hon. friend the present Postmaster General when he dismissed postmasters by the score. I dismissed perhaps seven or eight. I am only guessing at the number, but the dismissals were very few. I had many wires from candidates on our side demanding that certain men be dismissed and that certain contracts be cancelled, but many of those demands I paid no attention to, for I did not think they were fair.


Georges Parent: But they were candidates, not members of parliament acting on their responsibility as such.
229S

Supply-Post Office


Robert James Manion: In a large proportion of the cases no attention was paid to the demands further than to make an investigation to see whether the allegations were justified. Where they were not nothing was done.


Mr. YENIOT:: Since the hon. gentleman thinks I am going a little beyond the pale, will he tell me why since his party are such strict observers of the Civil Service Act he ignored it completely during the election and took on twenty or thirty extra men in Montreal, throwing aside completely the waiting list of the civil service? This was done under the hon. gentleman when he was Postmaster General.


Robert James Manion: I do not remember the incident at all. I presume they were temporary employees engaged to do temporary departmental work.


Peter John Veniot: But they should not have been put on in the face of the waiting list.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Such help is taken on every day.


Robert James Manion: I should not be surprised if there is no basis for my hon. friend's insinuation. He does not care to offer any proof.


Mr. KAISER:: Do I understand the minister to say that during the regime of the Conservative party certain mail carriers whose contracts expired had them renewed without any tenders being called for? I had a complaint from my constituency that a certain mail carrier from Seagrave was allowed to continue on his route two or three months after his contract had expired without the department advertising for tenders or renewing his contract. When I took the matter up with the department I was told that it was a common practice to do this, and that you would not dismiss a man unless some, complaint was brought against him.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say it was not
the practice. I was only giving it as justification for letting a contract without tender, for which I was blamed by the hon. member for Lunenburg.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: They told me it was the
established practice.


Peter John Veniot: Up to a certain figure.
Every contract above 1350 is under ordinary circumstances submitted to tender.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This was for over $1,000.


Peter John Veniot: It should not be the
case.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: They told me it was the
established practice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not the fact that
on many occasions when a contract which has been satisfactory to the department is about to expire it is the usual custom to renew it without tender, irrespective of the amount? I have known of many cases where that has been done to the entire satisfaction of the department and the public.


Peter John Veniot: Where the inspector reports that the contract is satisfactory and the service is good, yes, it is done; but in many cases where we think the price is too high-we have a regular schedule per mile- we call for tenders. I am not blaming the ex-Postmaster General for having renewed those contracts; but I was blamed for having renewed one to a political friend, and I simply wanted to show where my hon. friend had renewed 254.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you were insinuating that he had broken 200 contracts.


Robert James Manion: I do not admit that I
even renewed 254 contracts. Before I believe any statement of the hon. gentleman that he makes in political speeches of this sort I want some proofs.


Peter John Veniot: I say to the hon. gentleman that under the rules of this House he has got to take my word.


Robert James Manion: I don't have to do anything of the kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Peter John Veniot: When I make a statement that I say is according to the record the hon. gentleman has no right to contradict it.


Robert James Manion: Show the record.


Peter John Veniot: I have the record here,
right from your own file.


William Gordon Ernst: Let us hear it.


Peter John Veniot: If I were like my hon.
friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) I would endeavour to have a little more courtesy and not so much sauce.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Chairman, after my
correspondence with the hon. minister, I came to the conclusion that he was the last person from whom I could learn any courtesy.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.

Supply-Post Office


Otto Baird Price: It is not my desire to detain the House for long. Since this administration came into power I have tried to work in harmony with the Postmaster General in matters affecting the maritime provinces, and I believe I have succeeded to a very large extent. But I wish to say in all fairness that I believe the Postmaster General has made a record-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Otto Baird Price: -for dismissals. For a number of years there has been a certain amount of fairness between both parties, and I think both Liberals and Conservatives have exercised considerable discretion in the dismissal of employees of the Post Office Department. It is most regrettable, however, that the dismissals which have been made in the province of New Brunswick have included a great many ladies, some of them widows who have been receiving small emoluments. This is very regrettable, and I do not think it reflects very much credit on the present administration.
In 1917, at Dorchester, New Brunswick, an invalid named Tingley died; he was a Liberal and his family were all Liberals. His daughter had carried on the work of the post office during his illness, and instead of dismissing her the Union government, which has come in for so much censure, appointed her as postmistress in place of her father. I think the older members of the present administration are not very much in favour of the wholesale dismissals which have taken place, some of the names of which I desire to give the House. I notice in looking over this list that in many cases the recommendation for dismissal has been made by the Postmaster General himself. Mrs. Mary D. Murphy, postmistress at Black Rock, was dismissed for political partisanship; I presume that office was a large one, possibly carrying a salary of from $60 to $65 per annum. However, this lady was presumed to have 'Conservative leanings and I find from this record that the Postmaster General recommended her removal without investigation.


Peter John Veniot: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Otto Baird Price: Pardon me; you will just
speak when I get through, I would ask the minister to hold his horses for a few minutes. Mrs. Annie Chalmers, postmistress at Belle-dune, was dismissed from the service on February 8, 1927, in the interests of the service, on the recommendation of the Postmaster General. Mrs. Rose Barry was dismissed from
the post office at South River in the interests of the service upon the recommendation of the Postmaster General, in February 1927. Mrs. Mabel Russell, postmistress at Newton Heights, was dismissed from the service on the recommendation of the Postmaster General for better service to the public. I have only mentioned a few names in order to call the attention of the House to these matters.
I do not know that it is necessary to add to what I have said in connection with these dismissals, but I will say that no administration to date, either Liberal or Conservative, has shown as much partisanship as has the present administration in dismissals of not only post office employees but also marine officials. In the parish of Salisbury, county of Westmorland, which I have the honour to represent, a number of fisheries guardians were recommended by the Liberal administration in 1926. When Mr. Meighen was called upon to form a government, I was asked to make recommendations to the department to fill these positions. My recommendations were in accord with those of the Liberal party, because it was too small a matter to bother with. When the election was over and the Liberal government returned to power, they singled out a returned soldier who had served four years in France, who had four children and who was endeavouring to make his way in the world in this manner. On the advice of their friends in that county the Liberal government discovered that this man might have voted for the Conservative candidate, and he was singled out for dismissal. His successor was a millwright, a man who did not require the position and who has not, so far as I know, given any real service to the department. There is the distinction. I want to tell the government that while they may take credit for the number of postmasters they have dismissed throughout Canada, a day of reckoning is coming, and there are a great many Liberals in this country who do not believe in such wholesale dismissals. I also wish to say to the minister that I am surprised that he has permitted these dismissals after his record in the province of New Brunswick. These are petty things, which amount to practically nothing, yet which m-ake up the livelihood of a great many people who do good work for the service.
Now I presume we Will hear from the Postmaster General, who had some criticism to offer of the Civil Service Commission a few moments ago. I want to tell him that when recommendations have been received from that Civil Service Commission he has over-
Supply-Post Office

ridden them, and if proof is necessary I think I can produce it.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend has said that I have overridden the certificates issued by the Civil Service Commission. I have.


Robert James Manion: On more than one occasion.


Peter John Veniot: Here is one special occasion where I did not follow the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. A man was called in as assistant to the postmaster who was very ill, and he carried on the work of the post office. When the postmaster died this assistant remained in charge, and when a temporary man was appointed pending advertisement of the vacancy by the Civil Service Commission, this other individual walked out and kept the key belonging to the office.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too bad!


Peter John Veniot: You will find out how bad it is before I get through. During the conduct of the office on the part of the temporary postmaster, this man holding the key visited the office at nights and took from there whatever he liked. That was discovered by finding the key which he had forgotten and left in the post office lock. When he came back looking for his key, which he thought he had lost, the acting postmaster told him that it had been found in the lock. He then admitted his guilt. Notwithstanding that he applied for a permanent position, and when the certificate was issued by the Civil Service Commission, having his admission in my possession I refused, as I had power to do under section 13 of the Civil Service Act, to accept that certificate.


Otto Baird Price: I ask the minister to cite one case and we will investigate it.


Peter John Veniot: I will.


Otto Baird Price: Give us a concrete case.


Peter John Veniot: I will. I will mention the post office at Odessa in Saskatchewan and the man's name was Dybold.


Robert James Manion: 
William Gordon Ernst: I wish to add only one or two words to what has been said with respect to this particular vote. The minister has seen fit to refer to a case in my own constituency, the postmaster at PleasantviHe. That case has been explained by the former Postmaster General, and I want to endorse everything he has said in that connection. The postmaster at Pleasantville had been a man named Fraelick. He had been postmaster for fifteen years, and the office was looked after by his daughter. The minute his toes were turned up and he was placed under the sod, the office was changed and placed1 in another part of the community. As a result of a petition circulated very largely through the community the office was changed again by the hon, member for Fort William, who was then Postmaster General, and1 given back to the daughter rather than to the Liberal henchman who had it while hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.
I believe that the number of dismissals which have taken place since the present Postmaster General has been in the office which he now occupies is somewhat out of the ordinary. In the province of New Brunswick from the last election up until the 28th day of March, 54 dismissals had taken place, and in the province of Nova Scotia there was a proportionate number. In my own constituency there have been three dismissals, one at Upper Branch, one at Aspotogan, and the name of the third place has escaped me for the moment. In each of these cases I wrote the Postmaster General

Supply-Post Office
asking what the reason for the dismissal was, and the gentleman who knew the facts courteously told me that it was in the interest of the public service and closed the discussion.
I asked him why it was in the interest of the public service, but he has not yet seen fit to disclose why these men were dismissed.
One word more with reference to the mail contract. The Postmaster General has said that the mail contracts were cancelled because they were made without tender. In each instance in which he changed the contract he did so on the ground that no tender had been called for when the previous contract had been let, and yet in every case where the previous contract had 'been cancelled, he let it without tender. In every instance where a mail contract was let in my constituency the Postmaster General cancelled the contract and gave it to some other person without calling for tenders.


Peter John Veniot: That is what my hon. friend has done.


William Gordon Ernst: In every instance where that was done the person who had the contract had been carrying it out for years to the entire satisfaction of the community. Yet the Postmaster General awarded it to a new man without calling for tenders.


Peter John Veniot: No tender was called in
the McDonald case.


William Gordon Ernst: I am giving the facts and
I challenge you to name a contract which was given after calling for tenders.


Peter John Veniot: I did give a contract after calling for tenders.


William Gordon Ernst: I challenge you to contradict. my statement in one concrete instance. If you cannot do so, you have to accept my word in the matter.


Peter John Veniot: I have the information here and I contradict my hon. friend in my letter to him..


William Gordon Ernst: Where did you give a contract to the man who had had it before?


Peter John Veniot: What about the McDonald
case?


William Gordon Ernst: He had been carrying the
mails for years in that district. You took the contract away from him and gave it to a man named Therian without even calling for tenders.


Peter John Veniot: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. I did not take the contract away from him. It was let in May or June and I was not Postmaster General.


William Gordon Ernst: The contract was taken from a man named McDonald, who had had it for years before, and given to a man named Therian. Later, the Therian contract was cancelled and McDonald was given the contract. You cancelled the contract to McDonald without calling for tenders and awarded it again to Therian. That was not an isolated instance. That was done in several instances in my constituency. I do not believe that the Post Office Department has ever been administered in a more partisan manner than it is being administered at the present time.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I do not rise
for the purpose of making any criticism of dismissals by the Postmaster General, but rather to get some information regarding the dismissal of the postmaster at Hawkesbury, Ontario. I believe the appointment of a returned soldier named McAllister, was made by the Civil Service Commission, but I think that under the previous Postmaster General, Mr. Murphy, and even under the subsequent Conservative Postmaster General the appointment was held up. I understand that the position has now been taken away from McAllister, and that a Mr. Berthiaume, has been appointed. I should like to get an explanation of this from the minister. I do not wish to delay the House at all, but I would point out that the appointment of McAllister was made by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: I should be pleased to
give an explanation to the hon. gentleman. Both were returned soldiers. When the advertisement was published for the vacancy it was understood that a person who could understand both languages should be appointed. That was done before my time, and when I became Postmaster General and the record was placed before me to be sent to the commission, I advised the commission of the fact that this had started as a bilingual appointment. They then issued a certificate in favour of Mr. McAllister, a returned soldier. I refused the certificate and sent word back to the commission that under the advertisement a properly bilingual person should be appointed and that was the cause of my refusing the certificate. As Mr. Berthiaume was also a returned soldier, I did not see that I was doing any injustice to returned soldiers as such. That is the explanation.


Leslie Gordon Bell: So that this
matter may be clear, does it rest with the Civil Service Commission or with the minister in the case of bilingual applicants as to who
Supply-Post Office

will be appointed? After the Civil Service Commission makes an appointment, does it lie in his discretion to refuse the appointment and to use his best judgment as to a bilingual appointment?


Peter John Veniot: I will answer the last question first. Under the Civil Service Act the minister has power to refuse the certificate of the Civil Service Commission but he has not power to appoint anybody instead. The matter goes back to the Civil Service Commission and they make a new call for applicants or take the one who ranks next in merit. As regards the bilingual question I have not had experience along that line to know whether that comes from ,the department or from the Civil Service Commission. The case to which I refer was before the commission before I was installed as Postmaster General.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was Mr. McAllister not bilingual?


Peter John Veniot: I was informed that Mr. McAllister understood French and I signified my willingness to have McAllister and Berthi-aume come before me so that I might find out whether they were sufficiently bilingual to occupy the position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations which have been directed to the chair by my colleague the ex-Postmaster General, in the light of the statements that have been made by the minister himself would seem to me to be such as might fairly engage the attention of the committee for a few minutes. I listened very carefully and the minister certainly made a statement which would seem to indicate that the former minister, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) had cancelled 254 contracts.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the sense of the observation. By analysis it would seem from what the former minister said that all that was done was merely formally as a matter of routine to renew those contracts. I do not concede that any minister, however eminent he may have been in provincial politics, has a right to come into this House and make the observations which have been made by the minister to-night. A disregard of the courtesies of parliamentary life was shown and this House is entitled to better treatment.


Georges Parent: Why were so many contracts renewed in such a short time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will realize the time of year it was, he will appreciate the fact that a number of contracts were falling due.


Georges Parent: It is easy to find an average and it will be found there were many more renewals during that time than ordinarily.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend will
realize that these contracts are in the course of routine renewed from time to time. The list is not before the committee, but this is a matter which I think the House should consider. We have listened to a great deal about dismissals, about dismissals of women, and I am going to cite a case to the committee. The other day I put on the order paper a question in regard to a very small post office called Bragg Creek which happens to be in the constituency of West Calgary. The people in that locality, for some strange reason, perhaps to the minister entirely inexplicable, voted for me. I can readily realize that many' hon. gentlemen will find it difficult to understand why they should do so, but at any rate they did. In that little community there was a poor old man named White who had been postmaster and who was dying from cancer. His wife kept the post office.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he a Liberal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know, because I never saw him, he had no politics. But at any rate the poor old gentleman was dying and finally passed away. His wife who had all the time been keeping the post office, which brings in the large sum of one dollar a month, had a little farm and she kept this little post office for her husband. The whole community signed a petition to have her appointed formally to the post office. What happened? The defeated Liberal candidate recommended to this government that a woman called Mary Wilson should be appointed to the post office in spite of the fact that all the people in that locality had signed a petition that this poor unfortunate widow, who had been left a small farm, should have this post office with its revenue of about one dollar a month. Therefore Mrs. White ceases to be postmistress, Mary Wilson gets the job and the settlers in that community travel to Calgary for their mail rather than get it from Mary Wilson.
That seems to me to be the sort of thing that makes people dissatisfied with our institutions. It is not just playing the game. What does the minister care about how these people in West Calgary feel? It is merely playing the part of politics. On the 27th day

Supply-Post Office
of January the defeated Liberal candidate makes the recommendation and Mary Wilson is appointed to that post office. Somebody got a post office box in Calgary, carried out the mail and distributed it rather than have it distributed through Mary Wilson. They cannot do that any longer and they say that conditions are intolerable. I receive letters from people whom I have never seen. I suppose that if I had seen them they would not have voted in such large numbers for me, but at any rate under those circumstances I think that is hurting this country among new settlers. It is a disastrous thing to have that idea spread abroad in this country.
When the former Postmaster General reappointed a Miss Fraelick who had been postmistress at Pleasantville for about fifteen years, my hon. friend tries to make political capital against him for so doing. That is what is called peanut politics; it is the sort of thing that degrades our institutions. The speech that was made in this House to-night by the Postmaster General is such a speech as I have never listened to in this House during my years in it, and it is an insult to parliament. This sort of bluff and braggadocio, the waving of one's hands and speaking of what one is going to do-that is the sort of thing that makes the populace of this country think Canada is not a fit country to come to. All you have to do is to read the statement made by the hon. gentleman tonight as it will appear in Hansard to-morrow, put it into the hands of decent settlers, and ask them if that is the sort of country they wish to live in. But the minister thinks that sort of thing entitles him to the decoration of the legion of honour; that is what he expects to get at an early date for this sort of thing. It is the kind of thing that is taking place in this country. He should remember that this is not New Brunswick, but the larger arena of the Dominion parliament.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member's party
did worse than that when they were in power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they did, I assume
that is the reason they are out of power.


Jean-François Pouliot: The words of my bachelor friend will not bring comfort to the widow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is just such observations as those of the hon. member for Podunk who has just spoken that bring discredit upon our institutions. It is a serious thing when a widow living on a few dollars a month is thrust out just because a defeated candidate says that a Grit must have the job, although she has been postmistress for a term of many years when her husband was on a sick bed,
dying. I say we should consider these things as symptomatic. There are gentlemen in this government who look upon them as symptomatic, and I say to the Postmaster General, from what I have observed of his colleagues, that they do not glory in their shame.


Peter John Veniot: I admit it is a shame for me to have followed the example of the Tory party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even the hon. member for Weyburn cannot swallow that. He laughs, so it must be pretty bad. There again is another illustration of it. I do entreat the Postmaster General


Peter John Veniot: Your entreaties are no good in that respect because I know you are not. sincere. You would do it if you were in power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is but another
illustration, Mr. Speaker, of the calibre of the Postmaster General of Canada. That is the type of gentleman who sits on the treasury benches of this country. That is the sort of thing that brings discredit on parliament. That is the sort of thing that cheapens us and makes us a joke, that degrades our institutions.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend forgets that when his party was in power they dismissed people who were dead.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To dismiss a man who was dead would be a pretty hard thing to do.


Jean-François Pouliot: If he died, he would have dismissed himself-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman seeks applause for his own jokes, and sometimes, when it is lacking he becomes very disconcerted. But if he will gaze sufficiently long in the faces of his compatriots he may be able to find an answering smile.


Jean-François Pouliot: I don't look for a smile in yours.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every circus must have its clown, and the hon. gentleman is living up to his reputation. The conduct of the Postmaster General this evening, Mr. Chairman, would seem to indicate that the government is degenerating into a circus, and necessarily in that circus the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will play his part. I do think, Mr. Chairman, that we should look on parliamentary institutions as something beyond that. I do not think any minister should glory in the discomfort and unhappiness he has brought to the homes of people throughout Canada, and then say that the reason he did it i3 because somebody else did it on some other occasion. My observation is that when a
Supply-Post Office

statement of that kind is made, usually there is very little warrant for it. We in western Canada have known what it is to suffer from violent partisanship. I lived there from 1897 to 1911; I lived there, under those conditions. I saw the change of government in 1911, and I saw a change in the personnel of the civil service, and I thought then that a very great injury was being done this country; I am on record on that point. I have always believed in the Civil Service Commission, and I have endeavoured to support it. I believe that it is the best safeguard the Canadian people have for the decent conduct of public affairs; I am firmly convinced of that. I was long enough on the treasury board to see the certificates sent in by the Minister of Agriculture and other ministers saying that in the interests of the public service somebody should be let out of their position, and in a short time I have seen two or three take the place of the one who was let out. The difficulties we are suffering from to-day, the telegrams . that are being sent to every member of this House with respect to the civil service, are due entirely to the fact that we have too many officials in Canada doing the work that could be done with fewer employees, and that condition has been brought about by the very thing to which I am drawing attention to-night.
I think the time has come when the Postmaster General should realize that instead of refusing to take the certificates of the Civil Service Commission, he should endeavour to get the commission to be the buffer between him and the demands of politicians and members for vengeance upon their opponents. I know exactly what that means, and it is not a good thing. The hon. gentleman from Weyburn is no different from myself in that regard. When an election is over the pressure of one's friends for recognition and for vengeance against those who hold office is very very great.


Edward James Young: Not in the case of the hon. member for Weyburn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he is inhuman,
and I ventured to think for a moment that he was human. But every member of this House knows what that pressure is.


Edward James Young: The hon gentleman did not understand me. I said that the hon. member for Weyibum is not pressed like my hon. friend is to fire people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not pressed now because we are out of power, but unquestionably any gentleman sitting in this House and supporting the government has the pressure of his friends behind him to appoint

them to office, and dismiss those holding office who are not of the political faith of the government of the day.


Edward James Young: My hon. friend does not represent a Saskatchewan constituency or he would not talk that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is very grateful that he does not, because there were striking manifestations of the high intelligence of the Saskatchewan constituencies when one lone member from that province in the committee the other day, supported the Georgian bay canal bill. That pressure I speak of, Mr. Chairman, can be met only by the intervention of the Civil Service Commission. Let us try to prevent the new incoming settlers- to this country from believing that the Bragg Creek case is an ordinary incident in public life in this country. I say it is a disgrace to the country. It brings discredit on our institutions, and is injurious to every one of us who has to legislate in this chamber, and so far as that poor woman was concerned, it is inhuman. But, of course, the minister had necessarily under our political system to yield to the pressure of the defeated candidate to put this other woman who had supported him in that election into the office, regardless of what happened to anybody else.
I think the minister might well revise his manner of treating a matter of this kind. I do think that the flippant way in which he has approached it, and the glorying in his own shame with respect to dismissals, bring discredit on our institutions, and the time has come when some other method might well be resorted to. I resent the aspersions on my former colleague, which, on analysis, are found to be wholly unwarranted in fact.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word or two to say as to what happened in my constituency. I asked for only two dismissals. In one case it was for the dismissal of a postmaster whom I had first recommended to be appointed postmaster. He was a friend of mine when I recommended him first. Last year I knew he was against me. That was not a reason to ask for his dismissal, but I knew that he had held a committee meeting in the post office, and he came to see me. I said to him, "Well, Emile, what is the matter with you? Why did you act this way this year?" He said, "I thought you would be defeated, so I voted against you." Then I asked him, "Why did you distribute liquor in your house, which is used for the post office?" It was not my liquor; I have none during an election. He said, "Well, I was

Supply-Post Office
very generous. I distributed it equally to Conservatives and Liberals." Then I said, "Well, now, I have a very good reason to ask your dismissal," and that is what I did, and everybody was satisfied.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understood the minister to say that the rule had been laid down that if a member of the House made a charge of partisanship against an official, his word was accepted and dismissal would follow.


Peter John Veniot: What I said was that if a member of the House wrote a letter stating that to his personal knowledge a postmaster or an official was guilty of partisanship or political activity, his word was sufficient to dismiss the postmaster.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If a defeated candidate comes into the minister's office and makes a verbal statement, is that sufficient?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has made a dismissal on such a statement.


Peter John Veniot: I did not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will show the
minister the case.


Peter John Veniot: I made no dismissal on the representation of any candidate of an official who comes under the Civil Service Commission.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister did not qualify it' in that way.


Peter John Veniot: The oases I am referring to are cases that come under the Civil Service Commission. That would mean any officer of the Post Office Department with a revenue of $400 or over-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, $200.


Peter John Veniot: And such an official cannot be dispensed with, under the regulations laid down and concurred in by this House in 1923, except by a statement of the member representing the county that he has personal knowledge of the political activity. Failing that the charge must be made, witnesses must be produced, and an investigation held by the appointed investigator. Any office with a revenue under $400 comes under departmental jurisdiction, in which case there is no necessity of personal representation of personal knowledge on the part of either the defeated candidate or the elected member.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then in that
case the minister would take the word of a defeated candidate?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And dismiss
without investigation.


William Gordon Ernst: Would the minister take the word of an elected representative if he happened to be of the opposite political persuasion?


Peter John Veniot: Try it and find out.


William Gordon Ernst: I have tried it.


Peter John Veniot: No.


William Gordon Ernst: I have tried it in regard to a number of dismissals which have taken place in my constituency and backed it up by a petition of nearly every ratepayer in the district.


John Wesley Edwards: If the Postmaster-General receives from a Conservative member of this House charges of political partisanship against a postmaster in the constituency represented by that member, will he, on the strength of such charge, made by a Conservative memlber-elect or a Progressive member-elect, dismiss such postmaster just as readily as he dismisses the postmaster if the charge is made by a Liberal member or a hyphenated member on the other side of the House?


Peter John Veniot: I would be quite safe in
saying that there are so few Liberal postmasters in the Dominion of Canada that the case is not likely to occur.


John Wesley Edwards: Now come
across straight-


Peter John Veniot: If the hon. member makes such a case, I will give it very careful consideration.


John Wesley Edwards: Come across square.


Peter John Veniot: Does the hon. member
want me over there?


John Wesley Edwards: The time
will come when the hon. minister will be over here.


Peter John Veniot: Not for a long time.


John Wesley Edwards: Sooner than the minister expects. The minister is in the same position as the boy who whistled when passing through a graveyard. He will be here before he has any idea of it. If a Liberal member of parliament makes a representation to the Postmaster General that a certain postmaster has been guilty of partisanship, that postmaster is dismissed.


Peter John Veniot: No.
2306	COMMONS
Supply-Post Office


John Wesley Edwards: The records show it.


Peter John Veniot: No.


John Wesley Edwards: Is the minister prepared to deal with a report made by a Conservative or a Progressive member on this side of the House and to give that representation exactly the same consideration as he would a representation from a Liberal?


Peter John Veniot: I will.


John Wesley Edwards: I put a question on the order paper a while ago asking how many postmasters were dismissed at the request of Liberal members of parliament, of Liberal-Progressive members, of Progressive members and of Conservative members, and I have the return in my desk. The answer to my question was very funny. It stated that some fifty-nine or sixty had been dismissed at the request of Liberal members and a certain number at the request of Liberal-Progressives, but not a man had been dismissed at the request of Progresives or Conservatives.


Peter John Veniot: How could I when my hon. friend never asked for it?


John Wesley Edwards: Well, maybe we will try it in a few cases.


Peter John Veniot: Come along with it.


John Wesley Edwards: W'e will,
and I prophesy that when we do the representations will not receive the same consideration as when they come from the opposite side of the House. I want to tell the Postmaster General that in the dismissal of postmasters he has played absolute peanut politics.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give us the income and expenditure of the department last year?
Mr. 'VENIOT: The revenue was $31,024,464.22, and the expenditure was $30,499,685.74.


Robert Gardiner: That is to the 31st of March of this year?


Peter John Veniot: The fiscal year ended 31st March, 1926.


Robert Gardiner: A ou have not the figures for the last year?


Peter John Veniot: They are not compiled yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the figures are in the Gazette every month.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the effect on the salary of postmasters or the compensation paid to postmasters in those offices which are

paid on a commission basis, by reason of a reduction in the postal rates?


Peter John Veniot: Postmasters will lose nothing in 1927-28 as a result of the reduction. Last year the reduction had no effect on their salaries, and it will be the same this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there will be a reduction to those who are paid on the commission basis.


Peter John Veniot: No, an arrangement has
been made by which the commissions will be proportionately increased, so that it will give them the same salary and commission as last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been the effect of the change in postal rates last July, roughly?


Peter John Veniot: It was estimated that the two cent letter rate would result in a decrease of postal revenue of between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 per annum. However, as two cent postage was only in effect nine months during the fiscal year that has just closed, and owing to increase in postal business due to improved conditions and also improved postal facilities-lower parcel post rates, and so forth- the postal deficit for the fiscal year ended 31st March last will not exceed, according to figures so far available, $2,500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that the
estimate was $3,000,000 in the Finance department.


Peter John Veniot: This is $2,000,000. There
is an improvement right along. During the past three months, due to the increased revenue at the city offices which comprise two-thirds of our postal business, we have come within four per cent of overtaking the loss due to two-cent postage.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is any consideration being given to the representations of postmasters in smaller towns for increased compensation? In some cases their compensation is very inadequate.


Peter John Veniot: As I have just explained,
the salaries of such postmasters will not be affected as a result of the reduction from three to two cent postage. I stated to the postmasters assembled in convention here a week or so ago that no definite decision could be arrived at by the government until the fiscal year ending 1927-28, when we would have before us the complete result of the two cent postage.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From 1922 onward the
policy of the late Postmaster General was not to extend the system of rural mail delivery. I have always taken the view that

Supply-Post Office
the federal government could perform no more useful service to the people in the rural communities than the extension of these routes. I know of nothing that will bring more contentment to the people in the country than having their mail delivered frequently to their doors. In my constituency- which is a fairly large one as the minister knows-there are still communities without rural mail service, and there are other communities not served often enough. I have been only able to accomplish something along this line about election time, when a little pressure produces some consideration, but afterwards no matter what party is in power they freeze up. I suppose it is because of the expense and the desire not to have a deficit. But I would impress on the minister the desirability if giving a good rural service. The cities are well served. In my [DOT] own city of ten thousand people we have three deliveries a day, but people within ten or fifteen miles are given only two deliveries a week. To-day with daily newspapers the people are entitled to a daily delivery, and I would enlist the sympathy of the Postmaster General for those people. We have a struggle to keep people on the land, and to make rural life more attractive I think nothing is more effective than rural mail delivery, telephones and good roads.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: For the information of the House I may say that there are 213,000 rural boxes throughout the different sections of the country, which were purchased at a cost of $800,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But that is all reimbursed to the department.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Yes. In the general estimates will be found an item of $75,000, and in the supplementaries another item of $35,000, for the purchase of rural mail boxes. We believe in extending the rural mail system as much as possible. For the information of my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) I may say that only recently I issued an order for a rural delivery from Peniac in his county, although it is for the accommodation of only six or seven families.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am much obliged to the minister. I have been trying to get that for seven years.


Peter John Veniot: We have a number of applications from the western, central and maritime provinces. I would draw the attention of hon. members on both sides of the House to the fact that in many cases where we are asked to establish rural mail routes it is impossible because of the very low revenues. I have in mind three offices where the revenue is only $120, and to lay out a rural route cost practically $600 or $700. It is unreasonable under the circumstances to ask the department to assume that expenditure. True, the department is supposed to give the best accommodation possible and not to make any profit, but we cannot incur unreasonable deficits.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has referred to a feature that is not without difficulty, but I would point out that the mail service ought to be run more or less on the principle of the common school system-the rich districts should take care of the poor. The city of Moncton pays into the postal revenues over $300,000, and the city of Fredericton pays in twice as much as it costs to run the office. The thickly settled districts ought to pay for those sparsely settled. On no other principle can you establish many rural free deliveries. I am going to press for this, no matter who is Postmaster General or what party is in power, until there is a rural delivery box at the door of every farmer in my county.


John Wesley Edwards: I would like to add just a word to what the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) has said. I have stated in this House before and I state again that if there is one department of the government which is entitled to Show a deficit without criticism it is the Post Office department. Let us look at this thing reasonably. The people of the country all contribute to building up Canada, but naturally wealth centres in the cities. These centres of population get their public works and enjoy the benefits of the money which is spent in their construction, while the only service which can be given the country districts is the rural mail service. I repeat that if there is any justification for a deficit in any department of the government in connection with services given to the public it is in connection with the service given the rural districts by the Post Office Department. I think a great deal of latitude should be allowed in serving these rural communities, because a mail service is the only thing the government can give these people to show that they are a part of the country. I appreciate the position of the Postmaster General if you want to argue this question from the standpoint of whether or not these routes will pay; in that case a good many of them will be wiped out.


Peter John Veniot: We cannot do that.


John Wesley Edwards: That is an unreasonable attitude.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: My constituency is strictly rural, and I appeal not only on behalf of that constituency, but for all rural communities. I believe they are well entitled to that consideration.


Peter John Veniot: I agree with you.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I do not very often find myself in such hearty agreement with my hon. friends opposite, but I want to thank the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) and the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) for making this plea, and I do so on behalf of all the Liberal members from Saskatchewan. Last year when we came here we investigated the amount of money spent on rural mail delivery in the various provinces, and we found that the amount spent in the province of Saskatchewan was almost negligible, while New Brunswick and Ontario were reasonably well served. I quite believe that those two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken would not wish to see the rural mail delivery extended in their own provinces until Saskatchewan was brought up to their standard. That being the case we thank them for making these remarks on belhalf of rural mail delivery in Saskatchewan. Now I would like to say to the minister that in my province we believe the time has arrived when the rural mail service should be extended throughout the entire province, and when we have the same service provided in the eastern provinces we will consider ourselves reasonably well served.


William Irvine: I just wish to say a word on behalf of the members from Alberta who are also anxious to see the rural mail routes extended. I would like to tell the minister that in my constituency we have a mail route which we would like extended; it is a very important route, and I believe he has the matter under advisement now. Then I would ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that it is now to-morrow, in fact it has long been to-morrow, and I believe it would be as well if we went home now for a little rest.


Hugh Guthrie: I was going to suggest that we pass items 358 and 20 and allow item 542 of the supplementary estimates to stand over, with the understanding that we may discuss anything in this connection on that item when U is called.


Peter John Veniot: Very well.


Robert Gardiner: I only wish to keep
the House a moment; we have taken up a good deal of time discussing politics in regard 
to this item, so I do not think it will hurt the House to wait and hear what I have to say. Hon. members have made a plea for the extension of the free rural delivery service, with which I am heartily in accord. We in western Canada know that we have not very much service along these lines as compared with the older sections of Canada. Of course we do not expect to get that service immediately, but we would like to see the Postmaster General give some attention to that branch of his department. There is another point, however, which I think is probably even more important, having to do with the provision of small post offices throughout the length and breadth of western Canada, where it is impossible to expect free delivery, and where the people are so isolated that they have to go thirty or forty miles for their mail. I want to make a plea for those * people. I received intimations from the Post Office Department . recently that many of these isolated post offices will be closed because of the small amount of business being done, and I do not think that is a fair proposition at all; those are the places to which I think the Postmaster General should give a good deal of consideration, even if the service does not pay.


Peter John Veniot: I can assure the hon. member that that is not the intention so far as I know.


Robert Gardiner: I happened to receive
some such intimation recently. Those are the people for whom I wish to plead; those living close to post offices are in a position to get their mail once or twice a week, but these people who have to travel thirty or forty miles should get more consideration, even if it costs the country some money. I hope the Postmaster General will take that matter into consideration and give it his earnest attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Office 

 salaries, including amount required to pay allowance to office appliance operators, grade 2, operating Hollerith card punching machines, in accordance with provisions of Order in Council P.C. 156/2521, dated 24th December, 1923, $1,240,419.
Contingencies, $195,000.
Otto Baird Price: I have a short letter which
I think will be of interest to the minister in connection with .this item. It is from the maritime president of the Dominion Postal Clerks' Association.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Does this relate to the
civil service increases? If so, that will come up when we consider the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. A. McPHERiSON (Portage la Prairie) presented the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the allied Indian tribes of British Columbia.
Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


Mr. McPHERSON moved:: That the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the claims of the allied Indian tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition of June, 1926, be concurred in.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.


James Alexander Robb: We consented to the report
being presented, but I would ask that the motion for concurrence remain over till tomorrow.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands as a notice of motion.
On motion of Mr. Robb the House adjourned at 2.15 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, April 12, 1927