1928-05-23

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Ninth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Sanderson (for Mr. Hay).

Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I beg to lay on the table two copies of the regulations affecting applications for revaluation approved by the governor in council on May 16, 1928, P.C. 820.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale) moved:: That in accordance with the usual practice in such eases, and in accordance with the recommendation of the committee on miscellaneous private hills the additional charges paid on the following private bills be refunded, namely:
Bill No. 298 (Letter P8 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of William Hogg.
Bill No. 307 (Letter W8 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Augustus Vernon Ellis," and
Bill No. 311 (Letter A9 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Marie-Anne Palardy Murphy."


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I observe that my hon. friend's resolution states, "in accordance with the usual practice." For what particular reason should we remit these fees?


David Spence: The matter was discussed in committee this morning, and the resolution was adopted by the committee. I would ask the chairman of the committee to explain the matter.


Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: The main reason for the recommendation of the committee that these fines be refunded is that the lawyers engaged in these cases did not file their petitions before the House of Commons in due time, while the petitions were filed with the Senate on time. With the rules as they are at present the difficulty is this: In the Senate I believe they have at least twelve weeks within which to present their petitions, while in the House of Commons they have only six weeks. This has resulted in confusion and embarrassment for the lawyers engaged in these cases, and some of them have been one day late, and others two or three days late in presenting their

petitions, rendering the parties liable to a fine of $200. In the particular cases that came before the committee this morning we concluded that under the circumstances the usual practice should be followed and these fines refunded.


James Alexander Robb: They are fines?


Georges Parent: Yes. Having had a little experience in presiding over this committee, I very much feel like recommending that some procedure be adopted which would obviate cases of this kind coming before us, because one would expect that the lawyers in these cases at least should know the period within which the petitions should be filed in both houses. If the time for receiving the petitions were the same for both houses, it would obviate such cases as we have had to consider lately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I beg to move:
That the proceedings and evidence taken by the select standing committee on banking and commerce respecting improvement of the banking system of Canada, as submitted in their seventh report on the 3rd of May last, be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the house, and that 750 copies in English and 250 copies in French of said proceedings and evidence be printed in blue book form, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) moved:: That the first and final report of the select
standing committee on Marine and Fisheries be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Mir. Speaker, I desire to present a petition signed by Mrs.
S.	Marlowe and 28,155 other residents of London, Ontario, and vicinity, protesting against the cancellation by the government of the radio broadcasting license of the International Bible Students Association.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition signed by Mr. F. W. Martin and 15,062 other residents of the province of Saskatchewan, in-

Questions
eluding 2,550 radio owners, protesting against the action of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in refusing to renew the radio broadcasting license of the International Bible Students Association.


Mr. A. SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present certain petitions signed by 7,773 radio owners and others in the province of Alberta praying that radio broadcasting privileges hitherto enjoyed by the International Bible Students Association be revived in the interests of freedom of speech and British fair play.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a petition signed by 11,577 residents of Mlanitoba protesting against the cancellation of the radio license enjoyed by the International Bible Students Association.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I beg to inform the hon.
gentlemen who have presented these petitions that they are not drafted according to the rules of the house; they are addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. I will certainly despatch them to the right hon. gentleman.



THE DETROIT RIVER CANADIAN BRIDGE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Odette, Bill No. 339 to incorporate the Detroit River Canadian Bridge Company was read the first and second times and referred to the'select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

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

Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What is the total amount paid by the Dominion government to Honourable N. W. Rowell during the last two fiscal years, (a) for professional services; (b) living allowance, and (c) travelling or other expenses?
2.	Is there any further amount due to the Honourable N. W. Rowell for services rendered, or expenses, during the said period?
3.	If so, what amount?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Finance
re Customs Inquiry Commission
1.	(a) $44,060; (b) $3,230; (c) $3,140.84.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
Department of Justice
1.	In 1926-27: (a) Appeal to P.C. re Lord's Day Act; Counsel fees, $4,600; Expenses, $22.06.
2 and 3. No information.
Department of Labour
1.	(a) $1,000; (b) Nil; (c) $19.54.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


TRADE WITH UNITED STATES, 1927-GENERAL AND AGRICULTURAL
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What were the total Canadian imports from the United States of America during the year 1927?
2.	What were the total exports to the United States of America from Canada during the year 1927?
3.	What were the total Canadian agriculture imports from the United States of America during 1927?
4.	What were the total Canadian agriculture exports to the United States during the year 1927?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Imports into Canada for consumption from United States during the fiscal yeai ended March 31, 1927, $687,022,521.
2.	Exports from Canada to United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1927, $479,335,230.
3.	Imports into Canada from United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1927:
Commodities of which the basic raw materials are such as Canadian farms produce-
Raw materials	 $41,747,292
Partially manufactured	 9,699,866
Fully or chiefly manufactured... 17,797,309
Total	 $69,244,467
Commodities which Canada does not produce in their original form-
Raw materials	$ 67,643,836
Partially manufactured	 8,950,373
Fully or chiefly manufactured... 38,087,154
Total	$114,681,363
(Both field crops and the products of animal husbandry are included in above figures.)
4.	Exports (Canadian produce) from Canada to United States during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1927:
Commodities produced, in their original
state, on Canadian farms-*
Raw materials	$ 68,018.636
Partially manufactured	 7,345,865
Fully or chiefly manufactured...	31,681,628
Total

Questions

Commodities produced or manufactured in Canada from agricultural materials such as are not produced on Canadian farms-
Raw materials	 $	211
Partially manufactured	 325,831
Fully or chiefly manufactured...	890.377
Total	 SI,216,419
(Both field crops and the products of animal husbandry are included in above figures.)


POSTAL SERVICE RECLASSIFICATION
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General, during the
last session of parliament, recommend to the Civil Service Commission a higher reclassification of salaries for letter carriers and railway mail clerks, as promised?	_	.
2.	if so, has that recommendation been implemented during the present session?
3.	Has the Civil Service Commission failed to comply with said recommendation? If so, did it give any reasons and what are those reasons?
4.	Has the government recommended to the Civil Service Commission revision of salaries for professional and technical classes?
5.	If so. has a report been received by the government from the commission in connection therewith?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Did so during recess.
2 and 3. The Civil Service Commission has given careful consideration to the recommendations made by the Post Office Department but is unable to recommend for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor General in Council higher compensation rates for these classes because it considers that in comparison with other classes of positions of more or less comparable duties and responsibilities, these positions in the Post Office Department are now adequately remunerated. The commission has agreed to give further consideration to the provision of higher compensation for certain employees of the class railway mail clerk, which will include employees in charge of railway post offices and probably others.
4.	The Civil Service Commission was requested by order in council to proceed with a study of the professional, scientific and translators classes with a view to increased compensation.
5.	No. A report is in course of preparation.


JA'SPER PARK-PAVING
Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	Which department of the government did the paving at Jasper Park?
2.	Was this paving done for the Canadian National Railways or for the parks branch?
[Mr. Rinfret.l
3.	What did the paving cost per square yard?
4.	What are the items that go to make up the cost ?
5.	What was the cost of the tar sands used in paving f.o.b. cars?
6.	What was the cost of the machine used in mixing the tar sands?
7.	Does the government contemplate acquiring any more mixing machines or having any more constructed?
8.	Has the government entered into a contract with the city of Edmonton to do certain paiing?
9.	If so, what is the amount of the contract?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Department of the Interior:
1.	Canadian National Parks Branch with technical assistance furnished by the mines branch.
2.	Both.
3.	$1.27 per square yard for highway pavement laid in 1927 by parks branch.
4.	All items of work and material necessary for paving including cost of tar sands, freight, supply of aggregate, hauling, mixing, laying, rolling and depreciation on equipment.
5.	Cost of tar sands used in 1927 on the parks branch work was $3.46 per ton, f.o.b. cars, McMurray.
6.	The mixing machine was assembled by mines branch-the parks branch contributing mixing drums and other necessary parts to value of approximately $700. The total cost to the Department of the Interior and the mines department, including labour and material was approximately $2,000.
7.	Yes, one machine to be constructed to the specifications of the mines department.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by No. 8.
Department of Railways and Canals:
1.	Parks and mines branch of the Department of the Interior.
2.	The parks branch were paving roadways of the department in the vicinity of Jasper Park and they paved a total area of 5.364 square yards at our request.
3.	$1,137.
4.	5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. No information.


IMMIGRATION OFFICE-DETROIT
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Does the Canadian government maintain an immigration office in Detroit, Michigan, or an office under the Department of Agriculture?
2.	If so, where is it located?
3.	Who is in charge?
4.	What salary is paid?
5.	How many people are employed in the office or on staff?
6.	Who are they?
7.	What salaries are paid them?

Questions
8.	From whom is the office rented and what rent is paid?
9.	What was the total cost of maintaining the office for the year 1927?
10.	What returns were made and what was the nature of them?
11.	How many Canadian government immigration offices are there in the United States of America?
12.	How many people are engaged in them?
13.	Where are they located?
14.	What was the total cost of maintaining all the offices in the United States of America for the year 1927?
15.	What was the cost of maintenance of each, salaries, rents, expenses, etc.?
16.	What are the names and salaries, male or female, designated, of the respective officers in the United States of America, their position and rank?


Mr. FORICE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	10 Jefferson avenue, east, Detroit.
3.	Mr. F. W. Kerr.
4.	$3,120 plus $500 living allowance.
5.	Four.
6.	Mr. F. W. Kerr, Miss H. Grieve, Mr. J. C. Mitchell, Jr., Miss R. Preston.
15.
7.	Mr. Kerr, salary $3,120 plus $500 living allowance; Miss Grieve, salary $1,860; J. C. Mitchell, salary $1,380; Miss R. Preston, salary $1,080.
8.	John I. Turnbull, $250 per month.
9.	For the fiscal year 1927-28, $16,057.22.
10.	Monthly returns showing: (a) number of inquiries received; (b) number of replies from inquirers; (c) number of inquirers interviewed outside of office; (d) number of inquirers interviewed at office; (e) number of good prospects established; (f) number of settlers sent to Canada; (g) number of carloads of settlers' effects sent to Canada; (h) amount of cash and value of effects of settlers; (i) travelling expenses incurred.
11.	17.
12.	41.
13.	Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Fargo, Great Falls, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Manchester, Omaha, Saginaw, San Francisco, St. Paul, Spokane, Syracuse and Woonsocket.
14.	For the fiscal year 1927-28, $216,907.45.
Boston	
Columbus....
Chicago	
Detroit	
Fargo	
Great Falls... Harrisburg . Indianapolis.. Kansas City.. Manchester...
Omaha	
Saginaw	
St. Paul....
Spokane	
Syracuse	
San Francisco Woonsocket... *'Portland___
Salaries
cts.
Rents
cts.
General
Expenses
$ cts.
Exhibitions
cts.
Total
cts.

4.340	00
4.340	00 5,240 00 7,901 71 7,624 94 4,394 48 4,850 00 5,000 00 7,765 00 3,235 08 7,079 03 1,800 00 8,575 00 4,950 65 3,710 00
5.779	92
2.780	00 1,853 28
91,219 09
2.199	96 840 00
2,160 00
3.000	00
1.500	00
1.200	00
1,380 00
3.000	00
3.000	00
1,200 00
3.000	00 240 00
3.000	00 1,800 00
1.500	00 5,400 00
600 00 364 00
35,383 96
1,162 00 2,564 27 4,251 77 3,698 35 5,822 59 2,038 26 1,730 85 3,515 97 10,209 85 1,033 85 8,542 07 103 04 8,309 56 2,652 92 3,022 61 2,621 22 2,279 30 364 56
*63,923 04
1,902 35 1,254 39 2,232 62 1,457 16 3,674 60 191 87 1,504 49 2,986 12 2,564 81
5,472 93
2,094 56 1,045 46
26,381 36
9,604 31 8,998 66 13,884 39 16,057 22 18,622 13 7,824 61 9,465 34 14,502 09 23,539 66 5,468 93 24,094 03 2,143 04 21,979 12 10,449 03 8,232 61 13,801 14 5,659 30 2,581 84
216,907 45
'Exhibition expenses for eight months, to November 30th, 1927, the exhibition branch having been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce on December 1st last.
"The Portland office was closed in November, 1927.

3298'
Questions

16.
Office	Name	Classification	Salary'	Male or FemaleBoston	$2,520 L.A. $500..	M.1,380	F.Emigration Agent, Gr. 2	$2,520 L.A. $500.	M.1,380	F.Emigration Agent, Gi. 2	$3,120 L.A. $500..	M.M. Hill	1,680	F.F. W. Kerr	Emigration Agent, Gr. 3	$3,120 L.A. $500.	M.Clerk, Gr. 4	1,860	F.1,380	M.1,080	F.W. E. Black	Emigration Agent, Gr. 3	$2,880 L. A.$500..	M.1,080	F.1,080	F.1,080	F.Emigration Agent, Gr. 2	$2,520 L.A. $500..	M.1,380	F.Emigration Agent, Gr. 3	$3,120 L.A. $500..	M.1,260	F.Emigration Agent, Gr. 3	$3,120 L.A. $500..	M.1,200	Kansas City	$3,120 L.A. $500..	M.1,920 L.A. $500..	M.1,080	1,080	F.Manchester	Emigration Agent, Gr. 2	$2,400 L.A. $500..	M.1,200	M.Omaha	.	A. E. Pilkie	Emigration Agent, Gr. 3	$3,120 L.A. $500..	M.1,920 L.A. $500..	M.960	M.Emigration Agent, Gr. 1	$1,800	M.Emigration Agent, Gr. 3	$3,120 L.A. $500..	M.W. D. Breckon	Emigration Agent, Gr. 1	1,920 L.A. $500..	M.1,560	F.1,200	F.Spokane	$1,920 L.A. $500..	M.1,080	F.H Wade	960	F.Syracuse	$2,040 L.A. $500..	M.1,380	M.General Immigration Agent..	$3,500 L.A. $900..	M..T McCnll	1,380	F.Woonsocket	L. A. Delorme	Emigration Agent, Gr. 2	$2,400 L.A. $500..	M.


DETROIT AND WINDSOR FERRY COMPANY
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Does the Detroit and Windsor Ferry Company operate through franchise or charter from the government of Canada?
2.	If so, when was same issued?
3.	Under what department of state is it controlled?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Company operates under license granted by the government.
2.	1928.
3.	Department of Public Works.
[Mr. Forked

Questions


NOTRE DAME DES BOIS-EXCISE OFFICER
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Was the customs and excise enforcement officer at the port of Notre-Dame des Bois, Compton county, Quebec, who was the predecessor of the present incumbent of that office, dismissed from his said office?
2.	If so, when, why, and upon whose complaint?
3.	Did the officer, who was so dismissed, request that an official enquiry be held?
4.	If so, was such request for an enquiry granted?
5.	If not, why was such request refused?
9. How many years had the officer, who was so dismissed, been in the employ of the government?
7.	How much money had he contributed to the superannuation fund during the period of his employment?
8.	Has the amount so contributed by him to said fund been returned to him?
9.	If not, why not?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2. December 6,	1926-Upon charge of political partisanship made by a member of parliament.
3.	4 and 5. No, but on his behalf representations were made by the Service Bureau of the Canadian Legion of the B.EH.L. who were informed that Mr. Dumoulin would be given an oportunity bo be heard. No further advice received, and it was understood that Mr. Dumoulin had left the district.
6.	Seven years, seven months.
7.	Five per cent of salary from date of permanent appointment April 1 1921
8.	No.
9.	Under consideration.


PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY
Mr. NEILL:: Having regard to the reference in the Speech from the Throne to provincial railway problems of the several provinces as outlined at the Dominion Provincial conference, are any negotiations being carried on between the government of Canada or the Canadian National Railways and the government of the province of British Columbia for the sale of the Pacific
Great Eastern railway to the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. DUNNING:: Negotiations with the British Columbia government are now proceeding.


CHIEF JUSTICE OF CANADA-SALARY, ETC.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What is the salary of the chief justice of
Canada ?
2.	Does the chief justice receive extra remuneration for officiating in the absence of His Excellency the Governor General? If so, how much?
3.	Does the chief justice receive any allowance when attending meetings of the judicial committee of the Imperial Privy Council, and, if so, how much?
4.	How much was paid to the chief justice of Canada in each of the last five years by way of salary, expenses and other allowances?
5.	What judges retired from the bench are receiving pensions, what salary was being paid to each when retired, how long had each served, and what amount of pension does each receive?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	$15000.
2.	This is forbidden under section 38 of the Judges' Act.
3.	Under the Judges' Act, section 22, any judge who is a member of His Majesty's Privy Council may be paid a sum mot exceeding $3,000 for expenses of travelling and living while in attendance at a sitting.
4-	Salary Expenses
In 1923-24 Hon. Sir
Louis Davies	$15,000 00	
In 1924-25 Hon. Sir
Louis Davies	
In 1924-25 Hon. F. A.
Anglin	
In 1925-26 Hon. F. A.
Anglin	
In 1926-27 Hon. F. A.
Anglin	
In 1927-28 Hon. F. A.
Anglin	
1,290 32	
8,125 00	
15.000	00	
15.000	00 $2,000
15.000	00	
5.
-	Salary	Years served	PensionSupreme Court of Canada- Sir C. Fitzpatrick	$	$ cts.A. Malouin	Quebec Courts- J. S. Archibald	H. G. Carroll	Sir C. P. Davidson	8,000	C. J. Doherty	T. Fortin	C. LeBeuf	J. D. Purcell	J. E. Robidoux	L. Tellier	A. Tessier	A. A. Bruneau	9,000	20	6,000 00
Trade Treaties

5.-Concluded
-	Salary	Years served	PensionOntario Courts-	$ 5,000	27	S cts. 5,000 00C. \\ r^nlt.pr 	5,000	17	5,000 003,000	12	2,000 003,000	34	3,000 005,000	9	5,000 005,000	33	5,000 005,000	21	5,000 005,000	16	5,000 005,000	18	5,000 005,000	30	5,000 00H A. Ward 	5,000	10	5,000 00Nova Scotia Courts-	5,000	24	3,333 336,000	25	6,000 009,000	20	7,000 00New Brunswick Courts-	3,500	20	3,500 004,000	6	2,666 66W. W. Wells 	3,000	18	2,000 00Manitoba Courts-	5,000	33	5,000 005,000	39	5,000 003,000	34	3,000 00Alberta Courts- M S McCarthy 	9,000	11	6,000 005,000	18	5,000 00British Columbia Courts-	3,000	20	2,000 003,000	20	2,000 00Yukon-	5,000	12	5,000 00


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all papers, letters, correspondence, orders in council and all other documents between the Civil Service Commission and the honourable, the postmaster general, or the government or any department thereof regarding the classification of postal employees and postmen.


TRADE TREATIES WITH GERMANY AND CUBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, answering my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) regarding trade treaty negotiations, I said that:
As regards Cuba, as my hon. friend knows, there is an agreement at present in force. I think I advised the house early in the session that we have a most favoured nation agreement with Cuba pending negotiations in connection with a treaty.
I should have added, as I think I did in making the first statement, that in the agreement between Cuba and the United States, dated December 11, 1902, article 3 provides:
fMr. Lapointe.]
Articles of United States shall be admitted into Cuba at a reduction of 20 per cent.
Article 8 of the same agreement stipulates that:
This preferential shall continue during the term of the convention in respect to like imports from other countries.
So we have not the same conditions as have the United States.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: When my hon. friend from
Fort William asked the question, I suggested that there was also another agreement under consideration, judging from what the Cuban minister said the other night. That is what he was referring to.


James Alexander Robb: We have now a temporary
agreement which provides for imports from Cuba under the intermediate tariff. We are negotiating with them now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


STRUCTURAL STEEL WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I desire to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. MAY 23, 1928
Quebec Saguenay Railway
Heenan) what steps the department are taking to adjust the strike of structural steel workers engaged on important public works in the city of Toronto.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Acting Minister of Labour):: As acting minister of the department, no request has reached me to act in the matter, but I shall be glad to make inquiries and let my hon. friend know.


Thomas Langton Church: The other day the Minister of Labour said that there had been a request to the department to act.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON FISHERIES
Hon. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the report of the royal commission investigating the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen islands was laid on the table some ten days ago, and of the almost paramount importance of the fishing industry to those provinces, I desire to ask the Prime Minister when the government will be prepared to deal with the matter.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As my hon. friend has
just said, it was but ten days ago that the report was tabled. Before the government can contemplate bringing in legislation the members of the administration will wish carefully to peruse the report. I understand that there are some recommendations which might be carried out immediately without legislation; they will undoubtedly be entertained favourably. Any recommendation requiring legislation will have to stand over until another session.


QUEBEC, SAGUENAY AND CHIBOUGAMAU RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: On April 23 last I asked the
Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) a question respecting the Quebec, Saguenay and Ghibougamau railway, and he was to obtain if possible certain further information. I have clipped from a newspaper a prospectus of the issue of the bonds of the company and a reading notice that:
The company has an arrangement with the Canadian National Railways under which the latter company will approve the location of line as well as supervise its construction. The company has also a close understanding with the Canadian National Railways with respect to the handling and development of traffic.
Certain officers of the Canadian National are directors of the enterprise, and having in mind what transpired in connection with Grand Trunk Pacific obligations, which purchasers in Britain afterwards alleged constituted a debt of this country, I direct the minister's attention to the matter for the purpose of asking him whether the government as such is taking any part in it. A correspondent of mine, who has no political interest in the matter, felt that it might involve us in the same situation as we were involved in with respect to Grand Trunk Pacific obligations, about which the minister is so well aware.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Since the last
occasion on which the matter was mentioned in the house, an official statement has been published by authority of the legal vicepresident of the Canadian National Railways, setting out very clearly the relationship between the Canadian National Railways and the Quebec, Saguenay and Chibougamau Railway. I am also advised by the president that it is correct that the Canadian National is undertaking to approve the route to be followed by the proposed line; is undertaking to supervise standards of construction; and intends to get into a position, with respect to the Quebec, Saguenay and Chibougamau Railway, whereby that railway may not sell its undertaking to any other railway company without first giving the Canadian National an opportunity to purchase it. Further, I am advised that a traffic agreement along the usual lines is in process of negotiation between the Canadian National and the Quebec, Saguenay and Chibougamau Railway, and the president and board of directors of ' the Canadian National deemed it wise, in protecting the interests of the Canadian National, that that company should have representation on the board of the Quebec, Saguenay and Chibougamau Railway Company. There is no financial responsibility, either by the Canadian National or by the government of Canada, for any of the securities issued by the Quebec, Saguenay and Chibougamau Railway Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will discuss the matter further on the estimates.


VALUATION OF IMPORTED STRAWBERRIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I
wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and also

Valuation of Imported Strawberries
of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) to a matter of very great importance to the strawberry growers of British Columbia. I am advised that local berries will be on the market in a few days, and within the next few weeks a number of cars will be available for marketing. I have here a telegram from Mission City signed by the following concerns: Fruit and Mercantile Exchange, Limited; Wilson Fruit and Produce Company; Central Fruit Distributors, Limited; Mapleridge Co-operative Exchange; Japanese Consolidated Farmers' Exchange.
These concerns represent about 2,000 growers and in their telegram they indicate that there is likely to be a heavy dumping of American berries on the Canadian market. They advise me that they have wired the Minister of Agriculture requesting that a fair market value be fixed on imported berries at 12 cents per pound. I believe other wires have also been sent from other parts of British Columbia. The reply of the minister, as handed to me, is to the effect that he had forwarded these inquiries to the Minister of National Revenue with suggestions that an opportunity be taken at the earliest possible date to discuss them. This is a very important matter; it means the difference be' tween success and failure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Question.


Harry James Barber: I wish to ask the minister this question-


Ernest Lapointe: You are making a case.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon.
member to put his question simply and briefly.


Harry James Barber: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has discussed the matter with the Minister of National Revenue and whether he has complied with the request of these growers. If not, does he intend to do so?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I acknowledged all these communications, informed the various parties that I had referred their telegrams to the Minister of National Revenue expressing a desire, before any action was taken, to have an opportunity of discussing the matter with him. I have done so since then and I understand that under the existing law we have no authority to apply the dumping duties to any products carrying specific duties.
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): Following the question propounded to the Minister of Agriculture, may I ask the Min-

ister of National Revenue whether this very important matter has been called to his attention. If so, what is the decision of his department in regard to invoking the provisions of the Customs Act and the Tariff Act to give the necessary protection to this industry?
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National
Revenue):	The statement made by the
Minister of Agriculture as to having discussed the question with me is of course correct. With regard to anything else, my answer would be complete, for the moment at least, if I informed the house that there is no order in council under which the Minister of National Revenue can act.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I ask one further
question? We will go to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Will the Minister of Justice be good enough to say whether or not under the Customs Act, section 43, and any provision of the Tariff Act, there is power which would enable the government by order in council or otherwise to give the necessary protection to this industry?


Ernest Lapointe: The function of the Minister of
Justice in that respect is to advise the Minister of National Revenue, and he has done so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Minister of
Justice be kind enough to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite in order. Will the minister say whether, as Minister of Justice, he has advised the Minister of National Revenue that there is no power?


Ernest Lapointe: The Department of Justice has advised the Minister of National Revenue.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: In view of the
question which has been asked of the Minister of National Revenue, I would suggest to him that before any action is taken on the request of the 2,000 fruit growers of British Columbia, a proper investigation be made taking into consideration the effect any action will have upon the several million people buying these fruits.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The answer has
been given, and the matter is concluded.


RECLAMATION SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: On
April 9, the Civil Service Commission adver-

Steel Industry-Mr. Ralston
tised for a solicitor, Department of the Interior, water-powers and reclamation service.
I would ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) whether this position has been filled and, if so, by whom?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I cannot answer the question
but I will inquire and let my hon. friend know.


CANADIAN NATIONAL PARKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Anderson Black: I would
ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) whether, in the supplementary estimates, he proposes making any provision for national parks or parks and historic sites in the province of Nova Scotia?


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry I cannot inform
my hon. friend prior to bringing down the
estimates.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members to be good enough to give notice on the order paper, of questions of this character, which it is evident the government cannot answer offhand. According to Bourinot, such questions should be placed on the order paper.



SUPPLY-STEEL INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from May 22, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. A. Robb (Minister of Finance) that the house go into committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South).
['No. I say that a country which is held up before the world as one which proposes disarmament is herself spending $3.06 per capita on this account.\nProgress reported.']
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: When the house rose I was dealing with a feature of the Duncan report which, as I pointed out to the house, perhaps had not received the attention it deserved; I was referring to that portion of the report recommending the renewal of a subvention on coal carried all-rail from the maritime provinces to upper Canada. I was pointing out that on March 30 the government passed an order in council which, as I suggested, had gone further than the recommendation of the commission. My reasons for so stating are two: First, under the old order in council the maximum subvention was 50 cents per ton on coal moving from the maritime provinces. Under the new order in council, whereas the rate was $3.80 per ton the order in council provides that the maximum rate shall be $3 per ton; in other words, instead of a maximum reduction of 50 cents per ton the maximum reduction is 80 cents per ton. Just
in that connection I might say that the new rate is based on the rate provided in the order in council relating to Alberta coal, and therefore the province of Nova Scotia gets the benefit of the Alberta rate under this new order in council. I would also remind the house that the 80 cent reduction is made on a rate which had been already reduced by almost 20 per cent under the Maritime Freight Rates Act of last year. In the province of New Brunswick the rate is reduced from $2.60 to $2.10, a 50 cent reduction.
In still another particular the order in council goes further than the old provision. Under the old order in council provision was made for the transportation by rail to upper Canada from Montreal, of maritime province coal, which had been water borne from Nova Scotia to Montreal. The provision then made called for a reduction of one-fifth of one cent per ton mile, but the maximum subvention which could be made was 50 cents per ton. Under the new order in council that maximum subvention has been increased to 75 cents per ton, which enables Nova Scotia coal to be moved just that much further into the province of Ontario. I call that to the attention of my hon. friends who suggest that this report is not being implemented, and those who will presumably support the amendment which states that the government have refused to implement the recommendations of the commission.
The order in council provides one further feature which is not contained in the original order in council, and that is an inquiry by the Board of Railway Commissioners into the cost of the transportation of coal from Montreal to western Ontario. Those are the benefits which are received by the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in connection with the recommendations made by the Duncan commission for a subvention on maritime coal.
There is still a further point to be considered in connection with coal, because this amendment speaks of coal particularly. The Duncan report contains a recommendation that provision be made for the establishment of coking plants; I would direct the attention of the house to this recommendation, which is on page 36 of the report and which recommends that we proceed without delay to put in practical shape the policy which was recommended so definitely by the Dominion fuel board as the only method by which eastern and central Canada can be relieved of dependence upon imported anthractite. I want to point out that the recommendation of the Dominion fuel board was submitted to the parliamentary committee in 1926; on that recommendation a resolution was drafted

Steel Industry-Mr. Ralston
providing that a subsidy of 3 per cent per year should be paid on coking plants erected for the purpose of using Canadian coal, and that 3 per cent was to cover a period of fifteen years. I want to point out to my hon. friends who fear that this report has not been implemented that the legislation passed last year provided for a subsidy of 4 per cent to private companies, as against the 3 per cent recommended by the Dominion fuel board and 5 per cent to municipal corporations, and that that subsidy permitted the use of 30 per cent of American coal if that were found necessary in order to make a satisfactory coke. It was thought that possibly the requirement of one hundred per cent Canadian coal might defeat the erection of these plants, and it was determined to make the legislation practical. Again, in that respect, the government have gone further than the recommendations of the Duncan commission.
With respect to the duty on coal, we have the authority of my hon. friend who moved this amendment who has already stated his conviction that there is not much chance of an increase in the duty on coal. I do not know whether he has said that in this house, 'but he made that statement in his own county; he has been frank and fair enough to say so. Any special questions of tariff affecting coal are now before the tariff advisory board, as has been stated.
I would mention just two other matters dealt with in the Duncan report; first port development and export trade. I can only mention these matters in passing in order to register the fact that the government have fully carried out the recommendations of the commission. The Duncan commission recommended that statutory harbour commissions be established for the ports of Halifax and St. John. Some time ago attempts were made in this house to show that this meant some sort of special harbour commission different from the commissions existing throughout Canada. I think this house was convinced that the Duncan commission meant exactly what it recommended, a statutory commission based on those commissions whose work they had already investigated, particularly the harbour commission of Montreal. The statutory harbour commissions were established, and this year this house passed votes of $500,000 for the port of Halifax and $5,000,000 for the port of St. John, covering three years, in order that these harbour commissions may function.
Then we come to the question of fisheries. It was recommended that a deputy minister of fisheries be appointed; last session legislation was brought down and placed upon the statute books, in connection with that very 
matter. In addition to that, although it is not recommended in the Duncan report, last fall this government promptly appointed a commission because of an acute condition which arose in connection with the fisheries, and that commission investigated the fisheries of the maritime provinces. As has been stated in this house to-day, the report of that commission was laid on the table only about ten days ago, so I think we can fairly claim that the government have substantially not only carried out the recommendations of the Duncan report but in this case as well have gone even further.
I see I have only a moment or two left, but before I conclude I want to say that my good friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) quoted from an old, well-worn set of statistics with regard to blast furnaces. Those statistics were quoted by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) during the 'budget debate this year. He attempted to show that the blast furnace industry had been going down in this country. I want to remind him and the house that my hon. friend was very careful not to note that two periods of government were covered by the figures which he quoted. He quoted the activities of the blast furnaces in 1913 and then jumped to 1925. In 1913 the men employed in blast furnace operations numbered 1,589, but in 1921, after eight years of rule by his own party, the number had diminished to 614. Since that time there has been a continual increase in this figure, and in 1927 the number of men engaged in operation of blast furnaces was 734.
Let me remind my hon. friend that the output of the blast furnaces in 1913 was about 1,000,000 tons; in 1921 it had gone down to 593,000 tons, and since that time, under this government, it has increased from 593,000 tons to 907,000 tons. The adverse balance of trade in connection with the steel industry was $101,000,000 in 1913; in 1921 it had gone up to $169,000,000 and in 1927 it was back to about $106,000 000.
There was mention made of the town of Trenton. I do not propose to make any parade of what I have been able to do, or what I have been trying to do, but I think when the record is examined it will be found that I have been just as sincere a friend of Trenton as any of the gentlemen on the other side of the house. I have spent a good deal of time and put forth a good deal of effort in order to assist, if I possibly could, in connection with the development and the progress of the steel industry at Trenton.

Steel Industry-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
The Eastern Chronicle had an editorial only a day or two ago which said this about Trenton:
Trenton is busy and likely to be for this year.
I quite realize that the steel industry of Trenton has had a hard time, and also that the mining industry' has had a difficult time, but I say that a very sincere attempt has been made, not always by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, to bring about a better situation there. I do not believe, and 1 do not want this house to believe, that the sentiments expressed by my hon. friends represent the sentiment of the people of Nova Scotia.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: You
found that out in 1925-26.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend found
out a few things too in 1925-26. The people of Nova Scotia understand the situation with regard to the steel and coal industry and they know consideration will be given to these matters just as soon as conditions make it possible and practicable. They know that the matter of freight rates has been effectively dealt with in the way in which the Minister of Railways showed last night. They know that the government has gone much farther in connection with freight rates than was suggested in the Duncan report; that the increases in subsidies have been paid, as recommended by the Dunoan report, yes, and perhaps a little ahead of time. They know that subventions on coal rates have been provided for as recommended by the Duncan report. They know that subsidies to coking plants have been provided for at a greater rate than recommended by the Duncan report. They know that harbour commissions have been established, and votes have been made so that they may carry on; that legislation has been passed with respect to a deputy minister of fisheries, and that in connection with this industry there has been the additional feature that a special commission has been appointed and has made its report.
I feel that this house is convinced, and I know the people of Nova Scotia are convinced, that there has been honest, sincere, and effective action not only to implement the letter of the Duncan report but to go even further to meet the needs when the situation demanded.


Hon. J. E. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I will
not detain the house at any great length with the remarks I have to make on this question.
At the outset, I want to take direct issue with the amendment that has been moved by my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald). When the amendment says that the house regrets the refusal of the government to implement certain recommendations as contained in the Duncan report, it implies a refusal on the part of the government to do this. That is not a correct interpretation of the case, and I do not agree with it.
My hon. friends on the opposite side of the house, during this debate particularly and in some of the previous debates during this session, have undertaken to outline certain things as being recommended in the Duncan report which are not recommended therein. I do not wish to go over the many recommendations that were made, in order to bear out that statement, as I went into it raither fully in the debate on the address earlier in the session. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has gone into it in detail in this debate, so it is unnecessary for me to go over the ground1 again.
I wish to say a word or two in regard to some statements that have been made as to the province of Prince Edward Island, particularly referring to the transportation system, port developments, and the ferry service between the island and the mainland.
I was pleased to hear the announcement made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) yesterday, that the government had come to the decision that it was necessary to provide for a second car ferry. I am sure that information will meet with the approval of the people of Prince Edward Island, regardless of party affiliations. Our people all feel that that was the first necessary step to take at this time, in carrying out the recommendations that were made in the Duncan report.
When hon. members say to this house and to the country that the Duncan report recommended a second ear ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, they place a very narrow and short-sighted interpretation upon the recommendations of that report. The report did not actually recommend a second car ferry, and I will read the recommendations that were made in order that the house and the country may properly grasp the facts.
The Duncan report as we all know was a very able, well considered and well written document. It is a report that will be in our hands for many years to come. I think every member of that commission gave a degree
3300	COMMONS
Steel Industry-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
of consideration to the questions submitted to them that is very rarely given by commissions, and I say that without any reflection on other commissions.
The commission first pointed out that the ferry service was unsatisfactory, and that the railway administration admitted that there was need for supplemental provision being made, either in the form of a second ferry boat or a special freight boat. That was cited by the commission as the opinion of the railway management, and then the commission directly recommended as follows:
We recommend that the matter be gone into from the point of view of placing at the disposal of the island such satisfactory means of communication as will ensure as regular and complete a service as can reasonably be made.
When we look at the recommendation that is made in the report, we must come to the conclusion, as fairminded people, that the Duncan commission went into the matter very fully, and that their recommendation was not limited to a single car ferry, or any single instrument that might be used to provide a satisfactory service. It was mudh broader than that. In effect the commission says that it is the duty of Canada to see that the island shall be ensured as regular and complete a service as reasonably can be given. I think that is the spirit of the report, and it is in that spirit that we must approach the question. I am glad to know, as I said before, that the government has come to the conclusion, as many others who are directly interested in the transportation system of the island have done, that at the present time a second car ferry is needed in older to give the ihland the regular service it should have.
I should like to refer to the question of port development. The Minister of Finance cited expenditures that were made for port development in Prince Edward Island. That work was necessary; it was undertaken by the Department of Public Works before the Duncan commission made its report and the report did not mention directly, just as I said was the case in regard to railways, what was actually needed at the present time in that regard. Let me read that part of the report so that the public may understand the matter. The report states:
We recommend that the Public Works department make an immediate survey of these harbours, particularly as to wharfage and storage accommodation, with a view to adequate provision being made to meet the needs of the island's produce.
To say that we have implemented that recommendation to the full would be saying

too much; but as I said in a previous de-bate

and my remarks have been referred to in the press and in other ways-I think the government have gone as far as they can reasonably be expected to do at thi.3 date towards implementing that recommendation. But it will be seen that the recommendation is a broad one and that it carries with it the statement that the government are responsible for meeting the needs of the island's traffic as time goes on. That I think is understood and I am glad to be able to say that the government were acting toward that end before the recommendation of the commission was tabled in the house.
Let me refer for a moment to what has been said by some other hon. members during the debate regarding certain railway improvements that are necessary on the island. If I may quote from yesterday's Hansard, I find that one of the speakers made this statement:
I was showing how any transportation recommendations in connection with Prince Edward Island had not been carried out, particularly in regard to the standardization of the roadbed, and the ferry steamer.
There is no recommendation in the Duncan report asking for the standardization of the roadbed in Prince Edward Island. That is a narrow interpretation that is being put upon the report. I will not impute any motive to those who put that interpretation on, but it has been used outside of the house in an intent to influence the minds of the electors along a narrow channel. The recommendations of the report are generally for a proper transportation system in the island, not nailing the matter down to any particular action that may be taken at this time, but leaving it open for the future. In that spirit I think the government and the railway department are approaching the matter in an endeavour to carry out the intention of the Duncan commission and the wish of the people.
In the debate yesterday I did not altogether catch what was being said by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) when he was discussing the report with a view to showing the house that what was intended by the Duncan commission had not been sufficiently carried into effect. The main recommendation mentioned in the amendment was that in regard to coal and steel, but it was necessary for my hon. friend to make certain statements regarding the car ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland and the carrying out of certain recommendations in regard to our province, To

Steel Industry-Mr. Sinclair (Queens)
do that he read a letter which I find on page 3266 of yesterday's Hansard, and he said that that letter emanated from a responsible citizen in Charlottetown. The hon. member however did not tell the house to whom the letter was addressed or who signed it, and unless he is willing to reveal to the house the author of the letter, I must hold him responsible for the statements made in it. In the last paragraph of that letter the writer uses these words in reference to standardization of the railway:
Those farmers are moreover discriminated against by the expense of an extra handling of their shipments into broad gauge cars.
I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is willing to tell the house who the author of the letter is. I think the house has a right to know that, and if my hon. friend is not willing to reveal the name of the author he must be responsible for the statements made in the letter. In fairness to the railway management and the transportation system I wish to say that no extra expense to the shipper is involved in the handling of freight or in the transfer of shipments from the narrow gauge railway to the broad gauge railway. The expense of making that transfer is taken care of by the railway and the regular rate on freight is charged on a mileage basis on that part of the line just the same as on any other part. Moreover, as the house well knows, that matter comes under the jurisdiction of the railway commission. These words appear at the close of the quotation:
And yet, John E. Sinclair will say the farmers are satisfied.
I do not know where that quotation was taken from, but so fax as it applies to me I have not used those words either in parliament or in the country. Anything I have to say in regard to the farmers or any other class in Prince Edward Island, I am willing and ready to say in the house or anywhere else, without being quoted in an anonymous letter, the author of which my hon. friend has not seen fit to disclose to the house. Will my hon. friend say by whom and to whom the letter was written? The members are entitled to that information and when he uses the name of an hon. member, it is only fair that the source of his information should be given. If he refuses to give that information, then all I have to say is that he must assume the responsibility for his statement, which as far as it refers to me is not correct.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I described accurately
the gentleman who wrote me the letter. I
have no intention of giving the hon. member any information on that point. I am perfectly willing to accept all responsibility for any statements I make.


John Ewen Sinclair: Do I understand that the hon. member refuses to say who wrote the letter?


Thomas Cantley: Yes.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens). Then I must say that so far as the statement refers to me, it is not correct. I never' made that statement, and if my hon. friend accepts the responsibility for his informant, he must accept my denial and become responsible for a statement that, so far as I am concerned, is not correct.
I thought it was proper that I should make a few remarks on this question, especially in view of what has been said by my hon. friend from Pictou, who has really very little interest in Prince Edward Island unless it is to1 use information of this kind in regard to matters with which he is not familiar himself, and has to take second hand, and in doing so he refuses to divulge the name of his informant. the person to whom the letter was addressed or the person by whom it was signed. Things are getting to a pretty low ebb when my hon. friend has to fall back on such information to support such a motion as we have before us at the present time.
There is nothing further I need say. I could say a good deal as to the effect of the Duncan recommendations in regard to Prince Edward Island, but we have gone thoroughly into that matter on former occasions and I see no necessity for going further into it. I shall only remark that the people of Prince Edward Island without regard to party affiliations will welcome the announcement made in the house last night by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), that the government had come to the decision that it was now time that a second car ferry was provided to carry on the ferry service between the island and the mainland. I agree with the government in their conclusion that this second car ferry is necessary for the service, and it cannot come one minute too soon to meet the increasing necessities of the traffic. During two months of the season that has just passed the business of the ferry was greater than the ferry boats could take care of; that is in the months of November and March, which are the two months when the peak movement of our chief crop, which is potatoes, takes place. With the increased acreage that is now being planted we feel that the present facilities will not be able to handle the traffic

Steel Industry-Mr. Jenkins
this year, and we are glad to know we can hope to have a better service the following year. I am sure that the minister's announcement will be received with the utmost satisfaction by every elector in Prince Edward Island, regardless of party affiliations.


Mr. R. H. JENKINS (Queens):: I shall detain the house for only a few moments, but I would be remiss in my duty if I failed to express the appreciation not only of myself but of the people of our province with respect to the announcement made last night by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). Some of our friends of the opposition would have us believe that no attention whatever was being paid by the government to the improvement of our car ferry service, but on looking up the Hansard of last year I find, at page 1336. under date of March 18, 1927, that the Prime Minister made this statement:
A survey of what is required with respect to the needed railway service improvements on Prince Edward Island will, as recommended, be made immediately, in order that future action may be intelligently determined.
The whole matter of ferry boat service between the island and the mainland is now under investigation, as recommended by the commission.
And that investigation has been going on. The Minister of Railways also stated in his address last night:
As a matter of fact, my hon. friend well knows, and the members from Prince Edward Island on this side of the house are in the best position to confirm it, that the question of a second car ferry for Prince Edward Island has been receiving the attention both of the Canadian National Railways and of the department for more than one year past.
That confirms the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1927. The Minister of Railways continued:
The members who sit on this side from the island have on several occasions waited upon myself, and have waited upon the management and officials of the Canadian National Railways, in connection with that matter, and were always given to understand that determination with respect to the matter would be reached by the government before the supplementary estimates were presented to the house.
That is a true statement. I happen to be a member of the select committee on railways and shipping and I was practically told that this matter would be looked after in the supplementary estimates. Some of our friends opposite have done a lot of talking, especially the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), who appears to take a peculiar interest in our province, for which we thank him, but while he was talking, the members from Prince Edward Island were working in the interests of the province, and as a result

we have received the announcement which was made by the Minister of Railways last night. Speaking in this house on February 6 last I said, among other things:
So far as communication is concerned I believe that the government will carry into effect the recommendation of the Duncan commission, and provide another car ferry. Three years ago on the floor of this house I advocated that this matter should be dealt with, and I understand that the government for some time, through the Department of Railways, has been gatheriiig information and making preparations for this desired improvement. We are sincerely hopeful that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will see fit to place, if not in the main estimates at least in the supplementary ones, an appropriation for this much needed work.
The hon. member for Pictou in his address yesterday referred to the members from our province as rubber stamps. It is rather significant that although he might have been called to order for so doing, knowing the hon. gentleman as we do, nobody thought it worth while to call him to order. No member is supposed to be referred to in this house by another member as a rubber stamp. I think the remark was not in very good taste.


Thomas Cantley: Would the hon. member
be good enough to repeat his statement in regard to rubber stamps? Does he say that I said the members from Prince Edward Island were rubber stamps?


Robert Harold Jenkins: Here is what the hon.
member said, at page 3258 of Hansard:
The members for Prince Edward Island on the government side are referred to as "rubber stamps."


Thomas Cantley: Yes, referred to as that
in the paper from which I quoted.


Robert Harold Jenkins: It is immaterial anyway.


Thomas Cantley: I was quoting from a
paper in the hon. member's own island and they should know.


Robert Harold Jenkins: The fact is that while the hon. gentleman has been talking, we have been working in the interests of the province, and we are very pleased to have this announcement which the Minister of Railways made last night. I again thank the minister and the government for promising to provide this improved service, and I am sure that the government will in future do anything it can to further the interests of Prince Edward Island.
Many members opposite are always talking of hard times. We do not agree with them in their doleful tales, because in our province things are prosperous and this action on the part of the government should be an occasion of further satisfaction to our people.

Steel Industry-Mr. Young (Weyburn)


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I shall not detain the house many minutes, but I should like to set forth the views of another section of the country towards this resolution.
The resolution, as I understand it, asks for two things, bounties and increased tariffs. A bounty is asked for on coal, and I understand that the argument which is advanced in support of that request is that the steel companies in central Canada import their coal from the United States and have to pay a duty on it, but that when the coal is used for metallurgical purposes, they get a rebate of 99 per cent of the duty. The British Empire Steel Corporation, located in the maritime provinces, uses coal from its own mines, and therefore does not get any rebate because it does not pay any duty; it imports no coal. It therefore asks that the government give it a bounty, for using its own coal, which will be equal to the drawback received by the Steel Company of Canada on the duty it pays on the coal it imports from the United States. Every year since I have been in this house the people of the maritimes have been telling us that they could not sell their coal; people would not buy it; and they wanted the government to do something to help them find a market. Now they tell us they are not willing to burn their own coal unless we pay them a bounty. What would hon. gentlemen opposite think if the farmers of this country came to parliament and said: We want a bonus on every bushel of our own oats that we feed to our own horses? They would say it was a preposterous request. But not one bit more preposterous than the very request those men are making for a bounty on their own coal.
What is the need of the iron and steel industry in Canada? Is that industry in such a serious position as hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe? I say it is not. The iron and steel industry of Nova Scotia, as I understand it, is devoted largely to the production of what are known as the primary iron and steel products, such as pigs, ingots, blooms and billets. Let us look at the value of the imports in those particular branches of the industry to-day as compared with what they were in 1922 when my hon. friends opposite were in power. We find that in 1922 the imports of pigs, ingots, blooms and billets amounted to $932,370; our exports of these commodities for the same year amounted to $622,919. In other words, our imports that year were 50 per cent greater than our exports. That condition continued until 1925. Then in 1926 the condition was reversed, and our imports in those forms of iron and steel amounted to $1,568,112; our exports,$2,167,172.
In the next year, 1927, we imported of the same forms $1,634,048, and exported $3,427,779. That is, our imports, which in 1922 were 50 per cent greater than our exports, in 1927 were only half as much as our exports. Our imports had increased by $700,000; our exports by four times that amount. Most of these imports, I understand, come from the United States.
It would be interesting to know whaJt was the situation in 1913, when the party of "No track or trade with the Yankees" was in power. In that year we imported pigs, ingots, blooms and billets to the value of $5.545;770; in 1927 we imported those forms to the value of $1,126,354. To that we have to add $507,783, imports of chrome steel, ferro silicon, and so on, making a total importation for 1927 of $1,634,127, as against $5,545,770 in 1913. If you make allowance for the difference in the value of the dollar in those two years, you will find the imports today about 15 per cent of what they were in those days.
These forms of iron and steel are the raw material of a great number of our other manufactures. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) pointed out the other day, some 300 manufacturers of other commodities depend on these forms for their raw material. What is the production, then, of the other forms of which these products are the raw material? We find that of castings and forgings, hardware and hooks, agricultural implements, machinery, automobiles, and so on, we manufactured in 1922 to the value of $187,137,608, and in 1926 to the value of $296,161.940- an increase of over $100,000,000. In 1922 we employed in these industries 40,700 men; in 1928, 57,050. I want to ask my hon. friends opposite: If we adopted the policy which they advocate and increased the duty on these forms of iron and steel, and therefore increased the cost of the raw material of these other industries, what would be the effect? We would jeopardize these other industries employing 57,000 men for the sake of the industry that is producing the raw material. Would we increase our market by that means? No, we would ruin the very market we are trying to create.
Now, what is the condition of the three great iron and steel companies in Canada; are they in as distressful circumstances as some people would have us believe? Let us look first at Besco. In 1924 the British Empire Steel Corporation lost $2,137,000; in 1925, $4,33o,000. In 1926 they made a gain of $1,138,000. Their condition is improving without any change in the tariff. How about the Steel Company
Steel Industry-

-Mr. Young (Weyburn)
of Canada? In 1914 thedr dtock was selling at $11 a share; to-day it is quoted at $216. What about the Algoma Steel Company?- referred to yesterday by hon. gentlemen opposite. I have here a newspaper despatch, dated April 27, sent from Toronto to the Montreal Gazette, giving the opinions of the president of that very company as to the company's future. I will read part of t'he despatch. It is as follows:
Since last Autumn about $10,000,000 has been added to the market value of the corporation's securities. The common stock in that period has advanced from $1.50 to $9.50 a share-
I commend that to some hon. gentlemen who are fond of investing in mining stocks.
*-which involves an appreciation of dose upon $3,400,000. Algoma Steel first preferred in the same length of time has gone from 33 to 60 and Lake Superior 5's from 38 to 72, these advances in the bond issues representing an advance in values of nearly $6,000,000. Since 1912 there has been plowed back into the corporation's plant a total of over $13,000,000, all of which was taken out of earnings, and Mr. Dodd is of the opinion that before another decade has passed away the total investment at the "Soo" will reach $100,000,000.
Then further down the following:
The high rate of output by Algoma Steel during the present year has been due to the increased activity in general business, which has strengthened up all departments of the corporation's work. On February 1 orders on hand amounted to $7,000,000, since which time a large number of new orders have been received, these being sufficient to keep the plants operating at high speed for several months to come. In March the shipments of iron and steel alone reached a total of 52,850 tons, whilst the total output of all departments aggregated 62,328 tons. Earnings of the corporation just now are running at the rate of $300,000 a month, and it is thought that by the end of the fiscal year on June 30 there will be a sum of $2,000,000 cash in the bank, with no loans whatever outstanding. A replacement value of $50,000,000 has been set upon the Sault Ste. Marie enterprise, so that the holders of the corporation's bonds would appear to be well protected.
Those are the companies, Mr. Speaker, who are now telling us that they are in such, dire straits and cannot survive unless the government lend them some assistance. It has been frequently stated that this government has discriminated against the primary iron and steel industry, and has favoured other industries at its expense. Let us compare the situation in the iron and steel industry with the situation in all manufacturing industries throughout the country. We find that in 1922 the iron and steel industry employed 75,354 men, paying them in wages, $91,629,491; and in 1926 they employed 103,510 men at a total wage of $137,640,065. All manufacturing industries in Canada in 1922 employed 387,689 men; in 1926, 499,733. The wages and

salaries paid were, in 1922 $497,113,554, and in 1926, $653,850,433. Comparing the figures then and now, we find that since 1922 the number of employees engaged in the steel industry has increased 34 per cent, and the wages 41 per cent ; while in all manufacturing industries the number of employees has increased 29 iper cent, and the wages 31 per cent. So we find that the number of employees in the iron and steel industry has increased more than the average in 'Canada, and the rate of wages has increased more than in the other industries.
Taking all these things into account, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the claim of the iron and steel industry for further consideration has absolutely no basis in faot, and is utterly unjustifiable.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Young) who has just taken his seat on the valuable statistics in connection with the steel industry which he has given to the house and to the country. It is amusing to notice that our hon. friends opposite are so anxious now to dispose of the debate and do not appear to wish any further discussion on their own amendment. It seems that the important announcement made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) last evening has rather taken the wind out of their sails, and now they are anxious to have their amendment disposed of as quickly as possible. However, before leaving the question, I desire to extend to the Minister of Railways, for the announcement he made last evening, the thanks of the people of my county, of all shades of politics. I think I am justified in making this statement, that the Liberal members on this side of the house could have given this information out some time ago. They had the assurance from the railway management and also from the minister that this important matter would be dealt with, but it was not our place to divulge any information that had been given us in confidence until the minister had seen fit to make an announcement in the house at the proper time.
The placing of a second car ferry on the route is something that benefits not only the province of Prince Edward Island but the whole of the maritimes and, in fact, the Dominion at large. Our province is not very considerable in area but we have a large trade. We buy largely from the manufacturers of the upper provinces and, in return, we ship out large quantities of produce; so that the car ferry, as I say, is of advantage not only to Prince Edward Island but to the

Steel Industry-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
whole Dominion, for it links up that province with the mainland and other parts of Canada.
In mj' opinion the very excellent speech made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has so cleared the situation as to render it unnecessary for me to go into details to show the way in which the Duncan report has been implemented. That report has 'been acted upon as well as it was humanly possible for any government to have acted upon a report in the time that has elapsed since it was brought down. Our friends opposite are demanding that the report be implemented 100 per cent. Now, hon. members on this side of the house, who were in the house when the commission was proposed, and when the government attempted to appoint that commission, will recollect how hon. gentlemen opposite objected. They objected to the appointment of a commission, declaring that it was only a means of sidestepping the issue. They said that the government would appoint the commission and that when that commission's report was submitted it would be laid away in the archives and never be implemented. They opposed to the hilt the appointment of the Duncan commission. But the commission was appointed and, after it had completed its labours it brought in a very comprehensive report dealing with every phase of the maritime situation. That report has been implemented almost 100 per cent. Anyone who reads the speech of the Minister of National Defence, and observes how carefully he took up question afer question mentioned in the report, will agree that the report has been fully implemented.
The 20 per cent reduction in freight rates represents to the people of the maritime provinces a boon which one can hardly estimate; we do not realize the amount of money it will mean. In their estimates the other day the government had the sum of $3,395,000 voted this year to make up to the Canadian National Railways the reduction in freights on that division. This is practical assistance not only to the shippers but to every industry in the maritimes; it extends an advantage to farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and merchants; it takes in everyone. In addition to that, the further reduction made on coal, in the way of subventions, which has been fully brought out by the Minister of National Defence, goes to show that in that respect alone the government has gone further than the recommendations made in the Duncan report.
Now I come to the subsidy. It would not be surprising if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) almost refused to pay that subsidy, after the manner in which our hon. friends
opposite have criticized the Finance department with regard to the method of paying the subsidy. It is really unfair that such criticism should be indulged in. There have been handed out these sums to the maritime provinces: Nova Scotia, $875,000; New Brunswick, $600,000; Prince Edward Island, $125,000. Under the circumstances, these payments being made at regular intervals along with the other subsidies, why in the world do our friends complain? They remind me of the clergyman who took as his text the reference to the devil who went about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. The clergyman divided his subject under three heads: first, who the devil was he? secondly, where in the devil was he going? and thirdly, what in the devil was he roaring about? Our hon. friends opposite were roaring about something yesterday, when they were loud in their condemnations of the government. To-day they have not a word to say regarding the matter.
The Minister of Finance has treated us fairly, and the whole question is subject to further examination. It is to be looked into carefully, and if further subsidies are due the maritimes, I feel that we shall be dealt with fairly and that the grant will be increased. But I do not think that the way to secure that increase is by continually criticizing the government for the manner in which they have so far dealt with the Duncan report.
With regard to railway facilities and the improvements that have been made, one has only to look at the port development that has taken place in the province of Prince Edward Island, at Charlottetown, Summerside and Georgetown, to see what splendid advantages have been afforded. But as the Minister of National Defence has pointed out, over $5,000,000 has been voted between Halifax and St. John for port development. In view of this, I submit that our friends opposite should not be unreasonable enough to ask for anything further along these lines. I was pleased to note that the Minister of Railways last night stated that $40,000 would be allotted this year for additional terminal facilities at Summerside. This shows that the Canadian National system is improving its lines, when there is a demand for these facilities.
In the province of Prince Edward Island our trade has increased by leaps and bounds. As I pointed out before, railway stations that were to be closed, because they could not come up to the required amount of earnings, have improved to such an extent that whereas stations that were earning $10,000 three years
Steel Industry-Mr. Short

ago are now earning S50,000. I noticed in an item in the maritime press the other day that twenty-one new sidings had been asked for in the maritimes from the Canadian National Railways. This, the news item went on to state, was proof of the expansion of trade and the improvement of industries in the maritimes. It was evidence of progress when they required these additional facilities.
As a result of the survey carried out over the railway lines in the province of Prince Edward Island we hope that further improvements will be effected when the recommendations of this survey are turned in to the government. We also appreciate the fact that, in accordance with the recommendations of the report, a study has been made of clays and gravel and materials for road making. We are glad to know that the fisheries commission, which has just handed in its report, has made important- recommendations which are similar to those suggested in the Duncan report and which I have no doubt will be dealt with.
In connection with the new car ferry, we sincerely trust that a careful study will be made of that ferry before the contract is let. I do not think any man is more capable of giving advice in this matter than the present captain of the car ferry. He has had experience over a number of years and is thoroughly familiar with the route and its requirements. He knows how docks should be built; he knows what arrangements should be made whereby automobiles may be placed on the car ferry under their own power instead of being loaded on flat cars as is the case at present, and I believe no one can give better advice in this matter.
Again I wish to thank the Minister of Railways for the important announcement which he has made; I hope a contract for this ship will be let soon and that we will have it in time to assist in moving the 1929 traffic.


Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis):: It was not my intention to make any remarks in connection with this discussion; hon. members on this side have gone pretty well into the case as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, but in his remarks this afternoon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) would lead us to believe that the government had implemented the recommendations of the Duncan commission in connection with the fisheries of the maritime provinces. For my part I have not noticed that the government have done anything whatever in that connection. The first recommendation of the commission was that a department of fisheries should be established

through the appointment of a deputy minister, and when the Prime Minister spoke in connection with the Duncan report last year he stated that a deputy minister would be appointed. More than a year has passed since that time and nothing has been done in that respect. The Minister of National Defence and the hon. gentleman who spoke last would lead the house to believe that one of the recommendations made by the Duncan commission was that a commission should be appointed to investigate the fisheries. I cannot find that in the Duncan report.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend will not find in my speech any suggestion that such a recommendation was made by the Duncan commission.


Harry Bernard Short: I understood from my hon. friend that the government had carried out that recommendation by appointing that commission, which has just made its report. That commission had nothing whatever to do with the Duncan report; it was appointed only last October, and the reason for its appointment was the unrest in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia. That commission has made its report and this afternoon the Prime Minister said in answer to a question by my hon, friend from Halifax (Mr. Black) that the government are not going to act upon the report this session.
I just wanted to state that absolutely nothing has been done in connection with the fisheries of the maritime provinces., as recommended by the Duncan commission. As I have said, it is not necessary for me to make any further remarks in connection with this matter because our case has been well put by the members who spoke last night. Our friends opposite are complaining because we have nothing further to say in the matter; I think we have said quite enough, and it will take the government some time to answer the case we have put forward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my observations will be very brief. In the first place we are told that the party which sits to your left opposed the appointment of the Duncan commission. The Conservative party of that day expressed it's grave doubts and apprehensions as to what would be the result in dealing with the grievances of the maritime provinces if we left it to a commission and the Liberal government. That commission was appointed; will my hon. friends now name to me any Liberal who appeared before that commission to assist in

Steel Industry-Mr. Bennett
the solution of those problems? Will my friends from Prince Edward Island tell me that any of them were present to help solve the problems of that province? Will any members of the Liberal party state, as members of this parliament, that they were present? Were any members of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia or in New Brunswick present?


James Layton Ralston: Is my hon. friend asking
that as a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. H. J. Logan, K.C., a distinguished member of this house for many years, who had held the important position of president of the Maritime board of trade, a gentleman who is supposed to be a Liberal, was before that commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was just waiting for
that answer; look at the report of the proceedings before the commission and see what Mr. Logan's contribution was. The case was presented by the government of Nova Scotia, and in the main by Colonel Phinney.


Mr. ILSLEY:: It was their business to do
so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says it
was their business to do so. Methinks, having heard the hon. gentlemen from Prince Ediward Island this afternoon, that it was their business also, but now the hon. gentleman claims it was the business of the provincial government. That is the position; the whole point is that the Conservative party is responsible for having presented the grievances of the maritime provinces to this house month after month and year after year. Nothing but a delegation from the province of Nova Scotia was responsible for the ultimate appointment of that commission, and when that commission was appointed those in this house who supported the Liberal government were notable for not being present.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend permit just one question, and I will not interrupt him again. To what delegation does he refer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean the members
who came here from Nova Scotia, the parliamentary delegation.


James Layton Ralston: I thought perhaps he had in mind a delegation headed by ex-Mayor John Murphy of Halifax, who was a Liberal candidate.	i


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the reasons why
the head of that delegation was not a Liberal member was because it was realized that as far as he was concerned the delegation was nothing but an open gesture.


James Layton Ralston: Who?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ex-Mayor Murphy.


James Layton Ralston: I heard him congratulated by a number of Conservatives on his presentation of the maritime case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely, because that ensured that he would not be a member of this house. I well recall that the Prime Minister, in dealing with this matter, very properly pointed out that the report of that commission might well be likened to the report of Lord Durham on dealing with the problems of upper and lower Canada. So we have a very great state document prepared by a commission presided over by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan who, fortunately, was not one who was influenced in any sense by local considerations or, shall we say, by antecedent prejudices with respect to the claims of the maritime provinces. That report was presented to this parliament and was accepted both by the government of the day and the opposition of the day; in other words, it was unanimously adopted, and this parliament was anxious by its expressions of opinion, both formal and informal, that the recommendations of the report should be carried out.
We get that far in unison. Now, when the promise is made that the recommendations will be carried out it is equally important that they should be all carried out as that part of them should be carried out. This greatly reminds me of an accused person charged with theft on twelve counts. He is acquitted on eleven of the charges and the defence for the twelfth is that, having been acquitted on eleven, he should be acquitted on the twelfth. Or take it the other way; he is found guilty on eleven counts, and it is argued that having been found guilty on eleven counts he should be found guilty on the twelfth. That argument would not go very far in any court of law in which the Minister of National Defence might appear. The fact is that many recommendations were made by this commission, some of which have been carried out while some have not. For instance, yesterday some discussion arose between the Minister of Finance and one of the speakers as to whether or not the subsidies had been paid when they should have been paid. All I know is that the minutes of the Dominion-Interprovincial conference held here last fall indicate that one of the responsible

Steel Industry-Mr. Bennett

ministers from the province of Nova Scotia urged that on the true construction of that report the first instalment of the increased subsidy under that report should have been made in 1926, in other words, at the date of the making of the report. The Minister of Finance or the Minister of Railways certainly did not advance the case by saying, as the Minister of National Defence said, that every recommendation made by the report had been carried out.
The amendment moved yesterday deals with that very phase of the report; it does not deal with railways, or it does not deal with other matters. It contends that the government has declined or refused to give effect to the recommendations in the report with respect to the steel industry.
After the whole of yesterday afternoon had been taken up in discussing among others the question of a car ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, I was amazed to hear the Minister of Railways say that the government had placed a provision of a million dollars for this car ferry in the supplementary estimates. Then this afternoon I heard one of the hon. members from Prince Edward Island saying that it was not their place to disclose what was given in confidence.
The British North America Act provides that any moneys expended by this parliament shall carry with them the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General, and that the estimates shall reach this house in certain well defined ways. For the first time in my limited experience, and I think in the experience of the oldest member of this house, a responsible minis teg of the crown rose in his place and told the house that a million dollars has been placed in the supplementary estimates for a given work. It is true that the question was asked whether it would be done or not, but the correct answer was that the matter was under consideration. Instead of that, the minister of the crown discloses what is to bo in the supplementary estimates. When he was reminded of the fact that the oath of a cabinet minister should prevent the disclosure of what takes place in council, he said he had the permission of the government to make that statement. That makes it even worse, because the oath of office of a privy councillor- I have taken the trouble to look it up-ia very clear upon that point. He swears:
You will serve His Majesty truly and faithfully in the place of his council in this His Majesty's Dominion of Canada, you will keep close and secret all such matters as shall be treated, debated and resolved on in Privy Coun-
IMr. Bennett.]
oil, without publishing or disclosing the same or any part thereof, by word, writing, or any otherwise to any person out of the same council, but to such only as be of the council.
How does the hon. gentleman justify his position in turning to the members from Prince Edward Island yesterday afternoon and saying that a million dollars has been provided in the supplementary estimates, when to make such announcement is a violation of the provisions of the British North America Act and of the oath of a privy councillor of this Dominion? One of the first gentlemen to claim that in this house was the right hon. the Prime Minister himself. In connection with the Petersen investigation I recall that it was successfully urged that even the names of the men who appeared in council should not be given out. The Prime Minister during the present session said, when a question was asked as to the government's intention, that that was a matter which must be settled in council and could not be disclosed before determined, and he did the proper thing with respect to that matter. When you ask questions regarding policies that are under consideration by His Majesty's Privy Council for the Dominion, it is improper to disclose them, because it is a violation, when it involves the expenditure of money, of the British North America Act itself and of the oath of a privy councillor. Perhaps the new status of Canada may explain that violation of the provision of the British North America Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure that my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt him. My hon. friend has attributed to me words which I did not use yesterday. There is an important) distinction between the words he attributed to me and the words which I actually used. What I said appears in Hansard at page 3282, and is as follows:
I may say quite frankly that I have, as Minister of Railways and Canals, recommended to my colleagues a provision in the supplementary estimates for the sum of one million dollars for a new ear ferry for the Prince Edward Island-mainland service.
My hon. friend then interjected, and, referring to the oath of office and the disclosure of discussions between my colleagues, I then said:
My hon. friend is quite correct; but I may tell him that the cabinet to-day decided I should make the statement that I have just made.
I had the permission of the government of Canada to reveal to the house the recommendation I had made to the government,

Steel Industry-Mr. Bennett
that a sum be included in the supplementary estimates for this purpose. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there was no impropriety and no violation of my oath of office in indicating to the house what the government had decided I should indicate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At page 3282 of Hansard it appears that the Minister of Railways said:
My hon. friend is quite correct; but I may tell him that the cabinet to-day decided I should make the statement that I have just made.
That is in answer to a statement that he recommended to his colleagues the inclusion in the supplementary estimates of the sum of one million dollars for a new car ferry for the Prince Edward Island-mainland service. Surely the hon. gentleman realizes that he has disclosed to this house a recommendation made to his colleagues in council, which is a communication in council. He must realize that the cabinet cannot release him from his obligation, because the British North America Act provides that any resolution for the expenditure of public money must be preceded by a message from His Excellency the Governor General. Suppose that His Excellency the Governor General diid not approve of that estimate-it is not conceivable that that would happen-it is anticipating the approval of the crown to the expenditure of money which may not be made except in the manner and form provided by our rules and regulations.
It will be borne in mind that the hon. member from Prince Edward Island made this statement, "It was not our plaoe to disclose what was given to us in confidence."


John Ewen Sinclair: The railway management recommended that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The management do not recommend the expenditure of public moneys in this country.


John Ewen Sinclair: We 'have to have the recommendation of the management.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is whait the hon. gentleman said; "It was not our place to disclose what was given to us in confidence." I will leave that, 'because it is only incidental to whait I have to say, and I am moving away from the main theme of my discussion.
I point out that last evening we hlad for the first time a violation by a minister of the crown of his oath of office, and of the provisions of the British North America Act.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not so.
56103-210J


Richard Bedford Bennett: I observed the anxiety of the Minister of National Defence to indicate to us last evening and to-day that the government had under consideration the providing of a deputy minister of fisheries, and that they bad appointed a commission and the commission had recommended the appointment of a minister of fisheries. I have never seen such willingness 'to serve in that capacity from members of parliament as I have seen during the last few hours. The only thing that is lacking is to have the hon. member for Antigonish-Guyborough (Mr. Duff) in his place, and then we would have it a quartette instead of a trio.


Mr. McLEAN (Prince):: There must be a lot of the members on that side of the house trying to qualify for the position of minister of fisheries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman in his modesty is trying to say that he has no desire to be appointed. Perhaps another one will follow in his footsteps and relieve the Prime Minister of any difficulty in making the selection. AH you have to do is to get three more to say they have no interest, and the matter will be complete.
Attention was directed to the Steel industry. I am not going to traverse any ground that has already been covered, and waste time as the Minister of Finance would say, but I would like to point out that the Duncan report recommended prompt action, and the word used is '^prompt." That was in 1926, and we are now told that nothing can be done until 1929. If three years constitute promptness, what would constitute slowness?


Edward James Young: Conservative
rule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weybum has just answered, and he gives me the opportunity to direct attention to the fact that While he has been contending that the steel industry requires no assistance, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister have been promising that something will be done. But I suppose, as is usual, the hon. member for Weybum will stand up at the critical moment and vote whatever may be decreed in that regard, and while he will have the satisfaction of indicating to his constituents the speech that he made, he will also be able to point in another direction to the vote that he gave.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Especially the vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, for that after all
is what counts. He reminds me of the hon.
Steel Industry-Mr. Bennett

member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) who said the other day: "I am voting for this because I am a Liberal but I certainly do not believe in it." That is the sort of thing, I take it, my hon. friend has in mind.
The Minister of Finance yesterday was not in that agreeable mood that so often characterises him. He seems to have had some difficulties. What they were I cannot say; I trust they were not in regard to increasing judges' salaries or anything of that sort; but he certainly seemed to have some difficulties yesterday afternoon, because in a moment of petulance he described those who were striving to remedy their grievances as being given to-well I hesitate to use the word by which he described them, and I will leave it at that because I fear those who are of the same ancestry as himself in those sections of the Dominion that are called the maritime provinces will not cease to recall, not with pleasure, the way in which he has stigmatised the efforts they are making for the benefit of the country. The minister 6aid that those who come from the maritimes and sit on this side were present because of the grievances that they had really manufactured with respect to the maritime provinces. Let us put this single question and leave it at that. If they were imaginary grievances, why has the government taken so long to explain what they have done towards remedying them? If those grievances were purely imaginary, as was indicated by the Minister of Finance yesterday; if they were manufactured for the occasion, as he said, why has parliament been endeavouring so anxiously to satisfy the just demands in accordance with the recommendations made in this report? If this was Tory propaganda, why is a Liberal government giving effect to it? Those complaints were made time after time by men of the lower provinces and at last they succeeded, by sending to parliament a delegation such as I have mentioned1 opposing the government, in bringing about the creation of this commission, which they did not then think would be the best method of dealing with the matter, but which, in the light of subsequent events has turned out to be very satisfactory. Now the government has spent the last hour in explaining how it has endeavoured to implement the recommendations contained in the report while the Minister of Finance says that these are nothing but purely imaginary grievances that the people have.


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not say that.
IMr. Bennett.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: I took down his words
with respect to grievances. He said that these gentlemen owed their seats in the house to those grievances. He did not use the word "imaginary". I thinik "fancied" was the word he used.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend
permit me to quote the exact words?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. He used the
expression twice.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is what the Minister of Finance said:
My hon. friends the mover and the seconder of the resolution laboured long and hard to convince themselves that they really have a
grievance. They know better than that; they now that the people in the maritime provinces are not in sympathy with all these continual winnings for something more to be done in addition to what has already been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you from
your wide knowledge of classical lore will remember the case in which a man said: "0 save me from my friends." I had declined to use the word "whinings" out of regard for the Minister of Finance, but it remained for his colleague, anxious on his behalf, to speak of these "continual whinings," words Which I am sure he is sorry he used.


Charles Avery Dunning: Whinings, not of the
people of the maritime provinces but of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, elected to their seats in parliament by as highly respectable and educated constituents as those represented by anybody else in the house.
The hon. member's amendment dealt with the question of steel. Sir Andrew Rae Duncan investigated the matter and he made a recommendation that prompt action should be taken. I have already indicated that the report was made over two years ago. The steel matter is not a question of politics. I say that to the hon. member for Weyburn. It is a question of taking such legislative action as will place that steel industry in a proper position with respect to the country. The coal, iron and steel industries of Nova Scotia are the lifeblood of the eastern provinces. I wonder if the hon. gentleman has recalled what was said in the United States in the era of their greatest prosperity, namely, that "steel is king." I direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to this consideration. The report of the Department of

Steel Industry-Mr. Bennett
National Revenue brought down for April indicates that of iron and its products we imported the following amounts:
Year	Free	Dutiable1927	
$3,615,193	$19,032,3711928	
3,677,768	21,145,646


Mr. MANION:: For one month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the month of April. Further, in the report that came to us this morning I find that the imports for Canada for the month of April are the highest they have been since 1925-26. They have risen from $59,104,651 to the enormous sum of $78,490,470, or an increase of nearly $19,000,000 from April, 1926, to April, 1928, and for the twelve months ended April 30, 1928, cur total imports have increased by nearly $100,000,000 over the twelve preceding months, being the largest that we have had since 1925. Our exports for the month of April as the figures indicate, show a decrease as compared with preceding years; for the twelve months ending April 30, 1928, we had total exports amounting to $1,209,844,957, or an increase of much more than $100,000,000 over those for the twelve months ended April 30, 1925, but unfortunately a decrease of $106,000,000 from those for the twelve months ended April 30, 1926, and a decrease of $60,000,000 from those for the twelve months ended April 30, 1927.
There is not a banker, not a man who is engaged in dealing with money, business or industry on the American continent who is not looking to the future with grave anxiety. We know that by these increased importations during the last month we have had, not dumped, but sent into this country increasing quantities of goods from other countries and that our exports are diminishing. What does that mean? We have for the month of April an adverse balance of trade amounting to a very large sum of money. In fact, as perhaps the hon. gentleman has seen, it amounts to about $20,000,000. For the first time in many years we have a monthly adverse trade balance of $20,000,000, and yet in the month of April we increased our importations of iron and its products by more than $2,000,000. What does that mean? With the United States Steel Corporation showing that their bookings are $400,000,000 less than they were in the preceding quarter, with everywhere apprehension on the part of business men as to the future, with the gravest anxiety as to where we are heading, with stocks pyramiding at a price never heard of before in this country or indeed on the American continent, we find that our importations of iron and steel, largely from the United States, show an increase of
more than $2,000,000 for the month of April. Is that not a good reason why this recommendation of Sir Andrew Duncan should be carried out? He recommended prompt action with respect to this industry, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will say that nothing has been done because he has left the matter to his tariff advisory board. What did he tell us about this tariff advisory board? He told us that he preferred to trust his own common sense in other matters, and the house agreed with him, for thus far on any matter submitted to the board no findings of fact had been made which would enable the government to arrive at a conclusion. He has told us that this matter was before the tariff advisory board. Sir Andrew Duncan has also said that it was before the board. But nothing was done, nothing has been done, nothing is being done, and this country is faced with the fact that unless something is done, the reaction that is now setting in in the United States will be followed by depression in this country, such as has always followed depression in the United States. But if we now take the action that we are capable of taking in Canada, if we call up all our reserves, if we face the situation as we should, if we deal with conditions as Sir Andrew Duncan pointed out we should, we will develop our iron and steel industry in Cape Breton and be able to meet the situation, instead of buying increased quantifies of goods from the United States in the shape of iron and steel.
Remember this, that the steel question was the first matter submitted to this tariff advisory board, and it has not yet been dealt with. The minister himself has afforded to us the best reason why he should not rely upon that board. Any hon. member who followed the discussion with respect to the tariff advisory board when the textile schedules were before this house realizes that the Minister of Finance was more willing to trust his own common sense in dealing with those matters than the meanderings of this tariff board, which dealt with everything and found nothing, which laboured all night and produced nothing, like the fishermen upon the lake; they caught nothing, and this tariff board found nothing.
It is for that reason that I venture at this time to point out to this house the urgent necessity of action being taken. If three years ago, before economic and commercial conditions had reached the state they are now in, if the anxiety which was then not great but has become as great as it is now, if there is the greatest and gravest anxiety, not in this country, we will say, but in the republic to
Steel Industry

Mr. Bennett

the south of us with respect to what the immediate future will be, and by immediate future I mean within the next year; if they fear it, as they do-read their financial journals or the financial columns of their papers, and you will find that they are all apprehensive-if they are apprehensive, let us get our house in order so that when depression strikes them, we will not have the reaction here. You can do that only by dealing with these matters as Sir Andrew Duncan pointed out, by taking the necessary legislative action to see to it that this great industry in Nova Scotia functions as it should, and not only that industry, but the great industry at the Soo to which reference was made yesterday. In other words, the deposits of raw material that are being worked up and fabricated into the various products of iron and steel should, so far as possible, be fabricated in our own country, and we would not then send out of this country, as we did in April, upwards of $24,000,000 for iron and its products. It is for that reason that we urge as strongly as we can, not in any political sense, but with an earnest desire to point out the dangers that lie in our pathway. The economic condition of the American continent being what it is, we would be derelict in our duty, we would be faithless representatives of the people, if we did not point out that condition and ask this house to take the measures which Sir Andrew Duncan said should be taken, and taken promptly, mark you, with respect to this industry in order to save it from disaster.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason we make this motion on going into supply. The Minister of Finance was finding fault about the loss of time. It may be a loss of time, but in order that Canada may be able to face the conditions which will be upon us within a reasonable time unless all signs fail, unless the business barometers cannot be read as they should. Unless the predictions made by great business executives of the United States are not worthy of consideration, We should take steps first of all to curtail our expenditures and see to it that not a single dollar of the public money is spent unless it is productive; in other words, unless it will pay the interest upon the expenditure made. That is the first consideration.
Secondly, we should see to it that such legislation is placed upon the statute books of this country so that when the storm breaks and economic disaster or difficulty or setbacks threaten our nearby neighbours, we shall be fortified and strengthened to meet the storm without in any sense having disaster upon us. 
That is the reason I venture to urge this matter upon this house at this time. It is not a matter of whether you shall have a wharf here or a ferry there or a narrow-gauge railway yonder; these are insignificant administrative acts with respect to the Duncan report. The great problem is the development of the raw materials that Providence has given to us, the opening up of our great resources, the providing of employment for our people, the making of greater opportunities for our people in Canada. That is what the Duncan report dealt with, in order that the maritime provinces might become what they were intended to be-not that somebody might have a dollar spent here and somebody else have a dollar spent there, not that $50,000 should be spent for a wharf here or a bridge there. That is not what Sir Andrew, Duncan was talking about, but large problems of constructive statesmanship, and there is no larger problem of constructive statesmanship than the development of the iron and steel industry of this country, whether it be at the Soo, in Cape Breton, or at Hamilton. It is essential that that industry should be developed because under modem economic conditions steel is the life blood in the development of a country. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we urge upon this house that action should be taken, not next year, but this year, to remedy this grievance, and that the report made by the Duncan commission should be implemented and prompt action taken, not in 1929, but in 1928, while there is still time before the economic storm bursts upon this country.


['For the month of April. Further, in the report that came to us this morning I find that the imports for Canada for the month of April are the highest they have been since 1925-26. They have risen from $59,104,651 to the enormous sum of $78,490,470, or an increase of nearly $19,000,000 from April, 1926, to April, 1928, and for the twelve months ended April 30, 1928, cur total imports have increased by nearly $100,000,000 over the twelve preceding months, being the largest that we have had since 1925. Our exports for the month of April as the figures indicate, show a decrease as compared with preceding years; for the twelve months ending April 30, 1928, we had total exports amounting to $1,209,844,957, or an increase of much more than $100,000,000 over those for the twelve months ended April 30, 1925, but unfortunately a decrease of $106,000,000 from those for the twelve months ended April 30, 1926, and a decrease of $60,000,000 from those for the twelve months ended April 30, 1927.\nThere is not a banker, not a man who is engaged in dealing with money, business or industry on the American continent who is not looking to the future with grave anxiety. We know that by these increased importations during the last month we have had, not dumped, but sent into this country increasing quantities of goods from other countries and that our exports are diminishing. What does that mean? We have for the month of April an adverse balance of trade amounting to a very large sum of money. In fact, as perhaps the hon. gentleman has seen, it amounts to about $20,000,000. For the first time in many years we have a monthly adverse trade balance of $20,000,000, and yet in the month of April we increased our importations of iron and its products by more than $2,000,000. What does that mean? With the United States Steel Corporation showing that their bookings are $400,000,000 less than they were in the preceding quarter, with everywhere apprehension on the part of business men as to the future, with the gravest anxiety as to where we are heading, with stocks pyramiding at a price never heard of before in this country or indeed on the American continent, we find that our importations of iron and steel, largely from the United States, show an increase of\nmore than $2,000,000 for the month of April. Is that not a good reason why this recommendation of Sir Andrew Duncan should be carried out? He recommended prompt action with respect to this industry, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) will say that nothing has been done because he has left the matter to his tariff advisory board. What did he tell us about this tariff advisory board? He told us that he preferred to trust his own common sense in other matters, and the house agreed with him, for thus far on any matter submitted to the board no findings of fact had been made which would enable the government to arrive at a conclusion. He has told us that this matter was before the tariff advisory board. Sir Andrew Duncan has also said that it was before the board. But nothing was done, nothing has been done, nothing is being done, and this country is faced with the fact that unless something is done, the reaction that is now setting in in the United States will be followed by depression in this country, such as has always followed depression in the United States. But if we now take the action that we are capable of taking in Canada, if we call up all our reserves, if we face the situation as we should, if we deal with conditions as Sir Andrew Duncan pointed out we should, we will develop our iron and steel industry in Cape Breton and be able to meet the situation, instead of buying increased quantifies of goods from the United States in the shape of iron and steel.\nRemember this, that the steel question was the first matter submitted to this tariff advisory board, and it has not yet been dealt with. The minister himself has afforded to us the best reason why he should not rely upon that board. Any hon. member who followed the discussion with respect to the tariff advisory board when the textile schedules were before this house realizes that the Minister of Finance was more willing to trust his own common sense in dealing with those matters than the meanderings of this tariff board, which dealt with everything and found nothing, which laboured all night and produced nothing, like the fishermen upon the lake; they caught nothing, and this tariff board found nothing.\nIt is for that reason that I venture at this time to point out to this house the urgent necessity of action being taken. If three years ago, before economic and commercial conditions had reached the state they are now in, if the anxiety which was then not great but has become as great as it is now, if there is the greatest and gravest anxiety, not in this country, we will say, but in the republic to\nSteel Industry\n\nMr. Bennett', 'the south of us with respect to what the immediate future will be, and by immediate future I mean within the next year; if they fear it, as they do-read their financial journals or the financial columns of their papers, and you will find that they are all apprehensive-if they are apprehensive, let us get our house in order so that when depression strikes them, we will not have the reaction here. You can do that only by dealing with these matters as Sir Andrew Duncan pointed out, by taking the necessary legislative action to see to it that this great industry in Nova Scotia functions as it should, and not only that industry, but the great industry at the Soo to which reference was made yesterday. In other words, the deposits of raw material that are being worked up and fabricated into the various products of iron and steel should, so far as possible, be fabricated in our own country, and we would not then send out of this country, as we did in April, upwards of $24,000,000 for iron and its products. It is for that reason that we urge as strongly as we can, not in any political sense, but with an earnest desire to point out the dangers that lie in our pathway. The economic condition of the American continent being what it is, we would be derelict in our duty, we would be faithless representatives of the people, if we did not point out that condition and ask this house to take the measures which Sir Andrew Duncan said should be taken, and taken promptly, mark you, with respect to this industry in order to save it from disaster.\nThat, Mr. Speaker, is the reason we make this motion on going into supply. The Minister of Finance was finding fault about the loss of time. It may be a loss of time, but in order that Canada may be able to face the conditions which will be upon us within a reasonable time unless all signs fail, unless the business barometers cannot be read as they should. Unless the predictions made by great business executives of the United States are not worthy of consideration, We should take steps first of all to curtail our expenditures and see to it that not a single dollar of the public money is spent unless it is productive; in other words, unless it will pay the interest upon the expenditure made. That is the first consideration.\nSecondly, we should see to it that such legislation is placed upon the statute books of this country so that when the storm breaks and economic disaster or difficulty or setbacks threaten our nearby neighbours, we shall be fortified and strengthened to meet the storm without in any sense having disaster upon us. \nThat is the reason I venture to urge this matter upon this house at this time. It is not a matter of whether you shall have a wharf here or a ferry there or a narrow-gauge railway yonder; these are insignificant administrative acts with respect to the Duncan report. The great problem is the development of the raw materials that Providence has given to us, the opening up of our great resources, the providing of employment for our people, the making of greater opportunities for our people in Canada. That is what the Duncan report dealt with, in order that the maritime provinces might become what they were intended to be-not that somebody might have a dollar spent here and somebody else have a dollar spent there, not that $50,000 should be spent for a wharf here or a bridge there. That is not what Sir Andrew, Duncan was talking about, but large problems of constructive statesmanship, and there is no larger problem of constructive statesmanship than the development of the iron and steel industry of this country, whether it be at the Soo, in Cape Breton, or at Hamilton. It is essential that that industry should be developed because under modem economic conditions steel is the life blood in the development of a country. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we urge upon this house that action should be taken, not next year, but this year, to remedy this grievance, and that the report made by the Duncan commission should be implemented and prompt action taken, not in 1929, but in 1928, while there is still time before the economic storm bursts upon this country.']
William Duff: I was paired with the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). Had I voted, I would certainly have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Emlbury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). Had I not been paired, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CLARK:: I was paired with the hon. member for 'South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Sir EUGENE FTSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John^Albert (Mr. MaoLaren). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


John Ewen Sinclair: I was paired with the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Supply-Railways and Canals

Mr. PREiSTON: I was paired, with the junior member for Ottawa (Mr. Edwards), otherwise I would have voted for the amendment.	.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds'):: I was paired with the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kenlt (Mr. Rutherford). Had I not been paired, I would have voted for the amendment.


Hon. Mr. VENIOT:: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I' would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BLATCHFORD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) . Had I voted, I would have voted against ithe amendment.	.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hockeu). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Robb) agreed to on the same division reversed.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Canals-Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, improvements, $17,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister explain this item?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The $17,500 is required to construct seven cribs, floats and booms at the upper entrance to the Cornwall canal, where, on account of the swift current at lock 21, vessels have great difficulty in tying to the entrance to the lock. In order to
obviate this difficulty it is intended to construct a series of cribs, floats and support booms against which vessels may tie up to meet the requirements of safe navigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
^Port Colborne elevator, improvements, $24,-
Mr. GARDINER:: What is the nature of
these improvements?


Charles Avery Dunning: The vote is made up as follows:
Item
1.-3-150 h.p. motors for receiving lofters complete with starters,
conduits and new cable	$ 8,100
2.	-Replacing 4-100 h.p. marine log
drive motors with 4-125 h.p. motors removed from lofter drives, and installing new bearings, etc	 1,000
3.	-Brakes for 9 lofter drive motor
shafts	 1,300
4.	-Mechanism for pulling marine leg
in and out	 4,000
5.	-Re-constructing 9 lofter heads to
have them vented through roof. 5,000
6.	-Concreting existing bin walls in
old house between top of trough plates and floor	 5,000

The whole expenditure is designed to speed up the operations of the Port Colborne elevator.
Item agreed to.
Quebec canals-Carillon-G-renville improvements, $3,500.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What improvements are being done on this canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is to build a scow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent canal, improvements, $269,600.
Mr. McGIBBON:: What are the improvements here?


Charles Avery Dunning: The amount required is
made up of the following items, $61,400 being a re-vote:
Item	A.-Eastern Division
1.	To provide gate building plant and construct six spare gates (revote $10,000) $16,000
2.	Dredging and excavation	(revote $14,000)	24,5003.	To construct public wharves at Thurstonia and Greenhurst	
4,0004.	To complete concrete dam at Hawk river logslide	(revote) 5,0005.	To	construct concrete dam at outlet of	Big Bear lake	
3^8006.	To	construct concrete dam at outlet of	Maple lake	
2^5007.	To	rebuild dam at outlet of Grace and	Dark lakes	
1*5008.	Rebuilding and repairs to reservoir dams	
10 0009. Miscellaneous	(revote $3,700)	5,'300

Supply-Railways and Canals
Item

Western Division
10.	To complete clam at Lock 24	(revote $20,000)
11.	To construct dam at Lock 25	
12.	Cement	
13.	To build bouse for marine railway operator at Big Chute	
14.	To build derrick scow for Severn subdivision	
15.	Removal of rock and other excavated material	(revote)
16.	Engineering staff, salaries and working expenses	
17.	Miscellaneous and unforeseen	(revote)

Total


Mr. KAISER:: Is there anything in the
estimates to cover the balance due on the Atherley bridge?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Robert Gardiner: Is this canal used for
commercial purposes, and if so, to what extent?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give the particulars of traffic. In 1927, which is the last year of record, 2,577 Canadians vessels and 79 United States vessels passed through the canal. The freight carried amounted to 27,754 tons originating in Canada, none originating in the United States. I have given the numbers of vessels; the tonnage of the vessels was 82,411 tons for the Canadian vessels and 2,042 tons for the American vessels.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: What are the dues?


Charles Avery Dunning: All the canals operated
by the department are operated free of charge as far as navigating vessels are concerned.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then the cost would be over $9 per ton.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not understand my hon. friend.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There were 27,754 tons
of freight carried through the canal and the vote is for $259,600, which would work out at over $9 per ton.
Mr. DUNNING. Yes, that is one way of figuring it. Of course my hon. friend is aware that there is a very substantial revenue to the department from the Trent canal.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is what I asked,
and I thought my hon. friend said no.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are misunderstanding each other. My hon. friend asked if there was any revenue from the boats passing through. There is no toll charge; the Canadian canals are operated free as far as that is concerned, but there is a revenue from the rental of shore property, from water powers created by the canal and so on.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How much?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our total revenue from
all sources received from the Trent canal for the year ending March 31, 1928, was $95,644.52. That was the aggregate revenue from water powers, rent of boat houses and other forms of revenue.


Peter McGibbon: Is it the intention of
the government to complete this canal. I think I can guess what the minister is going to say; I think no sane man would advocate building this canal if it were to be started to-day. It has been on the go for about 150 years, I believe, and is nearly through to the Georgian bay. I understand that in one or two remaining places it is operated by a marine railway, which does not permit the rather expensive boats to come up the canal. It does appear to me that outside of the power question the future of this canal is wrapped up in the tourist trade which, as everyone knows, is probably the third or fourth revenue producing industry, if you might so call it, in this country. If this canal were finished it would greatly stimulate that trade. People with large, valuable boats will not bring them up over these marine railways, yet we are right at the door of a nation of 115,000,000 people, many of whom want to spend their vacations in this way. I should like to ask the minister if it is possible to finish this canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: I got into trouble a
little while ago for telling the house something I had recommended to my colleagues, and I am wondering if I will get into equal difficulty if I discuss something which I have not recommended.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Be very careful and it
will be all right.


Charles Avery Dunning: The fact is that in 1922 it was estimated that it would cost $3,000,000 to complete the Trent canal, and the government have not yet decided to expend that money.


Peter McGibbon: What has been the total expenditure to date?
Supply-Railways and Canals


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a lot of money,


S3,401,204.76.
Peter McGibbon: Is that all that has
been spent on the Trent valley canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is only one division; I am sorry, but I had the wrong page. I find that this goes back to 1868.


Peter McGibbon: Further than that.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is so, because
S309,000 was spent on the canal before confederation. The total cost of construction up to the end of the last fiscal year was $19,359,000; betterments, $3,069,000; maintenance, that is repairs and so on, $1,661,000, and operation, $1,673,000, or a total for all expenditures connected with the canal and including the cost of operation of $25,763,847.72


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister
was good enough to give the revenue from all sources; could he give the expenditure for the corresponding period? I would also ask if the improvements contemplated will in any way increase the amount of water power developed on the canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, in some particulars. Of course my hon. friend must understand that there is a distinction between expenditures of the kind now being voted, which are for maintenance of the present work, and those voted for new work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I refer to t*he
expense of maintenance and operation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will give the figures in a moment. In respect to the water power, of course my hon. friend can see that unless we maintain the dams and renew old ones we will lose the revenue now derived from water power. Much of the expenditure, the details of which I gave a few moments ago, is for those improvements and renewals. I can [DOT]un over them individually, but in the mean-'.'ime the operating cost for 1927-28 was $152,529.25.
Mr. STEWART Leeds): I was only anxious to know whether there would be any increased development of power.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, there is no increase contemplated.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. PECK:: I do not rise to take exception to this item; in fact I thoroughly approve of

it, and I hope that while I am a member of the house I shall have the opportunity of voting for a very much more substantial sum to complete this work. The purpose of the undertaking is to connect the Georgian bay with lake Ontario, using the various waterways and lakes which are to be found in the interior of Ontario between these points. The total length of the canal when completed will be 240 miles, but so extensive are the lakes and rivers which can be utilized that there will be only thirty-five miles of actual canal in the system when it is completed.
This work has been under consideration for a very long time. It is just one hundred years since the advantage of building the canal commended itself to the government of the day, and steps were taken to survey the system. The work was not immediately undertaken, but later on certain locks were built linking up a portion of the system. Then there was a long wait and finally, forty-two years ago, the work was again taken into consideration, and progress has been slowly made. The system is practically complete now except for a small portion of development required on the Severn river, and it would have been completed but for the intervention of the war.
The canal links up several important municipalities, such as Trenton, Campbellton, Lindsay, Orillia, Barrie and numerous other places. The lake system is a very extensive one. Lake Simcoe, of course, is very well known. The next largest lake is Rice lake, twenty miles in length and from two to three miles wide. Then there is Balsam lake, Stoney lake and others: and hundreds of other lakes find an outlet into the canal system. The district has become a very attractive one for tourists, and all along the canal system you will find summer cottages and hotels. If the canal were completed I think it would be a still more attractive place to the tourists. We cannot overlook this trade; it brings millions and millions of dollars annually into this country, and it should be encouraged. I understand that the minister is contemplating a visit to the system. I extend' to him my endorsement of the invitation which has already been given him, and I am quite sure that after he has spent two or three days examining the system he will consider favourably the final construction of the Trent canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was a question
before recess regarding power sites. In connection with this undertaking there are power sites available for lease representing, without further conservation works, about 11,000

Supply

Railways and Canals
horse-power. The completion of the canal would not add to the available power, as the power sites on the proposed locks at Swift rapids and Big Chute are already under
lease.
While I appreciate the invitation to visit this beautiful section of Ontario, which I have received from those interested in promoting the completion of the canal, the very frank confession on the part of those giving the invitation that it was for the purpose of endeavouring to convince me that $3,000,000 ought to be spent makes it a little embarrassing. I hope to have the opportunity, if not this summer, on some occasion in the not distant future, of seeing that particular canal. Last summer I made a trip over our commercial canals with a view to familiarizing myself with them, and I hope to have a look at the Trent canal in the not distant future.


Mr. BROWN:: Would the water-powers on this system be in any way involved with the question now before the Privy Council? Perhaps that is a question that cannot be answered.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter on
which lawyers differ.


Edward Armour Peck: All the water-powers still
available will belong to the Dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: We think so.


Edward Armour Peck: That was agreed to between
the province and the Dominion several years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On this canal.


Mr. THOMPSON:: I should like to endorse what the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Peck) has said in connection with the completion of the canal. It seems too bad that where so much money has been expended only a short length should be left uncompleted. If this short length were completed it would mean that millionaires living in New York could pass up the Hudson river, through the Erie canal, on into lake Ontario, and then enter the Trent carnal at Trenton and pass up to lake Simcoe towards Georgian bay.
The tourist trade of this country should be encouraged. It is estimated that we received last year in Ontario alone $100,000,000 from the United States tourist traffic. If this canal were completed that trade would be enormously increased by many hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and I am sure the minister will see the necessity of it.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I should like to ask the
minister whether he proposes to bring down
an appropriation for the amount of money which three counties claim that the government honestly owes and has promised to pay in regard to the building of the big Atherley bridge. This is an acute question and one that we are urged to bring to the attention of the minister. The canal happens to strike the comer of three counties, and a large bridge had to be built over the canal. The cost of the bridge was estimated to be about $100,000. The government agreed to pay 40 per cent and the counties to pay 60 per cent. I understand the government has claimed that the costs were to remain at $100,000; but owing to demands made by the engineers the costs ran considerably more than $100,000, and the government have, as I understand the matter, refused to acknowledge their share of the balance. There are on file letters in which I understand promises have been made and the counties are urging their members to endeavour to secure an adjustment of the account. It is only right that the minister should make a statement to the committee whether there will be an adjustment in connection with the balance. The counties are still carrying this debt, paying interest upon it, and to my mind the evidence is absolutely in favour of the government paying its share.


Peter McGibbon: As representing one of
the ridings where this bridge has been built; I should like to endorse the sentiments of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser), that the matter if possible be cleaned up. I recognize the difficulties of the department in bringing these matters to a final conclusion, but had it not been for this canal, such an expensive bridge would not have been required, and when the counties agreed to pay 60 per cent of the costs I think that was quite fair. It is quite true that the cost overran the estimate and I think that is where the difficulty lies, but it is not impossible to arrive at an equitable solution of the question. In the meantime the counties are carrying this debt and paying interest on it and I should like to know bow far the minister is prepared to go in the matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would always be very pleasant if one could accede to requests of this nature. I have gone very carefully into the question of the Atherley bridge and I think all ministers who have examined the matter, regardless of which party they might belong to, w'ould confirm what I am now saying, namely, that there never was any real obligation on the Dominion to contribute anything towards the bridge in question. If we

Supply-Railways and Canals
leave that aside for the moment, the fact remains that the Dominion agreed to pay 40 per cent, not to exceed $40,000 of the cost, and the bridge was built, I believe, by the counties themselves. Unfortunately, in the first place they did not accept the lowest tender for the bridge. Later the cost overran $100,000 and they came back asking the Dominion to pay an increased share. The treasury board has never been able to see any reason why the Dominion should pay more than the $40,000 which has already been paid and which, as I say, in the opinion of the department, was in the first place really an act of grace as there was no real obligation resting upon the Dominion. The bridge is not over a canal. Of course I know the claim of the counties and I appreciate the force of it, namely, that the effect of the canal some distance away was that a swing bridge was required. If I remember correctly, that was the argument.
. Mr. McGIBBON:	The minister is absolutely wrong. The bridge is right over the canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not over the canal. It is over a navigable stream which is being used for navigation and not for a canal.


Peter McGibbon: It is part of the canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: The navigable stream
was there before the canal was built. However that may be, the Dominion, rightly or wrongly, agreed to pay forty per cent of $100,000, and the Dominion kept that agreement to the letter. The counties concerned in building the bridge did not, as I say, accept the lowest tender. Whether that was the reason why the cost overran $100,000, I am not in a position to say. The fact remains that the cost exceeded $100,000, but the Dominion fulfilled every obligation it ever assumed in connection with the Atherley bridge. The question now is: Should the Dominion be even more generous and share in the expenditure over and above the $100,000? The matter has been before the treasury board on more than one occasion and the treasury board has not seen fit at any time to recognize the claim. I regret that I cannot say anything more favourable than that to my hon. friends.


Peter McGibbon: May I correct the minister? I do not know for the life of me how he can say that the Dominion has no obligation in the matter. The extra expenditure was incurred owing to the fact that they had to have a swing bridge or the canal would have been blocked. The counties did

not need a swing bridge; the swing bridge was built for the purpose of navigation only and it does go over part of the canal. It is the part connecting the two lakes. After the agreement was entered into the department insisted upon some changes which helped to run up the expense. For instance they had to have an electrical apparatus installed to turn the bridge in one minute instead of having it turned by hand. That accounts for part of the extra expense. Surely the minister cannot deny that the government is responsible for part of the extra expenditure, because if that swing bridge had not been built there, the canal would have been useless; it would have been blocked. I cannot see the force of the minister's argument.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The point that seems to
confuse both the minister and the counties is whether there was an absolute statement on either side that the costs were to be held down to $100,000 and that the government were obligated to pay only forty per cent of that amount. I submit that the letter which was written by the department distinctly gave the counties to understand that the government would pay forty per cent of the total cost.
. Mr. DUNNING: I should like to see such a letter, because if any undertaking was given by any government to pay more than the $40,000, I would consider it my duty to recommend that that obligation, entered into in that manner, be implemented. But I have no knowledge of such an undertaking as that to which my hon. friend refers. If he can produce an authentic or official document from this or any other government committing the government to more than has already been paid, 1 shall be glad to have the matter considered again in the light of that undertaking.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I do not think anybody
could expect any government or any person to take a sounder stand than the minister has taken, and I would humbly request him to ask the department to show him the letter which was written and which is in its possession, that misled the counties.


Charles Avery Dunning: My officials inform me,
as they have done on. former occasions, that there is no such letter, but that the order in council authorizing the expenditure makes it very clear-and of course the expenditure was authorized a long time ago-that the federal government's proportion shall be forty per cent, not to exceed $40,000, and that amount has been paid. I shall have a further investi-

Supply-Railways and Canals
gation made in the department and1 if there are any commitments by any government, before the contract was entered into or as a part of the contract, that more than $40,000 should be paid with respect to the bridge, I shall be glad to bring the matter once more to the attention of the treasury board.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I should not like to say that such a promise was made definitely in the contract. I submit that there is a letter on file. It was read in my presence. I cannot say at the moment whether it was read by the solicitor for the counties or by an official of the department. But I do not think the counties misunderstood the matter in the slightest. They were given to understand that the government would assume 40 per cent of the total cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will have that further looked into.


Alfred Burke Thompson: When the agreement was entered into, the county was to pay 60 per cent and the government 40 per cent, but later the government insisted that a swing bridge should be built. That increased the cost, and I think it is only reasonable that the government should bear its share of this increased cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend forgets that the stream in question is a navigable stream. At that point it is not canalized, and regardless of whether or not the canal had been built, the counties could not build a bridge which would obstruct that stream. They would have to make provision for the navigation of the stream, and they did. The fact that a swing bridge was put in has nothing whatever to do with the building of the canal further along the same watercourse. On no navigable stream may a bridge be built which has the effect of obstructing navigation. The argument that the swing bridge was put in because of the Department of Railways and Canals is entirely erroneous. So far as the swing portion of the bridge is concerned, I am advised that the department looks after its maintenance, and also pays the cost of keeping a man to operate it. On the whole, I must say that iby comparison with similar matters elsewhere, I do think these counties were very generously treated by the particular government and minister who entered into that agreement in the first place. But if there is any commitment by this government, by a minister, or by an official who was authorized to enter into such an arrangement at the time, or anything of the kind, I shall be very glad to have it looked into again. I am not speaking of any promises which may
have been made since the bridge was built; that is another matter entirely. But with respect to the arrangement which resulted in the building of the bridge, if there is anything of the sort in existence we will have the whole matter reconsidered.


Peter McGibbon: Is it not a fact that the changes were made at t'he instance of the government after the agreement was completed, changes which increased the cost?


Charles Avery Dunning: My officers inform me that the plans weTe submitted in the usual way, but as the bridge was being built certain defects were found owing to the nature of the ground underneath the piling, and it was insisted that stronger piling should be used in connection with the centre portion of the bridge; otherwise, the bridge would not have stood.


Peter McGibbon: That would increase the cost to that extent. That was done after the agreement was made. I am also credibly informed, and I believe it is a fact, that the government demanded other expenditures, for instance, on electrical machinery, instead of hand power for turning the bridge. That also was done after the agreement was made, and it considerably increased the cost. As the government insisted on that being done, I think it should pay the whole of that extra expenditure.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was part of the original agreement.


Peter McGibbon: I am told not. It was long after the original agreement was confirmed, and for the life of me I cannot see how the government can get away from bearing its fair share of this increased cost. It is true that the ground proved to be rather unsuitable for the foundations, and that increased the cost. The government, according to the original agreement, bear 40 per cent of the cost and the counties 60 per cent, and I think any additional expenditure should be borne in the same proportion. These unforeseen expenditures cannot be looked after at the time the bargain is made, and since part of this increased cost is due to the demands made by the government, and the government's demand increased the cost tenfold, I think the government should at least bear its share of this extra cost.


Mr. DONNELLY:: This vote seems to
meet with a lot of contention, and we in western Canada can hardly understand1 it. A lot of money is voted by this house for the east, for canals, bridges, breakwaters, dredging

Supply-Railways and Canals
and wharves, and we have none of those things in western Canada. The only thing we can get is an odd public building here and there. In fact, in the constituency I represent there has not been a dollar spent by the government, but we are quite satisfied and contented out there. But now we have members from the east oomplaining that there is not enough money being spent down here. Already over $230,000 has been spent on this proposition. Canals such as this are out of date anyway. I think this canal should be modernized. It should be drained out and filled in and turned into a public highway. Then it would be of some use to the public. A canal six feet deep in only used for pleasure. Turn it into a public highway, make it into a good automobile road, and then the public will use it. It is no good as it is. If there is to be any contention over this item, let the canal stay the way it is and become a nuisance. I think the best thing to do is to reduce this item to one dollar.


Peter McGibbon: I presume we may now all sit down and sing the doxology. The hon. gentleman has spoken; the last word has been said. The hon. member does not know that along this canal we have some of the best power houses in the province of Ontario.


James J. Donnelly: Could you not still
have them if it was filled in?


Peter McGibbon: I suppose the hon. member could have a windmill without any wind, if he was behind it.


James J. Donnelly: You could furnish the
wind.


Peter McGibbon: If the hon. member
was there, that would be sufficient.


James J. Donnelly: That is all you can
furnish.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member talks about the money that is being spent in the east. I should like to remind him that according to a return made by his own government, by the Department, of Railways and Canals, two years ago, this country was carrying the wheat from the west at a loss.


James J. Donnelly: That is a mistake, and it was proved to be a mistake by one of your own party last year.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. gentleman, I see, wants to quarrel with his own government and with his own Minister of Railways.

I take the time off their clock. I say that the return was made by the hon. gentleman's own government. Evidently he is not in accord with his own minister.


James J. Donnelly: That is a joke. You
have said that fifty times.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member is
a joke.


James J. Donnelly: He is not sore, anyway.


Peter McGibbon: If the hon. member
would speak so that he could be heard, I might perceive whether there was any intelligence in his remark. I would again ask the Minister of Railways if he will not agree to the government paying at least 40 per cent of the additional cost of this work, and let the municipalities be responsible for the other 60 per cent?


Thomas Langton Church: The midland counties
have a legitimate grievance against all the governments so far as this particular canal is concerned. It has cost this country $25,000,000. What are the rentals and dues of this canal? On page 77 of the annual report of the department they are: dues $37 and rentals of-


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the information
this afternoon-$95,644.


Thomas Langton Church: I was just going to say
that dues were $37, rentals $95,644.02 a total of $95,792.02. This odd figure of two cents in the total seems to me to be all the value that the midland counties have derived from this canal. It has been nothing but a political canal. We have had enough of these political canals. There is the Newmarket canal, of sacred memory, where the people were told they would see ocean liners plying. The district on the Trent canal from Trenton to lake Simcoe should be industrialized. The government are holding property there to-day and nobody can get an industrial site. If you had a publicity agent to take up this question something could be done. If there was more co-operation between the federal government, the provincial government, the Hydro-Electric Commission, the municipalities of these midland counties, the national railways and other railways for the development of the district served by this canal the midland counties would become a great industrialized area. This js what the canal was intended for. I pass by the canal two or three times a week and I never see a boat there. In my opinion there should be some forward policy worked out between the federal government and the parties I have named. Trenton, an industrial town

Supply-Railways and Canals
itself, is going ahead by leaps and bounds, but if something is not done soon this canal will become Newmarket canal No. 2 so far as Ontario is concerned. I do hope the minister will have an opportunity during the recess to visit the Trent canal district and meet the municipal authorities. I know they will be glad to see him up in Simcoe and the other counties. The tourist trade alone would contribute a very large revenue if there was less red tape in getting boats through the canal and more business methods. In that area they have cheap light and power second to none in Canada. With the co-operation I have suggested the revenue would be increased two or three times.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I agree with the first
part of the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Church) who has just sat down. I really think that canals for transportation purposes belong to the day of the ox cart, and that is quite a piece behind us. I do not think we should continue sinking money year after year into these small canals. The Newmarket canal has this advantage over our other canals-they never turned the water into it. It is our only dry canal. I understand it served the purpose of helping to elect a Liberal candidate on one or two occasions. I think that is what it is built for. Apparently there is a large increase in this vote, and I do think it is about time that all parties in the house made up their minds whether it is worth while spending more money year after year on this canal. With the price of labour today I should think it would pay to save time by another route rather than to take boats through the canal locks. I agree with the member on the Liberal side (Mr. Donnelly) who thought we should fill up this canal and make a good road of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland canal-improvements, $35,500.
Thomas Langton Church: Five thousand two hundred ships went through this canal last year. The tonnage through the Welland canal, if I remember rightly, is about five and a half million tons a year. There has been considerable delay in getting ships through the locks, and the tonnage has fallen off. According to page 97 of the last report of the Department of Railways and Canals, the tonnage was 5,214,514 tons, a falling off of 425,784 tons from the last year of record. The people of Canada have spent a large sum of money in this district which is one of the finest industrial areas in Canada, supplied with an abundance of cheap light and power. In the past few years, owing to the cheapness of light and power
there, the whole Niagara district has become industrialized, especially between Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne and the village of Port Dalhousie. I urge the minister to do something definite under this item. The question that occurs to me is this: What is going to become of the existing canal in 1930 when the government opens the new Welland ship canal? When that takes place we shall have three canals altogether, including the canal of 1870, the existing canal and the Welland ship channel. There is a vast amount of waste land in that locality which should be turned into sites for industry. It is with the utmost difficulty that you can obtain a site in that district to-day owing ,to the fact that the government has tied up half the country through which these three canals pass. I would suggest to the minister the possibility of building a great boulevard between lake Erie and lake Ontario on the new Welland ship channel although the province might be the proper authority to take into consideration a proposition of this sort in conjunction with the province. I certainly think that the federal government, at any rate, should consider the construction of a boulevard parelleling the new ship canal.
Speaking about industrial development, there are many small power sites that could be obtained to-day for industry if the land were available. The government should make it known that there are certain sections along these two old canals that are available for industrial purposes. There is no reason why there should not be considerable industrial activity in that district, when you consider the cheap light and power facilities which can be taken advantage of. Active measures should be taken this summer to get rid of the congestion which exists at the present time on this existing canal. I visited the district some fifteen times last summer, and, so far as I could see, the congestion appeared to be at both ends of lake Erie and lake Ontario. That canal will be utilized next summer almost every moment of the night and day and I trust that in the coming summer additional money will be forthcoming for further dredging at the lake Ontario end of the canal at Port Dalhousie and at Port Arthur and on the central section. It is important to know what action will be taken in regard to the lake levels. I do not know what the reason is, but the levels have gone down and there are many complaints in this regard from Thorold, St. Catharines and other places of shallow water in this channel. Many ships have been delayed in their passage through the canal. Whether this condition is due to the Chicago

. Supply-Railways and Canals
diversion I do not know, but I do know that there has been a good deal of complaint regarding the levels there. I hope the minister will spare no effort, in view of the heavy tonnage passing through the canal, to get rid of the congestion which to-day is hampering the movement of vessels. Action should be taken at the earliest possible moment to cope with the very heavy tonnage that is sure to go up this year. A revenue of $574,113 is derived from this canal alone out of a total revenue of $961,694 from all canals. The government can well afford to be liberal and keep the work going on repairs and renovations at this busy canal all summer and also hasten as much as possible the completion of the new Welland ship channel, as it will not be completed one day too soon to cope with the huge volume of tonnage congesting the present canal all the time by night and by day.


Charles Avery Dunning: The committee ought to have some information bearing on the operation of the canal, in view of the remarks of my hon. friend1; because I am bound to say, after paying the matter of Welland some rather close personal attention last year, the whole Welland operation-both the operation of the existing canal and the construction of the new canal-reflects very great credit indeed upon the Canadian engineering profession. That can be best illustrated in relation to the existing canal when I point out that there was a considerable increase of tonnage passing through the present canal in the calendar year 1927. In 1926 there passed through 5,214,000 tons of cargo and in 1927, 7,247,000 tons, or an increase of over 2,000,000 tons in one year of cargo passing through the existing canal. When one takes into account the fact that the operation of the existing canal is hampered very considerably by immense construction works going on in some places, crossing the existing canal, and that it is necessary to pass ships through the existing canal while at the same time constructing new works, one can appreciate the nature of the work that is being done. Engineers who have come from other countries in the past year have expressed in the very highest terms their opinion of the engineering importance of the great work which is being accomplished in the construction of the new Welland ship canal-with which I shall deal under another vote-by the Canadian engineers. By way of illustration of the volume of business, I would point out to those members from the west, who know something about the handling of grain through elevators, that the 3,000,000 bushel elevator operated by the Department of Railways and Canals at

Port Colborne handled last year 77,600,000 bushels of grain. That was the extent of its operations during the last calendar year. I do not think there is a piece of grain-handling machinery in the Dominion that can show a record superior to that-a complete turnover, twenty-six times, in the handling of this grain. The previous year the amount handled was 62,535,000 bushels as compared with 77,621,000 in the last calendar year, with a capacity, as I have indicated, of approximately 3,000,000 bushels of storage. Of course, it is a transfer house; but these figures will give an indication of the importance of this artery.
With reference to my hon. friend's question as to what we shall do with the existing canal when the new canal is completed, I may point out to the committee that there have been four Welland canals, including the new one. Parts of three of them are still in existence, and it is somewhat of a problem to work out to the best advantage the utilization of the channels, the water, and so on, of the former canals. As an engineering matter it has not yet been fully worked out what we shall do with the present canal when the new one is completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But all the water will be diverted finally through the new canal.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are qualifications
even to that; from Thorold to Dalhousie that is the case. However, these problems are being looked into continuously by our engineering staff, and the fact that we have not yet reached a conclusion as to exactly what shall be done in connection with a matter of such magnitude does not indicate dilatoriness on the part of those responsible. I assure the committee that due care and consideration will be given the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National Defence-militia services-administration, $317,000.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I do not wish to go into the details of this item but I do desire to protect against the very heavy increases which are manifest in the national defence estimates this year. I presume that some of the papers will say I am making my annual protest, but I am very glad to be able still to protest againfet these expenditures, and there is. a very real reason for protest this year since in the last two years the estimates for this department have increased almost fifty per cent.
Last year the minister rather resented my references to professional militarists; he said

Supply-National Defence
he had yet to meet a professional militarist. I should like to say that when we speak about professional militarists and their influence we simply mean what we mean when we speak of other professional men; we refer to a man who is a professional soldier, whether he is a private or an officer. I think possibly the minister himself is a splendid example of a man whose job it is to magnify alnd efficiently run his department. I have every admiration for a man who wishes to make a success of what he undertakes; I think we would not admire a minister if he did anything else, but since there are men whose job it is to make a success of military things; since there are officers who very naturally, from their viewpoint, are trying to make their military establishment efficient, we who are opposed to military expenditure can quite rightly suggest that undoubtedly their continual effort is to increase expenditures, just as is the aim of officials in other departments.
Last year the minister stated:
I am presiding over the Department of National Defence, not over a department which has to do with the propagation of the principle of abolition of war.
I think that is a clear-cut statement; in fact I am inclined to think it a little nearer the truth than the statement he made during another debate in this house, when he described himself as the minister of peace. I wish he were the minister of peace; in that case I would be very glad to entrust to him a good deal of money in order to create an effective peace department. But let me repeat what he said last year:
. I am presiding over the Department of National Defence, not over a department which has to do with the propagation of the principle of abolition of war.
So he is very clearly at the head of that department, trying to make it effective from his standpoint. He went on to say that he proposed:

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.
In this connection I noticed a very good statement in the Toronto Daily Star, to this effect:
So far all attempts to disarm even partially have been doomed to failure because the international representatives who meet to discuss the problem have been admirals and generals professionally interested in improving the world's war preparedness, and incapable of believing that the whole thing ought to be, or could be, ended.
That is the point I should like to make, and in this view I think I am sustained by
no less an authority than Lloyd George, who *in one of his recent letters made the fallowing statement:
In every country, it is a part of the business of the fighting staff to work out plans for defence against all conceivable enemies. Their minds get absorbed in these brilliant schemes. They gloat over their efficiency, and like every inventor, yearn to put their machine to a test. In the secrecy of their department, the possible war soon becomes a likely war, and the likely gradually glides into the inevitable war. It is at first discussed in whispers behind locked doors. Then at clubs where gather together men whose patriotism is above any suspicion of being tempered by discretion. .	. The next
stage is always the after dinner speech.
Then, as he says, comes the surrender to fools. William Leach, when Under Secretary for the air ministry for England, suggested that if peace were wanted peace must be prepared for. Let me give a comment on this from the Manitoba Free Press:
Naturally such a revolutionary proposal-
Such as was made by Mr. Leach at that time.
-namely, reliance upon Christianity to attain peace, provoke a storm of protest. Major General J. E. B. Seely, Liberal member of parliament, and Rear Admiral N. F. Sueter, Conservative, were among Mr. Leach's opponents in the debate, the former exclaiming: "If the empire is to be defended by Sermons on the Mount, God help them."
The Free Press goes on:
It is easy to picture the righteous indignation of choleric political colonels, retired admirals and many others who pride themselves upon being practical men, living in a practical world. In spite of the ghastly failure of the policy of just such very practical persons in 1914, they are back to the same old cry of preparedness for the next war to ensure peace.
The minister does not like quotations. I gave him some last year, and I give these tonight simply because while a good many people may not particularly care what I say with regard to these things, they cannot altogether dlisregard the opinions of men who stand high in the councils of the nation, some of whom even stand high in military matters. Let me quote an authority whom I think the minister will recognize. Sir William Robertson, speaking before the chamber of commerce at Lincoln, England, said:
We no longer agree that the best way to prevent war is to prepare for it. Instead of preventing war, we know that preparations are likely to precipitate it.
So I ask the reason for the development of militarism in Canada-because let us make no mistake; there is a steady increase in our military expenditures, and these expenditures are a very fair indication as to where our interests and our policies really lie. I happened to be in Montreal only last Sunday;

Supply-National Defence

there I watched a long parade which took almost an hour to pass. The newspapers said there were nearly 10,000 people in that parade. The salute was given to the Minister of National Defence, and we almost seemed to be back in the days from 1914 to 1918. It is quite true there were only a few veterans in that parade, but unfortunately we had a great many young chaps and even young boys parading. I cannot but think that this kind of thing is encouraging the military spirit. Why are we seeking to develop that spirit in Canada? I cannot but recall some words of Dr. E. J. Dillon in The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, as follows:
Imperialism and militarism are striking roots in soil where they were hitherto unknown. In a word Prussianism instead of being destroyed has been openly adopted by its ostensible enemies.
It is all very well to say that our militarism in Canada is very different from Prussian militarism. I am firmly convinced that militarism is very much the same the world over, whether in Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, or in Canada, for that matter, although I am thankful to think that so far we have not progressed as far as some of the older nations. But we are on the way, unless there is some very definite check given to present tendencies.
In the old days in which many of us grew up in Canada we did not have these military ideals to the extent we have to-day. We did not have the military spirit that has been fostered in the last few years, and we did not have these very heavy expenditures for war. Immediately after the war we said that we had learned our lesson-that the world had learned a lesson-and we were proceeding to try something better. It would seem that even though we talk peace, even though we are a member of the League of Nations and are talking these days of arbitration treaties, we in Canada are still pursuing this military idea.
We all want peace; the minister agrees with that. But the minister and his department, and a considerable number of people in Canada, believe that peace can be secured by military armaments and by defence. They are sincere; I grant them that. They consider themselves patriotic. But those of us who differ are also sincere, and we believe that their policy will lead this country to ruin. We have the right, I would say the duty, to defeat that policy.
The Minister of Finance has made the statement that half our natural revenue goes to pay the interest on the debt incurred in the last war. In spite of the futility of that
TMr. Woodsworth.]
war-its failure to settle any of the grave economic or international questions, we are preparing to assume our share in some next war that will not be very long in coming if other nations adopt the policies that we are adopting. In every other estimate that comes before this house we ask the purpose of the expenditure. I think we should be distinctly told, in connection with these estimates, against whom we are preparing to fight. Some of the militarists accuse us of being dreamers and impossible idealists. I accuse them of being romantic sentimentalists, and I would say to them, against whom are we in Canada preparing to fight?


Mr. STINSON:: Anyone that attacks us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Anyone that attacks us! We are making our preparations to-day and we are looking around for potential enemies who are likely to do the attacking. Can you imagine that we are going to be drawn into another great European war? I can hardly think that when I talk with the men who returned from the last war. I had a letter the other day from a returned veteran of the war, and in speaking of his own boy he said, "I will never let him go to war. I have done my bit for the both of us, and before he goes I would do something desperate." That is the opinion of not a few of the returned men.


Thomas Hubert Stinson: Very few.
Mr. W'OODSWORTH:	I say not a few,
and I know whereof I speak. I have spoken with hundreds, and I think into the thousands, who have expressed this view to me.
Are we going to war against the United States? If we are, let us come out frankly and say so. We say that war between Great Britain and the United States is unthinkable,' but someone has very well remarked that when people say a thing is unthinkable it means they 'are thinking very seriously about it. Are we preparing for war against the United States? In a recent book by Commander Ken worthy, entitled Peace and War, I noticed the following:
So strong a part does sentiment play in such matters that the great majority of Canadians would probably decide for immediate intervention on the side of the mother country.
That is in case of war between Great Britain and the United Staites. Then he goes on:
Yet this would mean a terrible war on Canadian soil. Automatically the Americans would invade Canada, and Britain, fighting in both the Pacific and the Atlantic, would forego other naval campaigns, including colonial raids and

Supply-National Defence
trade attacks so as to permit the throwing of as many British troops and aeroplanes from ail parts of the empire on to Canadian soil in as short a time as possible. . . If Canada were invaded, a long-drawn-out and bloody land and aerial war would follow to add to the horrors of the naval campaigns.
Later on he says:
For the benefit of humanity and the good of the people concerned it would be better on the whole if Canada declared for neutrality. Such a declaration would limit the area of the struggle and make an earlier ending to it easier. Once Canada were in, the most appalling war in history would have commenced and the world war of 1914 to 1918 would be far surpassed in moral horror, material loss and human misery.
And again he says:
But there is something greater than nationalist patriotism; and taking a long view, which is also a more humane view, it would be better for Canada to keep out.
When we have such advice from a Britisher of the standing of Commander Kenworthy, I think we might very well ask whether we are right in preparing for a possible war with the United States.
Are we preparing for war in the orient? Again, very few of us in Canada think that that is the way in which we can settle our problems on the Pacific. The most clearcut statement for armaments that I have seen from a Canadian source is that contained in a document published by the Navy League of Canada. It is entitled Interdependence of Canadian Industry and Naval Defence. He says that national security

-may some day lie in mutual treaties for ever lasting peace based on international economic adjustment; to-day unfortunately, it lies only in a proper measure of armed defence.
I think that is a fair statement of the case from the standpoint of the militarists. They talk of arbitration in order to wave it aside; they talk about treaties and say that treaties offer no security, and they come back again and again and say that the only way in which we can have world peace, the only way in which we can attain national security is by force of arms. It is that position that some of us challenge to-night. The document to which I have referred admits that the provision of armaments has not in the main prevented war, but warns that when a clash occurs, as it inevitably will under the existing economic system-
-stability of industrial commitments will lie only with those in a position to maintain their sea communications.
Again going back to the old and indefensible British position with regard to sea power.
56103-211J


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he not think an examination of the territorial lines which resulted from the Versailles treaty would show that many other wars would be inevitable in consequence of that treaty?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is a rather
large question into which I am not prepared to go to-night. It seems to me that the boundaries as drawn in Europe after the war were very arbitrary and in themselves are likely to provoke war in the future. I should like to see an early revision of the Versailles treaty. I am not, however, so sure that the drawing of new political boundaries will be the way to ensure peace. I think we shall have to go deeper than that and get at the underlying economic causes. In that connection I should like to quote one other sentence from this statement of the Navy League:
It is the everlasting economic war which prevails, in time of nominal peace, which has produced, and will produce, physical war.
There, it seems to me, is a clearcut statement, a frank recognition of the real cause of modem war, namely, the everlasting economic war which prevails in time of nominal peace. In view of such a situation, may we not ask whether there is no way out. Are we to go on forever exploring blind alleys? Are we to go on forever in the old ways that have proved absolutely futile in the settlement of these great economic problems; or have we not come to the time when we can tackle the big economic questions and attempt to discover some solution along other lines than those of the past?
I want to give one other quotation from the Manitoba Free Press which sets forth the position of a large number of Canadian citizens to-day:
It may take some time possibly several years, to get national animosities worked up to the due pitch for another war. But, in the economic conflict, the warfare for markets and concessions abroad, the activities of financial groups are more apparent than in the ten years or so leading up to the last war.
The pressure on the financial system has been intensified. The capacity of industrial nations to increase output has been enormously increased. The belief is commonly held in every country that wider markets must be found: the industries have to take care of increased overhead charges, due to recent industrial expansion, and industry everywhere is saddled with the burden of war debt.
As the system is operated at present, the only outlet according to orthodox financial belief is in exporting to markets abroad. But the markets abroad are being reduced, by reduced purchasing power, and themselves becoming industrialized. More nations than ever are looking for markets abroad, or preparing
Supply-N ational Defence

to cut into the business of competitive exporting The belief that it is vital to secure control of such an outlet as the untapped resources of Asia Minor is based on falsehood. It is one of the fallacies of orthodox finance. But it is leading to war, unless the lead is given by some nation towards a policy of increasing purchasing power at home-to open up the home market.
There we have a suggested solution of the great economic problem. Instead of making every effort to solve that economic problem, which is to-day not merely a national but a world problem, we are now turning back and attempting to prepare to fight those enemies with whom our present industrial and financial policy may bring us into conflict.
We who protest may be small in numbers, at least in this chamber, but I urge that in this matter we represent a very large section of the people of Canada. Canada has an opportunity for leadership in the campaign for peace. As I have said on previous occasions we are in a very unique position. As a member of the British Empire and as a member of the League of Nations we are linked up with the great majority of the nations of the world. On the other hand we live side by side with the great United States republic which is recognized as being a leading force in international finance. We are, a natural link, between these two great groups of powers. We are safe as regards invasion from the United States. No one to-day thinks that the United States are going to attempt a political invasion of Canada. There may be peaceful penetration by finance and industry, but we are safe from political invasion. Why cannot we take a bold step and lead the other nations along these lines of peace? To-day by permitting ourselves continually to increase our armaments, we are simply preparing the way for further trouble. You remember, Mr. Chairman, those lines of Israel Zangwill on "The God of War' .
"To safeguard peace, we must prepare for war"
I know that maxim; it was forged in hell.
This wealth of ships and guns inflames the vulgar	.
And makes the very war it guards against.
I have every respect for the way in which the minister is carrying out the work of his department; I can quite understand his ambitions to make that department effective; but I would urge upon the house that it is not the professional soldiers nor the Department of National Defence that ought to determine the extent to which we prepare for war in this country. That is a matter of

policy which ought to be decided by the house. More than that, if in some way the public at large could directly voice its attitude on this question, I have not the slightest doubt that the referendum would indicate opposition to the extension of military expenditures.


Thomas Langton Church: We are having once again the annual debate on peace and war. I may say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that the soldiers who fought for Canada were just as fond of peace as he is or anybody else who is preaching peace in this country to-day. Since I have been in the house these estimates have been cut down from $15,000,000 to $10,000,000 and to-day they are so cut to the bone that unless you want to cut the whole thing out altogether, you cannot cut another dollar off. The minister has been a very economic minister; he has held an even balance between the peace and the war party; he has gone over his department from coast to coast, and he has brought his estimates down to-night In answer to that all we hear is about war debts and authorities on peace. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does not require to quote any authorities on peace. He and the League of Nations are the most shining authorities on peace. He argues that we should cut the whole thing out and work for peace. The minister is working for peace on a preparedness basis. We have had enough Monroe doctrines and scraps of paper like the Washington conference and the Kellogg scrap of paper to be. We have the League of Nations which is the most troublesome institution in the world to-day. The only real League of Nations is the British fleet which in the last war protected our shores and protected us from slavery worse than anything in the history of the world. Had it not been for the British fleet in the late war we would have experienced the awful horrors of war on our own soil in Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Vancouver. As for what Canada does in a militia sense, as compared with the motherland and Australia and New Zealand, Canada gives in money a contribution of two pence halfpenny to militia and defence. The motherland pays the whole cost of a magnificent fleet to protect our Shore, to maintain our trade routes and to enable us to do business on the seven seas of the world, while we who in the darkest hours of the war were prepared to accept the protection of the British fleet and all the privileges we enjoyed as part of the British Empire should now be prepared to accept some of the responsibility which that incurs

Supply-National Defence
and contribute adequately to maritime freedom. Yet we do nothing but sponge on the British taxpayer for our protection, and whine and complain about our mythical status.
Canada has failed as no other country in the late war has failed to give places in the armies of industry to Canadians who gave themselves places in the armies of liberty. Talk about peace and war! Let me tell the gentlemen of the Labour party that I do not believe that they are expressing the real views of the labour men of this country. The labour men, the trades unionists, of this country and the working classes enlisted as did no other class of the community. There were 50,000 of them who joined the colours and were killed, fighting for their country. Talk about the United States! Over 100,000 of the men who left for the front to fight this country's battles, when they came back here, could find no work to do, and they were driven out of Canada to the United States, by the economic policy of free trade which the hon. gentlemen of the Labour party advocate, to seek a living in the United States.
What do my hon. friends propose as a substitute for these estimates? The Monroe doctrine? Will that protect the shores of Canada? No. Will the new peace proposals of Mr. Kellogg protect this country? No, that, like the Monroe doctrine, will be another scrap of paper. It seems to me that every time they have an election on the other side of the line the Democratic or the Republican party spring a new league of nations or a peace pact or peace note of their own, and they put it over England and France and all the fellows who did the actual fighting, while they themselves were too proud to fight. They had a Washington conference in the days of President Harding, whereby Great Britain and France and the United States were to build no more capital ships for about forty years. Did the Americans keep that pact? No. Immediately after the war they turned all their war-time plants on the Atlantic ocean, at New York, New Haven and Savannah and other ports, into peacetime plants, and they started building a merchant navy by twenty-five and fifty and a hundred ships at a time, so that in a few years they will be equal to the British Empire in that respect. That is the way they kept the last pact. Did the Americans keep the Washington conference of five years ago? No. A bill was brought into the last congress, at the instance of President Coolidge, calling for a large expenditure for new capital ships for the navy and ships for the merchant marine and a huge navy vote, so much so that their
expenditure to-day is the largest of any nation in the world. Now that another election is coming on across the line, they put their heads together and evolve a new scrap of paper called the Kellogg plan, to end war until after the next presidential election when the jingoes will again be on top.
It is said now that we are a new nation. If we are a nation, we can declare war and are a sovereign power. The Kellogg note says we are or thinks so. The people of this country have never been asked to vote on this magnificent new status which we are supposed to have. It is a mere mockery, a sham, and a humbug all along to talk of our having a different status and being a nation. W e are not a nation. We are part of the British Empire to-day, and when Britain is at war Canada is at war. We are a link in a chain of free commonwealths within and making up the British Empire. We are not a free and independent nation. We are sponging to-day on the motherland for the cost of the protection of our Atlantic and Pacific coasts and our shipping on the seven seas. We contribute not a cent to the British fleet. We have a contemptible little navy of three or four stone hooker boats that hug the shore and are too proud to go out on the ocean and fight, and if they do go out on the ocean they have under the Laurier navy to send a wireless to Ottawa and have an order in council passed before they can fight when they see the enemy coming. I was on the Pacific last March at the time of the threatened war with China, and a Vancouver paper came out in a special edition headed "War is to be Declared," and asked what was going to protect the Pacific coast. The British Empire got out of its alliance with Japan, mainly owing to Canada's falling down.
The British Empire was also urged by Canada to drop its plans for a naval base at Singapore for the protection of our Pacific province, Australia and New Zealand in the event of another war. There will be wars as long as time lasts. You can talk about the mythical League of Nations, but I believe that there will be war as long as time lasts, and the country that prepares itself for war is doing more for peace than all the so-called peace agencies and talkfests on peace which I have heard in this house and out of it ever since I came into it.
Let me tell my hon. friends who are shouting from the house tops about peace that the half a million soldiers who fought for this country in France and Flanders are just as strong for peace, and ten times stronger, than those in this house and out of it who are shouting peace, because they went to the front
Supply-National Defence

and experienced the horrors of war. Canada lost fifty thousand men in the great war; many thousands more came back wounded and are now lying helpless in the hospitals, and some of them cannot get into the hospitals; some are starving and out of work because they are not one hundred per cent efficient, while we can spend nearly two millions on a farcical League of Nations. Many of these soldiers had to go to the United States to look for a living. The Canadians who joined the Canadian expeditionary force and served overseas from 1914 to 1918 have done more for peace than all those who stayed at home and are shouting peace from the house tops and served Canada better than Canadians on the voters' lists have served Canada in the polling booths from 1919 to 1926.
This League of Nations provides a fine Cook's tour for government officials and ministers. The League of Nations has provoked more strife than it has settled. It is the disturber of the peace of the British Empire, this so-called League of Nations to which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre is so fond of referring and similar mock debating societies on peace, and one day the British Empire will wake up and realize that they have been living in a fool's paradise as they were in 1909 if they listen much longer to the League of Nations and the peace party and the pacifists. We have spent $1,600,000 on the League of Nations, in joy rides and trips for officials and tourists. Talk about having a seat in the League of Nations; you might as well have a seat in the American baseball league or the National league. These leagues do more for peace with the Americans than the League of Nations. The League of Nations has done nothing for Canada and the empire but cause trouble and provide nice soft jobs and travelling expenses for officials and those who shout peace from the house tops in this country in season and out of season, while others who did the real work of protecting the people of this country, in the darkest hours of the war are driven in peace to the United States looking for a job and are exiled from Canada.
I am sorry that the minister has not included in his annual estimates a table showing the comparative contributions to defence that are made by the motherland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Our contribution amounts to about two shillings per head; in fact I do not think it is that much; I had the figures here, but unfortunately I have mislaid them. The figures for Australia and New Zealand are five or six times what ours are. They are paying for the Singapore base. We pay nothing. New Zealand, a

country with a population less than the city of Montreal, is contributing $5,000,000 over a period of years for the support of the Singapore base, and has contributed battleships to the British fleet. The Pacific question will be the great question before the people of this country to-morrow. I believe that the minister has pared his estimates down to the bone. You, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Power), know more about war than all the peace parties put together, because our gallant chairman as a young man sacrificed his position and went to the war, and I do not believe he will ever be the same man again. You, Mr. Chairman, have seen the errors made by the people of this country in the lack of preparations for war, and the cost of unpreparedness, and you know what it has cost the people of this country at Valcartier and in other parts of Canada in training as a result.
The cadet movement in this country is very largely paid for by the boards of education throughout Canada and the municipalities. Ontario will support the cadet movement as long as time lasts. That is the policy of the government at Queen's Park and through the municipalities they are spending a large amount of money on the cad'et movement. Those who are in the nonactive militia-I see my hon. friend from Parkdale in the house, but I did not see him in the war parade last Sunday. I know that in his Irish regiment and in many other units in Toronto the officers, the non-commissioned officers and men -have to dig down into their own pockets to provide part of the uniforms, equipment and stationery, and almost everything else for their units. That is what they have to do in the soldier city of Toronto. These are men now in the active militia at Toronto. They admire the present minister and the support he is giving them. He is holding the balance very evenly between the war party and the peace party in this country. The peace party are those who depend' on the Monroe doctrine, the League of Nations, the Kellogg note and similar scraps of paper to say nothing of the Washington note of five years ago. In my constituency in the Earls-court section there are twenty-four war widows in one block; they know something about war. Many of them have to go out to work, as a result of Canada's failure, and they are just as strong for peace as my hon. friend who has just spoken. Notwithstanding all this dream about our new status, notwithstanding the fact that last year we spent from $300,000 to $400,000 celebrating Dominion day, many of the returned men who fought the battles of -their country have had to go

Supply-National Defence
to the United States to find jobs. Talk about what the United States is doing for peace! I know no country in the world that is doing more to prepare for war in their army and navy votes. Preparedness will do more to ensure peace than any other agency, as the late Lord Roberts pointed out years ago. The minister b&s not enough baoking; his estimates are not half large enough to put the militia on a proper basis. The item for spring camps is not half large enough. Only a few units are taken care of and the camps are small and not what they were. Many units cannot drill in camp; they have to drill in their home towns by night, as a result of such false economy.
Then we are spending nothing on maritime freedom; we are loading those bills off on the hard-pressed taxpayers of Great Britain. In the province of Ontario the population is mostly British born and they know something of what the mother country has done for maritime freedom. Certainly, had it not been for the British fleet, neither Canada nor the United States would have been able to send any troops overseas or send supplies or keep our trade routes open. There should be a day of reckoning for the peace party in this country. We can no longer continue to sponge on Great Britain for naval defence. Take the Pacific question; the teeming millions of China and Japan aTe within a few days of our western shores, and yet on the Pacific we have only one or two ships recently purchased. True, we have a few fishing and rowing boats, but so far as a fleet is concerned, we are not even a twenty-fifth class naval power.
I think these votes have been very carefully prepared and the only fault I have to find is that they have been cut down too low. But I shall support the minister. In the province of Ontario, which pays over 40 per cent of the cash taxes of Canada, 95 per cent of the people are in favour of these votes. I know something of the Trades Union movement in the city of Toronto. No movement in this country contributed more men to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and they are the backbone of the militia, rank and file. I repeat, I shall support these votes, but they are not half enough. So far as they go, however, I think they will commend themselves to the wisdom and the judgment of the country generally.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Chairman, when
in 1925 I made my first speech against cadet training the total vote was about $11,000,000; this year it is $18,726,946.42. That is a very
large increase. This is done under a government which on every possible occasion protests that it is a peaceful government. We'll, looking over the treasury benches one would agree that at least it is a peaceful looking government. Yet these national defence votes have gone on increasing year after year. We used to have a Minister of National Defence who though he looked like a Prussian war lord, did not act like one; but to-day we have as minister of the department a gentleman who looks peaceful enough but acts like a Prussian war lord. Again, I entreat the Prime Minister to transfer his Minister of National Defence to a department where his great ability and driving force will be of greater benefit to Canada. Naturally the minister wishes to make a success of his department, but to the extent that he accomplishes this he makes hypocrites of Canadians, for all the time we are protesting that we are trying to promote the peace of the world as we listen to plans for peace made by leading Britishers and Americans and also by some of our own countrymen. And we have a place on the council of the League of Nations. It is a farce for us to send representatives to the League of Nations unless we back them up by peace sentiment in Canada. And if they are so backed up, why in the world do we not show that peace sentiment in the estimates? This fact is abundantly clear: Supposing preparedness does bring peace-and I do not think for a moment it does-under the new methods of carrying on war all the amounts of money we are voting for old methods are a straight waste. Training men to ride horses beautifully, dressing them up in blue and red coats, and putting on high class military parades such as the one put on last Sunday in Montreal, glorifying the whole spectacle and making it appear a grand thing-all this is just so much waste. We might as well use the money for some sensible purpose in Canada, because wars are no longer carried on in that fashion. Even since the last war a great deal of progress has been made. Only yesterday we all read in the newspapers of poisonous gas escaping accidentally from a tank in Germany, and finding its way, through open windows, into private houses, killing some people and destroying horses, cattle and vegetation everywhere. This is the new method. In the future wars will be carried on largely from the air, so that all this silly swank, this dressing up in pretty uniforms and parading on beautiful horses, will be absolutely useless. What will be the sense of a lot of men going around on horses, all dressed up, and thinking themselves fright-
Supply-National Defence

fully big fellows? I say, it will be just so much waste of money. I do not. know how much this demonstration in Montreal cost the country, but no doubt it took a good deal of money. They had the cadets out and the minister of peace was present to inspect the whole affair. They simply glorified the whole devilish thing. Now, there is nothing glorious about war, and what is the use of entertaining that stupid idea any longer? I know, as other members know, of returned broken and sick soldiers who have to support families although they are receiving no pension, not having applied in time. There are thousands of men who are now going around, wrecks of the last war, and there is no use saying that it is a glorious thing so far as they are concerned. Yet everyone who saw this spectacle in Montreal was stirred by it. I too might have been stirred by it, had I allowed myself to forget what it leads to, because military music does stir people; that is why they have it; otherwise men could not be induced to go into battle and kill one another.
It is rather interesting to look over this pamphlet, for which, I suppose, the country pays. On the front there is an advertisement of Molson's ale and on the back one of the Royal Bank of Canada, and between the two there is the military display. Let me give the names of some of the patrons of this peace spectacle which Montreal saw last Sunday: Their Excellencies; the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec; the Archbishop of Montreal; the Bishop of Montreal; the Premier of Quebec; the Minister of National Defence, otherwise known as the minister of peace; the Minister of Marine; the Secretary of State; the Mayor of Montreal; the Minister of Roads, Quebec; the Provincial Secretary; the Chief of General Staff; the Chief of Naval Staff-and a couple of other fellows. These are all peace people.


Milton Neil Campbell: Did it include the member for Southeast Grey?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, they missed me. Now, why can we not be out and out about this thing? Why can we not be absolutely honest? There are two schools of thought in Canada in regard to security. Both I believe are absolutely honest. One school believes that you will get security through military preparedness, and to that school the minister of this department belongs. He believes that if you prepare for war you will get peace.
I do not belong to that school. I belong to the school-and it is growing in Canada- which holds that if you want peace you must prepare for peace. And the methods where-
by peace is secured are not the same as the methods used to promote war. This peace sentiment is growing in Canada. I recall the time when some of us first tried to say things like this in the house, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself. When we made statements of this sort a gentleman, now a judge in the maritime provinces, shouted " bolshevik " and many other things like that. We were laughed to scorn; we were supposed to be fools who somehow or other by mistake had got into parliament. But to-day that attitude is not evident in the House of Commons; it is not seen to-night., although it is true there is a more or less empty house. Why? The answer is that after all parliament is but a reflection of the Canadian people and members dare not take that attitude. They were elected by the people and the people believe that war brings nothing but destruction and disaster not only, as the Secretary of State said the other day, to the vanquished but to the victors as well. War is an outgrown institution, as every advanced writer in every country agrees; and I do not know why in the world we cannot act on some of the best thought of the best people. For my part I would1 absolutely cut out every bit of national defence. The air force may be of some use at least in peace; it might be of some use in war, although I do not know. But certainly the other displays are of no use whatever, and when you come to items such as this the thing is simply vicious. It is a hypocritical attitude for the government to say and to expect any sane person to believe, that they are working for peace while at the same time they are poisoning the minds of the youth and making it impossible for these same youth, if they take training as cadets, seriously to promote peaceful ideas.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but there was one thing in connection with this parade in Montreal which is too good to miss. No doubt it was lovely as a pageant, but they concluded with the following words, sung to the accompaniment of massed bands: Abide with me; fast falls the eventide;
The darkness deepens; Lord with me abide; When other helpers fail, and comforts flee, Help of the helpless, O abide with me.
I fear no foe with Thee at hand to bless,
Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness; Where is deaths sting? Where, grave, thy victory?
I triumph still, if Thou abide with me.
Was that not a wonderful thing to trail that in at the end of this glorious parade of military achievement? At least they held death up as the great ideal and aim of military preparedness.

Supply-National Defence


William Irvine: I do not know whether the minister desires a discussion on the subject of defence; I do not know whether this is the proper time to bring it on. I doubt whether the committee is in the proper mood to go into the theme as thoroughly as the theme itself merits. But I find myself between two extremes to-night. On my right I find an hon. gentleman who holds, I believe, that some preparation will probably help to keep war off, although he thinks war is absolutely inevitable in all time to come. On my left are members who think war can be abolished and should be abolished, and that one way to abolish it is to stop making preparation for defence, and if necessary to throw away our arms and to declare to the world that we do not think we need fight any more.
I am between these two extreme points on the floor of this house to-night and I find myself having to take a more or less middle path philosophically. If I had to make a choice. I would not hesitate to line up with the hon. lady to my left. But I think I have a sound position, because the great philosopher Aristotle once took the same ground; he said that truth was to be found in the grand mean. And we have a more recent example in the Prime Minister and his party who have taken that position as between the extreme left and the extreme right; they say that they will go between the two, following truth in that path. If therefore I cannot get the ear of the minister in what I shall say to-night surely in view of the position I have adopted I ought to be acceptable pro tem at least.
First of all I want to pay the highest possible compliment to and express the deepest appreciation of the splendid idealism and sincerity of hon. members to my left who from time to time have stated, as they have done to-night, their absolute opposition to war in any shape or form, believing as they do, that we can get along without it; that we are more able to defend ourselves without the means of preparation than we are with them. I do not know whether or not they are correct in that position, but I do know they are doing a very great deal to stimulate the imagination of the people and create that will to peace without which peace on a permanent basis will never be achieved. In that great work I certainly congratulate them; I hope they will continue it and I hope they will be encouraged from every section to continue it. On the other hand, I want to say that I have no longer any allusions about the possibility of stopping war so suddenly, in
view of the actual conditions which I see in all parts of the modern world. While I think this idealism is admirable and necessary, nevertheless we cannot close our eyes to the great facts which scream at us from every section of the known world. I had the most profound admiration for the splendid fourteen points of the late President Wilson, but how far did they go? I think we would have to say that he overlooked the fundamental propositions, which were economic; those points, however sharp they were and however splendid, were absolutely doubled up and rendered useless by the economic forces with which they had to contend.
Therefore I submit that our consideration of this great problem of peace and war must extend, if it is to reach sound conclusions, to the real causes of war. I think the hon. members to my left who have emphasized peace as they have done, creating in the minds of the people of Canada a will for peace, will ultimately lead us to an understanding of the conditions which produce war and which make war absolutely inevitable. I know some people believe that Christianity can stop war; I think some hon. member mentioned that to-night. Obviously we have no Christians; that is the trouble. The only Christian of whom I ever heard was Jesus Christ himself; I never met another, never read of another, and do not believe there was ever another. We cannot stop war in that way; there are no Christians, so they cannot stop anything. Some people thought the international labour organizations could stop war. Until 1914 I had a profound faith in those organizations myself, but they did not stop war. Things went on as usual, and the very men who belonged to that international fraternity competed with each other in their mad rush to get at each others throats.
Then some say that if we get rid of our arms we will stop war. You might just as well tell me that the reason I do not hit the man sitting in front of me is because I have no arms. If you cut off my arms and I desired to hit him I would kick him; if you cut off my feet I would bite him ; no matter what you did I would find some means of attacking him. I do not think you can stop people from fighting even if you do not spend another penny on military preparations.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Save your money.


William Irvine: Yes, I think we might save it pro tem. I am not defending these expenditures; I am discussing the question academically. I do not think we can stop
Supply-National Defence

war by any idealism of that kind, nor do I think we can stop it by ceasing our preparations or by destroying the implements which for the moment we use in fighting. I think war goes deeper than that.
Let me say now, so that I shall not be misunderstood, that my antipathy to war is not less than that of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, nor is it less than that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I do not think war is a sensible thing; in fact I think it is a most impractical thing, but perhaps that is why it appeals to the house. I think we use the most impractical means possible in order to attain the most practical ends. War has no justification other than the fact that it is inevitable and that we do not know how to stop it; that is its justification. It has no moral justification; it has no economic justification; it has no human justification, but we do not know how to stop it, so we have to prepare for it. That is the position in which we find ourselves.
Now I wish to say one or two words further. I want to'suggest that a study of war, which perhaps every hon. member has made to some extent, must lead us to the conclusion that its chief cause is essentially economic. If that is true, if economic conditions cause war, the abolition of armaments will not stop it. If economic conditions cause war, the preaching of peace will not stop it, because you cannot reach economic conditions by talking about peace. So the only thing for us to do is to make a real, sincere attempt to go a little deeper than that and get at the economic causes. Let me suggest something along this line to the Minister of National Defence; I know he is against war just as much as the rest of us, but he finds himself in a position of responsibility. I also find myself in a position of equal responsibility, although I do not get the name for it; I am responsible for conditions just as much as he is, and I am not going to shirk my responsibilities. However, I want to make a suggestion to the minister, as a means of ultimately leading to that condition which hon. members to my left visualize for us so often. I think Canada to-day would be one of the first countries to be attacked; we have territory, and territory is what some of the nations of the world need most. If they go on breeding their populations at the present rate, they will have to have additional territory if they can get it by force. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked against whom we were preparing to defend ourselves; my reply is that we are preparing to defend ourselves against the first nation which so overruns its

own territory with its own population that it has to find additional space. I do not know which country that is going to be; I could name a few who are in a neck and neck race for the position, but that is one real cause.
Now I suggest to the minister that he endeavour to do a little good work along this line in connection with our immigration policy. I suggest that he get in contact with the Minister of Immigration, and that they say to Great Britain, "During the next thirty years we are prepared to take the surplus population which you now have provided that you will stop being an incubator for us. We do not want incubators. We will take your surplus provided you adopt a policy which hereafter will limit your population to your own resources." Just ask them to take an intelligent view of the question. Their population increases by about 400,000 every year; they have now a population of about 43,000,000, while they could not feed 25,000,000 on a high standard of living. What is the use of our taking the surplus population and relieving the pressure, while they keep on constantly increasing their population without knowing how they are going to feed them? That is a condition which leads inevitably to war. In addition to that, it is not an intelligent policy. I do not say Great Britain is the only country doing that; all Europe is in the same position, together with Japan, India and China, and we will be in a similar position some day if we follow this rigorous immigration policy now in force. I submit that if any farmer in western Canada tried to raise more pigs than he had swill for he would have the humane inspector at his door when that fact became known. However, the nations go on increasing their populations to such an extent that they scarcely have standing room for them. They say, "We must have no war," but the natural law steps in and says there must be war as long as nations blindly go on in disregard of the need to regulate population in relation to resources.
I suggest also to the minister that he use every possible effort to promote a policy which will lead to intelligent economic cooperation among the nations of the world. I think the Prime Minister, when he was speaking in reply to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) put the Situation correctly when he indicated that peace came about not by having any definite department to carry it into effect, but by the general policies for either peace or war which were carried into effect. That is just as true on this side of the argument. War will not come about by

Supply-National Defence
having one department for defence, but it does come about by the general policy of all governments. So I would suigge&t that an outlook towards the economic co-operation of all countries of the world should be entertained as a general policy, internationally speaking, by the present government.
In the third place, we should continue to promote the ideal of good will amongst all the peoples of the world in a positive way, such as the hon. member for Southeast Grey never fails to do, and such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre never fails to promote.
In conclusion I want to suggest to the minister another thing which I have already brought to his attention through a resolution. In order that he might do the best with the money at his disposal, and in order that the preparations which we make may not incite to war but have the opposite effect. I urge that he follow the suggestion of the resolution which I brought before this parliament some time ago. I ask him now-not at some time in the future, not when war has broken out, but at this moment-to make -it known that should Canada foe led into future wars, immediately every agency that may be required for war purposes Shall be conscripted. I do not propose to repeat the argument I made when addressing the house on. that resolution, but I considered the minister's reply made on that occasion to be weak. I had not the opportunity at that time, but I now take the opportunity to tell him that I think it was weak. He said he was afraid to take such steps as the resolution referred to proposed- these may not be the exact words, but it is the idea-lest it should appear to other countries that we were trying to encourage war. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a simple matter for the minister to get over that difficulty. If the Secretary of State were to indicate to all nations just what we were doing, and ask them to do the same thing, there would be no real doubt about our intention. I submit that the other countries would be more likely to think we were preparing for war if they happened to look at our estimates for this year and find that we have increased them enormously and taken no steps towards peace at all. If they knew that the Minister of National Defence had taken such a democratic and a fundamentallly better step than any other minister in the worid holding a similar portfolio, namely, to put the entire nation in the same position in the ease of war as the soldiers have been in all wars-placing them at the- command of the state-I tfhinlk it would make for peace.
I do not- think the Minister of National Defence can defend the attitude which we had to take in the last war. I do not think it was fair to have allowed a few men to control money during the war-men who by manipulation of credit or lack of intelligence to control it were the means of doubling the war debt of Canada. I do not think it can be justified that men who happened to be in Charge of factories manufacturing war munitions should be permitted to make enormous profits while soldiers died at $1.10 per day. I do not think the people of the next generation will stand for that kind of thing. If you want -to have a united Canada in the case Of a war coming upon us; if you want to have the very best type of preparation, now is the time to take the step to make it known everywhere that this is our policy. We do not want war with anybody, but if we have to fight we will all fight, and there will be no millionaires as a result, and mo special privileges as to those who Shall go and those who shall not go.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Suppose we come back to the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member who has just taken his seat mildly reproached the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswor.th) and the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) for being idealistic.


William Irvine: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In his interesting but
somewhat rambling speech he has traced a pretty broad program for the government, as well as for parliament. I do not propose to follow him through all the ground that he has covered or explored, but there are two points I think are worth while considering.
He says that war is unjustifiable morally, economically, and in every respect, but that as it is unavoidable we must prepare for it. There was a time when it was said that plagues were unavoidable, and that the people had therefore to prepare to receive the plagues and* inter the victims-out of reach if possible- but that was all that could be done. If war is unjustifiable, then it behooves every parliament, every government, and every member of any representative body of the people, to try to find some practical means to prevent the evil of war reaching the country they are responsible for.
I do not propose to speak to-night on the doctrine of war or peace; I do not propose to consider the conditions of Europe and endeavour to find out whether there is likely to be a war in five or ten years. I simply desire the members of the government to consider
Supply-National Defence

their responsibility to the people of Canada, in view of the attitude which most of their supporters took in the last election, and the previous one. Let them ask themselves if the attitude they take in this chamber, or in the country, outside of election .time, coincides with the position they took when they appealed to the people. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I noticed that in the last four elections all the candidates of the Liberal party were elected on a peace program, and on a denunciation of the war spirit' and war policy of the Tory party. They made solemn pledges that they would endeavour to prevent the recurrence of any such thing as happened in 1914. They denounced the military expenditures of the Tory government and they promised to reduce those expenditures. The Liberal party is pledged to a peace policy and a reduction of military expenditure. I now ask the Liberal members of this house, as one of their free friends, to stand by their promises to the people of Canada, and especially to the people of the province of Quebec. That is one point.
The second point is: Is there anything in the international situation, so far as it concerns Canada, that justifies an increase in military expenditures? Has anything happened since 1917, or 1921, or 1925, to justify the Liberal party, brought to power under the conditions I have just mentioned, in increasing the military budget, under the pretence that we must keep in a state of preparation? Are the relations of Canada with any .country on earth such as to justify our taking that position? Does the position taken by our representatives at Washington, Geneva and London, justify our going on with war preparations? Does the intention already expressed by the Prime Minister, that we are prepared to adhere, as a nation, to the proposal of the American government for universal peace and arbitration, justify our increasing our military budget from what it was Jast year, after it had been increased last year over that of the preceding year? I say, no, no, from a moral point of view, with regard to the pledges given by almost every supporter of the government to the people who have sent him here. I say, no, with regard to the position which we have taken in international circles, in Geneva or elsewhere, as well as towards the United States of America. The geographical position of Canada is such that there is less risk for Canada in standing squarely for a peace and disarmament policy than there is, not merely for any other British country, but for any other country on earth; and more practical results are to be derived,
[Mr. Bourassa.l
not by mere verbal assertion, sanctimonious declarations of love for peace, while we bring in from year to year increasing estimates for war, but by proving in fact that what we say we mean; that we disarm, first, because we do not believe in war, and, second, because we do believe that the position which Canada occupies enables us to take that stand.
If you believe in preparedness, then I agree entirely with the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). If you believe in preparedness; if you believe it is the duty and the interest of Canada to prepare for any war emergency, then this military budget is a farce. If you believe in preparedness, as every country in Europe believed before the war and as some of them still believe, rightly or wrongly,-and I am not going to discuss to-night the policy of any country in Europe or elsewhere-then, do as do the countries that believe in a military policy. Know what preparedness is, and prepare seriously; but face the people of Canada honestly. Do not tell them at election time that you believe in peace and disarmament, and then come to parliament and say that you believe in a policy of preparedness. You cannot stand both for those who believe in a war policy and for those who believe in a peace policy. It must be one or the other. Neither this government nor any other can play with those feelings, those opinions, those principles. The hon. member for Southeast Grey and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are absolutely right when they say that the consciousness, intelligence and common sense of the people of this country are growing. Of course it is true there are still a number of people who believe in war and perhaps a larger number of people who believe in preparedness, although they hate war. I have no grudge against them; I respect their views; but you cannot be at the same time with those groups and with the other growing group who believe that Canada is so situated that a bold, courageous and practical policy for peace is the best move you can make at the present time in international affairs.
It was but this last fall that I went over all the western provinces, and some of my experiences there remain very vividly in my memory. I know the feelings of the people cannot be judged by one experience or two or ten experiences, but after all there is something in taking the pulse of the people in a most spontaneous way. I happened to address in Calgary a very large meeting, having regard to the conditions under which I spoke there. . It was in the midst of harvest; the season had been bad, nevertheless people

Supply-National Defence
crowded in from thirty miles around to meet, not a man who had anything to offer to them, not a minister of the crown, nor a prospective minister, thank heaven! but just a simple individual who had been depicted to them for years and years by the press of all shades of opinion as an enemy of everything British, as a trouble maker, as the stormy petrel of the politics of Canada, who had been described to them more or less under the colours with which my good friend the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) covers me periodically. Nevertheless they came; and I thought I would make an experience. I delivered there the most antimilitaristic, anti-imperialistic, and some people would call it the most anti-British speech that I ever delivered in my life, a speech such as I never would and never did deliver in Quebec. I appealed to the sense of nationhood, the sense of racial fraternity, the sense of Canadian nationalism. Then I passed over the various causes of the last war, the arguments that had been used to justify us in going into the war, and later to justify us in adopting conscription. I did my best to show that all those features of our military policy before, during and since the war, were bad, were inimical to the. interests of Canada and really inimical to the true interests of the British Empire. I appealed especially to men who had been in the war and to their relatives; and the great consolation I had was, that after that meeting about fifty persons, veterans of the war, fathers and mothers of dead soldiers, with tears in their eyes, thinking of the boys who had sacrificed their lives because of the infernal propaganda carried on before the war to bring them into it, came and shook my hand and told me: "At last we have heard expressed what is in our bosoms and what has been in our thoughts for ten years. At last we find a public man who has the courage"-I repeat their language as it was-"to tell what we think". They had never dared say so because they would have been accused of lacking patriotism, of being untrue to their duty to the empire; but they began to realize that there is some other way of working for one's country and even for one's empire than by getting drunk with the wine of militarism, and fighting, and dying. There is living for one's country, working for one's country, endeavouring to increase by a useful life the moral and economic patrimony of all the races that inhabit Canada. Yes, the peace-loving sentiment is growing!
But there is more than that. Take our relations with the rest of the world. Let us
consider the situation of Canada, not as we imagine it but as it stands in the eyes either of the people of the United States or of the British people who know what it is. You hear it every time you go to London, every time you meet some of those clear-sighted men who know the real conditions of the British Emipire and of the world. Every one of them will tell you: Of course the case of Canada is entirely different from that of Australia and New Zealand. As regards Canada being obliged, even for imperial purposes, to make the same military expenditure as Australia and New Zealand, situated as they are on the border of the Asiatic continent, and having of necessity to rely upon outside help from a very distant country, your situation is so entirely different that the best service which you can render us is, so to speak, to wipe off from your political and international activities any possibility of your being a cause of war to England and the British Empire. Often, in the old chamber, I heard some of the most loyal leaders of the Tory party charge the British government with lack of love for or interest in Canadian affairs because they were always ready to disarm or to give way to United States pretensions and claims, disregarding our own claims and pretensions. I never could take that view. Opposed as I was, in those days especially, to the imperial policy followed in London, particularly under Tory governments, I always held and I repeat to-night that the best service England has rendered us has been precisely, after the war of 1812-14, to give way to the United States, because she realized that another war between the United States and England would be a piece of foolishness and a crime, and that Canada would be the sufferer by it. Those men who have a true sense of national pride, not the childish, not the noisy and cheap form of jingoism which can be put up so easily, but which we would have to put down so quickly in case we made good our childish provocations to the great nation to the south of us, those thoughtful men realize that a war between Great Britain and the United States, under all circumstances, would be a crime and a folly, and so long as Canada is connected with the British Empire, would be absolutely suicidal on our part. Therefore it would be true, and truer to-day than ever, that even if Great Britain were the victor in such a war, whether the British Empire was the victor or the vanquished, Canada would be the victim.
With regard to the rest of the world, what must logically follow, if the doctrine is held on the other side of the house that there is
Supply-National Defence

absolute solidarity among all British countries, if the Tory party has definitely abandoned the old national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tupper that every self-governing dominion of the British Empire has the right to be neutral in the case of a war in which Great Britain alone is involved, a policy which Sir John A. Macdonald put in practice when he refused to supply troops for the British government in the Soudan? And he refused not because the war did not cal! for it, but because he upheld the doctrine of nationalism as it was held and practised by the old Liberal-Conservative party for thirty years, prior to confederation as well as afterwards. Of course if the new Tory doctrine is to prevail that every time England is at war Canada must be at war, then the argument of the 'hon. member for Toronto is absolutely right, and in that case your militia estimates are absolutely inadequate. But if you believe in what most of your candidates have stated, especially in the province of Quebec; if you mean to keep those pledges which several of the members of the government have given most solemnly to the people at large, if you are going to stand by the principles which you succeeded in having enunciated and carried at the imperial conference, if you are going to stand by those principles not only here and there, but stand by the underlying principle which directed the course of this government in the Lausanne affair or in the Chanak incident, then you must have the courage to declare that when England is at war and Canada is not concerned Canada is not at war. It is about time we should abanldon the hypocritical attitude of being more nationalistic in the province of Quebec than the .most rabid Freneh-Canadian has ever been, and then turning around and putting on a coat of imperialism in all the English-speaking provinces. You will never form a national sentiment that way. You must be one or the other. You must either stand by the principle of nationalism which was upheld by the Tory party for thirty years, or abandon it. You cannot be fish to one and flesh to the other. You must be one or the other. Are you going to be a peace or a war government? If you mean to be a war government, and to help Great Britain in some war in which she may be engaged, not necessarily in every war, but if you want to prepare for sharing in Great Britain's wars, prepare for it, but prepare for it seriously. Go to the people in that case and ask for a new mandate, because your present mandate does not

entitle you in honour to pursue a mild and weak war policy.
That is the only thing I want to say tonight. I do not propose to dwell on the general merits of a peace and a war policy, nor to dispute every single item in these estimates. I simiply wanted to repeat here what I have said to the people who have elected me, to repeat it here as I told it there, and to ask those who took the same pledges and the same attitude to stand by the people who have sent them here, just as they stand up against the bad Tories when they are in the province of Quebec.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Will the hon.
gentleman allow me to make an inquiry, not in any spirit of challenging what he h'as just said, but because I would like to have the information? What were the peace pledges given by political candidates in the last election in the province of Quebec, to whom were those pledges given, and where and when?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It was the attitude taken by almost every Liberal, and by almost every Conservative candidate too, for that matter, by every Patenaude candidate, and every Monty candidate. They said that Canada had had enough of war in the last war, and that Canada had no business to be in any future war of Great Britain's, and that the doctrine that when Great Britain was at war Canada was at war was not a Canadian doctrine. That was the position taken by almost every candidate in the province of Quebec, to whatever party he belonged.


Leslie Gordon Bell: - Will the hon. gentleman tell me further if there is a record available of any such pledges, and the terms in which these pledges were made, and where I could find them?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend knows French he has only to read all of the French papers published in the province of Quebec during the three last electoral campaigns, and he will find plenty of evidence.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Perhaps my hon. friend will send me some.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They are in the library. I should like to oblige my hon. friend because I like to be as agreeable as possible to the hon. member, whom I hold to be one of the true Conservatives of the old school, and whom I know to be a gentleman. At the same time, however, I am not in a position to act as his private secretary and read these

Supply-National Defence
papers for him. He could read, for instance, Le Soled, Le Canada, Le Devoir, or even the Star and the Gazette, though in the Star and Gazette he will find something that is very strange. For example, when the Star stood for Mr. Patenaude and his candidates, there might be a different theme in the reports of the speeches than would appear in the Montreal Gazette, or in the second election, when Mr. Patenaude stood as a supporter of the Meighen party, which he had denounced the year previous, there would be another theme. But if my hon. friend would read all these papers, and especially if he had listened to the speeches that were made during these campaigns, he would be fully convinced. In fact it has always been so much the atmosphere in the province of Quebec that no party and no candidate could take any other attitude.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I thought the hon. member was speaking of pledges.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is a general conviction which has been ingrained into our minds by the leaders of both parties for years and years. When for the first time we shared in an imperial war, in 1899, the only excuse given by the Liberal candidates in the province of Quebec was that the hands of Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been forced by Lord Minto and the Conservative party, and that if he had not given way the Tory party would have done much worse, whilst on the other side the Conservative party were denouncing Sir Wilfrid Laurier for having done what he did. In my constituency, for instance, I was fought by an official candidate of the Conservative party, who was supported by a very distinguished member of that party, a late minister of the crown in the province of Quebec, who accused me of being insincere because, having denounced the participation of Canada in the South African war, I did not go over to the Conservative party which he said would have done nothing of the kind. So that has been the atmosphere-and not only in the province of Quebec. If my hon. friend-I know he is a little younger than I am, and perhaps with his various literary pursuits he has not had the same time as I have had for reading old political records, and I do not blame him for not having the same tastes as myself-but if he would dig up the speeches that were made both in parliament and outside of parliament before confederation and after confederation by such men as Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir Alexander Campbell and the most
distinguished leaders of the Conservative party, he would find that they enunciated the very doctrine I have upheld this evening, that Canada is not obliged to participate in imperial wars. More than that, after confederation, Sir Alexander Campbell stated again in England, in the presence of all the representatives of the various Dominions and of the British government, that the pledge upon which confederation was made in 1865, as between the representatives of the imperial government and the representatives of United Canada, was that England, being the sole cause of possible wars for Canada, was morally obliged to stand by Canada in every war that could be declared by or against England and threaten Canada, but that Canada 'had no other duty than to defend her own territory. That was good Conservative doctrine for thirty years. I do not claim that hon. gentlemen opposite have not the right to renounce that doctrine, but I do claim that the people of Quebec, both Conservative and Liberal, have the right to stand behind that old policy. Similarly for many years they stood for the old, sane and moral policy of temperance as against the Yankee policy of prohibition, and they were denounced; but to-day their policy is being followed by the sister provinces, including the very moral province of Ontario. My hon. friend should remember the time when the province of Quebec was denounced for opposing conscription. I think, now the war fever has cooled, it is generally admitted that Quebec's opposition to conscription spared the lives of many of the youth of this country, not only in that province but outside, and that Quebec was no more criminal in taking that stand than were the people in Ireland, in Australia, in New Zealand and in South Africa, with the approval of the British government; that the people in Quebec were not necessarily the slackers and sluggards that they were depicted in the Tory press of Ontario because they chose to exercise1 their rights of citizenship in the same way as, for example, the Irish and the Australian people. I do not see why they should have been denounced as they were. This is the way of thinking in Quebec, and it does not seem to me that a government which has been elected and retained in power by the solid phalanx of the Liberal of Quebec, supported by what Liberals were left in the other provinces, should now be ashamed of that attitude and not place itself solidly on the ground defined to-night by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail). If the government should
Supply-National Defence

do so it would be coming back, not only to the old Liberal policy, but would be simply resurrecting the dead policy of the old Conservative party.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Can the hon. member name one Liberal candidate who in the last election gave a peace pledge?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Every one.


Leslie Gordon Bell: My friend is generous almost to a fault. Will he give the name of one Liberal candidate who gave a peace pledge?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Let my hon. friend take the Parliamentary Guide, and, with the exception of three or four who were more concerned with local questions, he will find that practically all the Liberal candidates took that position.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Give me one.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: All of them took the
position that if the electors wanted Canada to be at peace they should vote for the Liberal party, because Mr. Meighen wanted to throw Canada into war over the Chanak affair, and the Liberal government prevented it; and that if the people wanted to have terms of peace accepted in London at the next imperial conference, they must stand back of the Liberal government. I think they were right. If that is not a pledge-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Where is the
pledge?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not a lawyer, but I have always considered that when a candidate defines his position he is giving a pledge. I have enough confidence in the sense of honour of members of parliament-even of members on my hon. friend's side-not to consider it necessary to have them go before a notary public and sign and seal a document that they will not do this or that, or that they will stand by this or that. I do not believe that candidates for political honours and responsibilities should ever come to the point with their electors of being obliged to send for a notary public to witness their signature to a document defining their attitude.


Leslie Gordon Bell: We will let it go
at that-no pledge.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the item before the committee and to deal with some of the matters that have been brought forward to-night. Let us understand what this so-called increase is. Taking the militia vote, the figures we are dealing with total $11,035,800. I want the committee to go back to 1913-14; they will find the cor-

responding item at that time was $11,243,540. In other words, notwithstanding that the cost of material, of living and of salaries has increased at least 50 per cent, the vote this year is less than it was in 1913-14. I want further to call attention to the fact that in 1914-15 the militia vote totalled $11,593,696- also more than the present estimates.


Mr. QUINN:: I see the total is $18,720,000 for this year.


James Layton Ralston: I am talking about the
militia vote. There was no vote for the air service in the estimates in the earlier years. Let us discuss the militia vote, because after all that is the military vote which is engaging our attention. I am asking for $11,035,000 as against $11,243,000 in 1913-14 and $11,593,000 in 1914-15. I undertake to say that if this vote were calculated in the dollar and cent value of 1913-14 it would not amount to more than $7,000,000.
Now, the increases which have been spoken of in a sort of offhand way as if they had been made without any reason at all, can be explained if the committee will 'look at the facts for a moment. There is about a $6,000,000 increase in the two years. $3,000,000 of that is for the air service-increased expenditure in connection with aviation. We are being constantly reminded of the fact that we are not spending enough on aviation, that we are not getting ahead fast enough.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Civil aviation?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. At Camp Borden
we have training for both civil and military aviation, in order that we may have the benefit of the combined training and save the overhead of two establishments. Part of the training at camp Borden is devoted to civil aviation, but it is included in the military vote. Consequently a portion of the vote for military aviation should be allotted to civil aviation.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do those who take the
course in civil aviation get their certificates without being under any obligation whatsoever for military service? They are not on the reserve force at all?


James Layton Ralston: I can assure my hon.
friend that that is so. Another million dollars in this vote, as hon. gentlemen know, is on account of the cost of one destroyer to replace those which are now obsolete. There is $4,000,000 accounted for right off the bat. I do not think we ought to worship the fetish of no increases. Increases should be granted if there is good reason for them. I do not think there is very much in the point that there happens to be an increase over last year, or

Supply-National Defence
that there is necessarily any virtue in a decrease. The item should be justified on its
merits.
Every opportunity will be given to deal with each item separately, but at the moment I wish to run over the vote roughly and compare it with that for last year. There is an increase under the heading of general stores. At the close of the war we had a lot of stores on hand, but they have been gradually depleted, and last year we had to increase our supplies to make good those withdrawals. We have been using ammunition each year in connection with the rifle training and in connection with the general work of the department and we are not making even enough to keep up the stock of ammunition supplies. We had but a small amount of ammunition on hand and it seemed to me only the part of efficiency and economy that we at least should see to it that we made as much ammunition as we used.
In reference to the non-permanent active militia there is provision for an increase of three days in respect of such units as go to camp. Let me give the committee an idea of what our establishment consists. There is an establishment of 126,000 men, and an enlistment of between 60,000 and 65,000; and only 33,000 men are trained. Of these 33,000 some go to rural camps while others train in armouries; the urban units are trained for the most part at local headquarters. What has been done in connection with these rural camps? Last year the men went for nine days, which meant only about seven days of work. Previous to the war they went for sixteen days. I am asking that they be given twelve days, because that means that they will have only about nine days' training. Let us leave the men out of consideration altogether: nine days' training in the year is not too much for officers who have to assume some responsibility in connection with their units. Indeed, it is a very small amount of training, and it is the best opportunity the officers have for training.
A good deal has been said about military swank and all that sort of thing. I have not the time to deal with the many witty remarks-which I do not think add very much to the discussion-that have been made in this regard. I never was in the militia myself before the war, but I do not think there is necessity for any man to apologize for the Canadian militia, when we consider the contribution which this country made to the war. The Canadian militia and the officers who had attended the camps, many of them having given their services free, acquitted themselves well; and it was the fact that they had been trained that enabled this country to get together a large number of men in a very short time at the outbreak of the world war. I urge therefore the importance of this provision for three days' additional training.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the minister say that the majority of the men who went overseas had trained before the outbreak of the war?


James Layton Ralston: I am not talking about
the men, but the officers. I thought I had made myself clear.


John Arthur Clark: Is it not a fact that almost 90 per cent of the first Canadian contingent had trained in the Canadian militia before the outbreak of the war?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot tell my hon.
friend; nor can I answer the question asked by the hon. member from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). I would think that there could not be a large proportion of the Canadian expeditionary force who had trained with the militia because the number training yearly was comparatively small. To-day we are training only 33,000 men in all, both at local headquarters and in camps, so that there could not be a large number of those in the ranks who had previously been trained. But there was at least a large number of officers, among those who went overseas, who had had militia training; and these officers as well as the men, I think, played their part and well justified the training they had received. I want the committee to understand that I have in mind primarily the training of officers. But, in order that there may be an opportunity for proper training, these additional three days are included in the non-permanent active militia vote.
With regard to the permanent force, there is an increase that represents an addition of about ninety men. I find, in connection with the Royal Canadian Artillery at Halifax and Esquimalt, that we have not enough men to man the defence lights. These two places are points of important contact with the outside world. These are two important focal points that should be defended, and I am asking for an additional vote in this connection to bring the permanent force up, not to strength nor to authorized establishment, but in order to fill up certain gaps where necessary so that the force may be rendered reasonably efficient-I have found in the year's experience I have had that in connection with some of the units we have had merely a skeleton. There has been too much overhead and the supplying

Supply-National Defence

of these men will make for economy and enable us to take on services that we cannot now undertake. Perhaps the committee may know that the military are furnishing signal services in connection with the Hudson bay expedition. It was necessary to have a personnel to do that, and I am taking on technical men particularly in order that we may have a larger force for these various purposes, especially at Halifax and Esquimalt.
There is a vote of $10,000 extra for the Royal Military College. The topographic survey has also made a strong case for an increase of 85,000 which, after consultation, I have agreed to put in the estimates. In connection with transport and freight, the vote has been absolutely too low and I have increased it to provide reasonably for an account which I must admit has been overdrawn in the matter of transport and freight largely for those going to camp.
These are the items in connection with which an increase is made. Let me assure the committee that these increases are not made in any militaristic spirit; they are not made because anyone here is glorifying war. I heard the remarks of my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), whose sincerity I respect, as I respect the sincerity of hon. members across the floor. But when I hear an hon. gentleman speaking of somebody coming forward-I think this was the expression he used-with a sanctimonious declaration of love for peace. I do not think it is quite fair to members of the house generally who have just as sincere a desire for peace as he has, notwithstanding what he may think. We have some responsibilities in this country as well as our desire for the idealistic. We realize that we are living in a world where we must keep our feet on the ground. I hope my hon. friend from Southeast Grey has accepted my apology-which I intended to make as abject as I could-but I want to assure her that this department is not being run with a view to bringing some personal glory to the minister or in order that the minister may make a success of it. My hon. friend might as well suggest that my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was anxious to encourage crime in order that the penitentiaries might be filled, so that his department would be magnified.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Is the minister apologizing
to the hon. member for Southeast Grey with regard to the statement that officers were not men?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I didn't say that; I
only asked, were they?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend heard
what I said. I say, this department is not run in order to aggrandize the present minister. But it is necessary' that we should have a reasonable degree of efficiency. I do not agree with either the hon. member for Southeast Grey or the hon. member for Labelle, one of whom says that these expenditures are an absolute waste while the other suggests that the present provision is a farce. We are trying, on the best advice we can obtain and after consultation, not simply with military people but with those who take a deep interest in the defence of the country, to provide a reasonable service, to the end that we in Canada may hold up our heads and not only be prepared to defend our country but for another purpose which I am afraid some members of the committee do not realize is essential, namely, that we should be prepared to maintain our position as neutrals should the occasion arise. Because we happen to see a soldier on the street we need not conclude that we are going out to look for a fight. That is not the idea at all. The object is that we shall provide a reasonable force for defence and to maintain our neutrality if an emergency calls for it.
Now I should like to say just a word with regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from Southeast Grey referring to the military tournament at Montreal. I want to tell her that that tournament was not held at the expense of the department or the country in any way; I understand it was arranged by he officers and men of the Montreal militia units who gave a great deal of time and effort to it. I hope the hon. member was there; I would commend the show, if I may call it so, to anyone who would like to see good, clean, wholesome entertainment. I would commend it ahead of a good many other entertainments which were no doubt attended by respectable people in Montreal on that particular evening. If anyone wanted to see good gymnastic exhibitions, good drill and good equitation that was the place to go, and the good people of the city of Montreal did not seem to fear that their militaristic spirits would be unduly roused. I think the attendance the first night was 6,000 or 7,000; on the second night I understand 9,000 people were there, and on the third night the attendance was about 12,000.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Will the minister admit that was glorifying war just the same?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry, but I cannot admit that at all. I want to say that there are a good many members of this house who

Supply-National Defence
have reasons for not glorifying war just as keen as those held by some of the hon. members who have spoken to-night. There is no attempt and no intention to glorify war, but there is some reason in this country for young men, having the idea that they have some duty to their country other than to simply get their living from it-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the minister inferring that those of us who talk as we have talked to-night are only here to get our living out of the country?


James Layton Ralston: The minister is not inferring that at all, as I am sure my hon. friend knows.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is what one would infer.


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry my hon. friend took that inference, because there was no ground for it. I am only saying that a person is not necessarily glorifying war because he happens to put on a military uniform. While we have been carrying on military operations in a small way, I have not heard of very many Canadians who are anxious to go to war simply for love of it. I do not think that because you train a boy to use boxing gloves he is naturally going to become a pugilist or that he will be wanting to fight all the time. If we are going to adopt that sort of reasoning it seems to me that training in athletics or any kind of physical exercise is going to train the boy to use violence instead of the ordinary peaceful methods of life. I do not think there is much fear of producing that mental attitude simply because a man may happen to spend so many days in camp, or because he shoulders a rifle a few times.
Then I wish to say just a word with regard to this matter of peace and war and the conflicting policies suggested by my hon. friends, and I commend these remarks to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. For five, six, seven or eight years we have been talking disarmament; we have been working hard for it. When I say "we" I mean Canada; we are a member of the League of Nations, and the commissions of that league have been working with all their strength towards a position by which disarmament may be brought about. As yet that result has not been attained; I do not want to be discouraging or blue about it, but at the same time the prospects are not any too bright, judging from tihe last meeting of the preparatory conference on disarmament. But then along comes the United States with a proposition out of the blue, not that we should disarm but that we should become parties to a pact for 56103-2121
the renunciation of war. Does my hon. friend suggest that because the United States have taken that step they are inconsistent or hypocritical when, almost at the same moment, they increase their naval estimates by almost a quarter of a billion dollars? They realize that there is still a practical situation in the world.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the minister if the cutting down of the naval estimates so drastically was not quite in line with that very movement?


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps it was, but I am only saying to my hon. friend that there does not seem to be any immediate prospect of disarmament, notwithstanding the fact that the United States is sincerely endeavouring to bring about peace. We are still in the world, and we have to remember that this utopian situation has not come about as yet. I do not want to take time to quote figures, but I think we have the smallest per capita expenditure in the world with regard to militia expenditures, and when we ask for a vote of S1.70 per capita, that should be compared with the per capita expenditure of France, which is $7.60; of Italy which is $6.11; of Japan, which is $3.91; of Germany, which is $2.60; of the United States, which is $5.07; of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is $13.03; of New Zealand, which is $3.07; of South Africa, which is $3.55 and of Australia, for which I have not the figure for this year, but which was $4.58 last year.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has the minister the
figure for Denmark?


James Layton Ralston: No; I am sorry, but I have not that figure. I submit that we are not travelling very fast along the road towards militarism when we request that amount.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if the
minister has the figures for the Scandinavian countries?


James Layton Ralston: No, I have not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Why give the figures for the militaristic countries instead of the figures for those countries which are striving for peace?


James Layton Ralston: I should have thought,
from what I have heard, that Belgium is striving for peace; the United States is striving for peace, together with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. I did hear that Russia was striving for peace, but I see that the per capita expenditure of that country is $3.06.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: I wonder why the minister gives us that figure?


James Layton Ralston: Because I notice it here, and Russia is a country which made a proposition only a short time ago for complete disarmament. At the same time, she spends $3.06 per capita on this account.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the minister is accusing Russia of insincerity because of that act?


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what my hon. friend means by that. I will undertake to say that the actual expenditure is much more than the figure I have given, because Russia pays part of her military expenditures in kind which does not appear in dollars and cents at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not the minister accusing Russia of insincerity?


James Layton Ralston: No. I say that a country which is held up before the world as one which proposes disarmament is herself spending $3.06 per capita on this account.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 25, 1928