1928-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I move that the
preliminary statement of accounts of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1927, laid on the table of the house on Tuesday, March 6, be referred to the select standing committee on railways and shipping.
Mr. C. IL. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):	It is usual, on the motion of the
Minister of Railways to refer these accounts to the committee, to have a presentation by the minister to the house of the financial affairs of the Canadian National Railways. It is impossible for members of the 'house to have access to the typewritten statement that has been presented, and it seems to me that another occasion should be afforded, after the printed return is brought down and distributed, for hon. members to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with it.
Mr. DUNNING:: The preliminary statement of accounts was prepared in order to facilitate consideration, by a special committee of the house, of Canadian National matters as relating to the past year, and in the meantime every effort is being made by the management to get the completed accounts ready, together with the annual statement which accompanies them. Just as soon as that is in my hands I will be glad to table it in the house. I would call attention to the fact, however, that in former years 'any statement by the>
Minister of Railways has been made not in connection with the tabling of the accounts but in connection with the motion to refer the estimates to the special committee, and in fact there are several occasions upon which the minister might make such a statement as that mentioned by my hon. friend. In the meantime, we are merely enabling the committee to get along with its work. I am assured by the management that in previous

years there has been very little variation in the final audited statement of accounts from the preliminary statement which will be available for the members of the special committee, and I shall make ever effort to supply a complete statement of the accounts to all members of the house as soon as I possibly can.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay
on the table a copy of the order in council passed by the government for the test movement of coal from Alberta to Ontario.



FERTILIZER ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72, to amend the Fertilizer Act.
He said: The chief amendment to this act is a provision for increasing the percentage of active ingredients in the fertilizer used in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 73, respecting the inspection and grading of hay and straw.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: The provisions of
this act were almost entirely incorporated in the old Sale and Inspection Act, which was under the administration of the Department of Trade and Commerce. This act is now being administered by the Department of Agriculture, and the main provisions of the bill have to do with certain changes in the grades of hay, to meet the requirements of each province.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
PATROL BOAT "a"

Mr. COWAN:: 1.	Did any department of the government, between September 30th, 1926, and September, 1927, purchase copies, in quantities, of the newspapers known as The Halifax Chronicle and The Daily Star, of Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the total number of such papers purchased, by what department, and what disposition was made of such copies so purchased?
3.	What is the regular retail price of such papers, and what price was paid for such by the government departments ?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Rinfret):: Department of Marine and Fisheries
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 10,000 copies of the special New Year's edition (1927) and 10,000 copies of the special confederation edition (July 1, 1927).
(b)	Department of Marine and Fisheries, as each edition featured the fisheries of the Dominion and the activities of the department in connection therewith.
(c)	Mailed to fishermen in Nova Scotia.
3.	(a) Three cents a copy.
(b) For the New Year's edition seven cents a copy, which covered the cost of wrapping and mailing. For the confederation edition five cents a copy, which also covered the cost of wrapping and mailing.
Department of Immigration and Colonization
1.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization purchased copies of the special New Year edition (1927) of the Morning Chronicle and Evening Echo, published at Halifax.
2.	Four thousand copies for distribution in the British Isles and the United States.
56103-99J
3.	No information as to the regular retail price of this edition. The department paid 7 cents per copy, this to include individual wrapping and addressing, as well as the postage, the latter alone amounting to 5 cents per copy.


E4ST END LIGHTHOUSE
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Who is the keeper of the East End lighthouse, Pictou Island?
2.	What is the remuneration paid to such keeper ?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
4.	Who is in receipt of the subsidy paid for motor ferry service between Pictou Island and the mainland?
5.	What was the amount of subsidy paid by the federal government for that service during the calendar years 1925-26-27?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Rinfret):: 1.	William Creighton MacDonald, O.A.S.
2.	$420 per annum.
3.	He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
4.	No information.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
bronfman prosecutions


Mr. EVANS:: 1.	Have legal proceedings been instituted against the Bronfman liquor interests (who operated in Saskatchewan) in accordance with the advice of the Hon. N. W. Rowell, K.C., counsel for the customs commission?
2.	What has been done regarding the evidence and exhibits submitted to the Department of Justice, on the advice of the Hon. N. W. Rowell, showing violations by the Bronfman company of, (a) the Criminal Code; (b) the Excise Act; (c) Food and Drug Act?
3.	AVhat has been done regarding the evasions by the above company of, (a) the income tax; (b) the business profits tax?
4.	Has legal prosecution been instituted against the above company? If not, why?


Mr. EULER:: Mr. Speaker, it is practically imposible to make a categorical reply to the questions asked, and perhaps for that reason I might be permited to make a verbal explanation. The hon. member for Rosetown makes inquiry as to whether legal procedings have been taken against the Bronfman liquor interests in acordance with the advice of Hon. Mr. Rowell, who was the counsel for the royal commission investigating the Department of Customs. I might say that the recommendations come from the commission itself and not from Mr. Rowell.
The hon. member also asked for information regarding violations of the Criminal Code, the Excise Act and the Food and Drugs Act by what he calls the Bronfman company. I might say that as far as I know
Questions

there is no distinctive Bronfman company; as a matter of fact there are no fewer than twenty-eight companies and concerns in which the Bronfmans are interested, in addition to some twelve individuals. All these companies and individuals are now under investigation with regard to the possible collection of taxes which have not been paid. The records of these companies and individuals are more or less incomplete, and I think the house will understand when I say that to cover the records of so many concerns will require a considerable time, but these investigations are being pursued.
With regard to the matter of criminal prosecutions, there is only one recommendation in this connection from the commission itself. That recommendation is that action should be instituted against Harry Bronfman for the alleged bribery of a customs official in the city of Winnipeg. Some time ago counsel was employed through the Department of Justice to carry on this prosecution, but unfortunately considerable delay has been caused by reason of the prolonged illness of the chief witness, who is an officer of the customs department.
With regard to the violations of the Excise Act and the Food and Drugs Act, I may say there was no question of revenue involved in those violations, and as far as prosecutions are concerned, in the words of the commission itself conviction is now impossible by reason of the limitations in connection with such prosecutions.
I might just add in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that all the concerns as to which either investigations or prosecutions were recommended are being so investigated or prosecuted; I think I may say that without making any exceptions, and there are one hundred or more concerns mentioned in the report of the royal commission. They are all under investigation; in some cases prosecutions have actually taken place, and in a good many other instances we have collected the revenues concerned. I might add further that as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, we are taking action, and I assure the house that we will collect every dollar of revenue which is properly and legally owing to the government by the Bronfmans or by anyone else, for that matter.
exportation op butter and cream


Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What quantity of butter and cream was exported to the United States during the year 1927?
2.	What quantity of butter was exported to England during the year 1927?
3.	What quantity of butter was exported to other countries during the same year?


William Daum Euler: I would call attention to the fact that this question was answered on March 12.


PRISONERS IN PENITENTIARIES
Mr. BOURGEOIS:: 1.	Are prisoners confined in penitentiaries throughout the Dominion permitted to receive and despatch letters from and to relatives and friends?
2.	If so, how many of such letters are they permitted to receive and send each month during their confinement ?
3.	Are there regulations prohibiting any correspondence until after the expiration of any specific time after their confinement?
4.	If so, what is said specific time?
5.	What provisions, if any, are made for prisoners' recreation or exercise?
6.	When a public holiday falls on a Monday are prisoners compelled to remain in their cells from the close of working time on Saturday until the following Tuesday morning?
7.	If not, for what purposes and under what conditions are they allowed out?
8.	Are the same regulations in force in all penitentiaries throughout Canada?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	To or from relatives, yes; to or from friends, yes, if special circumstances require it.
2.	Inmates are permitted to receive all proper letters. Inmates are permitted to write one social letter to relatives each month; also all necessary letters to transact bona fide business; also should necessity arise, permission is granted to write " special letters."
3.	No. They may write as soon as received at the institution.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	Inmates working on farm or at such outside employment are not given exercise. Instructions call for all other inmates employed in buildings, shops, etc. to have fifteen minutes outside exercise each forenoon and afternoon. A total of thirty minutes per day.
6.	Instructions issued are that should a holiday and Sunday come together inmates are to work one-half of the holiday. This does not apply, however, should Christmas fall on a Saturday or Monday, as on Christmas day they go to Church in the forenoon and are treated to concerts during the afternoon. On Sunday the inmates are out of their cells to their meals and also for the purpose of attending church.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	Yes.


STEAMSHIP FERNFIELD
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Are the owners, or any other persons directly or indirectly in receipt of a subsidy from the Dominion government in respect to the ss. Fernfield now operating out of Canso, Nova Scotia?

Questions
2.	If so, what is the amount of such subsidy, and to whom is it paid?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Rinfret):: 1.	No information.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What is the total cost, including interest, to date under the Soldier Settlement Act and including the 3,000 family scheme, divided into: (a) expenditure on purchase of land and improvement loans; (b) expenditure on stock and equipment; (c) cost of management, including cost of maintaining the Soldier Land Settlement Board?
2.	How many families have been placed on the land under the above schemes, and the total acreage so settled?
3.	(a) How many families are now actually resident on the said lands, and the total acreage involved?
(b) How many of these are in arrears of payment and to what total amount?
4.	What is the estimated total loss sustained, or to be sustained under the Soldier Settlement Act and the 3,000 family scheme, divided as
Department of Immigration and Colonization- 1.
follows:	(a) loss on land, including that on
land already salvaged and sold at a loss; estimated loss to be incurred by the revaluation now being carried out; estimated loss on lands still held by the government but which will have to be sold at a reduction from cost; (b) loss on stock and equipment, including that on Btock and equipment already salvaged and resold at a loss; loss by rebate ordered by statute a few years ago?


Ernest Lapointe: Department of Indian Affairs-
1.	(a) $279,564.26; Ob) $191,879.23; (c) $22,727.92.
2.	224 families, 15,795 acres.
3.	(a) 169 families, 14,685 acres; (b) 154 families, $46,877.84.
4.	(a) Loss on land $38,614.27; there has not been a sufficient number of revaluations received to enable a reliable estimate to be made of the loss that may be sustained; will be rented to cover any loss; (b) Loss on equipment $19,307.14; loss on stock and equipment $15,458.38.
(a)			$ 71,922,316 17 28 871 87* fta
(b)			
(c)			1ft 243 QQQ 74
Expenditure on Expenditure on Expenditure on settlers.. ..	Removal of encumbrances	 Seed, feed, insurance, taxes, etc... account of loans to Indian soldier	
Interest charges

Total	 $139,914,065 97
2.
Soldier settlers with loans	 24 480
Soldier grant entries (without loans)	 12136
Indian soldier settlers	 224
Civilian purchasers	 2 523
British families	 ?'q7n
Total settlement	 41733
Acreage with loans	 4 326 742
Acreage soldier grants	 j 55256O
Total acreage
3 (a)
Soldier settlers with loans.. Soldier grants without loans
Indian soldier settlers	
Civilian purchasers	
British families	
5,879,302
15,373
6.469
2,215
2,283
Total resident on land	 26,509
Total acreage involved	 3,700,000
(b) 10,439 settlers; $5 933.972 in arrears.
Questions

Department of Immigration and Colonization-Concluded.
4.	There is no loss in the 3,632 units of land that have been resold as at December 31 1927, but a surplus of $412,676.52.
(a)	Estimated loss on revaluation	
Estimated loss on lands still held by the government
(b)	Estimated loss on stock and equipment	
(c)	Loss on rebate on stock and equipment



$8,000,000 00 4,600,000 00 6,300 000 00 2,923 381 51 NAVAL STATIONS-HALIFAX AND ESQUIMALT

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Who owns the naval stations at Halifax and Esquimalt?
2.	In ease of war, could naval operations be carried on from these bases independent of action on the part of Canada?


Mr. RALSTON:: 1 and 2. The Dominion government own and control the Naval Stations at Halifax and Esquimalt.



IMMIGRATION AGENTS

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What are the names, salaries and expense
accounts of all immigration agents in the employment of the department during the past three years? ,	_	.
2.	What companies or corporations, associations or societies have acted as agents for the Department of Immigration during the past three years?
3.	Upon what class of immigrants does the government pay bonuses?
4.	What is the total amount of such bonuses in each of the last three years?
5.	If any of these bonuses are paid to agents, transportation companies or associations, what amount in each case?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	Immigration Agents in Canada
Name and Place
Fiscal Year 1924-25
Salaries
$ cts.
Expenses
$ cts.
Fiscal Year 1925-26
Salaries
$ cts.
Expenses
$ cts.
Fiscal Year 1926-27
Salaries
$ cts.
Expenses
$ cts.
W. L. Bamstead, Halifax....
A. G. Christie, North Sydney
J. V. Lantalum, St. John....
E. J. O'Connell, Quebec....
A. Regimbal, Montreal	
H. C. Sweeney, Hamilton....
John Riggs, London	
J. C. Mitchell, Toronto	
J. Gronow, Lloydminster	
J. Deans, North Battleford__
E. E. Wilson, Edmonton	
M. R. J. Reid, Vancouver...
Dr. H. E. Tremayne, Prince
Rupert	
S. N. Reid, Victoria	
E. C. Moquin, Montreal	
2.640 1,350
2.640
2.640 1,680 1,620
2,880
650
2,160
2,520
1,000
2,400
00
00
00
00
00
00
11 10
81 15 36 25 5 75
2.640	00	
1,575 00	22 00
2.640	00	
2,760 00	147 55
2.640	00 1,650 00
2.640	00 2,518 34
33 25
1,740 00
1,740 00
231 80
6 00 32 55 404 39
2,880 00 480 00 650 00 2,160 00 2,520 00
185 50
7 05 123 28 459 00
2,880 00 100 00 650 00 2,160 00 2,520 00
189 02
64 80 555 10
00
1,000 00 2,520 00 2,700 00
221 63
1,000 00 2,640 00 2,820 00
17 25
Emigration Agents in Great Britain
C. A. Allen, Liverpool	3,000 00	765 53D. E. Lothian, Glasgow	2,010 00	2,441 34W. Griffith, Bangor	2,560 00	1,012 33J. H. Lough, Belfast	2,640 00	1,904 18F. Campbell, Birmingham....	3,000 00	1,771 24E. G. Everett, Peterborough.	2,400 00	1,068 38J. Cardale, Bristol	3,000 0C	1,375 22G. Hornsey, London	1,920 00	1,870 56W. Story, Dublin	1,540 00	985 74D. J. Murphy, Dublin	2,760 00	796 33Miss A. MacDonald, Inverness	1,920 00	1,314 48F. W. Kerr, Liverpool	3,000 00	1,642 83H. B. Roy, Southampton	1,040 00	613 18G. S. Coward, London	67 09	64 9C
A. M. Black, Birmingham			
3.000	00 2,040 00 2,700 00 2,760 00 3.000	00 1.000	00 3.000	00 1,890 00 1,620 00 2,880 00 1,920 00 3.000	00	955 35 1,834 60 1,154 05 1,224 24 3,355 08	3.000	00 1,950 00 2,820 00 2,880 00 3.000	00	967 17 1,641 46 1,173 09 1,436 75 2,219 671,258 68 1,716 38 677 63 1,482 35 1,282 59 1,870 22	3.000	00 1,860 00 1,740 00 3.000	00 2,040 00 (See U.	1,120 42 1,891 67 496 66 947 86 1,044 49 S. List)1,560 00	969 70	1,680 00	1,229 701,040 00	725 43	1,620 00	485 751,086 14	1,244 32	1,620 00	1,350 8/
*Mr. Forked

Questions
Emigration Agents in Great Britain-Concluded
Name and Place	Fiscal Year 1924-25	Fiscal Year 1925-26	Fiscal Year 1926-27	Salaries	Expenses	Salaries	Expenses	Salaries	ExpensesF. B. Cotsworth, York	
M. D. MacCharles, Birming-	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 910 00 1,014 84 1,538 34 1,572 58 520 00 407 33	$ cts. 984 11 971 36 896 32 1,177 82 676 78 624 86	$ cts. 1,950 00	$ cts. 1,743 631,650 00 1,680 00 1,620 00 499 03	1,280 99 1,787 26 945 44 622 02J. G. Perdue, Liverpool	
J. L. Malcolm, Glasgow	
G. L. Ferguson, Liverpool	
All agents in Great Britain receive an annual living allowance of $500.00.
Emigration Agents on Continent
J. A. Mitchell, Antwerp	 G.A.B. Buchanan, Rotterdam J. A. Chapdelaine, Hamburg.. J. A. Jepps, Antwerp	 R. McBrearty, Danzig		1,920 00	179 94	2.700	00 1.950	00 1,560 00 2.700	00 1,620 00 1,920 00 2,640 00 1.950	00	464 90 170 71 277 86 530 81 355 36 48 14	2,820 00 2.070	00 1,800 00 1,459 33 29 20 2,340 00 2,760 00 2.070	00	66 00 213 29 2,306 46 402 32
						1,278 97 179 40 102 00
						
A. O. Petersen, Riga					72 50		
The agent at Danzig receives a living allowance of $800.00 per annum.
All other agents on the continent receive a living allowance of $500.00 per annum.
Emigration Agents in United States
M. A. Bowlby, Boston	
C. J. Broughton, Chicago	
W. S. Nethery, Columbus	
A. E. Pelkie, Omaha	
J.	M. MacLachlan, Detroit.... G. Charette, Fall River	
W. E. Black, Fargo	
K.	Haddeland, St. Paul.. G. A. Cook, Great Falls	
F. A. Harrison, Harrisburg	
R. A. Garrett, Indianapolis	
W. M. Ingram, Indianapolis. . . M. J. Johnstone, Kansas City.. J. McColl, Kansas City	2.400	00 3.000	00 2.400	00 2,520 00 3.000	00 188 57 2,4C0 00 2,560 00 2.400	00 3.000	00 3,0C0 00 400 00 2,760 00 802 36 2.400	CO 500 00 500 00 188 57 1,680 00 3,500 00 3.000	00 2.400	00 228 57	1,809 25 2,578 74 2,349 79 3,135 70 1,853 31 148 64 2,075 82 2,406 11 1,734 54 1,619 19 1,912 64 838 98 3,762 38 2,208 64 1,926 20 263 96 329 12 t43 29 573 29 388 76 1,612 61 1,915 59 152 65	2.400	00 3.000	00 2.400	00 2,700 00 3.000	CO 1,920 00 2.400	00 2,VC0 00 2.400	00 3.000	00 3.000	00	1,469 56 3,104 60 2,667 36 2,962 46 1,718 36 774 57 2.053 94 2,323 77 1,448 60 1,014 71 2,225 91	2.400	00 3.000	00 2.400	00 2,820 00 3.000	00 1,340 34 2,460 00 2,820 00 2.400	00 3.000	00 3,0C0 00	1,014 23 3,211 36 2.204	53 3.204	98 1,958 14 787 13 1,964 17 2,551 27 1,342 66 795 13 2,457 522,880 00	3,830 73	3,000 00	3,410 66C. A. Laurier, Manchester	
G. A. Hall, Milwaukee	2.4C0 00	956 10	2,400 00	828 90W. V. Bennett, Omaha	J. B. Riordon, Manchester. . .. R. Laurier, Saginaw	
G. Roche, San Francisco	
J. L. Porte, Spokane	
O. G. Rutledge, Svracuse	
L. A. Delorme, Woonsocket... G. F. Brooks, DesMoines	
D. N. McDonell, Fargo	
W. J. Fraser, Kansas City.... C. E. Smith, Syracuse	
W. D. Breckon, St. Paul	
F. W. Kerr, Detroit	1.920	00 1,680 00 3,500 00 3,000 00 2,400 00 1.920	00 1.490	67 1.490	67 1.538	34 1.490	67 1.538	34	883 79 593 97 391 97 1,756 36 1,885 39 417 19 3,896 28 2,598 23 3,518 92 4,170 19 3,439 29	2.040	00 1,680 00 3,500 00 3,0C0 00 2,000 00 2.040	00 1.650	00 1.650	00 1.650	00 1.650	00 1.650	00 3,000 00	651 06 311 25 342 42 1,168 20 1,128 04 812 83 3,044 85 2,274 21 3,248 72 3,889 68 3,376 39 1,409 38
Mr. G. Roche has an annual living allowance of $900.00.
Mr. R. Laurier has no living allowance.
All the rest of the agents have an annual living allowance of $500.00.
Immigration Agents in the United States.
Jas. Stahl, Boston	2,160 00	2,160 00 2,490 00	2,160 00 2,610 00	W. H. Sullivan, New York..	83 14	100 42
Mr. Jas. Stahl received an annual living allowance of $420.00.
Mr. \\. H. Sullivan received an annual living allowance of $780.00.
Questions

2.	None.
3.	None.
4 and 5. Covered by No. 3.



MARGARET MCCONACHIE

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	On what date did the child Margaret McConachie leave the Old Country, sailing to port of Halifax, Canada?
2.	What port did she sail from?
3.	On what date did she reach Halifax?
4.	How many medical inspectors gave reports on this ease?
5.	What are their names and duties?
6.	On what date was a board of inquiry formed regarding this case?
7.	Why was it formed and who composed the board?
8.	On what authority did Dr. J. Hudson Clifford of Bellshill, Lanarkshire, make an examination and report on this case?
9.	How long had this medical inspector been employed by government of Canada?
10.	How many immigrants has this inspector examined for Canada?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	December 10, 1927.
2.	Glasgow.
3.	December 17, 1927.
4.	Three in Canada and three in England following the return of the child to the old country.
5.	Drs. Rutherford and Guthro, medical officers of the Department of Health at Halifax; Dr. Page, chief officer of the immigration medical service of the Department of Health, Ottawa. Those who saw the child after its return to England were Dr. D. A. Clark, assistant deputy minister, Department of Health; Dr. H. B. Jeffs, chief medical officer of that Department in London; and Dr. Parney, assistant chief medical officer in London.
6.	The board of inquiry at Halifax was apointed by the minister in pursuance of section 13 of the Immigration Act. The session of the Board at which the McConachie case was dealt with, was held on December 22, 1927.
7.	The board was held1 as provided by section 14 of the Immigration Act to determine whether Margaret McConachie should be allowed to land in Canada. The board comprised G. L. Mott, chairman, Jules Fellardeau and C. A. Martin.
8.	On the request of the Socety for the overseas settlement of British women.
9.	Dr. Clifford was never employed by this department, or by the Department of Health.
10.	The department has no information.



POSTAL DELIVERY SERVICE

Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo South):: 1. What population must a town have before it can qualify for a postal delivery service?
EMr. Forked
2.	What are the names of towns in Canada under a population of 10,000 that are enjoying this service?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	There is no regulation definitely stipulating what population a city or town must have before inaugurating the delivery service by letter carrier. Population is one of a number of factors which have to be considered in connection with the inauguration of the letter carrier delivery service.
2.	Amherst, N.S.; Fredericton, N.B.; Lindsay, Ontario; North Battleford. Sask; Pembroke, Ontario; Prince Albert, Sask.; Waterloo, Ontario.



COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS-GALT, ONTARIO

Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo South):: 1.	Have any steps been taken to fill the vacancy of collector of customs at Galt, Ontario?
2.	Will this position be filled by promotion in the civil service?
3.	Have any recommendations been made to fill this position outside the civil service?
4.	If so, what names were suggested and by whom?


Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Rinfret):: 1.	Yes. The Civil Service Commission has received a requisition for this appointment and a promotional competition has been advertised.
2.	It is expected the position -will be filled by promotion.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



* SALARIES OF POSTAL CLERKS

Mr. ROBINSON:: 1.	Has the hon. the Postmaster General recommended that the salaries of postal clerks should be increased to a maximum of $1,800?
2.	Has such recommendation been acted upon?
3.	Has a report been made thereon?
4.	If not, will report be made in time to enable the matter to be dealt with at the present session of parliament?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I drew attention to this question, or a question similar to this, and remarked that it related more particularly to the proceedings of the cabinet. The question has been changed, but it is still open to the same Objection. The only body to which the Postmaster General could make a recommendation would be the cabinet, and the only body which could act upon such a recommendation in the sense of the question would be the Civil Service Commission. I think any questions relating to the proceedings of the cabinet should not appear on the order paper,

Questions
and if they do so appear it is impossible to make any reply thereto while preserving the traditional secrecy of the cabinet.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



POST OFFICE AT JOLIETTE

Mr. MANION:: 1.	Has there been financial loss through burglary, robbery or stealing recently in the post office at Joliette?
2.	If so, when and what was the amount involved?
3.	Has anyone been found guilty or have investigations into the loss been made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes, through burglary.
2.	February 29th, 1928; loss SI,209.76.
3.	Responsibility not yet established-case still under investigation.



PUBLIC BUILDING-MISSION CITY

Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Did the government purchase a site for a public building at Mission City, British Columbia, in 1913?
2.	Did the government grant an appropriation for the construction of said building?
3.	If so, was the building erected?
4.	If not, was the amount re-voted?
5.	Has the government recently received representations from the board of trade of Mission City to renew appropriation?
6.	If so, what action does the government propose to take?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Matter under consideration.



PUBLIC BUILDING AT ABBOTSFORD

Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Have representations been made to the government by the Abbotsford board of trade, urging the construction of a public building at Abbotsford, British Columbia?
2.	If so. did they point out the necessity for such building to afford better accommodation for the increasing postal and customs business?
3.	What action does the government propose to take?


Mr. ELLIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Representations will receive consideration.



DISMISSAL OF JOSEPH SCHRAM

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What were the reasons for the dismissal of Joseph Schram from the position of postmaster at Fort Pelly, Saskatchewan?
2.	On whose recommendation was the change in this office made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Change of post office site for better accommodation.
2.	Representations were made by residents through Mr. Geo. McPhee, M.P.



DISMISSAL OF JOSEPH LALONDE

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What were the reasons for the dismissal of Joseph Lalonde from the position of postmaster at St. Front, Saskatchewan?
2.	On whose recommendation was the change made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	The postmaster was dismissed for having taken part in the federal election of 1926 as deputy returning officer and enumerator.
2.	Change made on instructions of Postmaster General.



DISMISSAL OF L. BASSHAM

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What were the reasons for the dismissal of Mr. L. Bassham from the position of postmaster at Annette, Saskatchewan?
2.	On whose instructions was the change made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Post office removed to more favourable site.
2.	On instructions from Postmaster General.



ROCKFORD, SASK. POST OFFICE

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What were the reasons for the removal of the post office of Rockford, Saskatchewan, from the residence of N. Galbraith to that of W. Weightman?
2.	On whose recommendation was the change made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	The post office was removed to a more favourable site.
2.	When vacancy occurred, the Postmaster General made inquiry of Mr. J. A. McMillan, of Wadena, Sask., but not having received any reply, requested Mr. Geo. McPhee, M.P., to make inquiries and through him learned that a new location was desired. Representations as to a new site were also made in a petition.



REVISION OF THE STATUTES

Mr. SMOKE:: 1.	Apart from the sum of $71,411.77 paid to the commissioners out of the sum of $123,173.49 stated by the Minister of Justice in reply to a question on February 13, 1928, to have been the total cost to that date of the present revision of the Dominion statutes, to whom has the balance of $51,761.72 been paid?
2.	Apart from the commissioners, what are the names of the persons who have been employed in connection with the present revision of the Dominion statutes?
Questions

3.	What services have been rendered by each of such persons in connection with such revision?
4.	What sum has been paid to each for such services?
5.	What has been the cost to date of the revision of the French edition of said statutes?
6.	What persons have been employed in connection with the French edition of such revision ?
7.	What amount has been paid to each and for what services in each case?


Ernest Lapointe: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The total of the payments stated in the reply given on February 13, 1928, is $71,401.77, not $71,411.77 as stated in the question. The balance is therefore $51,771.72,
which has been paid as below:
Napoleon Laliberte, secretary..	..	$14,666	64J. F. MacNeill, asst, secretary..	..	10,883	08C. P. Plaxton, prof, assistance..	..	325	0(1F. P. Varcoe, prof, assistance..	..	400	00W. Cory, prof, assistance	
250	00R. A. Benoit, translator	
2,375	00R. Mercier, translator	
4,901	17P. G. Chiimet, translator	
6,305'	40L. P. Geoffrion, translator	
1,125	00U. Tremblay, translator	
2.260	80Chas. E. Duckett, translator	2,145	80F. H. Hird, clerical assistance..	..	633	29Sylvia Gould, clerical assistance.	..	220	00Joseph Boucher, clerical assistance.	396	00Printing Bureau, printing and stationery	
4,513	70Sun Publishing Oo., printing	271	17Expressage and postage	
74	35Telegrams	
25	31

5,	6 and 7. The English and French editions were prepared simultaneously and figures of the cost of each edition were not separately kept. However, the sum of $33,779.81 was paid for translating, as follows:
Napoleon Laliberte, secretary.. .. $14,666 64
R. A. Benoit, translator	 2,375 00
Raoul Mercier, translator	 4,901 17
P. G. Ouimet, translator	 6,305 40
L. P. Geoffrion, translator	 1,125 00
U. Tremblay, translator	 2260 80
Chas. E. Duckett, translator		2,145 80



$33,779 81 SALARIES OF POSTAL CLERKS

Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that question No. 23 was answered, although it is a question as to what the government is considering or will consider.


Charles Avery Dunning: Question No. 23 stands.


George Reginald Geary: The same objection could
surely be taken to that as to question No. 19 asked by the hon. member from Essex (Mr. Robinson).
M. MACKENZIE KING: The only answer to the question could be that the matter is under consideration,-nothing more than that.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. STEVENS:: For a return of (a) copy of the application from the Pacific Coast Terminals Limited of Vancouver, for a subsidy under the Cold Storage Act: (b) copy of the order in council authorizing the minister to enter into an agreement with the company, and (c) copy of the agreement between the company and the minister which was signed on February 6th, 1928. Also copy of all correspondence leading up to the filing of the application, and to date.



DISMISSAL OF VALERE LABONTE

Mr. GOTT:: For a return showing all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of any department of the government, relating to the dismissal of Mr. Valere Labonte from his position of excise officer at St. Joseph, Beauce, and the appointment of Mr. J. Edward LeMay in his stead.



WORK ON THE EIDEAU CANAL

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: For a return showing (a) the name; (b) the address; (c) the date of appointment; and, (d) the rate and total amount paid each employee in connection with the work now being carried on by the government on the Rideau canal.



UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from March 19, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Heaps:
That, in the opinion of this house, the committee on industrial and international relations be authorized to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
And the proposed amendment of Mr. Mc-Quarrie:
That the said resolution be amended by adding the following:
"That the said committee be authorized to investigate and report on the operations of companies carrying on sickness and accident insurance business in Canada."
Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned on Monday evening, I was stating that in England and Denmark, they had tried to apply the system of supplementary pen-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Deslauriers
sions, which perhaps would be the system approaching the nearest to the solution of the problem of invalidity, if it was backed by the good will of each individual and if the tendency to criticize did not impede its work, by making it difficult to consider requests for testing the system-prejudicing the minds of those making the inquiry to the extent of having them commit injustices. It is inadmissible that the state should directly force upon its citizens the art of making their savings thrive; it would be much more to the point to encourage, advise and guide them; however, we must submit to what is unavoidable and judge of the facts as they exist. All these systems, whether optional or not, are not adaptable when they are given a practical test. Some set the age for awards at 70, others at 60 or 65, but every day we see men capable of performing work-which they have for a long time done-with the greatest efficiency, and at a more advanced age than that fixed for pension. Must we declare them unfit and consider them entitled to annuities? Certainly not. Likewise, we sometimes come across a person under 60 years old, one who, although young, has become unfit through disease or he may simply be out of work and without hope of finding any; shall we oblige him to wait until he is 70 years old before coming to his assistance? Shall we content ourselves with blaming his lack of thrift? Which is not always the case, for very often ill luck has something to do with it. If therefore citizens have duties towards the state, on the other hand the state itself has duties towards its citizens, duties which it can fufill through special organizations, where individual thrift will be encouraged. All systems based on optional methods have had results that are not conclusive enough, for instance the subsidized optional insurance, voluntary assistance, charity, co-operation, economy reasonably practised, mutuality and participation in benefits; none of these systems have succeeded. That should lead us to advocate-while still having great regard for the freedom of individuals-thrift as enforced in Germany for a certain class of workers. This system has had good results-although not satisfactory enough, because a whole class, the great majority of which are included in the problem of invalidity and old age was set aside, leaving however to this moral person, the state, duties to fulfil towards 'lit. Moreover, if the state has the right to tax each individual, for the construction and upkeep of highways over which numerous citizens will never pass,
why should it not be in order to have a tax for the protection and support of the disabled?
Taking it as granted that it is impossible to find a perfect system owing to the imperfection and inequality of individuals, it is not the less true that we could find a remedy for many needs greatly simplifying the problem.
It is wrong to ascribe to lack of thrift alone the case of an indigent old person or of a disabled one. It may only be partly responsible, while uncontrollable circumstances in the life of individuals are mostly responsible for the problem. To guard against the lack of thrift and the ups and downs of life in all countries, thrift gave birth to insurance. By the same process, personal initiative has benefited many people, either by protecting them in the course of their activities, or by indemnifying them in cases of accidents, sickness, or again by allowing the person carrying an insurance policy, for life or for a limited period, credit of such nature as to inspire consideration and deference for his person on the part of hospitable people, benevolent and charitable societies; moreover of a nature to beget him the necessary cares of old age on the part of his own children. At that age especially, money seems to have great weight with people. But to benefit from an insurance, one condition is necessary: payments on the policy must be regularly made. This may be an easy matter when the person is young, full of health, earns steadily sufficient wages to keep up his policies; but what happens when, even during his period of activities, unemployment, accidents, misfortunes bear down upon him? It is possible that a certain number of individuals may have set aside sufficient savings to meet these contingencies, but the proportion is small among workers. What unfortunately happens with the great majority of them, is that they see their insurance policies cancelled, losing the necessary examination, admittance and regular disbursements, savings gathered through great sacrifices disappear in the vaults of insurance companies. They lose everything at an age when resources are most necessary. This is one of the factors of the problem of old age and invalidity.
The capital invested in all insurance associations or societies, to keep up an insurance policy, should be reimbursed to the insured on the discontinuation of payments on the policy, leaving to the companies the interest on such capital. That is only fair since the banks themselves follow that procedure and can afford to pay themselves dividends of 8 to 10 per cent and more.
1558	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Deslauriers
In most of the societies of mutual assistance, the proviso in their charter allowing the head office to increase the rates of payments according to the age of the insured, may be a necessary financial measure, but the facts are still there to show that in the period of youth and activity, people in health take out insurance policies easily kept up owing to their low rates of payment, and when unemployment-brought on by old age or sickness -stops the wages, it is then that the rates increase two-fold, three-fold and four-fold for those insured who have no other alternative than to mortgage their insurance policies to carry on their payments-and this means the cancelling of the policies within a few years, leaving the old people in poverty. These charters should be amended, otherwise legislators should refuse the granting of them thus closing the door through which comes part of the problem of invalidity.
If to-day, insurance protects people in various ways, which is admitted by everybody it is nevertheless the truth that at times it is the cause of poverty. This may seem a paradox but it is a fact. This altered relationship is so to apeak forced upon it by our legislation on labour in regard to employers' responsibilities -Of labour accidents.
The insurance companies grant to employers insurance policies for their employees, at rates based upon the age and the kind of risk which the work of the employee entails. Now, insurance companies know that generally, at the age of 45, the eyes of a man begin to show signs of myopy or hyperopia, that in certain work this affection may bring on a slight error in judgment and further render the employee liable to accidents, which may even prove fatal; they are aware that at this age, suppleness begins to disappear, a certain stiffness of the muscles and tendons is felt over the whole body, and involuntarily forces the worker, when he goes down the stairs, to strike each step many times with his heels, owing to a kind of nervous shaking which produces an unsteadiness of the legs; these companies know that the power of steadily gripping objects for the same reason begins to change and decrease, which added to impaired sight become a disadvantage for the employer and employee. It is then that insurance companies demand a high premium, even prohibitive; or they entirely refuse to insure the employee so as to protect the employer and themselves. The man working in the shop is then thanked for his services, at an age when he could still work more efficiently than a younger man not having his experience; once dismissed, it is difficult for

him to persuade people to employ him. That is the way a man who can work is declared unfit. The same may be said of a man working on high scaffolds, at 50 years old he is cast aside and no one will employ him, because the employer is not covered by insurance against accidents pertaining to work, and which are liable to happen to a man having reached a certain age. Consequently that workman dismissed as unfit, to whom work will be everywhere refused, first will miss his wages, then his few savings, if he has any, will dwindle down, he will therefore mortgage hie insurance policies and their cancellation will soon follow. Although enjoying relatively good health and capable1 of working, he will see himself classed among the unfit that poverty awaits. This is again a 'road upon which figures the contingent of old people in poverty and those who are forced to become unfit.
Our legislation on labour in relation to the employer's responsibilities towards the employee therefore gives rise precisely to the problem of premature old age and forced invalidity. Now, since we acknowledge such a state of affairs, should we not amend our labour legislation in regard to the employer's responsibilities in such a way, that insurance companies should have no power to cancel policies, and the employer should not be held responsible towards the employee, who has reached a certain age limit and would like to carry on his work?
No doubt we cannot force upon an insurance company rules for its risk rates-that is its business-no more than we can oblige an employer to hire such and such a worker. Labour legislation must be so amended as to allow the workman at any age to earn his living by utilizing his energies such as they are. The state should found a social insurance in which might be admitted any person having reached the age of 40, with special rates or even make up the deficiency existing in various rates. This insurance would be taken care by a tax on successions, by unclaimed balances in banks, by industries which have profited by his toils and by a contribution of the insured. In this way the contingent of disabled and indigent old people would be much decreased. If we include in our legislation what seems to have given the best results in other countries, that is supplementary pension for the unfit whatever be his age or the cause of invalidity, it is most likely that this problem, for so long the object of investigations, would be solved within the limits which are possible to humaD beings.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Edwards
There are duties that devolve upon those who have wealth, towards society and the poor. In any stock-taking the manufacturer must make certain allowance for depreciation of his plant, machinery, tools and goods; why should he not make a certain allowance for depreciation of his human stock: his workmen, his clerks? The rich man must not only play in society the part of receiver withholding all he receives, but also that of a charitable channel spreading around him favours under the guise of insurance against unemployment or old age. If it is necessary the state should allow for such acts by remitting to him certain custom and excise dues or other taxes.
I shall quote on the subject the views of a celebrated economist: "Charity, moreover, is, for the person who practises it, a source of joy, wealth-like the intellect, speech, activity-was bestowed on man not for himself but for others as water was given to the mountain not to remain there but to flow and fertilize the plain. Look at this water leaping from rock to rock, cascade to cascade, on the hillside it is joyous, it sings and casts on its shores the pearls of its foam and song. Why? Because it obeys its law and fulfils its mission of bringing joy and fecundity to the countryside. It is the image of the soul that gives, devotes itself and lives for others. On the contrary look at the stagnant and greenish water in the* hollow of the rock: it is dull and gloomy, putriscent and nauseous; it puts to flight the birds of heaven. Why? Because it should be a living water and it is dead. It is the image of the selfish soul folding within itself and finding in its own selfishness but a mortal weariness. We must live for others, and be the beautiful river which carries its wealth to towns and countryside, we must be generous according to our means, like the humble stream meandering through the meadows. We must be the drop of water which added to other drops is carried away to swell the river. Pray! let us not be marshes."


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Add-ington):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with
considerable interest to the discussion which has taken place on the motion moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and the amendment moved 'by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). Nothing more tragic 'has ever been portrayed on the stage of a theatre than the scenes we meet with every day in the general walks of life throughout the country. No more tragic picture, it seems to me, can be presented for
the consideration of anyone who would like to solve these problems than that of a man who has done his best in life, who 'has played the game fairly with whatever intelligence he has and with the best of objects in view, and Who yet has proved, through unfortunate circumstances, a failure or what, generally speaking, would be called a failure. The unfortunate circumstances might have been in the shape of a period of ill health which he could not control; or he might have been kid off or unable to get work when he was anxious to work. There is often a tendency to regard that man, who is in poor circumstances, struggling hard to get along and to make a fair living for his wife and children, as a failure. That is unfair to any man who has utilized his best efforts and shown a willingness to work when work was available. That man deserves some consideration at the hands of the government of the country in which he lives.
I was very much impressed with statements made in the course of his remarks by the hon. member for Comox-A'lberni (Mr. Neill). He painted a picture which I regard as a true one; it is not overdrawn, so far as I can see, in any particular, and I have read his speech very carefully. He refers to the situation of a man who is on half time or part time or who has no work at all, who finds expenses crowding upon him and who is obliged to cut down the living of his family in order to meet his meagre purse, and to the economic effect of that man's situation on the country at large. The man is unemployed through no fault of his own; his being out of work lessens his power to buy, and this tends to create unemployment in manufacturing industries. That is an argument which struck me as reasonable and sound in every particular. The very fact that the man is out of employment himself and his purchasing power has been thereby decreased makes him a very important factor in producing further unemployment in the country.
Another point which was raised by the hon. member in regard to wages caught my eye. He made the following statement:
If he cannot get W'ork at his own particular trade he will break into some other branch of work, which generally means the casual labour market, thereby aggravating the condition because there is no more work in that market than before. Consequently he has to steal or share some other man's work, which generally means lower wages for both of them, and iurther decreases their purchasing power.
That brought to my mind a thought which I want to speak on for just a few moments, and that is the question of wages. If I might venture to refer to the country across the
1560	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Edwards
line without irritating some hon. gentlemen to the right of the Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that in the United States of America they claim that they are paying the highest scale of wages of any country in the world. They also claim that as regards their labouring or wage-earning classes, they have the highest standard of living of any people similarly engaged in any country in the world. I believe it is largely if not entirely true that, covering the United States of America, the scale of wages is perhaps higher than in any other country, and largely because of that liberal or high scale of wages the standard of living of the wage-earning classes in the United States is possibly as high if not higher than that of wage-earners in any other country in the world.
As this resolution deals with the question of insurance against unemployment, is it not wise to look this matter in the face and ask ourselves what has brought about this state of affairs in the United States? If the proposition is correct that the standard of living and scale of wages in the United States are high as compared with other countries, then it does seem to me that it is reasonable and logical to assume that that condition in the United States, to which their statesmen refer so frequently and so loudly, in praise of themselves, is largely if not entirely attributable to the fiscal policy adapted in that country. Take any class of people that you like in the United States, and what do you find? Even before the war the United States of America was a country with a very high protective tariff wall, but immediately following the war the United States took this position. They said: "We have within the bounds of our country a population of considerably over one hundred millions, and we do not propose to permit the people of other countries, with their cheap labour, to enter our market when the United States is excluded from their markets largely because of the cheap labour which prevails in these European countries which were engaged in the war, and also because of the fact that those countries which were devastated by the war are not in a position to buy our products. We therefore will protect our producers of every class in the United States against the low wage scale of the countries of Europe which were engaged in the war and devastated by the war, and also from the effects of their depreciated and disturbed currency. We will protect our producers in the United States against that unfair competition." I submit that that was a reasonable and sound position for the United States to take, and they have followed that policy wherever any

one of their industries or any class of their people have been exposed to what they consider the unfair competition of the products of Canada or any other country. They have at once, through the power given to their president, put on an embargo or taken other means to keep out of their country the articles which were coming into competition with the products of their own industry. The result has been that in the United States their factories have been running, protected as they are against what they regard as the unfair competition and the low wage scale of Great Britain and the countries of continental Europe, and their people have been employed because their factories have been running. There has also been encouragement for production on the farms in the United States through the tariffs which they have imposed against Canada and other countries in order to protect their own farm products from the cheap production of the Argentine and other countries with a lower wage scale and a lower cost of production. I mention those facts, and I invite to them the attention especially of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house, particularly the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), who, because of the position he occupies, must shed some tears over the unemployment that exists in this country, whether he feels like it or not; he would not be playing the game with labour if he did not show that he was a little concerned about the unemployment question; and I would appeal also to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), to the philosopher from South Huron (Mr. McMillan), and others on the other side of the house, to my good friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Young), for instance, whom I see and who might give consideration to this matter-


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I rise to a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. The resolution before the house is very definite and specific, and I submit that what the hon. gentleman is discussing has nothing whatever to do with the resolution. The question before us is the further consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Heaps:
That, in the opinion of this house, the committee on industrial and international relations be authorized to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity, and of the amendment thereto of Mr. McQuarrie.
Now, what the hon. member is attempting to discuss is the possible causes leading up to unemployment, and that has nothing whatever to do with the motion on the order paper. I would suggest that this house would get

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Edwards
along more quickly and do its business better if hon. members were kept more closely to the question immediately before us.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not consider the hon. gentleman's remarks irrelevant at all. He is leading up to the question before the house.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The hon. member for
Saskatoon just wanted to make a little speech.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I am very
glad indeed to have the interjection of my genial friend from Saskatoon. I think perhaps now he will be relieved of any obligation to make a speech when his turn comes, because he will have already shown by what he has said and put on the pages of Hansard his very deep interest in this matter. I may say, however, in regard to the point which he raised, and it is a very blunt point, that I felt justified in speaking as I did. Mr. Speaker, because I note that at page 1562 of Hansard the hon. gentleman who introduced this motion said:
I do not agree with that particular viewpoint. I believe unemployment is a problem that ought to be faced by the Dominion government. In this house we deal with and pass legislation that has a direct bearing upon this all-important question. We deal with facts, immigration matters, trade treaties, foreign policies, banking laws, and all these I claim affect the volume of employment or unemployment in this country.
I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon would not be so hard hearted as not to give me the same consideration that he gave to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), and I do not find recorded on Hansard that he raised any objection to the hon. member for North Winnipeg introducing the tariff and trade matters as having a bearing on the question before us; and the mover of the resolution having brought up that point, I therefore felt I was perfectly justified, Mr. Speaker, in enlarging upon it. The point that I was endeavouring to impress upon the hon. member for Saskatoon, the hon. member for South Huron, and one or two other hon. gentlemen, including the Minister of Labour, was that in the United States they do to a large extent solve this very problem, of unemployment by adopting a fiscal policy which gives employment to their own people. The hon. member for Saskatoon knew perfectly well what I was coming at, but I want to state it in so many words so that there will be no doubt about it. The point I was coming to was this:	In this resolution we are dealing
with a very important question, the question of unemployment in Canada, and if the hon. member for Saskatoon and the genial philosopher from South Huron will add their
eloquence and logic to that of the Minister of Labour, with perhaps a few words of advice thrown in by the Minister of Agriculture, and one or two others, they will perhaps be able to impress on the minds of the government the important bearing which the mistaken fiscal policy they have followed has upon unemployment in this country. As an illustration, if we were to give the encouragement Which should be given too the production of wool in this country to meet our own requirements, it would afford employment to over seventy thousand people. Surely that has a direct relation to this question of unemployment. But the mistaken policy followed by this government and supported by these hon. gentlemen, including even the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), has practically put our sheep industry out of business. Yet that is an industry which ought to be encouraged, and which, if encouraged, would solve unemployment to the extent of providing occupation for tens of thousands of Canadians. I submit it is reasonable to point that out to the house.
I might call attention to one or two other things. I sincerely wish I could impress the importance of this upon the government. Take, for instance, our dairy industry. There is absolutely no question that tens of thousands of our farmers could be given a chance to establish themselves in the dairy industry if it were not for the mistaken fiscal policy of this government in allowing the importation of tens of millions of pounds of butter from Australia and New Zealand. These importations have absolutely discouraged tens of thousands of Canadians from establishing dairy herds. That has a very direct application to the resolution proposed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), because if you are to authorize the committee on Industrial and International Relations to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity, that committee is bound to consider as many causes of unemployment as they can find; in a word, the committee must investigate all the factors which enter into unemployment. I am presenting some of those factors which I think the committee should investigate and report upon.
It is just as important for that committee to point out to the people of this country how unemployment can be prevented as it is to devise ways and means of dealing with unemployment after we have it. The old saying applies in this case as in others, "A stitch in time saves nine," and I do submit in all seriousness that it is our duty to con-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Robb
sider whether or not the fiscal policy pursued by the government has a tendency to create unemployment. If it does have that tendency, then manifestly it is incumbent upon us to get rid of the cause, for by so doing we will be helping to reduce unemployment in the Dominion. I present that argument to the house in all seriousness and in the belief that it is sound. I was induced to present it after reading the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in regard to lower wages and their meaning. I know there is a mistaken notion abroad in the minds of some political economists that a tariff always increases the price of the article to the consumer. I do not agree with that for a moment. The position is untenable. If you take some article which is not produced in Canada, for instance, tea, and put a tax on it, then perhaps you will make the people pay the full amount of the tax; but if a tax is imposed upon an article which is also produced in this country, then I say he who claims that that tax increases the cost not only of the article imported but also of the article of a similar kind made in Canada, is taking a position that is absolutely untenable. I mention that because again it comes back to the question of a correct fiscal policy for the dominion and its relation to unemployment.
I notice the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is doing me the honour of paying attention to my remarks.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear. I am admiring you.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I feel very
much flattered by the hon. minister's admiration.


Ernest Lapointe: I offer it modestly.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I am indeed pleased. I hope he will take advantage of his great influence in this house and his legal training to do me the further honour of pointing out, if he can, wherein my argument is lame or weak, that the mistaken fiscal policy of the government, has a direct bearing upon unemployment. I repeat, the whole matter of emigration is intimately related to unemployment. Tens of thousands of our boys and girls have emigrated to the United States. Why? Because they could not get employment' at home. I say it is up to this or any other government seriously to consider to what extent the fiscal policy which has been followed is responsible for this exodus. What is the use of devising remedies and applying medicine after the patient is dead? The fact is that since the government came into power

we have lost, some six hundred thousand Canadians to the United States because of lack of employment in this country'. They could not get employment at home because the fiscal policy of the government has given no encouragement to industry or to agriculture, and consequently there have been no opportunities for employment of our people.
I think it is more logical and reasonable all round to give consideration to how best we can prevent unemployment rather than to spend time and effort in an attempt to devise some form of insurance to meet the situation, which, in my opinion, might be very largely met by a decided' change in our fiscal policy.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have had occasion to address the house under the forty-minute rule but I wish to assure you that I shall not occupy my full time. I rise to say on behalf of the government that we are favourable to the passage of this resolution so that it may go to a committee to investigate in all its bearings the question of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
But, sir, I have to point out that the amendment offered by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) is not at all in line with this resolution. It introduces practically a different question which should go to another committee, that on banking and commerce, and I would ask my hon. friend or someone on his behalf to withdraw the amendment so that we may vote in favour of the resolution.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: No doubt there is some dissatisfaction on the part of the public regarding the cancellation of accident and sickness insurance policies, but there is this to be said for such policies, that they are only yearly, subject to renewal at the option of the insurer. The alternative would be to establish a system of non-cancellable policies. This form of policy has already been tried and the experience of the companies has been that it is not profitable. Many spurious claims, it is intimated, have been put in from time to time so that the companies do not find it profitable to issue non-cancellable accident and sickness insurance. If all the claims were as fair and just as that of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) I fancy there would be little difficulty in establishing that system of insurance; but apparently the claims have not been of that character. If that form of insurance has been found unprofitable by the companies, I ask hon. gentlemen representing various parties in the house

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McQuarrie
whether in their opinion it would prove more profitable if administered by the government. I leave that thought with the house. I would suggest that as my hon. friend's amendment relates more particularly to .accident and sickness insurance, he might very well withdraw it and if he desired to make further enquiry into the complaints disclosed in his observations of the other day he might move another resolution to refer the matter to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: I did not suggest that the companies should be required to issue any policy which they would be compelled to renew; I made that perfectly plain. My point was that insurance companies carrying on this class of business should not be allowed to cancel policies while the insured was in such a condition, owing to the illness which he sustained during the existence of the original policy, that he could not get insurance from other companies. I will agree with everything the minister has said regarding the impossibility of requiring companies to issue policies which are renewable until the expiration of the time limit, that is to say, the number of years one is insurable. But in the case I refer to-and this is happening every day- where a man becomes ill the companies do one of two things, if his illness is serious: they eliminate the illness or refuse to renew the policy. In my own particular case I found myself in a position where my policy was practically cancelled; the company refused to renew it. On the date it expired I received notice to that effect. Then I found that other companies, for a certain period at least, would not take me at all because of the refusal of the first company to renew the original policy. This, it seems to me, is a risk which these insurance companies might fairly be expected to take. That is my point. I did not suggest at all that the companies be required to issue policies renewable for all time. I have no intention in the world of interfering in any way with the resolution moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), and if my amendment is going to have the effect of killing his resolution I will not press it at the moment. There is this difficulty, however, that it may be impossible for me to move and have discussed during the present session a resolution with reference to the point I am now submitting to the house. I suppose I could allow the matter to stand until another session, but it seems to me that the operations of these insurance companies should be controlled in some way. If they are conducting their business in an arbitrary and 36103-100
unfair manner there should be some means of regulating them. Certainly the present condition is nothing short of a scandal, and there are hon. members in this house, a number of them, whose experience has been similar to mine. Surely when you take out health insurance you should get something for your money. I am afraid that these companies are prepared to take people's money so long as the insured remain well, but when they become -a risk the companies simply slide out, refusing to renew the policy. I suppose they are privileged to do this under the law as it stands; but the law should be changed. That was what I had in mind when moving the amendment; I did not intend to force any company to give me a sickness policy- I trust I can get along without one. I sincerely hope that this whole matter will be investigated by some committee, and I thought that inasmuch as my hon. friend's resolution referred to sickness insurance it would be proper at the same time to investigate the operations of companies carrying on that class of business to-day. I cannot see any objection to this proposal, but I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not insist upon my amendment if its effect is to destroy the original motion.


James Alexander Robb: I understand my hon. friend is prepared to withdraw his amendment. I shall be glad to facilitate, so far as I can, the submission of his complaint to the banking and commerce committee. With much of what he has said I agree.
Amendment withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi) moved:: Whereas the market for the output of British Columbia coal mines is seriously reduced by the competition of fuel oil imported at an enormous cost;
And whereas scientific research in Britain and elsewhere has demonstrated that coal, when used in a highly pulverized form, can successfully compete in price and results, with fuel oil;
And whereas it is very desirable that the output of our mines should be increased and more labour employed;
Therefore be it resolved-that, in the opinion of this house, in order to test and demonstrate the possibilities of pulverized coal, the government should adapt one of their steamers on the Pacific coast, and the furnace of one of the government public buildings in British Columbia, to the use of pulverized coal from Vancouver island mines.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is another of the many coal resolutions we have had this session, but it is unique in two respects: in the first

Pulverized Coal-Mr. Neill

place I do not call it a national coal policy, and in the second place I do not ask other portions of Canada to be saddled with enormous burdens of taxation in order to assist the particular part of the country in which I am interested. In this resolution I merely ask the government by a small expenditure to put us in a position whereby we can help ourselves, which is the very best form of assistance anyone can ask or receive from any government.
In British Columbia during recent years we have been suffering from the competition of fuel oil imported from the United States. Ten or fifteen years ago the exports of coal from the Vancouver island mines to San Francisco were so large that the operators maintained offices there for the disposal of the coal, but that condition has long since passed away. We do not ship any coal to San Francisco now, but we import enormous quantities of fuel oil. During the first half of 1927 we imported 59,000,000 gallons of oil on which duty was paid, in addition to which large quantities were brought in by the steamship companies in bond, which were used by them without that importation being recorded in the customs returns. Making an approximate allowance for the amount so brought in, and taking that into consideration we find that in British Columbia alone we pay something like S5,000,000 a year to the United States for fuel oil. That is equivalent to about 600,000 tons of coal, or nearly one-half the annual output of the Vancouver island coal mines to-day. The production of that quantity of coal would support a town with a population of some 5,000 or 6,000, and since we neither eat nor wear coal this would mean an increased demand for the products of the soil and for the manufactured goods of the east, therefore this is not a purely local question.
From time to time we have naturally looked about us for something which will offset this importation of fuel oil, and the first thing that was suggested by our Conservative friends was a tariff on that article. On one occasion an election was held mainly on that issue. I well recall that about the year 1922 I went to Hon. Mr. Fielding, the then Minister of Finance, asking him to increase the duty on fuel oil; as I went into his office I saw a large number of gentlemen, and indeed I might say a large number of large gentlemen, coming out. They were of the class described by Shakespeare as fat men, bulky, thick, well-fed, sleekdooking gentlemen, evincing every aspect of prosperity, and as they came out I eyed them with some curiosity. Then I went in to see the minister, and humbly proffered my claim for an increased duty on fuel oil. With IMr. Neill.]
that simplicity which characterized me in those days, and indeed does so yet, I said, "Why, Mr. Fielding, the Conservatives will support you in increasing the duty because they pledged themselves to do so in the recent election, and moreover it is a part of their fiscal policy." The kindly old gentleman smiled at me with his eyes tired with half a century's experience of politics and said, "Mr. Neill, did you see those gentlemen who went out just as you oame in?" I said, "Yes, what about them?" He said, "They were a deputation from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association asking that the duty be removed altogether."
I wondered to myself what hope I, a poor, lean, hungry Cassius, could have to compete with those numerous fat, sleek-looking Fal-staffs whom I had seen, but with the courage of despair I said to Mr. Fielding, "If we cannot have protection, then let us have free trade in coal," because that would benefit us to the same extent. Owing to the way the tariff is arranged, on the basis of reciprocity with the United States, free trade would mean that if we reduced our tariff in the east our coal from the west would enter the markets of the United States to a much larger extent. But Mr. Fielding pointed out to me very truly and very correctly that there were sixteen members from Nova Scotia all asking for a higher duty on coal, and he also made clear how disastrous the effect would be on the Nova Scotia coal miners if the duty were to be removed altogether. It was then brought home to me how difficult it is to reconcile the different sections of Canada to any one form of fiscal policy, so it was apparent that we had little to hope for from any tinkering with the tariff in that regard.
The next thing that suggested itself was the possibility of the further manufacture of this coal;, that is, that we should not sell the coal in its raw state but should manufacture it into what might be called its ultimate products, such as gasoline, benzine and other coal tar products. I was much attracted by reports appearing in the press which stated that in Germany, by means of what is known as the Bergius process, they had actually obtained gasoline from coal in quantities which were said to be commercially remunerative. I looked into that matter, but with very little success. I have in my hand an extract from the debates of the English House of Commons containing a question asked when I was there last year; a member of the house asked the government what the prospects were of applying in England a process which he called the low-temperture carbonization process, and which he claimed had been successful in Ger-

Pulverized Coal-Mr. Neill
many. He asked why that process could not be applied in Great Britain, and the member of the government who replied stated that he was not aware of any low temperature process being used successfully on a commercial scale, in connection with the type of coal available in England. So we found that while that process was adaptable in Germany, either because of t'he class of coal or the cheapness with which it could be produced, it could not be applied profitably to the coal mines of Britain. There was a meeting of the mining and metallurgical association in British Columbia last summer, and those attending that meeting stated that their technical and scientific information was to the effect that with t'heir present knowledge it w'ould be at least many years before it would be commercially possible to extract gasoline from the type of coal we have on Vancouver island. It is also impossible to convert that coal into gas, because the distance to the centres of consumption would be too great to transport the gas in pipes.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when we failed in that regard we continued looking around for a remedy, and it was suggested by this meeting of scientific experts last summer that the solution of the problem was the use of pulverized coal. The use of pulverized coal is not a fad. In the United States something like 50.000,000 tons a year are used in various plants throughout the country. In the state of Washington, adjoining British Columbia, alone, there are seven plants which use 320,000 tons of coal a year in that way. In the United states the navy has been interested in this subject, and they have been carrying on experiments for years. On one occasion quite recently they made a test of a Scotch marine boiler; it was the common type, the best type of boiler used on ships, and they ran it on pulverized coal for 240 hours continuously with very satisfactory results. It produces no smoke and no dust, and you can see the possibilities or advantages from the use of a fuel of that kind in the cities. So much so that the United States authorities made arrangements to equip a steamship called the Mercer, I think it was, on a trip from some port in the United States to Rotterdam ; and it is on record that when that boat reached Rotterdam there were representatives of England, Germany, France, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Holland present, representing shipping companies, public utility companies, and government navies, all on the qui vive and highly interested to se/' the results of the trip, what the effect had been on the boilers, and so forth. The result of the Tound trip was that they saved three days' 56103-lOOi
time and something like 30 per cent of the cost of the fuel as compared with the cost of the fuel oil with which the same boat had been previously equipped. The United States navy afterwards issued a statement to the effect that the test had been one of the most severe that it was possible to carry out, and they were thoroughly satisfied with the use of pulverized coal on steamships at the present time.
If that is so satisfactory, if that is ascertained, so to speak, it may be asked: why the purpose of this resolution which asks the government to more or less experiment by means of equipping a boat, and one of their public building furnaces, with machinery to use pulverized coal? Well, the answer is this: Each of these factories where coal has been used presents an entirely separate new problem. There are many things about the conditions that we do not know yet. Every individual class of coal has to be tested. The amount of ash, the amount of sulphur, and the moisture that it contains are all factors that go to determine whether that particular coal can be pulverized, and what kind of equipment is necessary to handle it. For instance something hinges on what is called the length of the flame. If a flame of a certain length can be produced that is of great advantage. And then, of course, there is the further question of the particular type of boiler adapted to that particular coal. All these questions need to be decided by actual experiment. And then there is another thing. We know that money is very conservative- and money means business, and business means money. Capitalists are not prone to take up new ideas unless they are sure of the advantages that will result from them. We all know how the internal combustion engine-what is known as the motor car to-day-hung fire for many years. It was well known for many years before it was introduced in a commercial way. The same thing can be said of the telephone and various other inventions. They lay dormant for a long time.
Now much has been said of recent years in connection with research, particularly this session and last session, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and myself are entitled to some little credit, because I can recall that we advocated research years ago and we got very little sympathy and very little attention on the matter. W ell, this is a typical instance of very moderately expensive research. To demonstrate its advantages would involve very small expense, and it would be of great benefit even to the government, because if they equipped their boats on the Pacific ocean it would be a

Pulverized. Coal-Mr. Kaiser
great saving to them. Even on the hydrographic boats the use of smokeless fuel would be of great advantage. It would give an impetus to our coal mines and react on other lines of business not only in British Columbia, but throughout the Dominion.
I therefore trust that the government will see their way to give this fuel a fair trial by equipping one of their steamers with the machinery necessary to use pulverized coal, and also permit one of their public buildings, either in the city of Vancouver or the city of Victoria, to use pulverized coal from the mines of Vancouver island.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: There may be some confusion in the minds of certain people in regard to this resolution, as compared with the one that I introduced in the house at an earlier date. I wish to say that these two propositions do not conflict in any way whatever. I am inclined very much to support this particular resolution, and I think the government would do well to give it their attention.
Just by way of showing the particular difference there is between this suggestion and the one that I submitted, and the attitude assumed by different people in regard to it, I should like to read to the house' a letter which I have just received from the University of Birmingham, England, in regard to the proposition that has been discussed in this house. I am decidedly in favour of any move in regard to research or experimental work in connection with coal. I believe it to be among the great questions, in fact one of the most important, that will bring wonderful results to our country and to the people of the British Empire if the course which we advocate is followed.
The following letter was addressed to me by Mr. J. Ivon Graham, Experimentalist of the University mentioned. He writes as follows:
Dear Sir:
I have been much interested in your letter of the 14th February, regarding your lignite coal and the possibility of converting this into oil by the Bergius hydrogenation process. We shall be very pleased to carry out some tests upon representative samples of the lignite. You will understand, of course, that our work is being carried out on a purely laboratory scale, the amount of sample being dealt with in our high pressure bomb being only about i pound. Nevertheless, we consider that these tests give a good indication of the results which may be expected by the treatment of the coal on a much larger scale.
We should be very pleased to have one or two of your university graduates in chemistry for the purpose of studying the process here, though I am afraid our limited laboratory accommodation would not permit at the moment

more than two additional investigators. I think, however, it would be advisable if, in the first place, preliminary tests were carried out by us to ascertain whether the process appeared to have financial possibilities. We shall be only too glad to carry out these tests without making any charge as the treatment of various types of fuel by the hydrogenation process is of considerable interest to us from the research point of view. Should you be able to arrange for samples of your coal to be forwarded to us we shall be glad to have at least 5 pounds of each.
I have pleasure in enclosing herewith a reprint of a recent paper which summarises the work carried out in this laboratory.
Yours faithfully,
J. Ivon Graham.
I merely read this letter to show how sympathetic the laboratory people are in regard to our request. I think this letter will give some useful information to the Minister of the Interior and the government.
In conclusion I simply desire to say that I think we should support the resolution and should move in a direction that will tend towards the processing and the utilization of our coal deposits in a manner other than those which are being used at the present time.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: I am
in full accord with the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). I am anxious to do anything I can to assist the coal mining industry of Vancouver island. I was fortunate in being a guest at the meeting in the city of Nanaimo of the scientific gentlemen as mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and they discussed at length the question of the liquefaction of coal. We had present a very distinguished gentleman from the United States, a thorough scientist. The consensus of opinion at that meeting was that the liquefaction of coal was still too far in the future to prove of any benefit to the mines of Vancouver island or of Canada generally. The liquefaction of coal has been accomplished as a laboratory experiment, it has even gone beyond that point, but the cost is so great that there would be no advantage in attempting to liquefy the coal of Vancouver island.
There would seem to be some possibilities with respect to the pulverization of coal, but in a conversation I had with the manager of one of the principal mining enterprises on the island-the hon. member for Comox-Alberni doubtless knows him quite well- he seemed to think there were serious difficulties in the way of pulverizing coal and using it on steamers. It is quite well understood that the coal would have to be pul-

Pulverized, Coal-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
verized just as it would be used, because, as it is gaseous, it would be dangerous to put coal dust on board a steamer or even on board a locomotive. Therefore the suggestion was that it would be pulverized just as it would be used. Coal differs greatly in quality, and in length of the flame and these facts taken in conjunction with the liability of the nozzles to plug up had militated against the general use of pulverized coal but he hoped these difficulties might be overcome. That gentleman, however, was not enthusiastic over it, neither were any of the other gentlemen at the meeting at which I was present. I can see no reason why the difficulties cannot be overcome and pulverized coal be used on our locomotives and our steamboats leaving the Pacific coast. If that pulverized coal can be used, it will be of great benefit to an industry that has been struggling for existence in that part of thei country for years. Some of our mines have Ibeen closed down for years and others are working only on part time. Owing to difficult structural conditions with respect to the geology of our mining field, it costs a little more to produce that coal than it costs to produce coal in other fields. When it is produced, it is a better quality of coal and the question is just one of dollars and cents whether we can do something that will give relief to the industry. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting in the strongest manner possible the resolution moved by; the hon. member for Comox-Albemi.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the government
have no objection for two reasons, to the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). The principal one is that- this is no longer an experiment, nor is it in the laboratory stage. The second reason is that the greatest competitor of coal at the moment on the west coast, indeed in connection with shipping generally, is fuel oil. That is true not only in Canada but in Great Britain and on the continent as well. Nearly every passenger ship plying on the Atlantic and the Pacific to-day is fueled with oil, with the result that the coal industries of Canada, Britain and elsewhere are all feeling the serious effects of this competition. Their hope was that perhaps the supply of fuel oil would not be of long duration, but it looks, by the fresh discoveries that are being made from day to day, as though this situation will continue for a number of years to come. Not only is that the case, but there is the fact of the introduction of gas
into general use in Canada, and the introduction of natural gas in my own province, because notwithstanding the fact that the city of Edmonton is located on top of a coal field and Calgary is adjacent to one, I suppose by far the largest percentage of domestic heating is done there to-day with natural gas. So in all directions the market for coal is being infringed upon by substitutes that are being used generally. In this very city a large percentage of the domestic heating to-day is being done by the use of fuel oil. Then there was the introduction of hydro-electric energy and it is estimated that in Canada alone the use of hydro-electric energy as a substitute for coal for power purposes has made a diminution in the coal market all told of almost. 27,000,000 tons. This means a tremendous displacement in the fuel market adversely affecting the coal industry.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has covered the ground pretty well, as did the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) to-day in connection with the hydrogenation of coal for the production of oil. This afternoon the discussion centres around the use of pulverized coal. Last summer when I was in England I was greatly interested in what they had been doing there, and I was assured by marine engineers that on vessels that were then being laid down, particularly the freighters, it was the intention of the engineers who had designed those vessels, to substitute pulverized coal for fuel oil. They stated that on present-day prices there would be a saving by this substitution of almost twenty per cent in fuel costs. Therefore there seems to be rather a bright future for pulverized fuel if it can be succesfully used as they think it can, particularly upon our freighters, and it will bring back a market that is now being denied the coal industry, as I said before, not only in Canada, but in Great Britain and on the continent. The government accordingly rather welcome the suggestion of the hon. member that an experiment be made upon one of their merchant marine vessels as well as an experiment in one of the large public buildings in the city of Vancouver, in order to test out the possibilities of using pulverized coal from the mines of British Columbia. What my hon. friend has said is very true, namely, that not all the products of the mines in any given locality can be successfully pulverized and a test is by no means conclusive when it is done upon a laboratory scale; but when pulverized coal is tried out in this way on a commercial scale, the test will be conclusive as to the utility of the coal from any given mine for use either on board ship or for

National Service

Mr. Irvine
heating purposes in the furnaces commonly found in our large buildings or our homes. I have spoken both to the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and I have their consent to have this test made as speedily as arrangements can be made in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin) moved:: Whereas, it is the existent policy of this country, that reasonable preparation should be made for self-defence in case of any war involving Canada;
And whereas, such preparation if undertaken, should be both adequate, and of such a character as to make war less likely to occur;
Therefore be it resolved-that, in the opinion of this house, it is advisable that legislation be enacted providing that on the declaration of war involving Canada, all natural resources and essential services, including transportation facilities, industrial plants and commercial and financial agencies, should automatically be conscripted for national service for the duration of the war.
He said: Mr. Speaker, whatever hon. members may think of the merits of the proposal contained in this resolution, or whatever they may think of the practicability of giving effedt to it in legislation, I hope they will regard my motives as sincere and] grant me the generous thought that my sole purpose in introducing the resolution is for the future protection and happiness of our country.
Since Your Honour has been invested with the authority to enforce observance of the rules of the house, and in doing so must chop me off precisely forty minutes from the moment I commence to address you, I shall first take the precaution to indicate the main grounds upon which I shall urge the. adoption of this resolution by parliament, and then if my hour should strike before I have finished, I shall be consoled somewhat with the thought that I have at least mentioned the steps in the argument which lead towards the desired conclusion.
I shall argue that since world conditions are such as to warrant the annual expenditures for war preparations which we now make, we would be illogical and unsafe guardians of the state if we did not recognize the principle that since there is cause for any preparation whatsoever, we are without excuse if we do not make the fullest preparation possible.
I shall then advance the idea that the acceptance of the proposal as set forth in this

resolution, namely, that it is advisable that legislation be enacted providing that on the declaration of war involving Canada all natural resources and essential services, including transportation facilities, industrial plants and commercial and financial agencies, should automatically be conscripted for national service for the duration of the war, would ensure adequate preparation for national defence at no additional cost to the state.
Next, I shall! endeavour to establish the view that the profit incentive in time of war is a real menace to peace, and if removed by the conscription measure suggested in the resolution, then one of the causes of war would be removed, and to that extent we should have a greater assurance of lasting peace.
Finally, I shall show that a war could be fought under the conditions proposed without leaving 'behind it a national debt to burden posterity.
The present policy of this government, as of preceding governments in this country, is one of preparation for defence. That preparation, I presume, is justified by certain fears which we legitimately hold, feare Which arise out of unsettled international conditions. Now, if there are good' grounds for the preparations which we now make, there must be equally good grounds for the most efficient preparation possible. I want to point out in this connection that a well trained, well disciplined, and well generated force of fighting men is not the only factor in national defence. Indeed, I would go further and say thait it is peifhaps the least important factor. I know of no modern war which has been lost for lack of soldiers. Service and heroism in the battle line have always been more in evidence than service and heroism in industry, in finance or in commerce, and yet surely to a country that is fighting for its existence these are of equal importance with the army in the front line. A country I think can nearly always rely upon its citizens responding to a call to arms in its defence, but it cannot always rely upon the other agencies which are equally necessary in times of naitiional danger. Past wars have been the soldier's opportunity to die, industry's opportunity to make money, and the country's opportunity to assume eternal debt. Conditions in these respects have grown to such a pitch in modem wars that unless some such proposal as I have made be adopted, a nation in the future will lose even more by winning a war than by being defeated, for when the price of victory has already been

National Service-Mr. Irvine
paid by the nation in blood, posterity will have to pay the profiteers for all time in a monetary form for t'he victory which the country has achieved.
How is it that national defence in Canada to-day, as in most other countries, I presume, is confined to the training of that element which requires the least training? A man with a rifle in one hand and his life in the other is thought to need a great deal of training, and so we spend a good deal of money in training him, but a man with the national credit in one hand and the right to charge interest in the other requires no training at all, according to our military program. But, as I have already said, these agencies, financial, industrial and commercial, do not know what to do in time of war for the national defence or in the national interest. These agencies are so important, however, that they may defeat the finest army that was ever led to battle, and so I say that unless conscription is effective in respect to these agencies our preparation is a useless waste of money, and indeed, is an added incentive to getting us into trouble.
We maintain the nucleus of an armed force so that we may be able to build up in time of emergency a force for the defence of the state. We maintain military experts capable of handling men for that purpose, but to whom have we entrusted the handling of the industries of the country in time of war? To whom have we entrusted the handling of the finances of the country in time of war? These are left to whoever may be on the job, and they are left as profit making agencies for private individuals, whereas, on the other hand, we conscript our men to do the fighting.
For efficiency in defence the entire resources of the nation must be mobilized. We now rely upon our ability to lure industry by war time prices to do service to the state. We rely upon our ability to lure finance by offering the nation as a bond slave for all time in order to get financial institutions to perform their function in time of national danger. It is not sufficient to trust to these allurements. Indeed, we can no longer put our faith in them. Patriotic speeches during the last great war pledged with fervour the last man and the last dollar, but if you add up the ledger of the nation after the last war you will find that while we were many thousands of men short, we were, or somebody was, many millions of dollars ahead. The last dollar-nay, even the first one-never was given, but the last man was ready to go.
I submit that a democratic country must rise to its own defence with every citizen on a democratic footing. Let us think for a
moment of the injustice of the present practice. We conscript men to die, or worse, we conscript them to be crippled in conflict in the national interests, but we leave others free to grow rich on what has been well termed blood money. Now I contend before this parliament to-day that bankers, captains of industry, merchants, railway companies, and so forth, should be put on the same footing as soldiers in the matter of national service during war. Let their pay be the same, let them be under the same discipline, let them be subject to the same restrictions and to the same punishments as the soldier. Let the banker who fails to do his duty during war time be put against a wall and shot at dawn, just as the soldier is who refuses to do his duty.
The effect of this arrangement on the morale of the nation would contribute more to efficiency than do large expenditures on military preparations. Morale has become a very essential factor in war success. During the great war it was found that the morale of the belligerent nations had to be maintained at any cost, and at times in order to maintain that morale appeals weTe made to the lowest elements of human nature. At times, even lies were used freely in all countries to preserve that thing called morale. Now, could anything be more disrupting than the thought that while many are dying for their country, others are becoming rich by profiteering in the things that are essential to the national life. Could there be anything more calculated to unify a people, raise their morale, and bring them into one strong, fighting force than for everyone to know that no one was making blood money out of the conflict? More serious to contemplate is the possibility that the time is not far distant when young men will rather be shot at home than be shot in the front line as a protest against their country being so unjust and unthinking as to conscript its youth to fight while it leaves the privileged few to profit out of the calamity of the nation.
But there is a graver aspect to this question than even its injustice and its detrimental effect on the morale of the people. While a man will fight to the death against considerable odds for his country, finance in the hands of private bankers on an interest-bearing basis will quit at the first sight of danger to itself. There is a well-defined point beyond which finance will not go, but will turn like a traitor and run for cover. Finance will quit, no matter what position the nation may be in, just so soon as the national debt reaches the highest amount at which it will be considered by bankers possible to extract the interest

National Service-Mr. Irvine
in the form of taxation from generations to come. At that . point, no matter how the nation may be situated finance will take cover. The nation may be in a struggle for its very existence, and a few more weeks or months may cany it to victory, but even under such dire circumstances if those in control of finance discover that finance is in danger, the victory of the nation will be sacrificed. That is the position we are in at the present time. If under the present system national safety in war should clash with financial safety, the latter will win.
Conscription in war time of the various agencies referred to in the resolution would of course increase production by preventing duplication and overlapping, which are inevitable under the competitive system. It would1 also eliminate all the waste of labour and material so common in times of peace, and would conserve the resources of the state to the utmost during the conflict.
Let me submit also, Mr. Speaker, that this is the right time to make provision for the proper conduct of the next war, because if war ever comes upon us again we want to be ready. We do not wish to have to make all these regulations when the country is in the midst of the struggle. We ought to make them now. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) should be acquainted with the entire industrial organization of the state. He should know exactly where to put his finger, and when, and he should have it so organized that at a moment's notice he could bring every agency in the state to its defence. That cannot be done whale we go on in the haphazard way in which we have been going in the past. He has no authority to do that. He himself has not had the training which he should have in the overlooking of these industries while such supervision is not considered to be part of our protective program. But not only so, it will not be easy for the minister of national defence, whoever he' may be when the next war comes-of course, we are always hoping that another war will never come-but it will not be easy, I say, for the minister of national defence at that time to make the alteration which I seek now, because when the music of the shekels as they jingle into the coffers of profiteers, accelerated as they will be by war demands, begins to fall upon the ears of the privileged, he will find it very difficult to alter the regulations. He will be met then with the excuse: Let things alone as they are; don't disrupt industry while war is going on; and so forth and so on. This, then, is the time for us to act. Let every industrial magnate and every financier in this country be told 
that if war ever comes to Canada again everything will be conscripted for national defence, no profit will be permitted. Let us do that now by legislation.
I come to the elaboration of my next point, and that is, to conscript the agencies required for war purposes described in the resolution would be the best and the most effective assurance of lasting peace that we could have. If what my resolution proposes, namely, automatic conscription in war time of every agency employed in national defence, were put into effect, then we would be absolutely certain of two things of great importance. First, that we were fully prepared, or at least that we were prepared to the utmost extent of the nation's resources. If justified in making any preparation at all, it is, as I have pointed out, our patriotic duty to be fully prepared. There can be no adequate excuse for a partial preparation if there be any reason for preparation at all. Underlying our present policy is the fear, well founded, of a possible war in which we may be called upon to defend ourselves. That well-founded fear compels us to make certain preparations for our defence, and no one can say, if the fear is well founded, that we should be content with anything short of the utmost preparation. I say, let us prepare adequately or stop spending public money in what would be little short of a farce were we really launched into a conflict. The conscription of all natural resources and essential services, including transportation facilities, industrial plants, and commercial and financial agencies, would be adequate preparation at no additional cost, and it would mean, as I say, that we would know for a certainly that if war did come we would have all the resources of the country behind us in the struggle, and that we would all be on a democratic footing.
But the second thing which would be made certain were the course followed which I have proposed is that if war did come under these circumstances, everyone would know that the war was inevitable. That is to say, that it had not been fostered by some private interests for private gain. The war lords then would not be tempted to plunge the country into a death struggle for the sake of profit. Thus this sort of preparation which I suggest would be of real assistance to lasting peace. It has long been the claim of militarists that preparation is the best guarantee of peace. That has proven to be false in the past because preparation was confined to the manufacture of munitions and the training of armies. That sort of preparation has proven to be an added incentive to conflict. But if our preparation extend to all the profit-making agencies

National Service-Mr. Irvine
esseutiai to the winning of a war, then indeed it would be true that such preparation would be our best safeguard against war. I do not doubt for a moment the general belief that past wars have been urged and promoted by individuals and corporations having great influence on international policy and standing to profit by war.
Of all the dark and despicable suspicions that could becloud the consciousness of a nation this is the worst. To what low levels of bestial materialism has the desire for profit brought mankind 1-if it be true that there are men in every nation who will not hesitate to plunge their fellows into the shambles of war for the sake of trade and profit for themselves. Some hon. members may have doubts about the truth of this charge. I will not stop to bring the proofs, first, because it is not essential to my argument, and secondly because it were better not to demonstrate this repulsive deformity of the human imagination. Whether it be true or not that men have promoted wars for profit, no one will deny that individuals do profit greatly by wars. That being so, it is very unwise to trust frail human nature to such great temptation. The government is asked now to pass the resolution before the house in order that the nation may be freed from the danger of war at the instigation of profiteers, and that the minds of the people may be freed from the dark fears and suspicions they entertain in this regard.
I emphasize the second step in my argument: that to make provision for the conscription of the agencies mentioned in the resolution would afford adequate preparation for defence at no additional cost; that, since the preparations that are now made are made because of our fear of possible attack, it is illogical to stop short of adequate preparation-and the proposal I make would be adequate; and that this sort of preparation would be the best assurance of peace, in that it would do away with the profit incentive which is alleged to be a dangerous cause of war. This profit incentive, being a danger, should be removed especially since such action would bring tranquility to the public mind, now disturbed by the suspicion which falls on our money kings and captains of industry.
I turn now to another step in the argument, namely, that under the proposed conscription measure war would be possible without war debt, or at the worst the nation would owe the amount of war debt to itself. The last war was financed largely through the treasury board. The national treasury or national credit was the source, the Finance Act the means, and the banks were the agents in the
transaction. But when the war was over the nation owed the banks the entire amount expended in the war. The only reason why this entire transaction did not result in dire calamity through the revolt of the people was, I think, that the people generally did not understand what had actually been done. Under the resolution the next war-if by any misfortune it should come-would be financed from the same source as the last-only, when it is all over, we shall not owe the amount a second time, with interest, to a few privileged financiers.
For clarity on this point I shall use a simple illustration. Let us suppose a war between two tribes in the days of tribal society. To make it simple we will suppose that these tribes fought with rocks. When they went to war with each other they naturally organized themselves for the struggle. The young men went to the front line to throw the rocks, a number of others were selected to gather rocks and carry them to the front, and a third group were selected to do the hunting and to prepare the food for the entire tribe during the period of the war. But when the war was over it was found that nobody owed anybody else; everyone in the tribe had done his part: all the rocks had been gathered and did not have to be paid for and the tribe was as free of debt as it was the day it began fighting. That is not so to-day, however. We have, of course, complications arising from different methods of warfare, but the principle is precisely the same. In the last war there were in Canada men who neither gathered rocks nor threw them, but when the war was over we had to pay them for eveTy rock that was gathered and thrown. And generations to come will be unable to pay that debt. It is indeed questionable whether, when we add the accumulating interest bo the national debt growing out of the last war, the debt will ever be paid off. We should prepare now so that in the next war we might be able to finance it without paying interest to anyone. The nation in that case would owe its debt to itself.
I want to leave this thought with the Minister of National Defence, and so that he may be able to express his opinion on it before six o'clock I will now close, contenting myself with pointing out that, if carried into effect, this resolution will make war very unlikely in the future for the reason that the profit incentive will have been removed. But if war should occur notwithstanding, then we shall be prepared to put to our defence the entire resources of the nation, and no one will make any profit at
i072

National Service-Mr. Ralston
the expense of the rest of the people. No war debt will ensue to burden generations to come.


James Layton Ralston: I will not take more
than a few minutes to discuss the motion. As a matter of fact, I did not know that the resolution would foe reached this afternoon and therefore I shall be unable to deal as exhaustively as I might with the arguments my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) has put forward. I want the hon. gentleman to feel, however, that if my observations are brief it is not because I do not realize the full importance of the subject he has discussed, or the very able and temperate manner in which he has advanced his arguments. I think the house and the country are indebted to the hon. gentleman for the way in which he has stated his case.
In countries where recruiting is voluntary, the suggestion which the hon. member has made regarding national mobilization is perhaps more ideal than practical; and I note that he has recognized that fact inasmuch as, in the very teeth of his resolution, is the proviso that conscription be effective in relation to man power. The policy he advocates, with the proviso which is added, is one which, in my opinion at least, will find acceptance in a general way; that is to say, that men should not be conscripted to give their lives in war while) the industrial resources of the country are allowed to go free without making their just contribution. I believe we all accept that principle. Perhaps my hon. friend does not know that it is a part of the responsibility of a minister occupying the position which I hold-much as he may deprecate, as I do, the idea of any possible conflict in the future-to consider plans for industrial mobilization in the event of such a conflict arising. That is the principle adopted in Great Britain; the Imperial defence committee has been engaged in a consideration of it. We in this country are in touch with the proceedings of that committee and the principle is not by any means new to a proper administration of the defence department. I feel that the principles which the hon. member has enunciated can best be carried out by an endeavour, in time of peace, to work out a policy of industrial mobilization which will take into proper account the utilization of all the forces of the nation and not simply of man power alone. We will see to it that every part of the nation, industry, finance, labour and transportation, all make their just contributions towards carrying on the conflict if such turns out to be inevitable. I hope 
what I say now may perhaps lead my hon. friend to not press this resolution for acceptance by this house, since he has had the opportunity of discussing this matter; I want to say to him that I do feel as Minister of National Defence, and also as a minister who has something to do with the peace of the country, that it would be a mistake for us at this time to pass a resolution which seems to me to indicate to the world at large that we are thinking about war. My hon. friend's resolution provides that in the opinion of this house it is advisable that legislation be enacted providing that upon the declaration of war involving Canada, all natural resources and so on shall become conscripted automatically. I do feel that this will be misunderstood by the countries of the world, if we now make a legislative declaration that we are preparing for war even in this way.
We have on the order paper to-day no less than two resolutions advocating peace and looking to the eventual consummation of world peace. One resolution is proposed by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who suggests that this matter is so important that a special department should be created having to do with peace and international understanding. There is another resolution proposed by an hon. member of this house which suggests that Canada should become a party to the optional clause respecting the world court. Both these resolutions are absolutely apposed to the resolution now before the house, and while in general terms I believe the principle of the resolution will be accepted if the proviso concerning conscription is also accepted, I do suggest to my hon. friend that having had the benefit of this discussion, it would be a mistake at this time to pass this resolution. I believe sincerely that we would be regarded as advertising that this country is preparing for war, just at the very time when all endeavours are being made in the direction of peace. We had the Washington conference last September; we have the Preparatory commission meeting again with regard to disarmament, and perhaps more machinery than ever is being set up in an endeavour to solve this age-old question of whether the peoples of the world cannot live together in peace.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The minister's statement sounds very sweetly in my ears, but is it completely consistent with the rapid increase in the militia estimates generally?


James Layton Ralston: Absolutely. I have
endeavoured to state to my hon. friend that

National Service-Mr. Woodsworth
I consider myself the minister for peace rather than the minister for war. I would also say that if there is no more trouble with other countries with regard to disarmament than there is with Canada, we will have a speedy solution of the whole question. My hon. friend knows, and I will be glad to discuss it with him and with the house when the estimates come up, the extremely limited armaments or preparations for war supported by this country. We are maintaining nothing more than a decent police force, and I feel entirely consistent when I suggest that this resolution should not pass and that we should not make this declaration, notwithstanding the fact that there is some increase in the militia estimates which have been laid before the house.
I do not believe I can add anything more;
I hope hon. members will feel that I am consistent and sincere when I suggest that it is not advisable to pass this resolution at the present time.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Some of us find ourselves in rather an awkward predicament with regard to this resolution. It seems odd that those who have stood very firmly for peace find themselves rather inclined to sympathize with the resolution, while the Minister of National Defence has placed himself in very strong opposition to it, on the ground that it may be misunderstood abroad and may not accomplish anything in the direction of peace. I think none of us will doubt the sincerity of the minister when he advocates peace, but I am not so sure of his consistency; I have no doubt he believes himself consistent, but I am not quite so sure that his position is in reality consistent. He says that the industrial resources of the country should make their "just contribution" in the event of war. That is all very well as a general statement, but I should like to ask whether, after having passed through a great war, the industrial forces and equipment of this country can be said to have made their just contribution.
What is a just contribution? I know that to-day a committee is sitting to consider soldiers' pensions; I know that many pitiable cases have come before that committee. Men are living on the very verge of poverty, some of them precluded from government assistance, and it would seem to me, in view of the finances of the country, that the government is prepared to assist these men only in the most grudging fashion. That is true, but on the other hand surely we know that the great part of the load of taxation we are bearing at present, and which perhaps more than anything else prevents the expansion of industry and the entry of new people into this country, is very largely the result of the last war. Do we not alii recognize the fact, as the Minister of Finance recently informed us, that 50 per cent of the total expenditures of this country are to pay for the last war or are in connection with the present military expenditures? As I pointed out on another occasion, if we add to that the increased expenditure involved in securing our greatly increased income and the increased expenditure in connection with additional financing, altogether expenditure due to war amounts to about two-thirds of our total national expenditure. That is the situation we must face to-day.
The other day an appeal was made to this house by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke) suggesting that we in this generation should bear the burden of ithe past war and not pass it on to future generations. What was the response to that suggestion? There was none whatever. We are finding that although a great many people made fortunes during the war, even at this early stage the government are repudiating the income tax, which was levied to pay for the war, and so those who made fortunes either directly out of the war or indirectly because of the war, those who are the wealthy people of to-day, are going free to a very large extent. On the other hand, the people who are asked to pay for the war are the ordinary people who paid over and over again even during the progress of that war.
Is it fair to say that in any future war we should insist that industry and finance should make their just contributions unless we at this time insist that industry and finance do that today with regard to the last war? I think I would say that the minister would be consistent if he would introduce, or have the government introduce, a measure at this session asking that the last war should be paid for by a levy on industry and finance to-day. The people engaged in industry and finance are the only people in this country who benefited because of the war.
The minister says that he is quite sincere in urging that it would be a mistake for this house to pass the resolution, that it might be misunderstood. I recognize that possibly there is a danger along that line, but I would suggest that the nations of the world are not ignorant of the situation in Canada. They know perfectly well that we are spending today some-what is it?-$18,000,000 upon military defence, and that within the past few years we have gone up almost 50 per cent in our military expenditures. I would say that if the minister is as consistent as I sincerely
1574	COMMONS
Natimwl Service-Mr. Woodsworth
believe he thinks himself/ he would reduce even the present comparatively small expenditure on armaments. That would be the very best declaration to the world that Canada is pacific in her intentions.
I should like to examine for a moment the terms of the resolution:
Whereas, it is the existent policy of this country that reasonable preparation should be made for self-defence in case of any war involving Canada.
Is that true? I think we must admit that it is. If any of us come here and suggest that we have national disarmament-a policy of which I personally am in favour, one of the policies on which I was elected to this house, a policy that I find is endorsed by a large number of labour organizations, farm organizations and church organizations across this country, and which is backed up by a very large number of returned men who know what war really is-I say that if we suggest that we should have a policy of national disarmament we are told immediately that that is impracticable, in fact, at least in some quarters, we are told that we are unpatriotic to suggest that. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the time is coming before so very long when hon. gentlemen in this house will get credit for absolute sincerity in this matter, and it will be admitted that those of us who advocate disarmament may be just as sincere in our position, and just as patriotic, as, on the other hand, I believe those are who advocate armaments. I do not think that the people who want armies, and navies, and air forces are consciously unpatriotic. But from my standpoint I believe that they are doing everything they can to ruin my country; and believing that from the bottom of my heart, and having taken that stand in the past, I, as a member of this house, who is trying to represent the people of the country, am bound to say so. I do not believe that expenditure on armament is the way to increase the prosperity of Canada, I do not believe that it is the way to effect the security of Canada or the security of the world. There are better ways, and it seems to me that we ought not to be labelled unpatriotic when we sincerely believe that, state that position, and try to impress our views upon the country.


James Layton Ralston: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question? I am asking it sincerely because I happen to have something to do with defence. How then is my hon. friend going to carry out the spirit of the first "whereas" he has just read? The resolution reads:

Whereas, it is the existent policy of this country, that reasonable preparation should be made for self-defence in case of any war involving Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not that first
"whereas" in accordance with the facts?


James Layton Ralston: I agree.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You agree? Then that is all I want to say for the moment. I am not overlooking the minister's question, but I think we are agreed that statement is true. Some of us do not agree with that policy, but I think we have to admit that is the policy to-day, and of course the minister is charged with the responsibility of carrying that out.
I would suggest however that there are alternative ways of ensuring peace. I would suggest that if we had closer trade relationships between this country and other countries it would be another and more effective way of securing peace. For example, to spend one-tenth part of the revenues that we spend on our soldiers and on our navies in promoting international understanding in a way that is indicated by another motion placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail)-a question into which I do not wish to enter to-day-would be an alternative policy. I am not quite sure whether the organisation of the Department of National Defence is the one that could be entrusted with that task. As far as I am concerned I am inclined to think that the Minister of National Defence might very well be entrusted with the carrying out of a peace policy for the country. Undoubtedly there are alternatives to the present policy of guns, forts, navies and so on. But I think that we may say the statement in the first "whereas" is a true statement.
Now I will go on to the second:
And whereas, such preparation if undertaken

I do not think it should be; I have an alternative way-but under the existing policy such preparation
-should be both adequate, and of such a character as to make war less likely to occur.
Will anyone doubt that?


Mr. FORKE:: I do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend the Minister of Immigration and Colonization doubts it. Well, let us take it up clause by clause.


Robert Forke: I think the whole system is wrong.

National Service-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: The first statement is:
And whereas, such preparation if undertaken, should be ... . adequate.
Surely if we go on the principle that national defence-I mean defence by means of military forces-is a good thing, we are bound in logic to say that it should be adequate; I think we cannot do anything less. I, as an advocate of peace, have to admit, as the next logical step, that it should be adequate; there is no half way. I think the Minister of National Defence must realize that it must be adequate. Such preparation must be effective; it must be adequate to accomplish its purpose. Surely we cannot get away from that. My brain at least makes me accept that as a logical outcome of the first statement.
Now let us go on to the second part of that " whereas It should be:
-of such a character as to make war less likely to occur.
I am not quite sure whether the mover of this resolution has not introduced something into the clause that has a double meaning. Taking either the meaning that we should go on with military preparation to such an extent that we will be able to carry out fully our purpose, or the meaning that we should make such arrangements that we would be deterred from going into war, it seems to me we cannot very well take exception to that statement as it stands. If we are going into war-and I do not wish to think we must accept the statement in that way-but if we determine this is the best way to defend the country-even though some of us as individuals do not believe in it and are trying to find another way-if we are determined to so prepare then we surely should take such steps as would make war less likely to occur. In any ca^e we should take such steps as would make war less likely to occur.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend not think that the second " whereas " is absolutely following the line of the old doctrine that preparations for war lessen the' danger of war. Personally I cannot subscribe to that doctrine and I am surprised that my hon. friend seems to subscribe to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand the
position of the Minister of Justice and I frankly admit that there is something in his contention, namely, that the very existence of armies and navies, the very existence of a Department of National Defence, is provocative of war. I realize that, but I should like to ask the Minister of Justice to
go back to the previous statement. If we believe that military armaments are the means by which we can secure peace, let us use those means. Surely that is reasonable. I take exception to the first clause and I say that those are not the means to be used, but the minister is holding on to the old with one hand and reaching out to the other means with the other.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it
not be true to say that the government is on the horns of the dilemma of its own policy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is another
figure.


William Irvine: Is it not so that the things which would provoke war, as referred to by the Minister of Justice, are already part of our policy? Does he means to say that it will provoke war to conscript the industries of Canada? If so, I want to know what the authority is.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member does
not want me to make a speech now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some students of
old customs tell us that the habit of greeting friends by the extension of the right hand goes back to the day when all men were armed and carried a sword in their right hand. When they put aside the sword and extended the open hand, this was a symbol that force was rejected and that they were willing to talk peace. The criticism I make of the position of the Minister of Justice is that, while he wants to extend the right hand, he also is anxious to keep the sword handy in case the other fellow is not quite ready to talk peace.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister should speak to the Minister of National Defence.


Ernest Lapointe: I am doing my best.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no doubt the Minister of Justice is doing his best, but our policy is inconsistent. If we retain the sword close by our hand ready for the least emergency we shall not go far in the direction of peace.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does the hon. member
think that had Great Britain been prepared in the last war, there woiild have been a war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The question of the last war is one that I have studiously avoided. I have only a few minutes more and I do not intend to go into that question.
1576	COMMONS
National Service-Mr. Woodsworth
Mr. MeGIBBON:	The bon. member will
not answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it is another matter. I do not want to be diverted from this argument. I wish to go on with the latter part of the resolution which states:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is advisable that .legislation be enacted providing that on the declaration of war involving Canada, all natural resources and essential services, including transportation facilities, industrial plants and commercial and financial agencies, should automatically be conscripted for national service for the duration of the war.
Can we imagine that if that proposal were actually in force in Canada, we would be liable to go into another war? I take it that such legislation would be one of the greatest deterrents against war that it would be possible to have. Just fancy if all the capital in all the banks were immediately conscripted and if the banks, instead of being able to make money out of the war as they did before, knew that it would annihilate them, do you think there is a banker in this country or in Europe who would consent to war? If it means that all our railway systems would immediately be conscripted, do you think that the leaders of the great transportation systems in this country would submit? If it means that all the industrial plants would immediately be conscripted and every man rendered penniless, reduced to the position of the conscripted soldier at $1.10 a day, would any man in Canada be likely under those circumstances to be in favour of war? I would urge that, if that were the situation, immediately any suggestion of war arose from one end of the country to the other the leaders of all the great newspapers, the men on the boards of all our great universities, the men who to a certain extent influence the policies of all our institutions, would set in operation such a campaign of education, such a protest against war, that the very appearance of war would be swept away and we would immediately resort to some pacific method of settling our disputes.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I should like to ask the peaceful member for Winnipeg North Centre how he would handle a peaceful strike such as they had in Winnipeg a few years ago, and how he would be able to procure milk for the babies if we did not have some troops in Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think hon. members will quite agree that when anyone is driven to such desperate means to try to sidetrack one in an argument, his case is pretty nearly hopeless. During the big strike

my policy, for which I have no reason to feel ashamed, was that of peace. It was then and it is to-day.


Mr. COTNAM:: A peaceful strike.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, if men want to stop work, unless they are to be degraded to the position of veritable slaves they have a right to do so-at least until we are able to arrange other means -which, I hope, may be forthcoming so that these difficulties which now arise in the industrial world wall not precipitate us into the unfortunate strikes which sometimes we have. But force, brute force, may I call it?-and I know all my comrades in the industrial world do not agree with this, but I take this position and more among the labour people believe in it than among the captains of industry-is absolutely no solution of our industrial problems. I do not believe it is any solution of our economic problems or of our international problems. This method of war is an outgrown method. In the old days our ancestors got down into the slime and fought with their teeth and fists; we think that we have reached another stage than that. In our ordinary business and social life we have reached the stage when, if we have a dispute, we refer it to the courts, to atbitration; we settle it in some other way than by force. Surely we might hope that in our international questions we may advance along similar lines. Progress is everywhere to be found. The League of Nations Society is now uiging the establishment of those institutions and policies which will prevent international complications. We from our comer have introduced some resolutions along that line, and I trust that the hon. gentlemen who have done me the honour to interrupt to-day will vote in favour of the resolution of my colleague, and that we shall make representations to Great Britain along the line of signing the optional clause of the Peace treaty. If we do that as a country we shall have advanced a long way, but in the meantime, believing as I do, that war is an obsolete and inefficient instrument for the maintenance of peace-


Robert Forke: Everybody agrees with that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very good but so long as Canada is committed, as the minister of National Defence states, to armaments in order to attain her ends, I cannot see how any of us can fail, in carrying out that policy of armament and militarism, to say that if we go to the point where we conscript men, we ought to go the whole way. Surely men are worth more than property; if we conscript men, I urge in the name of all the returned

Private Bills
men. who have served at the front and of all of those who have sacrificed, let us go the whole way and insist that when the next war cranes we shall all suffer equally.


Peter McGibbon: I should just like to say as a returned man that I refuse to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to speak for me.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 22, 1928