1929-06-04

[Stage Direction]
FIRST AND SECOND READINGS OF PRIVATE! BILLS
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I beg to move:
That for the remainder of the session all private hills from the senate when received from that house be read a first and second time and referred forthwith, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of hills be suspended in reference thereto.
Mr. ,T. S. WOODSWORTH Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, this is only one means of evading what is a distinct responsibility of this house, and I take most decided objection to setting aside the rule in this case.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I understand the hon. member to be giving aotice of motion, Mr. Speaker, and that to move the motion now requires unanimous
consent.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Under the rules, as no notice was given of this motion, unanimous consent is required before the motion can be put. The motion will have to stand.


John Livingstone Brown: Then may I ask that the
motion serve as a notice of motion?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Then it goes in
with the regular motions?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No.


Charles Stephen Booth: It goes in with the rejcul ir notices of motion?
31S6
Post Office Signs


Ernest Lapointe: No. It goes in with the routine motions. It has to do with procedure only.
Motion stands.



POST OFFICE SIGNS

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) inquired on the orders of the day on Friday last whether or not the^e was any accuracy in the report that the enamelled post office signs that were formerly printed in blue on a white ground had been withdrawn and signs with red letters on a white ground substituted therefor. In reply to his inquiry, I wish to give the following details:
The enamel post office signs printed in blue on white background are still in use on about 11,000 post offices, and will continue to be issued to all post offices except those situated on main highways.
In 1923 the Post Office Department introduced a red enamel sign with the words "Post Office" and the name of the post office in white letters thereon, for use only on post office buildings situated on main highways only. Applications to tender on 731 of these signs were issued to eight firms and only three of these firms submitted quotations, namely, The W. F. Vilas Company, Cowansville, Quebec; the Thomas Davidson Manufacturing Company, M'Ontreal, Quebec; and the Mc-Ofaty Manufacturing Company, Montreal, Quebec.
As the tender from the W. F. Vilas Company, Cowansville, was the lowest received, the contract was awarded to that firm. This sign, which shows the words "Post Office" and the name of the post- office serves a twofold purpose:
(1)	It designates a post office.
(2)	It gives the name of the place, thus
assisting tourists.	,
Since the introduction of the sign in 1923, numerous requests ha,ve been received for the extension of its use, but the department has confined the issue to post offices situated on main traffic highways only; therefore, the blue lettered white enamel sign bearing only the words "Post Office" is still being issued to all offices not situated on main tourist traffic highways. There is no contract pending for the purchase of additional signs.
Yesterday in conversation with the leader of the opposition I promised that I would have the tenders produced. The staff is now busy copying them, and I will hand them to my hon. friend as soon as they are ready, if that is satisfactory.


Mr. BENNETT:: Quite so.
{Mr. Woodsworth.]



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 337, for the relief of Edward Ernest True.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 338, for the relief of Glennville Wesley Potter.-Mr. Ladner (for Mr. Boys). ' Bill No. 339, for the relief of Elizabeth Mitchell.-Mr. Ladner (for Mr. Boys).
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Edith May Enfield.-Mr. Donnelly (for Mr. Howden).
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Lillian Elizabeth Barton.-Mr. Ladner (for Mr. Boys).
EIGHT HOUR DAY On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
should like to ask the. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) what progress, if any, has been made in connection with legislation for an eight hour day.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: The matter is still under consideration.



CANADA'S FINANCIAL POSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) to an article appearing in this morning's Citizen, entitled:
Federal Reserve Board Actually upon Defensive American banker trying to shorten sail impossible squall and Canada has interest in it.
The article is written by Mr. Paul Reading and is dated Montreal, June 3. He makes certain statements that reflect upon our general financial position, and I direct the attention of the minister to it, without at the moment going into detail, so he may, if he thinks it desirable, make such answer as he deems the gravity of those statements may warrant.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Who is the writer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Paul Reading.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I have not read
the article, but from the statement made by my hon. friend I should say that Paul Reading's presentation of the Canadian financial position is like the report of Mark Twain's death-very much exaggerated.
SOCKEYE SALMON FISHERIES TREATY On the orders of the day:


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this might

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
be a convenient moment for me to make a statement regarding the government's intention with respect to the sockeye salmon fisheries convention. I notice that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has given notice of motion that the third report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries be concurred in. That is the report which recommends that this convention should be approved by the house.
I might say that when the resolution respecting the convention was introduced it was the hope of the government that hon. members would feel that the convention was so much in the interests of this country that it would meet with approval on all sides of the house. However, as hon. members are aware, there appears to have been a considerable difference of opinion in the committee to which the convention was referred-a difference of opinion as to the ends which the treaty would attain and the motives of the government in having entered into it. Taking all circumstances into consideration, the government has thought it would be inadvisable to proceed to obtain approval of the treaty by parliament at this session.
I wish, however, to make perfectly clear the position of the government in the matter, so that there will be no possibility of misunderstanding. This treaty has been negotiated primarily in the interests of the province of British Columbia, and were it not that the opposition to the treaty has come almost exclusively from hon. gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in that province, the government would not have hesitated one minute in proceeding with the treaty. The premier of the province has sent me the following message:
Victoria, B.C., May 30.
Press despatches intimate ratification of salmon treaty by Canada likely to be postponed consequent upon news from Washington that American senate may not consider question at present session. It is the earnest desire of this government and I am assured also that of the general public of this province that Canada should not by postponement jeopardize a work fraught with such vast potential importance to British Columbia and the Dominion. Canada having spent so many years of active endeavour in the first place to stop or restrict the destruction of this essential food asset and later to ensure measures for its restoration and protection. it would be a misfortune now that we are on the threshold of success if Canada hesitated to take the step which would complete the work so far as she is concerned. A postponement at the present time would be ground for belief that Canada is not in earnest on this question. It is urgently pressed that it be shown by prompt ratification that the dominion so far as it can do so has removed any objection in the American senate that Canada has stood aside. The government urgently request ratification at present session.
S. F. Tolmie.
What I wish to make quite clear, Mr. Speaker, is that any hesitation on the part of the government in submitting the treaty for approval at this time is in no way due to any delay in the expected ratification thereof on the part of the American senate. Mr. Tolmie says:
Press despatches intimate ratification of salmon treaty by Canada likely to be postponed consequent upon news from Washington that American senate may not consider question at present session.
Let me repeat, the action or possible action of the American senate has nothing whatever to do with our action in this matter. Indeed, we intend, if hon. gentlemen opposite from British Columbia after visiting their province between now and next session come to view the matter in a different light, as we believe they will, to reintroduce the resolution to approve this treaty early next session. In the meantime the American senate will have had an opportunity to pass upon the treaty.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that we intend to ask parliament to approve the convention next session, if in the interval it is ratified by the American senate, and we hope-that in the interim hon. gentlemen opposite-will find that the government of the province-of British Columbia-which entertains the-same view with respect to this treaty as does>
our government-is right in regard to it.


Hon.   I@: Mr. Speaker, I think the conclusion at which the right hon. gentleman has arrived is a sound one in the premises. I do not know that that will strengthen his own opinion, but at least that is my view.
The treaty in question was signed in March last, and knowledge of it came to this house some time in April. It is well that public opinion in regard to the matter should have an opportunity to crystallize. It is a treaty for sixteen years, it involves matters which most of us think of tremendous importance, and therefore the necessity is very pressing that opportunity should be afforded to those who will be affected to decide what the treaty really does mean. I think everybody will be grateful to the Prime Minister for this opportunity for public opinion to crystallize in regard to the treaty.
I may say Mr. Speaker, that so far as we who sit to your left are concerned, with respect to all matters dealing with international relations we approach them in a spirit entirely nonpolitical, or at least we endeavour to do so. It is with us not a question of Liberal or Conservative, not a question of the opposition or the government. I think we are all agreed that a satisfactory treaty is desirable. In view
31SS

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
of the fact that the propagation of sockeye salmon takes place in the province of British Columbia and that the larger number of the salmon has heretofore been caught in American waters, it becomes of great importance that we should, if possible, arrive at some arrangement with our neighbours. A satisfactory treaty is therefore not only desirable, but is necessary for the preservation of the industry and the making available for food of this very valuable fish. But that a treaty is desirable does not make it imperative for a public man to accept as the last word any treaty that has been submitted; and there are acute divisions of opinion as to the desirability of this particular treaty. Some of the terms of the treaty are found upon analysis to be most undesirable from a national viewpoint.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to a point of order.
If the hon. gentleman is to be allowed to discuss the treaty, shall I also be allowed to discuss it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only endeavouring
to deal with the question raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); I am not going beyond that.


Alan Webster Neill: I ask for a ruling on the point of order.


John Frederick Johnston: It is well known that no debate may take place on a question arising on the orders of the day. But the right hon. the Prime Minister made a statement, and it has been always customary for the leader of the opposition to reply.


Alan Webster Neill: To make a statement in reply, but not a speech.


John Frederick Johnston: The leader of the opposition may briefly reply to the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the rules provide in a case such as this, when the Prime Minister makes a statement, that whoever occupies the position I hold for the moment is entitled to make a statement in reply.


Alan Webster Neill: But not a stump speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The impertinence of the hon. gentleman has become so proverbial that most members in this house are unaffected by it; it is received with that disdain and contempt with which it should be treated.
I was observing that, believing as we do that a treaty is desirable and necessary, we have studied this treaty from the national point of view and find that there are acute differences of opinion with respect to some features of it. I am not aware of the views entertained by the Premier of British 
Columbia, but when I read the record it becomes quite apparent that he at least was not conversant with the terms of the treaty as it was negotiated; and the expressions of opinion he has given in the telegram that has been read make it, I think, perfectly clear that that condition has not entirely been changed. For instance, during the last twenty-four hours, I may say to the Prime Minister, one of our members has received a communication from the fishermen themselves who think that under present conditions it is not desirable to proceed with the resolution approving of the treaty. I do not desire in any sense to discuss the merits of the resolution at the moment except to observe that there are clauses in this treaty which many of us consider inimical to the national interest, and some of which at least we are uncertain as to the jurisdiction of parliament to enact or to become a party to, in view of the provisions of section 132 of the British North America Act. We are all agreed that if possible a treaty which will be fair to all parties should be negotiated between the United States and Canada, whereby those who live to the south of us may benefit from the fact that we are entirely responsible for the propagation of the sockeye salmon, while we, by reason of our less favourable geographical situation, may receive a larger proportion of the fish so propagated when they return from the sea at the end of the third or fourth year of their life. Under these circumstances I congratulate the Prime Minister upon taking the course he has, which I think is in the public interest, wholly devoid of any political consideration, and which will enable the public, by careful study and research, to ascertain fully what is involved in this treaty at this time. In that attitude we approach the solution of the problem, and not in any narrow party sense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
point in my hon. friend's remarks to which I should like to refer and that is the statement that some hon. gentlemen opposite have received a communication from the fishing industry or from those interested in it, urging that the matter should not be gone on with at this stage. In the circumstances I feel I ought not to allow the attitude of the fishing industry to be in any way misrepresented so far as it is known to the government. I have received a telegram signed by Richard Gosse, representing the British Columbia Packers Limited, which is as follows:
Understand provincial government strongly pressing for ratification of Fraser River treaty this session. This request is strongly supported by entire fishing industry of British Columbia as not only does treaty give far better

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
proportion of cateli to Canadian packers and provides for improvement of propagation but does not interfere with Canadian rights as province has jurisdiction over development of watershed and besides commission can only recommend any course they desire to the government.
Richard Gosse,
British Columbia Packers Ltd.
I think I ought to give that communication to the house as well as the one from Premier Tolmie, in order that hon. members may know that the government is fully apprised of the views of the fishing industry of British Columbia and of tlie British Columbia government with reference to this matter. I hope I have made it clear that our only purpose is not to proceed in the teeth of opposition on the part of members for the province which is mostly concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister misunderstood me if in speaking of the fishing industry he thought I was dealing with the packing industry; I was referring to the fishermen who catch the fish. Mr. Gosse, as I know, represents the packing industry; he is,
I believe, president of the British Columbia Packers Limited. The communication received by one of my friends, who is not in the house at the moment, was from the association of fishermen-those who catch the fish. It was they to whom I referred and not the packing industry. The very terms used by Mr. Gosse. as to the government having control over the commission, involve one of the points about which great uncertainty prevails, and with respect to which we are endeavouring to ascertain what is meant. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has just come in and has handed me the telegram signed by Mr. Maiden. It reads:
At to-day's monthly meeting fishermen opposed ratification Fraser River Sockeye Treaty this year. Am going north to-night. Send further communications regarding matter to K. Marshall.
That was yesterday, and it was followed by a letter in the same sense. The Prime Minister thought I was dealing with the packing industry as distinguished from those who are engaged in catching the fish.



DURUM WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: What does the government understand by "durum" wheat, and how did that variety get its name?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: There are a number of varieties; there is amber durum and red durum.
I cannot, on a question of this nature, raised on the orders of the day, go into an explanation of all the intricacies of durum wheat.
If my hon. friend cares to put a question on the order paper I shall be glad to supply him with all the details.
Mr. MeGIBBON:	It was introduced into
Canada from the United1 States, to which country it came from Siberia.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (for Hon. Mr. Dunning, Minister of Railways) moved the third reading of Bill No. 254, respecting the construction by the Canadian National Railway Company of certain terminal facilities with grade separation and other works at and in the vicinity of the city of Montreal.
Richard Bedford Bennett: C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
approaches a problem of this kind with a great sense of responsibility. That sense of responsibility must necessarily follow when it is considered that a yearly fixed charge of four or five million dollars is being placed upon the country and there is a question as to whether it is to be profitable or unprofitable. In moving this amendment we have suggested that this bill should go into force through proclamation of the governor in council and after approval of the plan of the works by the Board of Railway Commissioners, but if the Prime Minister or the government of the day has some other tribunal to suggest to take the place of that body I am quite content.. I am not in any sense wedded to the Board of Railway Commissioners; my difficulty has been to secure a disinterested tribunal to which this matter could be referred.
I do not want to be considered as an alarmist, but I think that a country with a population of less than ten million and which talks as glibly as we do of expenditures of ten, twenty, forty or fifty millions of dollars, fails to appreciate and understand that obligations of this character must be met. When I say that they must be met, I mean that the interest must be paid and a sinking fund must be provided to take care of those responsibilities. Fifty million dollars is a very large obligation and a tremendous liability bo create at this time. We are talking to-day in much the same way as this country used to talk before 1914, when we had such a collapse of our railway undertakings other than the Canadian Pacific. It alarms me when I think of the way in which we cavalierly wave our hands and talk about $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 as though it were a mere bagatelle. I was content to be called a pessimist in those days, but we sowed the seed and we are reaping the whirlwind and are paying the shut to-day.
I ask, therefore, not from any political motive nor any other desire than that of making the best suggestion I can to the government of the day, that before we embark on an undertaking of this character we should pause and consider this matter very carefully. I do not make that suggestion in opposition to the terminals, because I have wondered why terminals were not long ago provided in Montreal. These facilities 'have been imperatively required by the Canadian National Railways for the last few years. The railway system must be losing money because of the inadequacy of their terminal facilities, and I have wondered just how long the Canadian people would tolerate them. But because that condition has arisen is no reason
fMr. Bennett.]
why we should not take those reasonable precautions which business men would insist upon if they were acting as a board of directors dealing with the capital of a company.
So, Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the financial features of this matter beyond what I have said, nor trespassing longer upon the time of the house, I move, seconded by Mr. Stevens:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house with instructions that they have power to add thereto the following section:
"That this act shall come into force on proclamation by the governor in council and after approval of the plans of the said works by the Board of Railway Commissioners."
Any action which is to be taken should be taken promptly; there should be no delay and if the government has any tribunal to suggest which is independent and disinterested, I shall be quite content to substitute that tribunal for the Board of Railway Commissioners. I am not entirely satisfied that that board is the tribunal to which this matter should be submitted, but it is the only board of a public character of which I know to which this matter could be submitted for consideration.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the house regrets the unavoidable absence of my colleague the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) who is at present confined in the hospital. The Minister of Railways had given much time to a consideration of the various railway projects coming before the house this year. He had devoted special attention to a consideration of the different branch lines in various pants of the country, to the Hudson Bay railway extension and to the Montreal terminal facilities. He had studied these different questions very carefully. Indeed, all the members of the government know that the Minister of Railways, ever since he joined the cabinet, has been giving attention to such projects. Therefore, we regret he is not present to-day to reply to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).
My hon. friend, in presenting his amendment, was fair to this extent: he admits the need of new terminals and better and more economical switching facilities in the great city of Montreal, whence are shipped the products of a large part of the country. He admits that there should be no delay in carrying out the work; indeed, he says that already he is surprised that the people not only of Montreal, but of Canada, have tolerated' this

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
condition of affairs so long. I am not astonished at that, because my hon. friend, having had a good deal of experience before the railway commission and, perhaps, knowing that commission as well as or better than many others in the house, realizes the switching charges, for the moving of freight particularly, in Montreal, are very high and he knows that it is the man back home who pays those switching charges. But, having made that statement as to the imperative necessity of the work, my hon. friend suggests that before going on with it, we should refer it to a board in which he frankly tells us that he has not as much confidence as he would like to have. I repeat that he is in a position to know, because he has appeared before the railway commission many times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not as it is at present
constituted'.


James Alexander Robb: What does my hon. friend
mean by that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean that it is not the board it once was.


James Alexander Robb: That is another admission
that my hon. friend is asking us to refer the consideration of this great problem to a board in which he himself has-I will not say no confidence, but little confidence. This project of the Montreal terminals is, so far as the railway is concerned, not a matter of hasty conclusions. The Canadian National railway management have been considering this problem for more than six years. Not only have they been looking into it very carefully through their own engineers, but they have brought to Canada an independent engineer, a recognized and most capable terminal engineer, who has had experience not only in the mother country but in other parts of the world. I understand they have had the advantage of the experience of eminent railway engineers connected with other vast railway transportation systems on this continent. They have examined carefully the terminal facilities in other cities and after all this examination and study have reached the conclusion that the plan now presented to parliament is one that will take care of the necessities of the great port of Montreal not only for the immediate present but for years to eoime.
What does this terminal plan as presented accomplish? It solves three problems. It solves the grade problem, the crossing problem of the different grades. Everyone admits that with the congested condition now existing
in our cities, that is important, and eighty-one grade crossings are taken care of by this readjustment. Is it not important that that work should be proceeded with without delay? It also takes care of the readjustment and coordination of the present transportation facilities and reduces to a considerable extent the cost of switching. It provides for a belt line for freight and passengers right around the city of Montreal-and also, unlike the situation that exists in other railway stations in Montreal, where the lines come to dead ends, it provides for a continuation of the system through the city, so that trains coming from the wrest proceed through to the east and trains coming from the east are able to proceed west. It is not proposed to spend this $51,000,000 immediately because the bill specifically states that the management may take seven years to do the work. I imagine that the people of Montreal and, indeed, the people of all Canada will want this work completed as soon as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill provides for a
period of five years.


James Alexander Robb: I thought it was seven. The
expenditure covering that period of five years, as stated by my hon. friend, is not unreasonable. In the bill before parliament, the same precautions are taken in regard to the Montreal teiimimails as were taken in connection with the various branch line bills that parliament has passed. It is subject to the same examination and conforms in every respect to the general Railway Act.
As regards the expenditure, I take issue at once with the leader of the opposition. The people of Canada are not disposed to be governed by commissions. The government of the day are responsible for the spending of the people's money. If the people of Canada decide that the government are unwisely spending the public money, we shall be put out of office and my hon. friend will be put in. But the people will have an opportunity to judge us. Will they have such an opportunity if we turn over to the Board of Railway Commissioners, a board in which my hon. friend has just said he has little confidence, the decision as to whether or not the Canadian National railway management is going to spend this $50,000,000 or $51,000,000? If we do so, what chance have the taxpayers of Canada to turn them out if they are not satisfied with them? So I say to my friend that it is better that a government responsible to the people should be charged with the responsibility of making this decision. Even assuming that we adopt the suggestion of my

C.N.K.-Montreal Terminal
hon. friend and refer those plans to another board for consideration, how is that other board going to secure the desired information? Have we no confidence in the management of the Canadian National Railways? If we have no confidence in them, the proper amendment to bring in would be that we change the situation and turn over the management of the railway to the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is a
business man. Did he ever know of a business man who was engaging in large capital expenditures not calling in experts for their opinions, while at- the same time not dispensing with the reports of his own managers and engineers?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has just told us that he questions whether the Board of Railway Commissioners are experts. The Canadian National railway board, through its chairman and directors, responsible to the people through the government of Canada, have not brought this measure to parliament without first taking expert advice. They have not come here hastily, for they have been considering this project for six years. Is it necessary that I should repeat to my hon. friend that they have obtained the advice of an independent expert terminal engineer? They brought to this country Mr. Palmer, who is regarded as one of the best railway terminal engineers in the old world.
There is another railway terminal engineer whose opinion has also been given in favour of this project, a man in whom the country had some confidence a few years ago, and in whom I believe they have confidence yet. I remember that when the government was looking about for a suitable man to take charge of this great national railway system that we had on our hands, there was some criticism of the selection of Sir Henry Thornton. It was recognized that he was an excellent railway terminal engineer and that he had had great experience in providing terminal facilities for railways in large cities, but some questioned very much whether he was a good traffic manager. They said they were not very sure as to that. We know, they said, that the government have selected a good railway terminal engineer, but we are not sure that he is a good traffic manager.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who said that?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend recalls that that was the criticism at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am frank to say that I never heard it.
[Mr. Robb.)


James Alexander Robb: I leave it to the Canadian people to decide whether or not Sir Henry Thornton has proven himself a good traffic manager. I submit that if Sir Henry Thornton was a good railway terminal engineer when he was engaged as president and chairman of the board of directors of the Canadian National railway, he has not lost anything by the experience of the past six years and by the exchange of opinions that he has had with other eminent railway engineers.
We entrust to the chairman and board of directors of the Canadian National railway, which is owned by the people of Canada, the expenditure of about $245,000,000 every year, and no one has suggested that before the management spend part of this money they should consult the Board of Railway Commissioners, a board in whioh my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has but doubtful confidence. If the chairman and the board of directors of the Canadian National railway are to be entrusted with the building of branch lines throughout the country, with the extension of the Hudson Bay railway, and the operation of the vessels that we have on the ocean, surely they are to be entrusted with the expenditure of the money that parliament is voting for the Montreal railway terminals.
I repeat again that it is the government of the day that is responsible. The government must pass on all this expenditure and the government would not pass on any of this expenditure unless it was satisfied, as it is satisfied now after examination, that the railway has obtained the best expert engineering advice and that the terminals proposed are suitable to the requirements of the great port and city of Montreal. The bill provides that the expenditure shall not be more than $10,000,000 in any one year. I repeat that it is the governor in council that must authorize the expenditure of this money. The government of the day is responsible and so I ask parliament, admitting with my hon. friend that there is necessity and immediate necessity for improved railway terminal facilities in Montreal, why we should delay the passing of this measure by referring it to a board in which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has just said that he has but little confidence.
Mr. C. II. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):	Mr. Speaker, I am speaking entirely unexpectedly because I had no knowledge that this amendment w-ould be proposed to-day. The greater part of this work will be carried on in the constituency which I have

C.N.R.-Montreal Terminal
the honour to represent in the city of Montreal. I have taken particular pains during the last fortnight to ascertain what the general public opinion is in Montreal with regard to the extension of these terminal facilities. Montreal, it is impossible to disguise the fact, is proud of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has brought great credit to the city of Montreal during the last fifty years, and Montreal has always had faith and confidence m the management of that great undertaking. Public opinion, as I understand' it, in the city of Montreal is most desirous that there should be a clear and amicable understanding between the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways with regard to terminal facilities; but apparently up to the present time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is not prepared to enter into a joint undertaking for the construction of terminal facilities, believing, as is undoubtedly the fact, that its present terminal facilities and the splendid station and equipment, which it now has, will be quite adequate to the requirements of its own undertaking for a number of years to come, and therefore public opinion, as I understand it. is that the way should be left open, as the development of the terminal facilities of the Canadian National Railways proceeds, for an amicable understanding, if one may be reached, by which the Canadian Pacific Railway may come in and share in those facilities. The door should be left open.
Apart from that, public opinion in the city of Montreal, as I understand it, is so thoroughly dissatisfied with the present terminal facilities of the Canadian National Railways in that city that, so far as it may give expression to the public opinion of this country, so far as it can exercise any influence on the government of this country, it will insist that there shall be no delay in proceeding to remedy the existing distressing and deplorable conditions. Therefore, representing that city, it is necessary, I think, for me to say that the general opinion of the city as a whole is that the work should proceed rapidly and that there should be no unnecessary delay in its commencement.
I have 'been accustomed to examining engineering plans for a number of years, and I am thoroughly convinced that so far as the engineering problems are concerned, there are no great engineering difficulties to be overcome in carrying out the undertaking for the proposed construction of these terminal facilities in the city of Montreal. So far as construction is concerned, I have no doubt that, there will be no difficulty in finding not only
m Canada but among the officials of the two great railways men who are thoroughly competent to carry out this great enterprise.
So far as the traffic necessities are concerned, I know nothing about the matter; that necessarily must be left to the management of the railway particularly and peculiarly affected. I entirely agree that the government of this country in carrying through this work must take all the responsibility- and perhaps a large part of the credit. I do urge upon the government that every necessary engineering advice and assistance should be made available to the management of the Canadian National Railways in carrying out this enterprise. But I am not in favour of delay, and I am certainly not in favour of any delay for the purpose of putting before the Board of Railway Commissioners this entire undertaking for its approval, because I believe that board is incompetent to give any better opinion upon it than I am able to give myself. But 1 did ask the other day that insofar as questions of law and of fact may arise between the Canadian National Railways and other public bodies, those issues should be submitted to the railway commission for decision. But if this entire project is referred to the railway commission for its approval, who are to bring the facts and produce the experts before the commission, unless the Canadian National Railways do so? I regard the suggestion that we should await the approval of the Board of Railway Commissioners as one that will be interpreted and understood throughout the length and breadth of the city of Montreal as a means for delay. Consequently I cannot vote for the amendment.


Mr. J. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as representative
of one of the constituencies of the city of Montreal, I deem it my duty to make a few comments with reference to the amendement which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) hias just moved to bill No. 254, in connection with the construction of a terminal station in the Metropolis of Canada. The citizens of Montreal are anxious to see the completion of these Canadian National Railway terminals and they are opposed-the majority of them at least-to any delay in this matter.	_
I therefore ask the house to concur in the views expressed by the citizens of Montreal who, for a number of years past, desire these improvements. Moreover, I see no reason why the government should not take the re-
Juvenile Delinquents Act

sponsibility of having the representatives of the people vote the sum of $51,000,000 for the construction of these terminal facilities.
I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) as well as with those of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). We should therefore, without further delay, vote in favour of the third reading of this bill, and thereby, prove to the citizens of Montreal that the government acknowledges its responsibilities and is ready to grant their legitimate claims.
Amendment (Mr. Bennett) negatived.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS' ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 170 respecting juvenile delinquents.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the senate has
amended this bill by adding two or three subsections which were suggested by the child welfare organizations, and which really improve the bill. There is no objection to them on the part of the Department of Justice.
To section 17 the senate has added subsection (5), providing that when a child has been placed under the surveillance of a foster home outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court may issue a warrant or any other process outside of its jurisdiction for the purpose of reaching such child.
Subsection (3) of section 22 has been amended to read:
(3) Where, under the provisions of this section or of section 20, a sum of money is ordered to be paid, the court may adjudge, either by the order respecting the payment of such sum or by an order made subsequently, that the same shall be recoverable by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the party and in default of such distress by imprisonment.
That follows a similar provision in the Criminal Code.
Section 36 has been amended to read in this form:
36. (1) Every juvenile court shall have such and like powqrs and authority to preserve order in court during the sittings thereof and by the like ways and means as now by law are or may be exercised and used in like cases and for the like purposes by any court in Canada and by the judges thereof, during the sittings thereof.
(2) Every judge of a juvenile court, whenever any resistance is offered to the execution of any summons, warrant of execution or other 
process issued by him, may enforce the due execution of the same by the means provided by the law for enforcing the execution of the process of other courts in like cases.
There are no other amendments.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-Asoka column for Canada at Delhi, India, $3,000.
Mr. BRADY:: Will the minister explain this?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: This has been requested by the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs. The amount is asked for to provide for the erection of a column, after the style of the ancient Asoka columns, to be placed in front of the new government buildings at Delhi. Four of the dominions were asked to contribute the price of one column.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the suppression of the white slave traffic, $1,500.
Mr. SPENCER:: This seems a particularly small grant for the purpose. Surely there is more money spent in this regard.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not intend the chairman to call this vote; it is not under this department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Henry Elvins Spencer: No; I want the particulars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might as well dispose of this item. It appears from year to year and is assistance for which the Department of Health takes responsibility in connection with the suppressing of the traffic.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But what is being done
by Canada to suppress the traffic?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have
to get the particulars from the department. I understand that we cooperate with other countries and this is largely in the nature of a contribution to organizations that have this work in hand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers, $3,079,000.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The minister will remember that I asked for a certain letter which was sent to the United States government. It should be on the file.

Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: The letter in question relates to correspondence with regard to the lower lakes terminals. There would be no objection to my hon. friend seeing it; it is in the possession of the Department of External Affairs.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston); I will not enter into a discussion of the matter, but I should like to see the letter.
Mr.	PECK:	I understand that	all	these
works are done under contract.
Mr.	ELLIOTT: Which works?
Mr.	PECK:	The work under these	items
generally.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; there is no exception in the vote here.
Mr.	PECK:	The work is let	to	contractors-all these improvements which are proposed?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. PECK:: Do those contracts contain what is usually spoken of as the fair-wage agreement?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Edward Armour Peck: What practical steps does the department take to see that the agreement is carried out?


John Campbell Elliott: Whenever there is complaint that it is not being observed, such complaint is investigated. The complaint goes first of all to the Minister of Labour, who guards very jealously the strict observance of the terms of the fair wage clauses.


Edward Armour Peck: The contract is one with the government and not with the men who are employed in connection with the work. The government is very careful to have proper inspection of the materials, of the mode of construction, and so forth, made by its own engineers. Surely, therefore, it is important that the workmen should be protected by a similar inspection with a view to insuring that they are paid a fair wage for the work they do. It would be a simple matter for some inspector, representing either the Department of Labour or the Department of Public Works, to see that the wages paid from time to time by the contractors to the workmen represent a reasonable return for their labour. If you wait until some complaint comes from the workmen themselves you may wait a long time, because the men who are employed on this work are probably afraid to complain for fear of being marked as labour agitators. I do think that the government should take more active steps than to
wait until a complaint is made before investigating. It would be quite possible to insist upon duplicate pay lists being filed with the department, so that if any question came up after the contract was completed an opportunity could be had for investigation. The other day I asked a question of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) with reference to a contract that had gone through his department in connection with some improvements in the Lindsay arsenal, and to my surprise he told me he had.no information as to the amount which had been paid the various workmen employed in that work. The result is that now that the work is completed it is absolutely impossible to ascertain whether the suggestion made to me, that fair wages were not paid these employees, is justified; the matter cannot be examined into. This question is one of considerable importance to the workmen of the country, and further steps should be taken to see that they are properly paid.


John Campbell Elliott: There is an official known as the fair wage officer, whose duty it is to make the very investigation to which my hon. friend has referred, and to see that the clauses are strictly observed.


Edward Armour Peck: Is there just one officer for the department, and does he examine carefully into all contracts?


John Campbell Elliott: I believe there is more
than one officer .and I understand that close supervision is maintained over the different contracts.


Edward Armour Peck: Would it be possible to get
fiom that officer a report, annually or otherwise, as to what he actually does for the salary he receives?


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly.


Mr. RALSTON:: My hon. friend asked for
a return the other day which he said had been delayed. I took up the matter in my department and while I have not seen the return myself I understood from my deputy that it had been sent forward to the Secretary of State. I do not know whether or not it has been tabled, but I believe it will give my hon. friend the information he desires.


Edward Armour Peck: I just want to point out that at present it is impossible to find out how this work was carried on and whether proper payments were made to the working men. The minister stated he was unable to furnish the information.

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa


James Layton Ralston: I think the answer was
that he had not the information at hand here, but I think my hon. friend will find that the additional return will give him the information he desires.


Mr. GEARY:: Does every contract contain a fair wage clause, and if so, does the minister remember offhand how it reads?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say offhand; I
know the clause is submitted by the Department of Labour before it is included.


George Reginald Geary: Is there a clause regulating the number of hours also?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not in a position to say offhand as to that.


George Reginald Geary: It seems to me that is an
important point; the eight hour day, or so many hours a week, is a matter of some importance to the men, and if there is such a clause in government contracts it seems to me the government in employing men themselves might very well insist upon similar conditions being adhered to. I understand that in the Hudson bay work the men are working ten hours a day and there is nothing to show that they are not working ten hours a day on other government work, which is against the spirit of the fair wage clause.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The other day the minister furnished me with copies of the fair wage clauses, the one providing for a specific wage and the other for the fair wage prevailing in the locality. I suppose the government sees that these fair wage clauses are enforced.


George Reginald Geary: There is no doubt that sometimes 'the men are imposed upon by the contractor.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I would like to inquire
as to whether the granting of the franchise to the Detroit and Windsor Ferry Company, and also the franchise for the service from Detroit to Amherstburg and Bois Blanc island, come under this department?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say definitely but I am under the impression that they do.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I would like to know
definitely, because there is a matter I wouid like to bring up under the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-second new departmental building,
John Campbell Elliott: The supplementary estimates of this department, tabled yesterday, with the exception of an item for messing

accommodation at Kingston and one or two other exceptions, are practically all for works under contract or for repairs which have been necessitated since the main estimates were tabled.


Mr. GARDINER:: I notice that this item is for a new departmental building; would the minister give us some information in this regard?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is to provide for the preparation of plans, the calling for tenders and so on for the second of the group of departmental buildings. This is only intended to provide for getting things ready to let the contract next year, after the completion of the building now in process of construction.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Where does the
minister propose to put this second building?


John Campbell Elliott: That is a matter for the
architects to work out as to the details, but it is intended to be in the immediate vicinity of the- present building.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is the Confederation building?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Surely the minister will allow plenty of space between these buildings? A good deal of ground was purchased there for the purpose of making a second parliament hill, as it were, and surely the minister will not put this second building too close to the one now being constructed. Personally I think the present building is altogether too near .Wellington street, as I have said before; some space should have been left between the street and the building. That cannot be helped now, but surely there should be quite a space left between the first and the second buildings, in order to make a beauty spot of that district. Can we get an assurance from the minister that this will be done?


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
may rest assured that the second building will not be put so close to the building now under construction as to interfere in any way with the harmony of the architecture of the two buildings. However, the details as to the exact location must be settled by the architects. The general plan is part of the scheme worked out years ago, as my hon. friend knows.


Mr. HEAPS:: But surely it is impossible
for an architect to get out plans and specifi-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
cations for a building until he knows where the building is to be situated. I had thought perhaps the minister might have some information to give the house indicating almost the exact location of the second building.


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the immediate
vicinity of the building now being erected, but this vote of $200,000 is to provide for a study of the site, the preparing of plans and specifications and so on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There has been some talk of having a proper layout of the city so that these buildings might be given a proper setting; I understood that the federal commission had some plan in mind. Personally I do not like the location on Wellington street; I think it is a mistake to put these expensive government buildings in a row on that street. I believe some comprehensive plan should be developed whereby these buildings might be located in such a way as will not interfere with the future development of the city as a whole.


John Campbell Elliott: This location was decided
upon by a committee after a very careful study extending over a number of years. The plan of the construction of the building to be erected on the area was canvassed and laid out after a lengthy study by a commitiee, such as the hon. member has in mind, and that committee decided upon the general layout of the buildings.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And they chose Wellington
street as the site for the additional public buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a building on Elgin street, the customs building, which I think could well be torn down and a new building erected in its place. A very fine structure could be erected on the new park and additional space would be provided. Has the department considered that angle of the matter at all?


John Campbell Elliott: That would come within
the area under the control of the federal commission and I have no douibt it will receive the most serious consideration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In my opinion, Wellington
street is not the most suitable location for these new government buildings. It is only possible to erect the buildings along one side of the street and the result will be that we will have fine, imposing government buildings on one side and a bunch of shacks on the 78594-203
other. I do not think that is a proper setting for the city of Ottawa, and I think a proper scheme should be devised by competent persons to develop the city of Ottawa in the proper manner rather than in a haphazard sort of way.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I will take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister if he has given any consideration to the matter of making the city of Ottawa a federal district where he would have control of everything in the line of architecture?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a question which is under consideration all the time. I am not in a position to make any announcement at the moment but I hope that that may be brought about in the course of a short time.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand that the
government is now renting offices in about forty different buildings in Ottawa; is it the intention of the government to erect buildings from time to time as finances permit which will take care of the entire civil service?


John Campbell Elliott: The intention is to proceed with reasonable expedition in the erection of buildings to house the different government services now located in a large number of buildings for which the government has to pay rent.


Mr. FANSHER (East Lambton):: What
departments of the government will be housed in this new building?


John Campbell Elliott: That matter has not been
decided as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Barrie public building-improvements and repairs, $4,000.
Hamilton-tractor for postal purposes, $1,300.
Kingston R.M.C.-messing accommodation

further amount required, $55,000.
Oshawa public building-installation of elevator and improvements, etc.-further amount required, $1,000.
Ottawa

government's share of cost of local improvements, $38,000.
Ottawa West Block-elevator, $8,500.
Ottawa Printing Bureau-improvements to heating, $6,300.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc. [DOT]-further amount required, $25,000.
Stratford public building-improvements and repairs, $4,000.
Sudbury public building-addition and alterations-further amount required, $2,000.
St. Mary's public building-improvements and repairs, $5,000.
Walkerville public building-improvements and repairs, $4,500.-Total, $154,600.
[Stage Direction]


Supply-Public Works-Ontario
Sidney Cecil Robinson: The minister has stated that bis department grants the license to the Detroit and Windsor Ferry Company, and I would like to inquire when that license will expire ?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the data relating to that, but I will be very glad to obtain the information for my hon. friend.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: This ferry company has a very valuable franchise. The island of Bois Blanc, a Canadian island, opposite the town of Amherstburg belongs to Canada but the ferry company operates a boat from Amherstburg to the island. Two American immigration officers are stationed there and when a British-born family of recent residence in Canada desire to go to the island for picnicking purposes they are not permitted to do so by these immigration officers. I feel certain that if the general manager of the ferry company were not so stubborn some arrangement could be made whereby British-born subjects would have the privilege of going to the island. The ferry company take the view that passengers from Detroit to Bois Blanc, or Bob Lo as it is called, are not questioned when they return to Detroit, and also claim that it would offer a sort of roundabout way in which undesirables or those not on the quota list could get into Detroit without being questioned. I think this matter could be overcome by the assurance of the chief of police, the mayor or some other responsible party in Amherstburg, that the British-born citizen had no intention of landing in the United States, but would return to Amherstburg. This is a humiliating position, and I have received many complaints about it. I do not think the United States would tolerate a similar condition on their side, and I feel sure that the matter can be amicably adjusted by the department.


John Campbell Elliott: The department grants
the license for the ferries, but has no control over the regulations of the immigration department of the United States.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: The ferry company operates a boat called The Papoose, which runs only from Amherstburg to the island. I do not think it is right that American immigration officers are permitted to station themselves at a Canadian port and prevent British subjects from going from one part of Canada to another.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to direct the
attention of the minister to a matter which I think can be remedied very quickly; I refer to the sidewalks around the parliament buildings. Sidewalks as a rule are made to

walk on, but it is impossible to walk on these. They have been in a bad state for some time and I should like to know whether the department is going to take measures to see that they are repaired. Is any action going to be taken against the contractor who built these sidewalks?


John Campbell Elliott: It was not thought advisable to do anything to them while the house was in session; that is, to start tearing up the sidewalks or effecting repairs. The contractors to whom my hon. friend refers have undertaken to resurface the portion that was laid by them and which is unsatisfactory. That will be done just as soon as parliament prorogues.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I hope the department will
see that the contractors put on a proper surface, different from what they put on before.


George Halsey Perley: I see under this item an amount for Ottawa departmental buildings, and I should like to say a word as to the location of the second departmental building. The Prime Minister has taken a great interest in the beautification of Ottawa and is causing a good deal of money to be spent in that regard. The location of the new buildings will make a tremendous difference in the appearance of the city. I am rising simply to ask him personally to look into the plan and see whether he thinks the location is all right. We have bought a largo piece of land all the way along Wellington street and it should be made a beauty spot. I do not want to insist upon this because I may be wrong, but I think the present building has been put altogether too near the street. This is not necessary, because there is plenty of land to give more room and there should be at least space, for a driveway in front of the building. I know it has been stated that the reason the first building was located where it is, was so that it would be in line with the Chateau Laurier, but after all, the whole section in that part of Wellington street should be a new feature by itself, like a second parliament square, though not exactly the same as ours, but with plenty of open spaces, grass and so forth to make it a thing of beauty. I simply appeal to the Prime Minister to give the matter of the location of the second building his personal attention.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend can rest
assured that no building will be located without the Prime Minister's most serious consideration being requested, and, I know, being very freely given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was rather interested
in what the hon. member for West Essex said. Certainly it seems to me to be improper that, because a foreign company owns a Canadian island in Canadian waters passengers running from a Canadian port to that island should be subjected to almost the indignities to which he referred. I think the minister has it in his power to put a stop to that sort of thing.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to look
into the matter and to do whatever can be done.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Hudson Bay railway and terminals: construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost at $2,500, $6,500,000.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. leader of the opposition asked certain questions in regard to the engineers and the engineers' certificates, and with regard to the Stewart and Cameron contract. The amount paid to Stewart and Cameron by the department to March 31, 1929, was $1,025,578; the amount required to complete the contract is $974,422. The total estimated amount to be paid to Stewart and Cameron is in round figures $2,000,000. The reasons for the increase are an increased quantity of material above that estimated. The original engineer's estimate of the work covered by the Stewart and Cameron contract was $1,907,000.
My hon. friend also asked with regard to classification. Strictly speaking there has been no change in the classification from the four original classes of material: (1) solid rock; (2) loose rock; (3) hardpan; (4.) earth and other materials. There were, however, four extraordinary orders issued under the provisions of the contract: (1) for excavating frozen material; (2) for excavating ditches in winter, as it was deemed necessary for such work to be done in the winter in order to facilitate drainage when the spring thaw came; (3) erection of eight engineers' camps, not included in the original contract; (4) brushing on top grade, which brushing was found necessary on account of the muskeg embankments, the embankments being too soft to bear track being laid, which was given 78594-203^
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
to the contractor to be done ahead of the track, as he had men in camps in advance of the tracklaying.
My hon. friend also asked something as to the engineers. The chief engineer under the contract was the chief engineer of the construction department of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gzowski, who as such has the final say as to classification, work orders and price fixing orders. Such action, however, is taken on the advice and after consultation with the other engineers down the ladder, particularly the district engineer, Mr. J. G. MacLachlan, who in turn was continuously on the work and in touch with the resident engineers. Mr. Gzowski, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Burns made many trips over the line, and Mr. J. G. MacLachlan was practically continuously on the job with the exception of necessary trips to Winnipeg, and on one occasion he had to go out for medical treatment in Winnipeg, but not during the progress of the work.
My hon. friend also wished to know whether the deputy Minister, Major Graham Bell, had sent any telegram or other communication to Mr. MacLachlan, the district engineer in connection with the classification under the Stewart, and Cameron contract. The answer is that there is no record on the departmental files of any such telegram or communication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were a number cf questions which arose out of that, but in view of the absence of the minister, who is unfortunately ill, I think I shall have to let them stand. I thank the acting minister for the information that he has been able to secure under great difficulties. Before I leave-that, I should like to put on record, so that the attention of the minister will be called! to it, a telegram that came to me from Mr.. W. J. James, of Prince Albert, and I am sure-that the hon. member for Prince Albert will be greatly interested in this:
Have read press report of discussion in house regarding Churchill terminal and Beach subdivision in 1908 and following two years. 1 bought several lots in Beach subdivision paying three hundred dollars each knowing that some day it would be a port. As yet received no notice of expropriation or offer in connection therewith. I know of twenty-five others at this place that bought lots and obtained title and are in same position as myself. Would like to know if our rights are to be taken away without notice or compensation.
I merely put that upon the record in view of the discussion the other day, so that it may be brought to the attention, of the
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

minister when, the opportunity comes later. In any event the deputy minister will take notice of it.
I suppose the acting minister has no figures in connection with the Flin-Flon branch of the Hudson- Bay railway.


James Alexander Robb: No.
Mr. B-ENNETT: I will leave that, in the albsen-ce of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans to Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $53,750,000 to meet expenditures made or indebtedness incurred (where amounts available from net operating income or investments may be insufficient) by or on behalf of the Canadian National Railway Company, herein called "The Company," or any company specified or referred to in chapter 172 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and chapter 13 of the Statutes of 1920, or now or hereafter comprised in the Canadian National Railways or by the company in respect of any railways, properties and works entrusted to it from time to time under the provisions of section 19 of chapter 172 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, or any one or more off such companies, on any or all of the following accounts, such expenditures or indebtedness being herein called authorized expenditures:-
(a)	Interest on securities, notes and other obligations; rentals for lease of lines and equipment;
(b)	Equipment principal payments; sinking funds; miscellaneous maturing or matured notes and other obligations secured or unsecured;
(c)	Operating income deficit, whenever incurred or ascertained;
(d)	Construction and betterments, including coordinations; acquisition of real or personal property and working capital.
The amount herein authorized may be applied from time to time to meet authorized expenditures, in the discretion of the governor in council:-
(a)	In respect of railways, properties and works entrusted to the company as aforesaid;
(b)	In respect of railways, properties and works not so entrusted by way of loans in cash, -or by way of guarantee, or partly one way and partly the other, subject, however, as follows:-
If by way of loans from His Majesty, the amount or amounts advanced to any one or more of the said companies shall be repayable on demand, with interest payable half-yearly at the rate fixed from time to time by the governor in council, secured if and when directed by the governor in council by mortgage or mortgages -upon such properties, in such form and containing such terms and conditions, not inconsistent herewith, as the governor in council may approve.
If by way of loans from persons other than His Majesty (without the guarantee of His Majesty) the amounts, terms and conditions of such loans shall be such as the governor in council may from time to time approve.
If by way of guarantee, any such guarantee may be either a general guarantee covering the total amount of the issue, or by a separate

guarantee endorsed on each obligation, and may be of the principal, interest and sinking funds (if any) of the notes, obligations or securities of one or more of the said companies specified by the governor in council, which notes, obligations or securities the companies so specified are hereby authorized to make and issue from time to time, provided that the total principal amount thereof at any one time outstanding shall not, together with any part of the loans represented by cash, exceed the total amount mentioned in this vote, namely $53,750,000; and any such guarantee may be signed by the Minister of Finance, or such other person as the governor in council may authorize, on behalf of His Majesty, in such form and on such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine to be appropriate and applicable thereto. Any guarantee so signed shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of the validity of the guarantee and that the provisions of this enactment have been complied with.
Should temporary loans be made or negotiated before the lapse of this appropriation either from His Majesty or other persons, guaranteed notes, obligations or securities may subsequently be issued under the provisions of the preceding paragraph of this enactment to renew, refund or adjust such loans, or any part thereof.
Each company herein mentioned or referred to is hereby authorized to aid and assist, in any manner any other or others of the said companies, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may for its own requirements and also for the requirements of any or all of such other companies from time to time:-
(a)	Issue notes, obligations or other securities, joint or several, at discretion, for the purpose of any guarantee made or to be made under the provisions of this enactment;
(b)	Apply the proceeds of any such guaranteed issue, or the amount of loans received by virtue of this enactment, in meeting authorized expenditures on its own account or on account of any or all of such other companies;
(c)	Make advances for the purpose of meeting authorized expenditures to any or all of such other companies, -upon or without any security, at discretion.
No purchaser of such guaranteed notes, securities or obligations shall be under any obligation to inquire into the application of the proceeds of any guaranteed issue, $53,750,000.
James Alexander Robb: Perhaps it will facilitate matters if I state to the committee that all these railway estimates were referred to the railway and shipping committee, where they were very carefully reviewed, and the report of the committee I believe was unanimous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime Freight Rates Act
Amount required to provide for payment from time to time during the fiscal year 192930 of the difference, estimated by the Board of Railway Commissioners and certified by the said Board to the Minister of Railways and Canals, as and when required by him, occurring on account of the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, between the tariff tolls and the normal tolls (referred to in section 9 of the

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.
said Act) on all traffic moved during 1929, under the tariffs approved, by the following companies:-
Atlantic Quebec and Western Railway.
Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway.
Canadian Pacific Railway, including Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Co.
New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company.
Cumberland Railway and Coal Co.
Dominion Atlantic Railway.
Maritime Coal Railway and Power Co.
Quebec Oriental Railway Co.
Sydney and Louisburg Railway.
Temiscouata Railway, $1,050,000.
Mr. POWER:: I desire to inquire of the
Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Robb), as I would have inquired of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning)

whose absence I in common with all other members of the house deeply deplore-if any steips have been taken by the government to remedy the situation which has arisen in Quebec, a situation created by the application of the Maritime Freight Rates Act to the city of Quebec and the surrounding country. It would appear that owing to that legislation the city and port of Quebec have been seriously discriminated against. The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General and members from the district of Quebec have received memorials in protest, and it has been quite conclusively shown to the Minister of Railways and others that owing to the application of this legislation the harbour of Quebec is, so to speak, divided- into two: freight shipped from Levis, which is in the harbour boundaries of Quebec, obtains considerable advantage over freight shipped from the city of Quebec, so much so that at the present time the merchants of the city of Quebec meet competition from the maritime provinces almost at their door. Within 50 or 60 miles of the city of Quebec the freight rates are on a par with those from Halifax; whereas the merchants of Levis have received benefits which even they did not anticipate.
I submit that this was on oversight at the time the legislation was passed. For many years Quebec and Levis were in the same rate zone. Serious injury has been occasioned bo the merchants and the shippers of the city of Quebec, and they have protested vigorously. They have taken their protests to the proper authorities here. Moreover, they went down to the maritime provinces and explained their case to the boards of trade of Halifax and St. John. Not having anticipated that this matter would come up for discussion this afternoon, I have not the documents at hand which I should have, but I believe their representations received not only a sympathetic hearing, but I am under the impression that resolutions of these boards of trade were
passed favourable to the contention of the representatives of the port of Quebec. Under the circumstances I would urge that some action be taken without delay in order to remove the discrimination which exists against the city of Quebec.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to hear from
the Minister of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you for your inquisitiveness.


James Alexander Robb: I know the Minister of Justice is in sympathy with anything that concerns the city and port of Quebec. As the house knows, a delegation from the city of Quebec recently presented to the Minister of Railways the case which has been so well presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). I am advised by the officers of the Department of Railwajes that the minister promised to urge upon the traffic department of the railways the necessity of reviewing the case fully. Beyond that I am quite sure my hon. friend does not expect me to go to-day.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like some further
assurance that if the traffic department cannot make that arrangement the government will amend the Maritime Freight Rates Act at the next session of parliament. In fact it should have been amended this session. I think the government should consider seriously such an amendment. I do not think the people of Quebec city will be satisfied with the minister's assurance that representations have been made to the traffic department. We can make those representations ourselves, and probably we shall get just as far. It should be the duty of the government to remove any injustice that has been created by a mere oversight-on the part of whom I do not know.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend as a good
lawyer would scarcely expect the government to pronounce upon the matter until it has heard the evidence from the officers of the department.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, it would
appear that the member for Quebec South is under the impression that the Maritime Freight Rates Act was intended to bring redress to the province of Quebec. I would remind him that that legislation was enacted to give relief to the people of the maritime provinces. So far as the city of Quebec is concerned we are not very much interested. But we are interested in getting our products
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

into the city of Montreal. To cut us oft"- as we are cut off-several hundred miles from Montreal, means that we get only about five-eighths of what we should have got by way of relief. Montreal is the gateway, the first point in the upper province, so-called, where we can find a market or get in touch with Ontario. It was understood thoroughly that we were to be given special rates to enable us to enter that territory. As I say, that has not been done. I have not the slightest objection to Quebec participating in the rate referred to by the member from Quebec South, but I think he totally misapprehends, as I stated in my opening remarks, the object of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. If he will join with me and other members from the maritime.?; to have the Maritime Freight Rates Act extended to Montreal, I am with him.


Charles Gavan Power: In reply to the unselfish
remarks of my hon. friend, I ^hall be glad to join with him in any way-


Thomas Cantley: Then start on the right
track.


Charles Gavan Power: I never claimed, nor did
anybody else in the city of Quebec, that the Maritime Freight Rates Act was intended for our relief; but I did wish to make it clear that that legislation was not intended unjustly to discriminate against the port and city of Quebec. The effect of the introduction of those rates has been to deprive the merchants of Quebec of the opportunity to sell their goods in territory which from the earliest days has been recognized as their own. Anyone who is familiar with the geographical situation of the province of Quebec will know that almost all the territory between Montreal and Three Rivers on both the north and the south shore of the St. Lawrence river is fully covered by the business people of Montreal; whereas the territory below the city of Quebec, between it and the New Brunswick border, has been for years that in which the Quebec merchants were able to carry on their business.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: You
are referring to the city of Quebec?


Mr. POWERS:: Yes. The effect of these rates is that we are no longer able to carry on business there.


Mr. HANSON:: Will the hon. member go
ahead! and prove his proposition? I am sympathetic, but I should like to hear from him something more than a mere assertion.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend's point is
absolutely well taken. Unfortunately I did not expect this matter to be brought up to-

day and I have not with me the memorial of the Quebec board of trade. It is quite clearly stated that on certain articles the rate from Quebec to Ste. Anne de la Pooatiere, eighty miles below Quebec, is about equal to that from St. John to the same point, which is about four hundred miles. I do not remember all the details, but if that is the case, and if it can be shown, then there is an unjust discrimination. No favouritism should be shown in that territory. That is the point, and it should be the duty of the government to make a more serious investigation into the matter than has so far been made.


Mr. PARENT:: I am glad the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has brought this matter to the attention of the committee. I for one, as a member from Quebec, have had occasion more than once to meet representatives of the various commercial interests of that city with a view to bringing to the attention of the government the discrimination under tvhich the city of Quebec is labouring by reason of the freight rates consequent upon the Duncan report and the act based thereon. As stated by the hon. member, it is well known that the city of Quebec has always been regarded as a part of the maritime provinces so far as traffic is concerned. Everyone who has spent a few years in Quebec will remember the time when we had a ferry which often carried full trains across from Levis to Quebec and from Quebec to Levis, in the traffic between the maritime provinces and that city. Knowing all the circumstances, and being under no doubt at all as to the city of Quebec having been all along regarded as a part of the maritime provinces in the matter of freight rates, we were very much surprised to learn that in the Duncan report only the city of Levis was mentioned; and no one -at the time protested, for the simple reason that it was inconceivable to the people of Quebec that the mention of the word Levis alone could be taken to mean anything else than the inclusion of Quebec city itself. The city of Levis is, of course, a splendid place but it is not to be compared in importance to the city of Quebec; everyone will concede that. It is well known that our commercial people have long done business with the maritime provinces, carrying on a considerable trade with them. When the word Quebec was omitted from the timetable the officials of the department and of the -railways concluded that the special freight rates did not apply to that city. It is then that the question began to attract attention, and as soon as the discrimination was realized the members representing that city, the -board -of trade and the

Supply-R ailways-C .N.R.
various interests of Quebec took action to bring the matter to the notice of the government. I may say that so far we have received a very sympathetic hearing, but that is about all that we have obtained. I am glad that the members from the maritime provinces appear to be in sympathy with our claim in this matter, and I sincerely trust that as a result of these combined efforts the government will see its way clear to giving the city of Quebec the freight rates which the maritime provinces enjoy under present conditions.


Mr. MacLAREN:: It may be true, and I think it is, that we are sympathetic with the desires of the people of the city of Quebec, but I cannot say that we are sympathetic to the point of wishing them to get what they ask for in this particular case. The minister will no doubt give due consideration to all the representations submitted to parliament, but he will find that there is a very strong and widespread objection to this application from the city of Quebec. There is one way that is suggested of helping to meet the situation and that is, instead of having the point fixed at Levis, that it be extended back some miles to St. Charles or some station nearer the maritime provinces. In that way there might be eliminated any difficulty arising between Levis and Quebec. In the meantime, while we wish our friends in Quebec every consideration, we do not propose that anything shall be done which will interfere with the Maritime Freight Rates Act as passed by parliament. There may be some way by which to meet the situation so far as Quebec is concerned without disturbing the maritime rates. But what is proposed just now by hon. members from Quebec we consider to be very injurious to the act which gives us the 20 per cent reduction.


Ernest Lapointe: May I assure my hon. friend that the matter has been submitted to the various maritime boards of trade and as recently as last week ten of them out of twelve had approved of the demand made by Quebec in this respect. It is really as much in the interests of the maritime provinces as of Quebec itself that this request is being made. As the hon. member for Quebec South had said, it seems anomalous that part of Quebec harbour should be subject to the preferential rate while the other part of the harbour is not. May I say-and I am surprised that my hon. friend from Quebec South forgot to say it-that when the delegation came to submit this request the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) recognized that the grievance existed, stating that the officers of the department would try to find a means
of remedying it, perhaps without the necessity of having recourse to legislation. But he added that if legislation were necessary it would be considered prior to the next session of parliament. I may tell my hon. friend that we are far from trying to hurt or in any way impair the charter which has been given the maritime provinces; far from it. The demand made by Quebec, if opposed by those interested in maritime matters, such as the boards of trade, would not be entertained, I am quite sure. But it is with the consent and the approval of our friends from the maritime provinces that the subject has been brought to the attention of the government.


Murray MacLaren: If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will carefully and judicially read the resolution prepared by the maritime boards of trade, I do not think he will be able to put upon it the interpretation which he has now given to the house.


James Layton Ralston: I have heard of the representations which have been made but I have not had an opportunity to listen to them directly nor have I been able to consider them fully. I feel, however, that the hon. member for Quebec South ought to accept the assurance that these representations will be considered. Speaking for myself, I do not feel that I should bind myself, or consider myself bound by these representations until all sides have been heard and everyone who is interested has had a chance to present his case. I am not sure that it is enough that the Quebec representatives have waited upon the maritime boards of trade and discussed the matter with them. Until the views on all sides have been formally put on record and considered, I think judgment should be reserved. In my opinion, the present moment is not opportune to make a declaration; we should wait until everyone has had an opportunity to present the matter. I am not sure that there is a clear view in the maritime provinces as to just what is implied in regard to the question of implementing the Duncan report or carrying out the principle contained therein with regard to special provision for freight rates.


Murray MacLaren: Nor is there a general consent of the boards of trade. I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will agree to that.


Mr. CANNON:: As one of the representatives of the section of Quebec which might be affected by the matter brought up by the hon. member for Quebec South, I may say that this matter offers first of all
Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

some local difficulties as between the people of Quebec and the people of Levis, which must toe settled, and other difficulties as between the people of Quebec and the people of the maritime provinces which also must be adjusted. This is a matter which certainly cannot be settled by simply bringing it up in this house arid asking the government immediately to bring about a settlement. Only recently the government has been called upon to give its attention to this matter; the Minister of Railways received a delegation; the board of trade of the city of Quebec is now in touch with the boards of trade of the maritime provinces, and I have no doubt that everyone interested will be satisfied when it is stated that the government is giving the matter serious attention. Pending the outcome of the negotiations now going on between the different commercial interests it would be useless for us in this House of Commons to attempt to bring about a settlement. This is a matter which will have to be examined very carefully and I have no doubt that in conjunction with our friends from the maritime provinces, next year we might be in a position to reach a satisfactory adjustment.


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid I must take issue with the Solicitor General as to the date at which this matter was brought to the attention of the government. It is all very well for my hon. friend to say that this is an occurrence of only recent date, but after all four months surely is a sufficiently long time even for this government. The Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice will recollect that shortly before the beginning of this session they were interviewed in Quebec by a delegation from the board of trade and by the members for the Quebec district, and when the necessity and urgency of the matter was presented to them they said they would take action as soon as it was convenient to do so.


Lucien Cannon: And they recommended to our Quebec friends that they get in touch with our friends from the maritimes and try to reach a settlement, and that is what is going on now. I do not think we are helping to bring about a settlement by this present discussion.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not prepared to agree with my friend the Solicitor General; I am one of those who believe with President Wilson in the principles of open covenants, openly arrived at. I would much prefer to discuss this matter fairly and openly on the floor of the house with my hon. friends from

the maritimes in order that we may be able to come to some settlement. Had we continued to agitate in the Quebec papers I am afraid those papers would have been read by very few of the hon. gentlemen opposite; some of them would not be able to read those papers, so I thought it beet to bring the matter before the members of the house in this way as we brought it to the attention of the members of the government four months ago and again one month ago, at which time we were told that our request was receiving the consideration and sympathy of the government.	[DOT]


Mr. STEVENIS:: Serious consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, serious consideration. Now I suggest that we might be told that some steps are being taken, at any rate, to put an end to this situation, and it is not sufficient to tell us that because the hon. member for Quebec South rises in his place and draws the attention of the house to a matter affecting his constituency and his city he is probably disrupting certain negotiations of which he at any rate knows nothing. If I had been informed that negotiations were going on or that the work was progressing favourably possibly I might have been able to return to my constituents and tell them to be patient a little longer, but they are tired of being patient and they would like to have some assurance from the government that their claims will be dealt with.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if I caught the language of the Minister of Justice correctly; sometimes I do not hear very well, but I thought I heard him mutter the words, "Et tu Brute."


Ernest Lapointe: I beg your pardon; was my hon. friend asking me something?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was asking the Minister of Justice if I was right in thinking I heard him say, " Et tu Brute."


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is a language I do not usually use.


Thomas Cantley: It is rather amusing to find some of our friends from Quebec apparently now of the opinion that the Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed for the benefit of the central provinces. My understanding is that the Maritime Freight Rates Act arose out of a recommendation of the Duncan commission, which pointed out that we in the maritimes were handicapped by 2o0 miles of railway built or diverted for strategic purposes, and to overcome that extra mileage we were to be given a preferred rate.

Supply-National Defence
My contention is that when the western point to which those rates should apply was determined that was not done fairly; that point should have been Montreal, because as I stated before, Montreal is the gateway through which we can or must distribute our products throughout the central and -western provinces, since we have practically no trade east of Montreal. I have not the slightest objection to getting into Quebec on the same terms, but our trade with the city of Quebec and that part of the province of Quebec east of Montreal is comparatively slight. At Montreal we practically encounter the inflow from the foreign markets of Great Britain, Belgium, Germany and Europe generally and there we also meet the Ontario producers of iron and steel who ship by water. Unless we can get fair rates to the city of Montreal we will derive very little benefit from the Maritime Freight Rates Act. We are interested not at all in the traffic going east; that is not the important matter. What we are interested in is the opportunity to get into the markets of these central provinces; the eastern traffic affects us very little. I am content that we should pay any reasonable rates as far as the trade going east is concerned, but we must have an opportunity to get into the central markets.


Charles Gavan Power: I can hardly be under any misapprehension as to the purpose of the Maritime Freight Rates Act; for two or three years we heard nothing but appeals from the maritime members for relief and justice. I may say, however, that the members from Quebec never opposed this legislation on that ground; on the contrary, all the members from Quebec were only too glad to help relieve the maritime situation in every possible way. We were quite willing to be of assistance to the maritimes; we were glad to help them in any way, but I do not think we should be called upon to ruin ourselves for the sake of helping our neighbours. That is the position.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of National Defence-militia services-administration, $317,000.
Miss MACPHAIL:: What explanation has the minister to offer for the general increase in the militia estimates over last year, particularly in view of the fact that this year the Paris pact was signed?


An hon. MEMBER:: This is a Liberal
government.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think the question is
quite justified by the estimates as they appear on page 26 of the main estimates. My hon. friend will see that there is no increase in the military estimates. There is an increase in connection with the naval vote, and there is another increase in connection with civil air operations. The increase in the naval estimates is brought about by the purchase of two destroyers to replace the Patriot and the Patrician which, it will be remembered, were presented to Canada in 1920 by the British government along with the cruiser Aurora. Although this item appears to be increased this year I would point out that in fact it is not an increase over last year. There was an increase last year of $900,000 to take care of the first payment on account of these two destroyers, but this amount was not used. Had it been used the vote this year would have been the same as it was last year, but in view of the fact that it was not used it was necessary to revote that amount plus the amount of the second instalment which will be due this year.
I have the details of the civil air operations if they are desired by my hon. friend, but I can assure her that they are not military in any sense of the word but are connected with the increased service which the civil government branch of the department is providing, particularly for the Department of the Interior.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If they are not military in character why do they come under the Department of National Defence?


James Layton Ralston: As my hon. friend knows, that is a matter of organization. The air board which was formed some years ago was put under the Department of National Defence, and it h^s remained there. In view of the representations which were made two years ago it was thought advisable to divorce completely the civil government operations from the so-called military operations-I will explain that when we reach the particular items-and a distinct civil government branch was formed. This branch is in the same position as other administering services which perhaps have nothing to do with the particular name of the department.


George Reginald Geary: Are the civil pilots trained
by the military personnel?


James Layton Ralston: The camp at Borden
trains civil pilots, as well as military pilots. It may be some relief to some of the members of the committee, whose views I know very
Supply-National Defence

well, to learn that in view of the increase in civil aviation and in the demands made, not only for the government services but to assist in connection with aviation in Canada, that the camp at Borden is being used principally as a training ground for civilian work. Perhaps that may be regarded with something of a shock by some members of the committee who may feel that we are going back on military training, but it was felt that the training which we could give at Camp Borden was necessary and essential for the promotion of civil aviation in this country where aviation is so beneficial.


George Reginald Geary: Are the pilots technically
trained at Camp Borden?


James Layton Ralston: We require that those
accepted for training shall have undergone a c-ourse of applied science at some university. This technical training is being given by universities throughout the country. We do not take a man in off the street, so to speak, and try to make a pilot out of him; we ask that he have some preliminary training. We have neither the force nor the facilities to conduct an elementary school, and therefore the student must have already the theoretical training before he is admitted. We believe that the success of aviation depends very largely upon the safety with which it can be carried on, and safety, after all, is made up of ground organization as well as the actual flying ability.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is there any lack of men
applying for training in the civil air service?


James Layton Ralston: There is no lack of men
applying, but I must say that none too many meet	our	qualifications. In	that	regard, Iwould	say	to the committee	that	a numberof provisional pilot officers were required this year.	We	circularized the flying	clubs andschools but we have not been able to find the required number of partially trained men. I do not intend that as an invitation to members of the committee to recommend various gentlemen.	We	have been very	careful in our
selections, believing, as I said a moment ago, that the very foundation of aviation in this country requires that the men be thoroughly trained.


George Reginald Geary: Instruction is being carried
on at various places and one hears of many bad accidents where a lad, probably on his first solo flight, has crashed. At times these men have been seriously injured, and at other times the crash has resulted in death. I do not say for a moment that that is brought

about through insufficient training or anything of that sort, but I would Like to ask the minister what steps are being taken to make certain that there is that degree of instruction received and ability shown before the men are given a flying license.


James Layton Ralston: Without casting any
reflections upon the organizations, I think the accidents to which my hon. friend refers have occurred mainly in flying clubs, especially those occurring this year. The service this year has been singularly free from accidents, although we had one bad accident last year in the west. These flying clubs are purely civilian organizations and the department assumes no responsibility for their maintenance, upkeep or supervision except that which would be taken in connection with a commercial organization such as, for instance, the Western Canada Airways. The department requires that the pilots shall pass our tests, and they are medically examined every six months. The machines are inspected before a license is issued, and are inspected each year before the new license is given out. In addition to that we are constantly in touch with these clubs. In connection with the accident which occurred the other day, while the department was under no obligation we immediately conducted an inquiry in an endeavour to find out the cause of the accident in order that we might take steps to prevent a recurrence of such an accident. Where lack of judgment has been shown or anything else brought to light which would indicate that something was wrong with the machine, we immediately advise these clubs to that effect. These flying clubs are generally managed by groups of enthusiastic men who are keen on aviation, and we are always afraid that familiarit}' will breed contempt. WTe are endeavouring to get them to see that what I said a minute ago is absolutely essential, namely, ground organization. That means inspection every morning of the machines and every part which may be frail or give way; that they must observe regulations which we lay down in regard to these flying clubs; that the instructors must be passed as medically fit, because in no branch of activity in Canada is it so necessary that men shall be medically fit and that certain disabilities shall be absent as it is in connection with flying.


Mr. LUCAS:: Does the department give
any supervision to these flying clubs and the instructors to see that the proper training is given?


James Layton Ralston: The general answer is
no; that is to say, except to examine the instructors whom the flying clubs use and

Supply-National
Defence
see that they are licensed pilots and pass our regulations. We examine the machines and see that they comply with the necessities for a license. Then we examine the so-called pupils to see whether they are fit to receive either a private or a commercial license as the case may be.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the usual length of
time for an applicant to receive his certificate under the department's training?


James Layton Ralston: Fifty flying hours for a
commercial pilot and ten flying hours for a private license. A private license means that one cannot carry passengers.


William Thomas Lucas: But how long does he usually have to spend at the training course in order to secure that certificate-six months or a year?


James Layton Ralston: Anything from a month
up. It depends upon the man. As regards our own pilots, these young pilot officers whom we are training, they spend three vacations, sometimes four. That is to say, in order to get their full training for both ground instruction and flying, they have to spend a year or so. For the pupils in the flying clubs a month would be the very minimum, but the course usually takes a great deal longer than that. A man will 'be in the air for perhaps a few minutes only the first day, and I think from a month to six months would be the minimum.


William Irvine: I should like to know
whether non-commissioned officers and men disabled in the air service receive a pension, whether in case of their being killed, their dependents receive a pension, and if so, how much.


James Layton Ralston: I think I furnished my
hon. friend with information along that line last year. I do not have it in my mind at the minute, because it involves amounts and regulations, but I shall be glad to give the information before the committee rises. Is my hon. friend dealing with the members of the department? Of course, my hon. friend knows that no pensions are paid in respect of those who are pupils in flying clubs.


William Irvine: I have tried to get the information from the regulations and have absolutely failed. Perhaps the minister could tell me in a general way whether the noncommissioned officers and men in his department who are engaged in flying, receive a pension in case of disability or death.


James Layton Ralston: In a general way I may say yes, they do.


William Irvine: I think there are some
peculiarities about this.


James Layton Ralston: If there are any jokers
and if my hon. friend will point them out, I shall be glad to see that they are remedied.


William Irvine: I cannot find any jokers
because they are so wrapped up in the regulations.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend knows
of any case where there has been some reservation or condition and if he will bring it to my attention, I will take it up at once. If men are hurt while they are engaged in the service, it is the intention that they shall be pensioned.


James Charles Brady: I was not in the chamber
when this item was brought up and perhaps the minister has already replied to the question I am going to propound. In view of the great number of young Canadians^ who are very anxious to enter the Royal Air Force,
I should like to know what are the essential educational qualifications.


James Layton Ralston: Speaking of the position
of a pilot officer, let me say that generally the educational qualifications required ar& graduation from a university or from the Royal Military College, or that a man is actually attending a class in applied science at a recognized university and undertakes to finish his course in that respect. Hon. members will understand that applied science, physics, dynamics and aeronautics, is essential in connection with the care and handling of the machine. If such an undertaking is given, the applicant will be considered for training, as I indicated a little while ago, during his vacation for the three or four years that he is attending a university. Therefore the issuing of his pilot's license will probably be coincident with his graduation from the university.
In connection with airmen, that is, those who are not pilot officers, we do not insist on educational qualifications. We have no definite standard. We would like them to have matriculation qualifications, but what we insist on is either that they shall be students at a technical college for two or three years or that they shall have worked for, say a year or two in connection with gas engines and machinery of that sort. Many of our airmen are mechanics, men who have been connected with garages, who have had to do with automobile engines for a substantial period of time. We do not take a man off the street, for instance, out of a grocery store, and make him an airman, because we have not the facilities nor the personnel for giving him elementary training.
Supply-National Defence


James Charles Brady: As this is a very important question and as I said, so many young Canadians are ambitious to enter the Royal Air Force of Canada, it is evident from what the minister has said that nothing is definitely stated regarding the qualifications, say of cadets. As regards age, boys of eighteen years are ambitious to enter the Royal Air Force. What is the minimum age at which a young Canadian is allowed to enter that force? If there is any rule I should like to know it, because I know many young men to-day who have matriculated from the various high schools into the different universities and who are now engaged, just as my hon. friend has said, in grocery stores and other lines of business, but who are not engaged in what we call technical industries. I would like to have that point cleared up because I have on my file over sixteen letters of inquiry regarding it, and when the minister gives me the information I shall be able to inform my correspondents.


James Layton Ralston: He must :be over the age of eighteen years and under the age of twenty-one when he commences his course. The case to which my hon. friend refers I understand1 *is that of a university graduate in applied science who has gone into some other vocation. If he is physically fit, is within the age limit and complies with all the other requirements, he would be eligible for consideration.


James Charles Brady: Thank you.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have a complaint to make in regard to the civil air operations. Perhaps it does not come under this vote, but if the minister will give me the information I can report back later. A young man named Keeley in my constituency entered for a course of civil air training. At that time the department recognized these commercial companies which had been formed for the training of aviators for commercial flying. The young man entered the service of a company which was recommended by the department. That company very soon afterwards became bankrupt, and the young man then entered two or three other companies, but for one reason or another his training was deferred. Finally he came to the stage when he was to make his solo test flights. Everything had been satisfactory up to that time. He had been examined by medical officers and had been seen by the officer in charge, but when he came to take his solo trial flights it was found that he had one defect, that he was wearing glasses. I am not going to justify the acceptance for the service of any man with a defect, but it does appear to me that some person up to that time should have

noticed that he .was wearing glasses. He had taken this course with the intention of receiving a certificate for commercial flying and his people had spent $2,000 on his training, but after the expenditure of that amount and the failure of two or three of these guaranteed commercial companies, it was ruled that he could not take his solo test flights because he was wearing glasses. I am behind the department's examination. I have seen it, and I think the requirements are pretty nearly perfect, but I do think that in this case someone made a mistake, and that this young man should not have been allowed to go on with his training to the point where it has now become burdensome to his people, if he is not to be granted a certificate. He entered the service of one company after another and had passed every test up to the time of his solo flights. He had made a landing or two perfectly. The minister kindly took the matter up and said that he would give him a certificate, but it would not be a commercial certificate. Of course that is what the young man was training for, and that is what his people spent the $2,000 for. But through a defect which some person should have noticed this young man is not allowed to take his final tests, although he could really qualify, and he cannot in consequence get his certificate.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is quite
right in saying that he brought the matter to my personal attention some time ago and1 I was trying to get into my head as he was speaking the exact facts. As I remember it, this student was examined by outside medical men, I think, on two different occasions.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the minister
will remember, these two men who examined him were the department's own accepted examiners.


James Layton Ralston: Right, but I mean they
were not men in the service. My hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this young man's father was an oculist himself.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: And the application which the young man signed set out the physical requirements for a pilot, but in some way or other he missed that. The file came into the head office and he went on with his training. He was not actually turned down. He was allowed to see if he could qualify. The point in that case was this: I said that if he could qualify, pass our tests and make successful landings without his glasses, he would re-

Supply-National Defence
ceive his certificate. It seemed to me that that was a case in which the young man took that risk when he went into training. If he could make successful landings without glasses, he would ;be granted a certificate. If he could not, then in the interests of the safety of his passengers and for his own safety he should not have a certificate. That was the ground I took. I think the young man took his risk in that respect. He was not turned down because of the fact that he wore glasses, but because he did not pass a test which he must pass without glasses. We have to provide for the case where a man in an accident may lose his glasses and be compelled to land either alone or with passengers without glasses.


Arthur Edward Ross: I can only speak
from the information I got from the young man and his father. I do not think that at that time it was absolutely necessary that a man should not wear glasses, because certain ones did wear glasses. I do not think he was refused the certificate because he did not make a landing without glasses, because I think he could do so. I do not know that he has ever been given the opportunity.


James Layton Ralston: I think so.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think not, because just recently I received a letter from him. I am not going to defend the passing of any person with a defect, but I say that this man entered when the restrictions were not so rigid as they became later, and I do not think he knew at the time he entered that wearing glasses would prevent him from getting a certificate. I am absolutely certain of that.


James Layton Ralston: I think my hon. friend
is mistaken as to the regulations. They have always been the same; the restrictions were not made any more rigid after the young man came in. As a matter of fact, as I understand the general regulations, those wearing glasses are not taken, but this was a case where a young man had been allowed to train with glasses, and while we take this extraordinary precaution of saying that a man who wears glasses had better not be allowed to become a pilot at all, we did say in this case that if this young man could make successful landings passed by the officers of the department we saw no reason why a special exception should not be made in his case. My hon. friend may be right in saying that he has never tried to land without glasses, but I am quite positive that I wrote to my hon. friend and told him that the young man would be given the opportunity to pass the test without glasses if he
cared to do so. It is a case perhaps of being over-strict in connection with a matter where we would rather be over-strict than otherwise.


Arthur Edward Ross: Surely the minister must admit that the requirements with regard to eyesight are much more strict than they were three years ago. I can prove that. Three or four years ago you had not a man who could make the eye tests that they are making to-day. Am I right or wrong in that?


James Layton Ralston: I could not tell my hon.
friend that. All I can say is that the regulations have not changed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Two or three years ago, when this young man began his training, there were none qualified to make such an examination. Since then you have had men taking a course in the old country, and they can now make the tests. They are extending their experience and teaching others, but at the beginning, three years ago, you did not have a man who could do it. I do not think you had at that time two men in Canada who could make the examination they are making to-day, and I will stand by that.


James Layton Ralston: I speak with the greatest deference in the presence of my hon. friend who, of course, understands thoroughly the service requirements of any man, particularly with regard to, medical qualifications; but I am instructed that my hon. friend is wrong, that we have medical men who had, as my hon. friend had, to do with war service, and who were qualified and so regarded, and that the inspections were made by men who were acknowledged then, and are still, as qualified. My hon. friend is quite right that in this as in any other science we are seeking further information and are endeavouring to perfect it but I would not want to admit either on behalf of the department or of those officers, that they were not qualified to make the examinations.


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to know the names of the men who could make those examinations three years ago as they are making them now.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know whether it is fair to discuss the names of individual men across the floor. May I send over a name to my hon. friend?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the minister sure that there is no condition, expressed or understood, that in the granting of a commercial license the pilot shall be in any way whatsoever connected with the reserve military forces?
Supply-National Defence

smH n.1'1 t.hp t,imp
fcillrpH n'V*ni!1ih hnw


James Layton Ralston: It is unconditional in that respect.


George Reginald Geary: If a man learns to fly can he take a machine into the air without a license?


James Layton Ralston: The only man who can go into the air without a license is a pupil who is recognized as such. The requirements are that he shall not go three miles beyond a licensed airdrome. The individual who takes his examination somewhere else must come to us for a license.


George Reginald Geary: The license is granted under dominion auspices?


James Layton Ralston: That is correct.


George Reginald Geary: Does any province grant
flying licenses?


James Layton Ralston: No.


George Reginald Geary: In the case of automobiles each of the provinces naturally issues its own license. Is there any difference in regard to flying; is it regarded as a dominion or as a provincial matter?


James Layton Ralston: It has been considered
by the federal authorities to be a dominion matter. Perhaps my hon. friend knows that a reference has been prepared and probably will be submitted to the courts with regard to the relative jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities in that respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why
a province could not license a flyer who did not go outside the provincial boundaries.


James Layton Ralston: We are contending
further than that, I may tell my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
Miss MAiCiPHAIL:	Mr. Chairman, the
estimates of the Department of National Defence are to me more significant this year than in any former years in view of the fact that this session the house has listened to a very excellent debate upon the Kellogg pact or the pact of Paris. The need of renouncing war as an instrument of national policy was felt by all hon. members, since that pact passed the house unanimously, and Canada is now a party to it. While the explanation of the minister as to why the estimates have increased sounds plausible enough, it is rather difficult for any minister of national defence, even the clever gentleman who now occupies the position, to explain why the estimates have been increased from $11,000,000 in 1922 to a bit better than $20,000,000 in 1929,-

much we love peace. It does not sound consistent. I should like to see Canada take the stand that we actually mean that we will not consider war as an instrument of national policy, that we will not continue to waste this amount of money on military affairs.
I should like to see the cadet vote struck out altogether. I think that the expenditure on the non-permanent active militia is an absolute waste of money; it is no good either from a military or a non-military point of view. I can see no reason why the Royal Military College should be given a grant when we have declared ourselves to be a peaceful people, searching for new and peaceful methods of settling disputes. I can see no reason why-and I should like the minister to give the reason, if there is any-civil aviation should be under the Department of National Defence. Why it is not under the department of transportation where quite naturally it belongs? Let us reorganize and keep civil aviation away from the military authorities, so that there cannot be the slightest suspicion of any relationship between civil aviation and the military authorities.
Not only the people of Canada but the people of the world, particularly the common people-and I am one of them-have eagerly been waiting for relief from the cost of armaments. Disarmament was promised at Versailles in 1919, just ten years ago, and yet nothing substantial has been done to bring it about. On the contrary most of the nations have done just what we have done, increased rather than decreased their expenditures for things military. While this has been going on the really great men of the world, the outstanding statement and thinkers and writers, have been saying again and again that if we keep on the way we are going nothing but another international conflict can be the result.
Sitting in the chamber this afternoon I have been reading a book by Lord Robert Cecil in which he points this out in the most pessimistic vein. It is well known that he is devoting his life in trying to prevent the happening of that which he thinks is ahead of us unless we change our methods. He is one of very many outstanding men who have said again and again that unless we disarm -and of course as well try to eradicate the economic causes of war-that unless we go to the root causes of war we will continue to have war. We cannot possibly wait until we have security before we disarm. It is my opinion that armaments do not bring security, but quite the reverse. Therefore we must

Supply

National Defence
start to disarm sometime, and to me now is just as good a time as any other, and just a little bit better. Possibly it would have been better if we had done so before, but from new on there is no time so good as the present for bringing about disarmament.
I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is very much interested in this subject, and he very well voiced the change of opinion of the people in the following words:
The world has moved forward. A new psychology of peace is gradually replacing the war psyoology of the past.
That is very true indeed. The Prime Minister used equally clear words on this subject, saying:
War will annihilate civilization unless civilization undertakes to annihilate war.
Indeed, though we are not willing to do much more than talk about it, still the mere talking about it has made peace so popular a subject that even the Minister of National Defence has referred to himself, more or less jokingly, as the Minister of Peace. I recall that to his mind at the moment.


James Layton Ralston: Not as a joke.
Miss MAjCPHAIL:	Then that makes it
even more essential that he should make his department look as though it were a department of peace. The Prime Minister will remember that last year, in reply to my suggestion that we have a peace bureau, he said that every department of his government was a department of peace. One would think that with so many departments all working towards peace we should have absolute security without spending $20,000,000 to insure it by war-like means. The Prime Minister of Canada also said in relation to the pact of Paris-and I believe this has been quoted in papers throughout Canada:
We should make the principle underlying this treaty a basis of consideration in all matters of foreign policy.
I think we should go further than that and make it a basis of consideration in all matters of domestic policy, to which the work of this department belongs. Everyone says that, we want peace, and excellent speeches have been made in this house upholding that idea. I am thankful for that much advance. But that in itself is not enough. Mr. Briand, speaking of the pact of Paris, said of it:
Such a treaty means a beginning and not an end.
That is something which members of this committee should remember: the treaty is a beginning and not an end. Having declared that we believe in peace and tha-t we are renouncing war as an instrument in the settlement of international disputes, we need to go further and act as though we really meant the words we used. I think the leader of the opposition made possibly the clearest contribution to the idea of the need of further action. Speaking in the debate on the pact of Paris, he said:
The first step to be taken if this treaty is to be maintained and enforced by the Canadian people is to bring about disarmament.
He is absolutely right. And we cannot bring about disarmament in another country; we can bring it about only in our own country, and I know of no country which is in such an excellent position as Canada to begin and to set an example which I am sure would be gladly followed by all other countries in the world.
The amount of armament we have is after all useless if we really intend to go out and use it in aggression or even in defence. Our geographical situation leaves us in an excellent position. We have no one who could be regarded as an enemy except the United States of America, and we are in no position, seeing that we have a very much smaller population, to arm ourselves sufficiently well to contend with that great republic.
Some nation will have to take the lead in disarmament and I covet for Canada the honour of leading. Recently I read that a group of ministers-not government ministers but ministers of the gospel-in the little state of Denmark were asking their people to create a public opinion strong enough to persuade the government of Denmark to lead the world in this great work of disarmament. They see clearly that to the nation that leads in this respect great honour will in future be due. I see no reason why Canada should not take the lead. Moreover, Canada and the United States have experimented in disarmament and have found the results to be entirely good. We have a very long history associated with disarmament, a history going back over one hundred years. A Quaker in the United States named Henry Rush decided after the war of 1812-1314 that it would be better for both his country and Canada if they disarmed. He talked about the matter sufficiently, and was influential enough to get the idea accepted by the administration of his time. The Rush-Bagot treaty was the result. What that treaty has saved us in the actual expenditure of dollars and cents, and possibly in life, no one can estimate. No country has felt more secure than Canada has as the neighbour of a powerful and very rich country, the United States. Neither country is in the least afraid of the
Supply-National Defence

other because both are friends. Our long border line of some three thousand miles is the most secure in the world because on either side there are friends who wish only good to the country that lies beyond. Our two countries went further; we have carried out what must be the work which will follow the pact of Paris. The pact of Paris is simply the enunciation of a principle, and in working out a peaceful method of settling disputes means must be found either of giving to the League of Nations more power, and supporting it with a stronger public opinion or setting up new courts of settlement. In the case of Canada and the United States, this house is familiar with the machinery which was set up and is known as the International Joint Commission, which followed on the Waterways Commission. The Waterways Commission was instituted in 1902; the International Joint Commission followed and was founded in 1909. This body has been able to settle all disputes which, without its intervention, would have been irritating and troublesome. With the experience we have had, and with the confidence we have gained in the principle of disarmament and of arbitration, there -a no reason why we should not give a lead to the world

a lead which the world stands in great need of. If little countries in Europe-and we can think of ourselves as little for the moment, seeing that we have a small population-felt in relation .to their neighbours, as as secure as we do, Europe would not be in the turmoil in which it finds itself at the moment.
Within recent weeks some encouraging things have happened. I consider that the advent to power of Ramsay MacDonald-it looks as though he will be Prime Minister of Great Britain-is a great step towards world peace. I am convinced that Ramsay MacDonald will put the peace of the world first and will shape his policies, national and international to that end. Coming almost on the same day is the report of a speech made by President Hoover on the occasion of the decoration of civil war veterans' graves on memorial day. President Hoover made a splendid speech. I am sure hon. members have read it and so I will not weary the house by quoting from it, except a very brief passage. Referring to the pact of Paris, he said:
The pact. . . . implies that nations will conduct their daily intercourse in keeping with the purpose of the agreement, and that they shall endeavour to develop instrumentalities of peaceful adjustment to remove disputes from the field of emotion to the field of judicial consideration.

We have done this in other things. While we have not attempted it internationally, we have applied the principle to the relatione of individuals within the nation. We will no longer put up with two individuals or two groups of individuals flying at each other's throats when they want to settled their disputes; they must carry every argument to the courts and have it decided there. There is no reason why we should not do this this in international matters; logically it is the next step to take, and again I seriously urge that Canada could do a great service to the world by saying, "We are not a military people; we do believe in peace, and we have no enemies." It is nonsense to spend $20,000,000 in order to keep up what is really only a parade stunt, which is of no use and which has a bad effect on our mentality. Let us get rid of it. Put aviation under transportation, where it belongs, and if you really feel more secure and sleep better at night by retaining the permanent force, personally I have no objection to doing so. Then something would be required for administration, for general supplies and so on, but I would like to see the rest of this expenditure absolutely done away with. I think the common people of Canada are heartily sick of military things, and in keeping up this department in this way the government is out of accord with the sentiment of the people.
I hope the Minister of National Defence and, indeed, all members of the government, will take this question into their very serious consideration. A great power such as Great Britain or the United States cannot disarm as easily as we can; we are a young and virile people without very many fears or race prejudices. We have not very much to be afraid of; we are in the position of an interpreter between the two great powers, Great Britain and United States. We love them both; we have much in common with each and I can think of no better way of cementing that friendship which has been slightly strained during the past year than by disarming at least in part; and personally I would be quite willing to go all the way. I think we are working towards the time when we will have an international police force for the protection of the world rather than separate forces in each country. I would be quite willing that we should contribute to such a force. For the present I think a move toward disarmament would be our best contribution to the peace of the world.


Mr. CAYLEY:: May I ask the hon. member a question? She suggested striking out the

Supply-National Defence
item for the Royal Military College. Would she also suggest that the same action should be taken if a similar sum were given to a royal peace college or something like that?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There are two schools of thought in Canada; one, security through peace, and the other, security through armaments. If the government would set up an international college of peace and give an equal amount to such a college I would be content to have them run a race and see what would happen, but now the government is backing one school and doing nothing for the other. The students at the Royal Military College usually come from wealthy families; if these families cannot afford to educate their sons elsewhere that is their own lookout.


Charles Stephen Booth: It is not my intention to go into the details of this expenditure of $20,000,000, or almost $21,000,000 with the supplementary estimates, which we are proposing to spend this year on national defence, but at the very beginning of this discussion I should like to back up, if that is at all necessary, the remarks of the hon. member for Southeast Grey.
I do not think we need to say very much about the evils of war; almost everyone is willing now to admit these. Only a few reckless adventurers or a few ruthless profiteers, of whom I do not think we have very many in Canada, would deliberately attempt to foster another war or would rejoice in any friction which might occasion war. However, we must face the fact that another war is quite possible so long as conditions remain as they are. While perhaps we are making no particular effort to prepare for the chemical warfare which undoubtedly will be of the most disastrous character, at the same time no one can read what scientists are saying without realizing that in another war we shall undoubtedly run the risk of wiping out civilization itself. As it is, the piled-up debts of the past war constitute all the memorials we need, and I think it should be emphasized that about half the revenues which are obtained in this country go to pay the interest on the money we spent in the last war. We do not need anything to remind us of the ravages of war; if anything were needed, that reminder would be furnished by the poor wrecks of men with whom we have to deal and with whose cases we have dealt in a very inadequate way.
The point which does arise is this: Is the maintenance of a military force an insurance against war? I am inclined to think that the Minister of National Defence and the members of the government generally take that 78594-204
position, but as I look at the Prime Minister, at the Minister of Justice or at the other members of the government whose private opinions I know, I can hardly believe that with their knowledge of world affairs and of world history they should continue to maintain that position. The reason, I suppose, is simply that changes in policy are so hard to make, and since there is a general tradition which has been built up through hundreds of years that the only way we can protect ourselves is by force of arms. It is hard to substitute a new idea. Surely, however, the last war demonstrated the futility of armaments; even our newspapers are beginning to recognize that fact. I read an editorial in the Ottawa Journal, of April 20, 1929, as follows:
The truth-all that has happened since 1918 bears testimony to it-is that war is a game in which both side3 always lose. That being so, the lessons of the last great war having been brought home with such terrible poignancy, it is up to all of ns to try to do something to prevent the recurrence of such another catastrophe.
I might also refer to Earl Grey, in whose book, Twenty-five Years, I find the following:
_ The military power in Germany chose the time and precipitated the war; but that is not the real and final account of its origins. The enormous growth of armaments, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them, it was these that made war inevitable.
If I may comment on that statement I would point out that in Europe to-day that sense of insecurity undoubtedly persists, especially in France and some allied countries, and it is responsible for the forces of these countries being maintained on a war footing- a condition which tends to produce more wars. We in this country have an opportunity to get away from some of those old world evils if we only have sufficient courage, imagination and originality to branch out along new lines.
Undoubtedly we are in a different position this year to that which we occupied last year; it will be remembered that a year ago the Prime Minister emphasized the importance of peace and insisted that his was a peace government. The Minister of National Defence urged that he was at the head of a peace department, and to-day he says he was not joking. I do not think he intended that statement as a joke, but I would say that as long as the instruments of war are maintained we are tending to maintain the possibilities of war. That is my opinion at least; others may take a different point of view. The Kellogg peace pact surely places those

Supply[DOT]-National Defence

who signed it in an altogether different position from that which they occupied a year ago. In the words of an American appeal which went forth a little while ago:
To increase armaments now is inconsistent with the spirit of the peace pact, an insinuation that we do not trust the nations that have sworn never to attack us.
Surely it is nonsense to prepare for war if we really believe that the nations are going to 'be true to theiir pact. Why should we maintain an army when we say that we will not go to war except in self-defence, and when the others affirm the same thing? Surely, if we trust the other nations as we -hope they trust us, we ought not to have any army at all. The very maintenance of the Department of National Defence is an insinuation that other people are not going to be as true to their word as we are. The minister shakes his head, but I would like him to take an early opportunity of explaining his position in this regard. I think he will give me credit for having stated my position as I see it, and I think I am stating, as did the hon. member for Southeast Grey, the convictions of a very large number of people throughout Canada. I do not thunk the situation could have been stated better than it was by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The hon. member for Southeast Grey has referred already to his speech, bu't I should like to quote a few sentences. Referring to the peace pact, he said:
The very essence of this instrument-is that those who sign it. . . . begin at onoe to destroy by peaceful means those instruments by which peace is rendered impossible.' . . . We must, therefore, destroy the instruments that make for war so that when such appeals are made to the emotions there will be no response-* no cannon, no navy, no troops. That is the only way by which peace can be made lasting in this world.
I do not know that I would go quite so far as has the hon. leader of the opposition. I am inclined to stress the economic causes of war. I think they are the fundamental causes, and so long as there are economic maladjustments in the world, so long as there is fierce competition between individuals, between groups, between nations and between empires, then so long shall we have war. But undoubtedly another cause which lies side by side with the economic cause is the fact that we are prepared for war, and when there is economic friction the tendency is for us to plunge into war before the people have had time to bring themselves under control.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There would be no war
if there was nothing to go to war with.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I agree with the hon.
member.


Charles Stephen Booth: As the hon. leader of the opposition has said, if there were no instruments of war we could not very well conduct a war. On the other hand, as long as we have even ordinary machinery, as long as we have the ordinary chemical establishments, I suppose if it came to a pinch we could transform our ordinary factories into munition plants and convert our ordinary chemical establishments into plants which would be capable of manufacturing chemicals for war purposes. I wish however that we could implement the statements of the hon. leader of the opposition, for I do not believe that we in Canada would be liable to go to war if we had not the instruments by which war is waged.
We have been placed in a position which is different from that in which we were in last year, through our having signed a peace pact with most of the nations of the world. Further, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey has said, another factor must be considered1-the probable coming into office in Great Britain of the Labour government. It may be that the Labour government will not have the power which <a great many of us would like them to have; it may be that the Liberals will occupy a strategic position, but it is not so long ago that Mr. Lloyd George made the most searching criticism of the present policy, pointing out the futility of war and urging disarmament. There is a larger number of people in Great Britain than many imagine who have signed statements that under no circumstances whatever will they participate in another war, and a very large and influential section of the Labour party in Great Britain has definitely instructed their representatives to refuse to vote war credits.
The position in Great Britain, considered in connection with the general adherence to the Kellogg peace pact, would seem to indicate that it is high time we reconsidered our position and drafted another policy rather than continue this traditional idea of keeping up a department of national defence. Our attitude is something like that taken by the other nations: We want disarmament, but let the other nations do it first. Some of us are inclined to say that Great Britain is too large an empire to risk disarmament; she has too many causes at stake; the empire is too far-flung and there are too many races of an inferior order to permit of this step being taken. On the other hand, we urge that Canada is too small a nation so far as population is concerned to risk disarmament.

Supply-National Defence
Surely Canada is in a peculiarly favourable position; I do not think this can be stressed too strongly. We are side by side with this great nation to the south, a nation which speaks the same language and which has very largely the same British traditions. Her interests are similar to ours at least to a very large extent. Millions of native-born Canadians or their descendants now reside in that country. If the Americans wanted to invade us I fancy that they have a better way of accomplishing that purpose, that is by means of the economic penetration wffiich is going on. If the United States ever conquers Canada it will be in that way rather than by the use of physical force. W'e need then have no fear of an invading army from the south. Why do we need to maintain ours?
I have asked the minister of this department again and again, year after year, to give the information which is required of any other department-the reason for the expenditure. If large expenditures are to be made in the Department of Railways the minister is required to say that a railway is needed from a certain point to another point. If iwe are considering expenditures for the Department of Agriculture the minister rises and tells us what situation precisely makes that expenditure necessary. Let the Minister of National Defence tell us whom we are going to fight; against whom we are preparing. Surely, when an expenditure of over $20,000,000 is to be made, we have the right to know who the probable enemy ig, especially when we have signed treaties with almost every nation in which we all state that we are not going to go to war. We are signing treaties and at the same time increasing our expenditures for war purposes, is that consistent?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we need a police force. In that case, is our present standing army necessary? I do not believe that we will ever need all the soldiers we maintain at the present time in order to quell any little riot which may arise. What about the numerous officers that we have today? I believe one of the great disadvantages in maintaining our standing army is the fact that we have a great many officers running around this country, and because they have no strictly military duty to perform they spend their time at banquets making speeches and attempting to encourage the military spirit. I recall not very long ago the leader of the opposition saying some strong things because the chairman of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation made a speech in which, perhaps, he encroached a little on the realm of the politician or,
78594-204.}
at least, may have been in danger of so doing. I should like to know why it is we permit military officers to go up and down this country advocating certain military programs. Surely they are, or should be, as much under discipline as any civil official; they have no right to discuss policy and to tell us whether we should have a larger equipment or not. I noticed only last week in the Montreal Standard of June 2, 1929, an article by Captain H. C. Howard of the Royal School of Infantry, whoever he may be and whatever that may be. The heading of the article is " Could Canada successfully repel an invader?" He disguises the point of his argument somewhat by suggesting that the United States is a very peaceful neighbour and would never invade us; but he asks: supposing she were different; supposing she wanted to invade us, could we repel her attack? I submit that articles of that kind are most mischievous in character. Why should we now be speculating whether or not we could repel an attack? If it is necessary to do that within the confines of some officers' messroom, why is it necessary to write public articles to the illustrated journals and suggest to the general public that one of these days we may be having trouble with the United States; that we would be in a very fair position to repel them, and that they could not accomplish their purpose?


James Layton Ralston: Was the name Howard?


Charles Stephen Booth: Captain H. C. Howard, Royal School of Infantry.


James Layton Ralston: He is not a Canadian officer. We have no Royal School of Infantry.


Charles Stephen Booth: I am very glad of that. That is how the article is signed and it is evidently written from a Canadian standpoint. Obviously the only point of the article would be the case of a possible invasion from the United States.


George Reginald Geary: Was it not the hon. gentleman who, a short time ago, gave the house in detail particulars of how easily the United States could invade Canada?


Charles Stephen Booth: Yes, and my reason for doing so was this: I am not a military man and further my contention was that in such a contingency all our armaments would be perfectly useless and that the only thing for us to do was to act decently so that we might have no such trouble. The military article to which I refer suggests that we have it quite within our power to repel such an
Supply-National Defence

invasion, and the inference is that if the people of the United States should undertake to invade Canada, we should stiffen our backs and would be able to stand them off.


George Reginald Geary: Is it not the other way round?


Charles Stephen Booth: Quite so. But the other way around makes it quite a different proposal. I have been told by those closely in touch with military affairs that our militia with the very short training which they have, is of very little value in case of emergency. I am not prepared to corroborate or to question that statement, but I remember a long debate we had on that subject five or six years ago and I know many people are of the opinion that the greatest purpose that is served by our maintaining a militia is that of keeping alive the military spirit in the minds of the young people who go out to the camps.
As regards the navy, I ask again: Is this expenditure justified? We are told that these new ships that are being built are going to be patrol boats. I am not at all sure whether they are fitted for that purpose. We have not had any clear evidence of that. In the past our ships have been used, more or less as training ships and to no small extent for social functions. I sometimes feel thankful that we have not a waterfront all around Canada or else we would become very quickly militarized by the social functions connected with the visits of these naval crews to the different ports.
With regard to the air force, again I should like to ask a question and I hope the minister will attempt to answer it: Why should our civil aviation department be kept under the Department of National Defence? This is an article which I read in the Ottawa Citizen of March 16 of this year:
The numerical strength of Canada's fighting aircraft will be raised to nine pursuit planes and six army cooperation machines through delivery of five Siskin and two Atlas all-metal aircraft. . . . The institution of a peace time air force using highly specialized military machines took place last year when four Siskins and four Atlases were purchased by the Department of National Defence. . . The machines are used in training permanent force officers on war type craft, teaching them aerobatics, bombing, gunnery and the other maneouvres which got to make first-class fighting pilots who ean be called upon to act as instructors at a moment's notice should an emergency arise.
My colleague from Calgary asked the minister whether the civil pilots were entirely free from possible military control. The answer of the minister may be technically corfMr. Woodswortb.]
rect, but I venture to say that if any war broke out, it would not take very long to transform at least a portion of our civil air force into a military force.


James Layton Ralston: I know my hon. friend
wants to deal with this matter fairly. Does he think it would take any longer if the civil air force of Canada were under the department of transportation, the Department of the Interior or the Post Office department? That is the whole point made at the disarmament conference, that if a country has a civil air force, it does not make any difference what department it is under, it is in a better position should war break out than a nation that is not equipped with that craft.


Charles Stephen Booth: That only confirms my position.


James Layton Ralston: It does not confirm the
position with regard to its being under one department rather than under another.


Mr. WOODSAVORTH:: I think it does.
My idea is that there is always present in the minds of those who are directing this force the view that one of these days the force may have to be transformed. My point just now was that the very character and build of the aircraft were such that they could be readily converted. The whole idea of possible war is kept to the forefront.


James Layton Ralston: That is not so. The
build of the civilian aircraft is exactly what is required for civilian work. There is no special adaptability, nor are any fittings of any kind put on that aircraft other than what are usually used for that purpose.
Mr. AA'OODSAVORTH: This is quite contrary, then, to the statement which went out at the time of the purchase of these new air craft. This is the statement as I read it just now:
The institution of a peace-time air force using highly specialized military machines took place last year when four Siskins and four Atlases were purchased by the Department of National Defence.
Surely that is an indication that this is the very definite policy of the department.


James Layton Ralston: It is not an indication
that civilian aircraft are being used for war purposes.


Charles Stephen Booth: These are not
civilian?
Mr. RAI.STON:	I am not saying that.

Supply

National Defence


Charles Stephen Booth: But I said: further than that, the very fact that they are under the control of the department tends to keep them all in such a condition that they can be readily converted.


James Layton Ralston: That was the point with
which I was dealing.


Charles Stephen Booth: Let me quote this from The Times' correspondent in Brussels:
The committee of experts in civil aviation appointed by the league preparatory commission for the disarmament conference adopted the following resolutions:
It is desirable that the development of civil aviation should be directed solely towards economic ends and should be independent of military interests. Civil aviation should be organized on autonomous lines and every effort should be made to keep it separate from military aviation. If states interevene in any capacity whether directly or indirectly, in civil aviation undertakings, private or state-owned, it is desirable that the state departments dealing with the matter should be independent of the departments dealing with military aviation.
I would call that clause to the attention of the minister. Here we have the preparatory commission on disarmament definitely stating that thie policy should be different from the policy that is now being pursued by this government. Let me read that again:
It is desirable that the state departments dealing with the matter should be independent of the departments dealing with military aviation.
The memorandum goes on:
It is desirable that governments should refrain from prescribing the use of military features in civil aircraft material, so that this material may bo constructed for providing the greatest possible measure of security and most economic return. In this connection and with a view to differentiating still further between material of civil and that of military aviation, it is considered particularly desirable that as far as possible the use of military aviation material in civil aviation undertakings and in the operations of air transport lines should be avoided.
I suggest that that is a very different policy from that which is being pursued by this government. The Ottawa Citizen, commenting on the present situation, in its issue of February 19, 1927, says:
There is no particularly sound reason for employing the military air forces to observe the movement of mackerel off the Nova Scotia coast, or for attacking an insect pest in western Canada. It is more or less by accident that such work has been allowred to pass under military control.
Quoting from another editorial in the same paper under date of March 30, 1927:
It is important, however, to have the Canadian air policy straightened out, to put the development of civil aviation first, under civil control; otherwise progress is liable to be retarded. Nobody would think of advocating that automobiles should be controlled iu Canada primarily for military purposes, although some cars may quite legitimately be designed and employed for training soldiers. When agreements have to be made between provinces concerning reciprocity in automobile licenses, or between Canada and the United States concerning tourist travel across the international boundary line, no one would approve of calling in the military staff organization to conduct negotiations. So long as Canadian aviation is left under military control, however, that is exactly what has to be done.
I pass to one other matter, and that is to the cadet services. A number of us have been urging that cadet training is not necessary here in Canada especially under the conditions that now prevail, and further that cadet training is not in the best interests of education itself. We are witnessing at the present time a curious situation under which officials of this government, military officials, are scattering themselves throughout the country and trying to force their military ideas, their unwelcome ideas, upon an unwilling people. For example, one paper in my own city had this to say recently with regard to an outlying suburb, St. James:
Sfc. James school board is to be heartily congratulated on having rejected the blandishments of Colonel Gillespie, representative of the Strathcona Trust when he came to them last week hearing gifts.
Colonel Gillespie wanted the St. James board to introduce cadet training in its schools. The trust, he said, would pay the board $2 per annum per pupil.
Suspecting that the pill would not prove any too palatable, the Winnipeg school board having refused the advances of the Strathcona trust, the colonel proceeded to coat it. The board could, he said, also have folk dances for the girls. But when asked whether the board could have the folk dances without the cadet training he said he did not think so.
Is not this a most peculiar situation, an undignified position for the department to send its officials out trying to coax the various school boards to take up cadet training, and if possible to sugarcoat the pill by suggesting that certain little privileges would be granted to the girls in the school. I quote again:
Unanimously the St. James school board turned down the proposal to allow this wedge of militarism to enter their schools.


James Layton Ralston: What paper is my hon.
friend quoting from?


Charles Stephen Booth: From a Winnipeg
paper, the Weekly News of the date of Feb-
Supply-National Defence

ruary 8, 1929. The Weekly News is, I am proud to say, a Labour paper. The article goes on:
Five of the St. James school principals were present at the meeting and every one of them advised against the training...
With telling effect councillor Hooper quoted no less an authority than Sir Robert Baden Powell against military training for boys.
I cannot do better than quote Baden Powell's statement:
I find that it has been largely but quite erroneously believed that the boy scout movement is a military one, or at least has militarist tendencies. The mistake is natural, since its figure head holds the rank of general. But it is those who have personally seen something of war who most desire to avert its recurrence on the future generation: it is those who have seen the good and the bad of military training and discipline who can best realize its advantages or disadvantages for educative purposes. Under both these heads I am against using military training for boys. . . .
So much for Baden Powell. Before I close what I have to say on this question of cadet training I should like to quote what may be considered a fair statement of the labour position. Speaking before the Dominion government, when he presented the legislative program of organized labour this year, Mr. Moore, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, said on the subject of cadet training:
This matter was again under discussion at our last convention, when it was resolved to request that legislation be enacted to provide for the abolition of all money grants for cadet training and other military activites in schools, and that grants be given for the purpose of physical training instead.
We desire to emphasize our beliefs that it is in the best interests of the youth that every encouragement should be given to the development of their physical condition instead of instilling into their minds militaristic ideas by the continuance of the cadet system.
It is our sincere belief that if grants are to be made by the federal government to educational authorities, such grants should be for technical education or purely physical development and not for military training.
What could we do at the present time? We are proposing to spend some $20,000,000 for so-called national defence. There was a resolution on the order paper in the name of my hon. friend from Southeast Grey which I hoped would be discussed, but unfortunately it was not reached. It was the suggestion that for every $100 spent on war preparation, we should spend' $1 in encouraging peace. If we' spend $20,000,000 on war preparation that would mean .that we would spend $200,000 on peace propaganda. Is it too much to ask to spend only $1 on peace for every $100 that is spent on war preparation? Some of us figured out the other day what that $200,000 [Mr. Woodsworth.)
would provide. It would provide a chair for the study of international relationships in every university in Canada. Does that not appeal to the Prime Minister-a chair in international relationships in every university in Canada? Further, it would provide three or four scholarships in every Canadian university for students from other countries who would care to come here and study our Canadian and British institutions. Could we imagine anything that would advertise Canada more widely throughout the world than having a number of foreign students coming to our various universities, spending two or three years here, and then scattering back to their home countries carrying the good wishes of Canada and some knowledge of things -Canadian? On the other hand, that same amount would provide for the sending of three or four students from each university in Canada into different foreign countries to study foreign affairs. To-day we are requiring a certain number of men trained in foreign affairs to be ambassadors, to be -trade representatives, and so on. In the future where are these men to come from? I would hope that thiey would be men of wide esperience, men of special training. I would hope that such positions would be open to all. How are those men to -be trained? I can conceive of no better way than sending some of our brighter -men abroad-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And women.


Charles Stephen Booth: I beg the pardon
of our one woman member. I can conceive of no better way than sending some of our brightest men and women abroad to study various languages, various cultures, and international affairs, as seen from other angles than our own, and then have them come back to this country. Such students would wonderfully enrich our life, and from them we would be able to pick certain men and women who, as the representatives of this country, would fill official posts abroad in the days to co-me.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have long recognized' the principle that if we are to have war we must make preparation for war. We have not yet oome to recognize the principle that if we are to have peace we must make some special preparation for peace, and must be -willing to spend something on inculcating peace and training people for a peace program. I say that that $200,000-anyone can figure it out for himself-would -be a sort of glorified international Rhodes scholarship fund, and I can conceive of nothing of which I would be prouder, and that I think would produce a greater moral effect in the world,

Supply-National Defence
than that Canada should take the lead in some such scheme. It would put Canada in the very forefront of the nations. To-day the trouble is that we are feebly copying Europe and the outgrown policies of Europe instead of striking out along our own lines in this new world. We are at a period of great industrial expansion. We all recognize that. The victories of the future will be won not by force of arms, but in the economic and social realms. To-day we are carrying forward the old world traditions, spending our millions on outgrown policies, on policies that can only be inimical to the future welfare of the world. In this young country, so full of the sense of the security, we have the opportunity of adopting some of these new policies which I have had time only to indicate.


James Layton Ralston: morning, we inspected it yesterday." When I spoke of flying clubs a little while ago it was with that idea in the back of my mind, to see that civilian clubs automatically carried out these regulations. To me it seems to be necessary for the sound foundation of civil aviation in this country to develop that care and caution and ceaseless attention to these matters of detail, which, if not necessary, it is at least desirable that they should be taught by the influence of discipline and routine.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Our railway engineers and other railway men who are charged with great responsibilities are not under military discipline, and yet they always have their engines in order and are always ready promptly to respond to the call of duty.


James Layton Ralston: That is quite so. But I stated that in my opinion there is no activity where the simple failure to carry out a particular order will lead to such disastrous results as the activity of aviation. There is no doubt about that.


Charles Stephen Booth: Why should we not conform to the recommendations of the disarmament preparatory commission?


James Layton Ralston: I heard my hon. friend
quote the recommendations of the disarmament preparatory commission, but I think that commission is a long way from having come to any definite conclusion. That commission has -been engaged since 1925 in working out schemes for disarmament -but up to the moment they have not arrived at any conclusions, and they adjourned a short time ago with, I am sorry to say, not too bright prospects of a hopeful outcome of their deliberations for the conference of 1931. I am putting up these considerations against the considerations which my hon. friend has mentioned. Let me deal now with the point he made in regard to civilian aviation, and the statement that such aviation is in itself an incentive to war. He suggested that civilian planes and personnel co-uld be easily adapted to the purposes of war. Now as I mentioned the other day, that is the greatest difficulty which the preparatory commission is finding. This difficulty was expressed by the Spanish represntative before the commission, better, perhaps, than by anyone else. It is found that the nation which has the biggest industrial organization; the nation which -has the biggest transport organization, purely civilian; the nation which has the biggest aircraft organization; the nation which has the biggest and most efficient chemical organization and the best systems of railways and docks and
fMr. Ralston.]
communications; the best system of scientific research; the best agricultural resources-t-he nation which is best- equipped in all these departments of civil life is the nation which can best afford to disarm, for the simple reason that it can arm sooner than any other, using these very resources for military purposes. We cannot ignore the possibility of these resources being used for the -purposes of war. But that, as I w'as trying -to point out to my hon. friend, is far from suggesting that we are adopting these things, or utilising them, or developing our resources chemically, or industrially or agriculturally, or -maintaining our railways for the purpose of war. We are not doing anything of the sort. It is apparent, however, that the nation which is best equipped in all these directions can automatically arm itself soonest for war. And so the representative from Spain-he was dealing with the Russian proposals-expressed the view that general disarmament would result in this, that the nation with the greatest industrial resources would find itself just that much further ahead of -the small nation which was not so equipped; because every nation at the present time has at least a small defence force, and if each nation abandoned its armaments, -and later an- emergency arose, the nation with the small force would' be much slower in bringing its force -back to the status which it held before disarmament.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is all relative anyway.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not true that the small
nations wanted disarmament? What bearing, then, has my hon. friend's statement on such nations?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid the question
is based on a false hypothesis. That statement is not correct.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My understanding is that the small nations were disappointed in the attitude of the larger countries.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think my honfriend's hypothesis is correct. Now let me come to another point. Hon. members are right in stating that our geographical position is advantageous. But when they are discussing disarmament, I really do not think they give us credit for the position in which we find ourselves. No nation could be more disarmed than Canada; we have only to compare this country with others in the matter of expenditure. Canada spends $1.59 per head on national defence; the next country is Germany, with $2.60; next comes Russia, with-$3; next, New Zealand, with $3.10; next, South Africa, with $3.19; then even Denmark

Supply-National Defence
with $3.50, and Norway, $3.84. In other words, we spend much less per capita on national defence than any other country in the world.
Another point made by my bon. friend from Southeast Grey is our geographical position. We are fortunate in this, that we have on either side of us a wide ocean so that we have ample warning of any possible aggression. We are in a position where we may prepare for such aggression.
Answering the comment in regard to the size of the force which we maintain, let me remind the committee that the permanent force consists of one man for every three thousand individuals in Canada-not a very large force; it is not even a decent police force. I wish to say here that I do not, nor does the defence department, regard it as a defence force or a standing army in any sense of the word; it is simply an instructional cadre. Our real defence consists in the nonpermanent active militia, which is far from approaching the maximum numerical strength we might maintain on a three year basis, namely, some 240,000 men. Let me give the figures with regard to the militia. In 1914 we had 55,282 men as against 240,000, which would be our possible force, and in 1928, 51,575, or a reduction of nearly 4,000. Take the numbers training. In 1913-14 we gave twelve days' training to 58,563, and in 1928 -disarmament has progressed at least to this extent-we provided twelve days' training for 33,581. In view of these figures, our friends ought to give us credit, in the matter of military expenditures, at least for limiting our activities to a very modest extent, the extent which we are advised is necessary as a minimum.
This brings me to the question asked by my hon. friend: against whom are we preparing? Let me set his mind at rest with regard to the United States. I do not think I can do better than read a statement which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) not long ago. Speaking at the Assembly of the League of Nations on September 7, 1928, the Prime Minister said:
The Canadian Minister of Finance, in presenting the budget, does not so much as suggest the expenditure of a single dollar through fear of American aggression. Public moneys are saved and utilised for the purposes of productive industry.	,
So that my hon. friends may set their minds at rest on that score.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I had no fear at all
in regard to the United States: I was merely trying to reassure the rest of you.


James Layton Ralston: I am endeavouring to
answer the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Charles Stephen Booth: Do I understand
that the standing force exists for the purpose of keeping down any section of our own people who might give trouble?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend misunderstands me.


Charles Stephen Booth: Then it exists in
case of aggression?


James Layton Ralston: I said there was no fear
of aggression from the United States. I am very glad I can assure the committee that I am unable to say against whom we are preparing, and I hope I shall never be able to tell. You might as well ask me to state what burglar will break into my house at night and why there is a policeman on the beat near the flat where I happen to live. It is regarded as part of the national equipment to have a defence force, and our defence force is down to the very minimum-less than a quarter of what it might be. We are maintaining a force which amounts to but one out of every three thousand of the population, and we are training 33,000 men in the camps.
I do not think we could carry disarmament much further, and we are advised that, because of the wide oceans that separate us from other countries, we can reasonably prepare for self defence if that should ever become necessary.
Let me point out to my hon. friend with regard to the covenant of the League of Nations and the Kellogg peace pact, that both these documents expressly provide for selfdefence. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said it was a sort of insinuation against the good faith of other countries to provide a defence force and at the same time sign these documents, but I would point out that the covenant of the League of Nations provides in the first paragraph against resort to war, yet in article 8 it is provided that the members of the league recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety, and so on.


Charles Stephen Booth: But the situation
is different when we all signed.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think there have been any additional signatures.


Charles Stephen Booth: The United States was brought in by the Kellogg peace pact.


James Layton Ralston: We are not worrying
about the United States, but some other nations are not bound by the terms of these documents. In connection with the Kellogg peace pact let me point out further that whiie it denounces war as an instrument
Supply-National Defence

of national policy, at the same time Mr. Keilogg made an express declaration with regard to self-defence, as follows:
There is nothing in the American draft of an anti-war treaty which restricts or impairs in any way the right of self-defence. That right is inherent in every sovereign state and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in selfdefence.


Charles Stephen Booth: Will we not have to abandon the idea of a sovereign state?


James Layton Ralston: I do not understand my hon. friend's question; I am dealing with the point of whether or not a country which provides for self-defence is acting at all contrary to the treaties which have been signed, and I have endeavoured to point out that the convenant of the League of Nations expressly provides for self-defence and that Mr. Kellogg, one of the moving parties in connection with the Briand-Kellogg pact, laid down as a principle that self-defence was always excepted. The question is whether or not we are providing too much in that respect; I have submitted some figures to the house and I think they indicate only a very modest preparation.
I would like to give a few more figures. With regard to the training allotment, for this purpose we spent 11,930,000 in 1913, while in 1928 we spent 81,639,000; in 1922 we had 4.099 men of all ranks in the permanent force, but to-day we have only 3,264, a decrease of over 800; in 1922 the permanent force vote was $6,255,000, while to-day there is only $4,950,000. In discussing this question, which was done by both my hon. friends very fairly and logically, I think they both admitted that there was some necessity for a police force, and my hon. friend from Southeast Grey mentioned that she had no particular objection to retaining the permanent force. Allow me to point out that the permanent force accounts for nearly half this vote of $11,000,000, so at least I feel that I have some support from my hon. friends for these estimates.


Mr. CLARK:: How many civilians are
employed and paid out of the permanent force vote?


James Layton Ralston: None; they come under
the civil government vote.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then I would ask the minister if he would be willing to cut his estimate in half; if so, I will support him.


James Layton Ralston: That is a very sporting
offer, but I cannot accept it. I was endeavouring to point out that the permanent force is only an instructional cadre for the purpose of training the non-permanent active militia.


John Arthur Clark: Did I understand the minister to say that the salaries of civilian employees do not come out of this vote?


James Layton Ralston: There is quite a large
amount in the civil government vote for the pay of civilians, but the actual permanent force vote covers no civilian salaries. I am instructed that 1,671 civilians are employed.


John Arthur Clark: Can the minister state how
much they are paid in a year?


James Layton Ralston: I cannot say exactly, but it might be estimated at $1,500 a year, which is perhaps a low average. That would give a total of about 82,500,000.


Mr. BOYS:: I would like to ask the minister if any portion of this item or the items contained in the supplementary estimates, where there is an additional amount of 8250,000 for the Royal Canadian Air Force and $315,000 for civil air operations, provides for the removal of Camp Borden. The minister will recall that early in January a rather large deputation, representing all parts of the county of Simooe and including various county officials, waited upon him and discussed this matter and from time to time there have been references in the press to the possible moving of Camp Borden. When the delegation waited upon the minister the question was fully discussed and many reasons were advanced why no such steps should be taken, and I should like to know now whether any estimate, either main or supplementary, is for that purpose. If there is no such estimate I would like to know if the government has reached any decision with regard to this matter.


James Layton Ralston: 
William Alves Boys: Then I am to understand that
the department has reached a definite decision ultimately to abandon Camp Borden and move the equipment to Trenton?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think I can answer that leading question in that way; I can only say that for the present at least both bases will be used, and whether or not Camp Borden will continue to be used will depend upon the needs of the service. I am instructed that for summer training Camp Borden is at least very desirable and that a great deal of use can be made of it, but I cannot say whether or not it will be abandoned ultimately.


William Alves Boys: The minister does not suggest that there is need for two camps in Canada?


James Layton Ralston: I am instructed that
eventually this might be possible in the summer.


William Alves Boys: There might be a necessity
for a 'base for hydroplanes which would have to be located near the water.


James Layton Ralston: My information has come from the officers of the department.


William Alves Boys: If there is any thought of the abandonment of the extensive plant at Camp Borden, I would like to know the reason why. The minister intimates that it may be used, but I gathered from what the minister told the deputation that if Trenton is being selected it is with the intention of the abandonment of Camp Borden. If that is to be the case the house is entitled to know of the tremendous financial sacrifice which would have to be made in that connection. It wouid not be a matter of hundreds of thousands of dollars, it would run into the milions; I think I am quite safe in saying that it would involve a sacrifice of at least $2,500,000 to $3,000,000. If that is the intention I do not want to allow this opportunity to pass without putting upon Hansard some of the figures which the deputation gave to the minister. I suppose the minister has told me all that he feels free to admit, but I can only say that the conclusion I am forced to is that Camp Borden is to be abandoned.


James Layton Ralston: The officers of the department advise that for the next two or three years at least Camp Borden will be needed, and it is possible that that camp may
be needed later, in connection with summer training. As my hon. friend knows, the necessity for a combined sea and land training base makes it very desirable that Trenton should be used. That decision was arrived at after an investigation lasting nearly two years during which over twenty-five different locations were considered by the officers of the department. If my hon. friend desires it, I shall be glad to discuss the financial items with him, but I would say that I have been advised by the officers of the department that it would cost just as much to make Camip Borden a proper base for aviation as it will cost to put Trenton into shape, and we would have the added advantage of a combined base. My hon. friend says that he has figures which show a loss of some millions of dollars, but I do not think that those figures are quite correct. I listened to the discussion which took place when this delegation was here, and I went over the matter very thoroughly with my officers. We came to the conclusion that the expenditures which would be involved in fitting up the base at Trenton would amount to about the same, and I think a little less, than would be required to provide permanent quarters at Camp Borden. We will have the added advantage of the combined base at Trenton and would be overcoming some of the natural difficulties which exist at Camp Borden.


William Alves Boys: What part of the estimates
have to do with the establishment of the base at Trenton?


James Layton Ralston: None of the main estimates, but the item of $250,000 in the supplementary estimates is to be used for that purpose.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Would the minister give
us some of the points which were considered in selecting Trenton as against other points, say Oshawa or Whitby?


James Layton Ralston: As between Trenton and
Camp Borden?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Oshawa.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: No, Whitby; why seleot
Trenton instead of Whitby?


James Layton Ralston: I will look up the
reports. I would suggest that this matter can be fully discussed when we come to the
supplementary estimates.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, if there is
one respect more than another in which value results from the vote for national defence, I would say it is from the vote of $2,315,000
Supply-National Defence

for the non-permanent active militia. But in this connection, the minister has stated that the civilians employed in the department were paid $2,500,000, or approximately $200,000 in excess of the total amount appropriated for the non-permanent active militia. It was that militia which made it possible for Canada to recruit 500,000 men during the great war and to send the Canadian corps to France, yet we find that there are civilians employed in the department who cost the country more than is spent upon the non-permanent active militia from one coast to the other. It seems to me that this is a matter which calls for a very careful investigation and1 some readjustments, because every one who served with the Canadian corps realizes that clerical help, such as is being employed in this department at an average of $1,500 per head, could be secured from the permanent force at salaries of approximately one-third of the amount now being paid. In my opinion, anyone who secures a position in the department should be sworn in as a member of the permanent forces of Canada and should be paid according to the rank held.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the girls?


John Arthur Clark: The minister knows of his
own personal knowledge that there never was a more efficient body of clerks than those which we had and trained overseas, and the game class of men could be found to-day in the permanent force. It is a shocking thing that the civilians in the department should be paid $200,000 more than is spent upon the whole non-permanent active militia. The officers, men and certain civilians are spending more money on the militia than is the country, and yet we must tell these people who are supporting the militia that while there is no money for them there is plenty of money to employ civilians within the department. Personally, I am very much opposed to this practice and I think an investigation should be carried on to see that everyone employed is sworn in as a member of the forces and not retained as a civilian.


James Layton Ralston: The figures I gave to my hon. friend were a pure guess, and my attention has just been called to the fact that the figure of 1,671 included permanent and1 seasonal employees. For instance we have 429 men who receive $377,900 altogether or something less than $1,000 each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are all civilians?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. Again one would
only have to guess, but the amount is, I think, very much less than that which my hon. friend assumes from the figure.


John Arthur Clark: I am not assuming. My
hon. friend told me it was $2,500,000.


James Layton Ralston: Well, I will accept the responsibility for assuming that. I said $1,500, just averaging the salaries. I thought they were all full-time employees. The only way to deal with the matter would' be to make up an exact statement. If my hon. friend wants another estimate I might suggest $1,000 as liberal which would mean $1,671,000. I agree absolutely with my hon. friend as to the contribution which is made by the non-commissioned officers and men to the non-permanent active militia. Two years ago I gave figures showing that in nearly 50 per cent of the units either the whole or a portion of the pay is pooled by officers or men or both, *this showing a pretty generous contribution to the non-permanent active militia, but my hon. friend will admit that all these other votes for contingencies, engineer services and works, general stores, manufacturing establishments, topographic survey and transport and freight are partly non-permanent active militia and partly permanent force, and very much more for the former than for the latter. So in estimating the amount expended on the non-perimanent active militia, one would have to consider the payments under these items as well as the actual non-permanent active militia vote, which really represents only pay and allowances together with expenses in connection with training.
Mr, CLARK:	The minister's correction
does not alter the principle. The principle of employing civilians in this department is, in my opinion, wrong and ought to be corrected. The country could be saved several hundreds of thousands of dollars if these men were enlisted and given the pay of the ranks they hold. The minister shakes his head I have heard over a period of years, on I think excellent authority, that the department could foe reorganized and that civilians could be eliminated. I believe this, because it agrees with my personal experience. We did not need any civilians overseas in clerical positions and the minister knows that as well as anybody else. The same thing can be done in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cadet services, $500,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How many cadets are
there in Canada to-day?


James Layton Ralston: 133,403.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is there any increase over
last year?

Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: There is an increase of
10,000 over last year.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What .provinces does that increase come from?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I cannot give
the increase by provinces.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the number by
provinces?


James Layton Ralston: It is as follows:
Nova Scotia	
Prince Edward Island New Brunswick.. ..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia.. .
3,548
2,900
66,045
39,990
3,725
4,500
5,974
5,911


Mr. EVANS:: I look upon this appropriation for the cadets as probably the worst item in the militia estimates. This is in my estimation just so much money used to brutalize the feelings of too many of our young people.
only cadet service and the only oadet corps which are established are those which are expressly authorized by the school districts or the school authorities themselves.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: On the instigation of
the department.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend -has said
that before. I have told my hon. friend from Calgary and I say to the hon. member for Southeast Grey very sincerely: if they can show any case m which there has been instigation on the part of officers, I will deal wiith it promptly. The whole principle of this is that it is optional with the school authorities. There are about 7,000 teachers who are instructed this year in physical training, who are not cadet instructors, but who are giving their classes the benefit of physical training and whose instruction is being paid for out of this appropriation.


Charles Stephen Booth: Will the minister
look into the matter of which I spoke?


James Layton Ralston: I will. I think Colonel
Gillespie was the name he mentioned.
Same hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!


John Evans: Hon. gentlemen may laugh
at that, but that is almost a necessity of war and preparedness for war. If we are going to attain the end of peace for which so many efforts are being made throughout the world at this time, we must create an attitude for peace. Instead of that, we are inculcating in our young people the idea that war is the most glorious thing on earth. This is not as it should be. While I am not going to make a speech, I want to emphasize the fact that we are travelling along the wrong road and every dollar that we are spending under this item is making it harder for us to retrace our steps. This is a useless expenditure. While I do not expect the minister to cut at out, he should answer the question why he considers it necessary, and why, year after year, we are spending this money to train these young people in the way we do.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister state
to .the committee why he thinks the cadet service is necessary?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friends base their argument upon a wrong assumption. I have endeavoured to point out previously that the item covers very largely physical training and not military service or the brutalizing process to which the hon. member for Rosetown has referred. Probably $300,000 of this appropriation goes for actual physical training. The


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister taken
into consideration the question of taking away the military part of the service and viewing it from the purely physical standpoint?


James Layton Ralston: Not if the school
authorities desire cadet training. It is all left to the school and provincial authorities.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 306, for the relief of Ruth Leonard Wiser-Mr. Rowe-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Stephen Booth: May I ask if there are any children involved?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: There is one child, which is being amply provided for by its mother, who is in a position to look after it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, on division, read the third time and passed.
322S
Procedure Respecting Divorce

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Catherine McRae Beattie McRae-Mr, Dasselman.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U . NEILL OComox-Alberni) moved the second reading of Bill No. 336, for the relief of William John Blight.
Charles Stephen Booth: Mr. Speaker, I have read the evidence in this case, which seems to me to be one that is somewhat extraordinary in character. It involves, I think, an altogether new principle. The evidence in this case just happened to come to me in a separate envelope, and I suppose that led to my reading it. I have no doubt that there are many other .bills that could bear equally careful scrutiny. So far as I can read the evidence in this case, there is nothing in it whatever to prove the changes alleged. It may be that I have not the legal mind, and that, my conclusions are not warranted, which just illustrates, if that be the case, that matters of this kind ought, to come before a judge rather than before those who are not so well qualified to deal with evidence, but in so far as I have had any experience at all in judging evidence, I think that the findings of the senate committee should not go unchallenged.
W e were told the other day when we discussed a divorce bill in the committee stage that we ought to have discussed it earlier and not to have allowed-it to pass through the private bills committee and come back to this house before challenging it, I am therefore challenging this bill at this stage.
This is not one of the worst cases that we have. Some of the cases that come before us are absolutely unfit to be discussed in public.
I should like to be able to discuss the evidence in this case, but I notice strangers in the gallery. I think on general principles it has been conceded that it is not well that the details in such cases be known to the general public. In our divorce courts generally there is a good deal of reticence about giving details to the public, and I do not want to be in the position of having to discuss details that may not be appreciated at all by those who happen to be in the galleries. On the other hand, the presence of people in the galleries would make it more difficult for those.in the house frankly to discuss a matter of this kind. So, Mr. Speaker, before going 
on to the details of the case, I would suggest that you consider the advisability of asking strangers to retire from the gallery so that we may have absolute freedom of discussion.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In the old days of parliamentary practice and custom, in tihe event of a member noticing the presence of strangers the speaker would order the galleries to be cleared That custom was followed for many years in the British house, and then under Mr. Disraeli-later Lord Beaconsfield-a rule was framed and embalmed in the procedure. This rule is practically copied in our own standing order No. 13, which reads as follows:
If any member takes notice that strangers are present, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman (as the case may be), shall forthwith put the question, that strangers be ordered to withdraw, without permitting any debate or amendment: Irovided that Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, whenever he thinks proper, order the withdrawal of strangers.
It follows that no member by himself can order the clearance of the galleries; but the Speaker is obliged t,o put the question which I would put: It is moved by Mr. Woods-worth, seconded by Mr. Evans, that strangers in the galleries do withdraw forthwith.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Those in favour of the motion will kindly say "aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: A3'e.


Hewitt Bostock: Those opposed will kindly say "nay."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Hewitt Bostock: In my humble opinion the nays have it. Therefore I declare the motion lost.	.
Mr. \\ OODSWORTH: Then, Mr. Speaker,
I shall have to give some of the details in this case, and I shall do so with the least offence possible. I am very glad indeed that this case does not involve what I might term the obscene details that frequently appear in the evidence as presented to the Senate divorce committee. Perhaps it is just as well that the house has decided on this course, for in any case we must bear in mind that now- we have with us one woman member, who perhaps has not only a perfect right but a duty to consider matters of this kind; and also we have our Hansard, which in any case gives a report of what takes place in this chamber.

Procedure Respecting Divorce
First, of all, let me say that, as in, most bills of this character, we find a statement of this kind:
Whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by the evidence adduced.
I take the ground that the "evidence adduced" is not sufficient to prove the charge of adultery. In this case there are six children. The petitioner was asked whether he had in any way connived at or condoned adultery, and whether there was any collusion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? He has indicated that this is a case which is not fit to be publicly discussed. We have a parliamentary committee-the private bills committee-which is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the evidence that he is now going to review on the second reading of this bill. Would he not so far consider both public feeling and, as he has often described it, the decencies of the house by permitting the bill to go to the private bills committee, where he or anyone else may be heard, and this case, unfortunate and salacious in some respects as it may be, may there be discussed in much less public manner than in this house. I think I am expressing the wishes of a great many members when I make this appeal to him as a matter of fairness from one member to another.


Charles Stephen Booth: Mr. Speaker, ^appreciate the way in which the appeal is made, and perhaps that may lead me to leave out a great, many of the details. However, I have given the house the opportunity of clearing the galleries. The house has refused to do so, and must- take the responsibility for that action. Further than that, as the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) will recall, when the other day we let one of these bills go back to the private bills committee we were censured in this house for not having taken action earlier. I am now taking the matter up on the first opportunity presented, and when I think we have the right to discuss the principle involved. I shall cut down the details to the very limit as-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. This is a motion for the second reading of the bill. Its principle may be discussed. The evidence given before a committee in another house cannot be the subject matter of discussion until the bill comes back from our own private bills committee. The hon. gentleman may gratify his desire if and when our committee reports that a case has been made out; but at the moment the discussion of evidence taken before a committee in another house has nothing whatever to do with the principle of the bill, which is this, that on allegations of misconduct the petitioner claims to be entitled to a divorce. That case must be proven before our private bills committee. They may or may not accept the evidence given before another committee. Therefore I submit, sir, that discussion of the evidence at this point is entirely out of order.


Charles Stephen Booth: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the principle underlying the bill is that of unfaithfulness, and that such unfaithfulness in this case has not been proved. Essentially the divorce is being granted on the ground of desertion, not on the ground of adultery, and therefore I have the right at this time to challenge the passage of this stage of the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: The principle of the bill is divorce of the parties named therein. It is true that in the other house the evidence adduced in support of the petition has been found sufficient, but that evidence does not govern the decision to be made by the House of Commons. Any member is at liberty to discuss the principle involved in the bill; but the evidence is a matter for the private bills committee, which will duly report to the house. Therefore in my view the point is well taken.


Charles Stephen Booth: Then, Mr. Speaker,
. may I ask that the committee to which this bill is referred shall give it their most serious consideration? There will be no respondent present. The respondent is not to be found. There will be no one to represent the respondent. That is the situation. Again, in view of the statements that I have submitted tonight, I would urgently request the private bills committee to give the bill their very serious consideration.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has raised a rather interesting point. In some other cases it was said that in dealing with any of these bills the principle of divorce must not be considered. That objection has been made to myself by several members of the house and in several instances. It has been said that the principle of each bill was the ground upon which the

Procedure Respecting Divorce
divorce was granted to the parties mentioned in that bill. Now what is the situation? What is the principle of each bill? I am not discussing the decision of the Chair; I am considering the various aspects of the bill-


Hewitt Bostock: May I assure the hon.
member that I have never ruled as he suggests; I have never ruled that the principle of divorce could not be debated on the second reading. On the contrary, it is essentially the principle that must be discussed. But my point is that the House of Commons is not governed, in any decision it may render on a particular divorce bill, by evidence taken in another place. The bill is referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, from which a report is submitted to this house, and then the house pronounces on the bill in accordance with the evidence accompanying it. I repeat once more that I have never ruled that the principle of divorce could not be debated on the second reading; on the contrary, it is the very principle to be debated.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am very glad that you have given a general riding which will govern all these cases, especially in the future if the government does not make up its mind to put a stop to this procedure wfiich, under the present system, is degrading both chambers.
There is another point. I suppose it will be admitted that the principle involved in each of these bills is also the ground for divorce. Divorce cannot be granted indiscriminately for any reason whatever; the senate is supposed to have adopted a rule, by which presumably it abides in accepting or refusing petitions brought before it-although I do not think it refuses many. It has been said time and again in this bouse that the only ground upon which the senate committee grants a divorce is adultery, which has been called the statutory ground. As a matter of fact, as has been previously pointed out, there is no statute defining the grounds upon which divorce is granted by this parliament. There is no law whatever governing the question. In a case like this, or in any other divorce case, I contend that there i3 first the general principle of divorce and, secondly, the special cause for which the divorce is granted in the particular bill. Now if, as claimed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), this divorce is not granted for the cause supposedly admitted to be the only one for which divorce is granted, then a new aspect of the matter presents itself. Suppose, for example, this case went to the court: the petitioner would 
have to allege and prove as a cause for divorce the ground which would be stated in the act defining the reasons for which that tribunal can grant divorce. It would form part of the law, and the evidence would have to square with it. When a bill comes before us copies of the evidence are distributed; and if a member of this house who happens to be a member of the court of review passing on the adjudication of the other -house finds that the evidence does not corroborate the petition, but that it practically discloses a new ground, then I submit that- there is a second principle involved in the bill. Some time ago there passed through both houses a bill granting a divorce for impotency, which at least in the Quebec law is a cause for the declaration of nullity of marriage-not divorce. In this instance, if, as claimed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the evidence establishes not adultery but desertion, then we are granting the divorce for a cause other than that generally alleged to be the only one for which this parliament grants divorce; and it seems to me that this aspect of the case must be examined before the bill passes. If we agree to this, and the evidence is such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has found it, then a seoond principle is raised. There is the general principle governing all these bills, and there is the particular principle on which the divorce is granted in the bill before the committee. Suppose, for example, a divorce bill came before us based upon the assertion that the petitioner had been insulted by his or her consort; then it would mean that we should be granting a divorce on an entirely different ground. It seems to me, therefore, that on the second reading of any bill the house must consider the basis on which the divorce is granted.
So far as the evidence in this case is concerned, I have not read it sufficiently to form a decided opinion upon it. I merely wanted to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that before granting any bill we should examine the cause for which it is being passed. With regard to the evidence, if we give the bill the second reading it goes straight to the special committee; and when it comes back from that committee-I do not suppose in this instance Your Honour would so rule-it is contended, as we have frequently heard, that this is not the place, in committee of the whole, to review that evidence, that having been done by the special committee on private bills. I hold, however, that the committee of the whole has not only the right but the duty to review the whole of the evidence; therefore if the com-

Procedure respecting Divorce
mittee of the whole find that the special committee either has not taken cognizance of all phases of the evidence, or has given a decision based upon something which in the opinion of the committee of the whole is not warranted by the evidence, then it should be the duty of the committee of the whole to report accordingly to the special committee. I wish to make that point clear before allowing it to be said that we are surrendering our full responsibility to the special committee.


William Irvine: I think it might be well for you, Mr. Speaker, to give us a further instruction after the ruling we have received. As I understand it, the only thing that the committee will have before it when it comes to examine the bill will be evidence which is ruled out of discussion to-night. If that is not the case, then it is well that the committee understand now that it will have to take steps to secure new evidence and to make a new examination of the case. I cannot see that we have no right to deal with the evidence in the committee in any other way than we deal with it in this house. In the second place, I agree entirely with the point emphasized by the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa). I have not read the evidence, but according to the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the petition in this case is based, not on the usual ground, but rather on the ground of desertion, which is an entirely different principle.


Charles Stephen Booth: The ground alleged, adultery, I did not consider proved, but there is also the ground of desertion.


William Irvine: It is the only ground I am dealing wiith. If there is no evidence on one ground we must consider the other ground. I think for that reason the house should pass upon that principle; them, when we vote on this bill, we will understand that that is the principle upon which we are voting.


Alan Webster Neill: Both hon. gentlemen who preceded me concluded their remarks by saying they had! not read the evidence, and I would submit that reading the evidence should be a preliminary to talking about the bill; at all events it would be a useful adjunct. I -have been led into sponsoring a bill of this kind for the first time in eight years, and I cannot think why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) should pick upon my little ewe lamb out of all the hundreds which have been before us this session. I do not take it as a friendly act at all either to myself or to my unhappy client, if I may use the term.
The only thing required on the second reading of this bill is that a prima facie case be made out; we are not acting as judges now. That procedure is gone through before the private bills committee, and I believe a prima facie case is easily made out by this evidence. The suggestion has been made that this divorce is being asked on the ground Of desertion, but that is not so; the word "desertion" or the suggestion does not enter into the ease at all. This divorce is asked on the statutory ground of adultery.
To put it briefly, this couple separated, the date of the separation being sworn to, and six months later the woman admitted to her husband that she was about to become a mother. Perhaps I might read a letter, which is not at all improper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: There is nothing improper
about this letter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. If it was not permissible to read the evidence when I desired to do so, I think it hardly fair that it should be read now. There w-as nothing improper either about the evidence I desired to read.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I will not read the
evidence; I will state the case in general terms. The woman wrote a letter admitting the reasons why sh-e wr-as leaving her husband.


Hewitt Bostock: I suggest to the bon.
gentleman that he would facilitate the procedure if he would respect the ruling I gave a moment ago and let the bill go to the private bills committee after second reading. Then when it comes back from the committee, where new evidence may be heard and the old evidence considered, it will be time to examine that evidence and pass upon it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division; bill read the second time and referred to the select standing -committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Upon the order being called for the house to go into committee on Bill No. 6, to amend the Railway Act (investigation of subsidiary of telephone or telegraph companies)-Mr. Geary.
Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
railway committee has recommended t-he withdrawal of this bill.

3232	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services


George Reginald Geary: I would prefer to have this
bill stand until the government measure, which contains a provision similar to that contained in the bill, passes the house.
Bill stands.



PRECIOUS METALS MARKING ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. ETIENNE LETELLIER DE ST. JUST (Compton) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 24, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act, 1928.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private and public bills and orders being exhausted, the house will now revert to committee of supply.



DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Cadet services, $500,000.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Chairman, I am
more opposed to this vote than to any other under the heading of national defence; I think it is the most vicious of all. I am very sorry that it always comes up at the end of the session when hon. members are tired and certainly do not want to hear a speech on the subject, but I feel impelled to make a few remarks once again in connection with this matter. I wish more members of the house would take an interest in this matter and I can promise that if someone else would speak on cadet training I would refrain from doing so.
I believe that cadet training is military and not physical training, as is often claimed by the Department of National Defence. In physical training the health of the individual being trained is the central idea, while in cadet training the protection of the state is the central idea, so that these two are quite different and should not be confused. I think we may conclude that cadet training is military training. Each cadet instructor holding a certificate from the department and possessing the necessary qualification receives an annual grant of $2 per cadet. If I am incorrectly informed I should be glad to have the minister correct me.


James Layton Ralston: Up to a certain number.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Up to fifty cadets, and he receives SI per cadet in excess of that

number. This being the case, we can be sure that if the instructor has a bias on the subject at all it will be in favour of cadet training and the tendency will be for all the teachers who are cadet instructors to go in for cadet training. In addition to this, in the province of Ontario the Department of Education makes a grant of $50 to each school board having an organized cadet corps of not less than 20 cadets.
There came to my hand recently the 1929 year book of the Glebe Collegiate Institute, on page 29 of which I find the following:
The annual cadet dance of the 94th and 1070th cadet corps was held at the Glebe gymnasium on May 18th. The dance was a colorful event with the brilliant uniforms of our guests from the different military units of the city.
So that is at least one use for the permanent force; they supplied the colour at the cadet dance. There is a very close connection between the military units and the cadet corps. The minister cannot claim that the number of cadets has not increased. This afternoon he claimed that the department is not as military as it was some years ago, but the figures with reference to cadets show a rapid and steady increase. In the year 1909 the number of cadets in Canada was 9,000-again, if I am wrong, I shall be ,tlad to be corrected -and the total expenditure for that year is not recorded. In 1914, the year of the outbreak of the war, the number was 47,000 and the cost amounted to $392,000; the year after the war closed, 1919-20, the number of cadets had jumped to 65,000, and the cost had amounted to $374,000; last year, 1927-28, the cadets had increased to 130,000 and the cost-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The applause shows
more of the old-time patriotism rather than good sense. The cost had increased to $500,000. According to the statistics of 1926, the number of cadets in Great Britain and northern Ireland wias only 34,156, as compared to 112,463 in Canada for the same year. To put it in another way, the province of Ontario had only 1,000 less cadets than Great Britain and northern Ireland. According to the 1921 census, the population of Great Britain was 42,767,530, while the population of Canada in the same year was 8,788,481. If that is patriotism, which I doubt very much, then we are much more patriotic than is the mother country.
In the past war has been glorified, not only in Canada but throughout the world. It had to be glorified to keep it going, because it was a business which necessitated the killing

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
of a lot of people; it caused tremendous misery, and unless some sort of halo was thrown around it, it could never have gone on as long as it has. The schools have been used as the medium for this glorification of war, but public opinion throughout the world has changed and they have denounced and claim to have renounced war. How can we expect to evolve new and peaceful means of settling international disputes and expect them to succeed if we do not give the youth of our country new ideals. Do we expect that these things will come of themselves? Do we think that peace requires no effort, no expenditure and no organization? Apparently the government does, although I know that some of the individuals composing the government do not. However, judging from their actions as a government I can only conclude that they think that peace is a thing which will come of its own volition and is not something which has to be worked for.
Supposing we did not use the schools to bring forth these new ideals, but left the youth of the country free to think the thing out for themselves, then we would be on fairly safe ground. But we do not do that; we superimpose upon the youth ideas which have proved to be worthless and we use the military department to do that at a cost of half a million dollars per year. I think-perhaps I had better not say that; I will go on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Say it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The very fact that we have military training in our schools causes the boys who take the training, as well as the girls who do not, to think of war as the one and only means of settling international' disputes. They have not been taught any other means of settlement, and so they think that the means which they have been taught is the one to take. As Lord Roberts said: The possession of an art stimulates the wish to practise that art; it is the law of human nature.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), speaking in the Kellogg pact debate, quoted Shakespeare as follows: The sight of means to do ill deeds makes deeds i'll done.
Both those sayings are very true and they certainly apply to this case. When difficulties arise the student who has been military trained naturally thinks of brute force as the one and only method of settling disputes and does not think of calling upon the resources of the mind and spirit as a means of settlement. In other words, his mind is biased 78594-205i
on the subject and he is prevented from reaching higher ground by the very ideas we have superimposed upon him.
I do not think that anyone will deny that teachings in the schools can change the thoughts of a people on any subject in little more than a generation. We have some remarkable examples of that. The military teaching in the schools of Germany changed that country from a peaceful to a military one. The glorifying of commerce in the schools of Japan made that country a great commercial country within a very short time. Through their teaching of goodwill and the spirit of fellowship and brotherhood, the schools of Denmark within a generation made that country one of the outstanding countries in cooperation and peace. I think our schools should be used to develop the idea that no 6ne can be an efficient citizen who has not an international outlook. Our schools should seek to develop the international mind, and we should try to get away from the old days when it was thought: "They should take who have the power, and they should keep who can." That is not so universally the spirit to-day as it was a few years ago. We do not so firmly believe that the race is to the swift and the battle to the strong; we are emerging from a competitive age into a cooperative age. I do not think I need to point out the trends because I am addressing intelligent people who have noted them here and there. To my mind the schools at least should be left free to give the lead on this great subject of reaching higher moral ground; in showing the people that after all the world is a community in which we all live, and that the good of one is the good of all. This afternoon I quoted the right hon. the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition to show that they thought that we had left the old methods behind and were taking up new ways of settling international disputes, and I will not repeat the quotations.
Those who support military training for the youth of this country say that it is a splendid means of instilling discipline. I think it was Brigadier-General MacBrien or Major-General MacBrien-I would not get the titles mixed for anything in the world, as I do not want to take any glory away from him-who, speaking in Montreal on this subject, took great trouble to point out the benefit of the discipline that came through cadet training. I think those who make that claim confuse self-control with regimentation. There is a great difference between discipline as an aid to education and education as an aid to disciplined manhood and womanhood.
3234	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
The one is force; the other is character. I believe that a cadet is trained not to order his own affairs, but to be an efficient instrument in the hands of his superiors, doing the things that they command for the purposes they desire.
Another great argument that is advanced in favour of cadet training and keeping everybody ready for a world scrap all the time is that, with human nature as it is, we need always to be prepared, going on the assumption that human nature is a very low thing and that it never changes. I was interested in reading what Tagore, the great Indian poet, had to say on this subject. Hon. members will have noticed that Tagore visited Canada, and while he was in the city of Vancouver he addressed the International Educational Conference there. He has this to say about human nature:
In prehistoric age man ate man. Any claiming it an anti-social or immoral practice would be told it was human nature, but human instinct of cannibalism changed its physical character and took an economic aspect. I know the spirit of fight is ingrained in man, but the urging is also inherent in him to transmute its nature from the brutal to the human. When he has passed through his present state of physical ferocity he will, no doubt, have more than enough to fight about, but on a higher plane, intellectual, moral and spiritual.
I think human nature does change and I do not think the argument that has been advanced is any argument in favour of cadet training.
But probably the strongest argument against it is that it is contrary to the true spirit of education. The purpose of education is to develop the full rounded powers of the individual, to develop initiative, the power of selection of action, the will to act. Education should enlarge the vision of the student and prepare him to live in an ever-widening community.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could we have a little more order?


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is quite time there were more women in the House of Commons. Women consider the things that affect boys and girls as being of very great importance. Men are too prone to think that only things that concern dollars and cents are important. In any worthwhile educational system the child and the interests of the child, and not the state and the interests of the state, should be the centre. In true education the child would be the centre of interest and everything would revolve around that idea. This would in the long run be better for the state.
''Miss Macphail.]
Military training subordinates the will of the individual, and that certainly is contrary to true education. It kills initiative. An old poem, familiar to us all, describes very aptly what it does:
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die.
There is no selection for the individual and he becomes a machine. I think I put on Hansard three or four years ago a quotation from Bertrand Russell on the Principles of Social Reconstruction. Let me quote three or four lines from John Langdon Daines, a well known English educator. He says:
The result-
Of cadet training, to which he is very much opposed.
-is that the young generation has no chance of having free ideals and shaping evolution by their means; instead he is shaped to the existing forms and to the ideas which it pleases his rulers he should possess.
In this case the House of Commons are his rulers. John Dewey, who is very well known in Canada as a distinguished American educator, has this to say about military training:
Military training "is undemocratic, barbaric and educationally wholly unwise."
We are coming to the time when we shall be scientific enough to take the advice of people who are experts on any given subject. These men whom I have quoted are experts in the field of education and we should listen to them.
Recently a survey was made of the school system of British Columbia by two educational experts, Doctor Putman and Doctor George Weir of the University of Columbia. They had this to say about military training in the schools:
We take strong exception to the plan of having any part of this work done by militia officers, who naturally give it a military bent.
But as the Minister of National Defence pointed out to me last year, a second commission was appointed and it gave a contrary opinion. Whether that was because the first one did not give an opinion suitable to the powers that be, I do not know. It looks as if it were the reason and I would need to know some of the facts of the case before I would believe it was not. This year many people went to the educational conference in Vancouver, the one that was addressed by Tagore and also by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. What was said there on cadet training, I do not know, but something must have been said about it, because the result of it was that the Lethbridge Board of Education decided,

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
after one of their number had attended that conference, that they would no longer have cadet training in the schools of Lethbridge and they discontinued it. The organized farmers in the different provinces of Canada have again and again taken their stand as being opposed to cadet training. Organized labour has done the same thing many times. Certain women's organizations have taken a similar stand. None of the churches has yet reached that point, but they are getting there. The question has been discussed and a motion to the effect was almost carried last year. There is still hope that some time before long they, too, will take a stand against military training in schools. The most forward-looking women's organization on peace that I know of is the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, whose international president is Jane Addams of Hull House, Chicago. These are outstanding women who have given a good deal of time and thought, and indeed much suffering, in the cause of peace. At their Dublin conference, which I unfortunately was not able to attend, they passed' the following resolution:
We women of the Women's International League are of the opinion that the time has come to educate all children for peace; we hold it to be a crime against the souls of ripening youth to picture war to them as a necessity, or even as a moral duty; to train them in war-handicraft and instruct them in the art of killing.
I think that is very beautifully put, and it is all very true.
In conclusion, let me say that I am opposed to cadet training in schools because I believe it is contrary to true education, making the state, and not the child, the first consideration. I am oipposed to it because I believe it is not good physical training, because it cramps the mind and lowers the moral sense of youth, causing it to rely upon force rather than upon character. It does not result in self-discipline, and it prevents active and understanding work as a world citizen, as the word is constituted now. It discounts faith and counts on fear. It is contrary to the teachings of great moral and religious teachers of the ages.
To teach military training and the spirit of peace at the same time is to brand ourselves as moral cowards and hypocrites in the eyes of youth, and I know nothing we could do that would be more disastrous for this country and the world at large. I therefore move, seconded by the bon. member for Battle River, that item No. 72 be reduced by $499,999.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to review in a few sentences the history of this movement.
Ever since 1862 provision has been made in Canada for cadet training in the schools. Between 1908 and 1910 agreements were entered into between the different provinces under which the provinces that desired physical training and cadet training might have it, and might have grants accordingly. Every province has come into the scheme. The scheme is purely optional. There is no compulsion about it of any kind or description; any school at any time which does not desire it need not have it, and any boy whose parents do not want him to take cadet training does not need to take it.
The appropriation of physical training as compared with cadet training is indicated by these figures: last year there were trained for physical training certificates 6,644 teachers, all at the expense of the country, as against only 318 who trained as cadet instructors.
I have given the syllabus to the committee on former occasions. It includes physical training, squad drill, signalling, the teaching of alertness, preparation for vocations, first aid, scouting, rifle shooting, organized games, lectures on citizenship and lectures by business men and others on various vocations. Those are the general subjects which are taken up in connection with cadet training purely, but physical training constitutes the greatest proportion of the cadet training as carried on in the schools at the present time.
I think the best and shortest answer which might be made is that by far the greatest number of institutions in respect to which the grant is made are in the province of Quebec, that the greatest increase this year by far in cadet training has been in the province of Quebec, that the movement is supported by the clergymen of the province of Quebec, who obviously cannot be charged with a desire to cultivate the militaristic spirit. I do submit, as I have submitted to this committee before, that the amendment should not carry.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I cannot let the last words of the Minister of National Defence pass without giving some explanation. His words would leave the impression that generally in the province of Quebec the clergy or the educational institutions are in favour of cadet training. They are not, if the minister will allow me; for I know the province of Quebec a little better than he does. Unfortunately, I admit, some of the educational institutions have been induced to adopt this system, and I mu9t say that some of them have adopted it not from high patriotic motives but simply because of the money grants; and I am not especially proud of

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
them for that, nor do I think that a very large proportion of the citizens of the province of Quebec are especially proud of them for it.
The number of people in the province of Quebec, as elsewhere, who agree with the general principles that have just been expressed by the hon. menfber for Southeast Grey is much larger than the minister may imagine; but in the province of Quebec as elsewhere there are people who will let themselves go for a long time before they realize the consequences of their action.
The minister says that this movement has been in operation for sixty years. Of course, a good many things have been in operation for sixty years and over. Many things were in operation before the war that led the world to the war. It was because many things were let go for years before the war that the war suddenly caught the world without its realizing what was upon it. Of course, a few men did realize what was coming and a few men took advantage of that blindness of the world at large to prepare for the war and launch it upon the world. But since the war, some of these men even have come to see things differently. There were men in various countries of the world who before the war were preparing both young and older men for war, but who are now endeavouring to prepare them for peace. That is precisely the question. Are we going to do after the war the things that will counteract the forces for war, just as before the war we did the things that prepared for and led to the war?
We send every year a delegate or several delegates to the League of Nations, and we have adhered to every public peace move. Splendid orations have been made by the official representatives of Canada at Geneva and elsewhere to show that Canada is prepared to do everything for the cause of peace. But the cause of peace or any other cause is not advanced simply by speeches. It is advanced by the general trend of public opinion. It is advanced by such moral and political forces as are brought to bear upon public opinion to lead it in the right direction.
If we start with the schools, it is not only the question of cadet training in itself, but it is the whole tendency of education in the schools. It varies according to the provinces and according to the educational institutions; but certainly there are some educational institutions in this country which are still going on as they did before the war, developing in the minds of the children something unnatural which changes the nature of the child, and that is the idea that war and everything connected with war is the most glorious thing for the nation and for the individuals com-

posing the nation. The child goes out from the school with that notion, that the great heroes of history are not those men and women who work for peace or for moral or intellectual progress, but those men who are forceful enough or brutal enough to be great conquerors and victors by force of arms. The heroes of all history are the war heroes. Take most of the textbooks still used in our schools in all the provinces, in Quebec and elsewhere. In the books used in Ontario you will see more names of English officers and generals, and in Quebec more names of French generals before the conquest, but through them all runs the same spirit, that war is the most glorious thing which the nation or the individuals composing it can think of. I admit that this government and this parliament have nothing to do with that part of education, but when you take all these things together, the encouragement given by this government to cadet training, glorifying military heroes in the school textbooks and the general trend given to the child's mind in the schools all over the country, it simply means this, that while we talk peace in public speeches and at international gatherings we are not doing the main thing to prepare the future generations in this country for peace. They are doing more of that in the old countries. They are doing it at present in Germany, in France, also, and, of course, in England, and it is being done not only by individuals but by institutions. They are developing the peace mind, and they are not being discouraged by the public powers. That is especially true of Germany. Whatever view may be taken of the responsibility of Germany in the great war, and probably Germany was chastised by defeat, if there is a country in Europe at the present time which is working for peace in that most efficient manner which is so characteristic of the Germans it is Germany. They have gone to the root of the thing. In the years that preceded the war, and more particularly before the war of 1870, the schools of Germany were said to be preparatory schools for the army. Today the schools of Germany, from the primary school to the university, are the preparatory schools of the peaceful generations to come. Having felt the scourge of war, having realized that war is not only a crime against humanity, but the greatest calamity that can befall any nation, they are now preparing the youth of their country to prevent war in the future. They are not doing it to the same extent in France unfortunately, but there also, there is at least a certain reaction against war. In England the reaction is stronger, and I hope

Supply-Defence-Cadet Services
with the political change on the horizon that the work of peace will be enhanced there as well as in Germany.
Well now, what are we going to do, first, as a portion of the British Empire, and second, as one of the nations of the world? Are we going to stand pat? Are we going to proceed along the old routine, which has been followed since 1862 the minister has just said; or are we going to react energetically and intelligently? Are we going to make our professions of love of peace true or not; or, as the member for Southeast Grey has said, are we going to stamp ourselves, not intentionally but as a matter of fact, with the stamp of hypocrisy by preaching peace before the world and not putting it into practice at home?
The great difficulty in Geneva to-day is to prepare the nations for disarmament. Everybody admits that it is useless to talk of peace if the nations do not disarm. Why does not the cause of disarmament make more progress? Because some of the nations connected with the League of Nations have not disarmed according to the solemn pledge they gave in the Versailles treaty, on the pretence that under present conditions they cannot disarm. The result is that no nation disarms.
Physical disarmament is of course very important. It is very essential and very practical to reduce the extent and the effectiveness of the weapons of war. But it is still more important to disarm morally, it is still more important to change the mind which produces the causes which finally make use of the arms of war. Warships, cannons, poison gases do not start by themselves, they do not create the causes of war. They are more or less powerful means of war in the hands of the government of any country. But they create the scourge of war the moment the moral causes of war crop up or create the occasion which launches war. The physical means are simply the means to the end, and physical disarmament will not be accomplished, or will be useless, until moral disarmament has been brought about.
Now', can we educate the youth of Germany, or the youth of France, or the youth of England, or of Italy in the love of peace? No, we cannot. But we can do something to educate the children of Canada in the love of peace. Does this government think it is a duty to the Canadian nation to give the various provinces money in order to prepare cannon fodder in the form of young boys taught at school to love war, to love military uniforms, to love the glamour of war until they have tasted of it? If we are sincere in our love of peace why do not we make some offers to the various provinces to help them in establishing
some kind of peace education? I am sure that in the province of Quebec some of those institutions to which the minister has referred would be mighty glad to organize a peace department rather than a war department; but they are still doing what the minister says the federal government has been doing-they continue to do what they did before. Well, they should be induced to do something else.
This afternoon I have been reading an extremely interesting lecture given in Paris -and this is a sign of the times-by a Hungarian diplomat, one of the representatives of his country at the League of Nations. Of course, four or five years ago he would not have been listened to in Paris. Discarding his official capacity, and speaking as a human being appealing to his fellow beings, whether of French or of foreign origin, he asked them and I ask now: Why don't we look through this question? If we do, then we find out that there are two or three obstacles to the establishment of peace. One of them, of course, i3 the absurd system of treaties that was built up in the days of rancour and hatred immediately after the war, built up by the victors against the vanquished, which naturally could not be a sensible peace. But that may be arranged, and of course will be arranged. Common sense will prevail over blind passion. The second obstacle is the system of alliances which arose out of those nonsensical treaties. That also may be arranged. But those two causes will not disappear before you have created in the masses of the people of each country a state of mind which will not only permit but impose such a reform. Disarmament will not be brought about in every country the world over, treaties will not be revised, alliances will not be broken and replaced by the real exercise of the forces of arbitration under the League of Nations, until in all countries that peace spirit is created.
Well, that peace spirit will not grow of itself. We have helped to create the contrary spirit. For generations we have been doing that without realizing the import of our action. Governments were no more realizing what they were coming to than those educational institutions in Quebec or elsewhere are realizing to-day what they are preparing for the next generation. For years they have received a certain amount of money from the federal government to costume a few boys, making them caricatures of soldiers, and they continue doing that. Well, suppose we assisted practically and do something to counteract that spirit, to prepare armies of peace, and to develop the mind of peace in those boys in-
Supply-National Defence

stead of the mind of war. The mind of war develops by itself under that false system. Then with a certain degree of pride and sincerity we could go ito Geneva and elsewhere and prove that within the British Empire, as one of the main units of that splendid galaxy of nations, we are helping the cause of peace, the cause of disarmament, and that through the British Empire as well as through our own individual influence at Geneva and elsewhere we are also helping the cause of peace.
So long as we do not take the means to cure, the war spirit within ourselves it is almost useless to talk peace outside. It is not altogether useless to do so, because it enables a few people to realize, as the member for southeast Grey realized long ago, and has so expressed it, that there is something false in this system. But this government which is pledged to peace, this government which in the province of Quebec especiaily has appealed to all the feelings of peace against the warlike party on the other side of the house, should be consistent in Quebec and elsewhere, and advocate a peace policy not only at election time when their candidates appeal to that feeling in Quebec, but in this parliament and in all the provinces of the Dominion.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 56. Item agreed to.
General stores, $891,800.


Mr. FRASIER:: I had some correspondence with the department in connection with providing further accommodation for the stores in the city of Kamloops. There is a large quantity of stores there kept in a very unsuitable building and I should like to know whether the minister has made provision for further storage accommodation at that point.


James Layton Ralston: In the provision which
has been made in connection with military district No. 11, there is an item with regard to Kamloops drill hall, providing for increased storage accommodation. I presume that is what my hon. friend has in mind.


Mr. FRASER:: Is there any added amount?


James Layton Ralston: No. We know the general nature of the repairs which are being made in the whole district. The repairs are made on request from district headquarters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Manufacturing establishments, $587,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: To what manufacturing
establishments does this item refer, how many are there, and where are they?


James Layton Ralston: There is the Dominion
arsenal at Quebec. There is also a building at Lindsay but it is not used.


Henry Elvins Spencer: These are for munitions?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, small arms ammunition and a certain amount of eighteen pounder.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are there any private
concerns manufacturing ammunition?


James Layton Ralston: The Dominion Cartridge
Company makes sporting ammunition.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it run for private
profit?


James Layton Ralston: The Dominion Cartridge
Company makes sporting ammunition.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does it make ammunition for export?


James Layton Ralston: I do not think so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Where are the uniforms
made?


James Layton Ralston: There a few firms engaged in this line, such as Workman in Montreal, Woods Manufacturing Company in Ottawa, Grant-Holden-Graham in Ottawa, Clayton in Halifax, and various minor ones.
Mr. SFEiNCER: WTe need a lot of uniforms for our soldiers, and we have considerable spare help in our penitentiaries-men who are very badly in want of work to do. The penitentiaries make a large quantity of goods for the government in the way of post office bags as well as uniforms for some of the mounted police. Why should not these particular uniforms be made in those institutions? It would be advantageous from the standpoint of prison discipline, inasmuch as it would provide more work for the prisoners, and it would save the country a lot of money.


James Layton Ralston: We have some war stock on hand. The principal objection to my hon. friend's suggestion is the obvious one, in which the Minister of Labour would be interested, namely, that it would be regarded as competing with Canadian labour.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am afraid that is
not true. Organized labour in Canada has stated repeatedly that it wants the inmates

Supply-National Defence
of our penitentiaries to be given productive labour with pay in order to provide for the dependents of prisoners. That obstacle is entirely removed.


James Layton Ralston: If it is with pay I do not see the advantage.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There is a great advantage. At the moment the wives and families of men who are serving prison sentences are suffering. The men in the penitentiaries are given their food and they have a roof over their heads; and while one can hardly say that they have the creature comforts, at least they are able to keep life in their bodies. But that is not always true of their wives and dependents. I can see a great advantage in paying prisoners for any work they do. It is time we began to use a little common sense in .the government of Canada. There is no reason on earth, except the one the minister can think of at the moment, why uniforms for soldiers should not be made in the penitentiaries. I have talked with a good many men who have to do with getting orders from the government departments for manufacturing units in the penitentiaries, and they have the utmost difficulty getting such orders from the different government departments.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If the objection were
removed which the .minister sees from the point of view of bis colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), would he still object to placing orders with the penitentiaries?


James Layton Ralston: I should be glad to consider the question of having garments made in these institutions if this objection were removed and if the workmanship were satis-fectory and the proper materials were used.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I wish to support the
suggestion made by the hon. member (Mr. Spencer). In the institution at Stony Mountain, in the constituency I have the honour to represent, they do exceptionally good work. They make the uniforms worn by the guards, the wardens and other officials of the penitentiaries, and those uniforms are equal in fit and quality to those used by the militia. I feel sure that there would be no trouble at all in getting uniforms of proper fit and style made in our penitentiaries, and I hope the minister will investigate this question and see if something cannot be done along the lines suggested.


George Reginald Geary: Would the minister tell me
if he has under consideration the issue of coloured pre-war clothing, also what is the
supply of khaki clothing on hand, .the supply of pre-war issues on hand which were turned in at the beginning of the war; and what ho-pe the militia may entertain with regard to the issue of the coloured clothing in the near future?


James Layton Ralston: As my hon. friend knows,
representations have been made from time to time with regard to the coloured clothing, but the most the department has been able to do is to authorize the use of coloured clothing on certain special parades. With regard to the supply on hand, I think we have very little pre-war clothing in our own stores; some of the units have some of this clothing but we have very little in the department. I cannot give my hon. friend the quantity of khaki clothing on hand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $2,315,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: The Kellogg peace pact
was signed this year, and we must remember that last year the Prime Minister said that every department of the government was a department of peace, although the army of Canada is not very large, still it does not get very much smaller, and I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the world is turning to peace, if he cannot see his way clear to make some slight reduction in the army of this country.


James Layton Ralston: I thought I answered that question when I answered my hon. friends from Southeast Grey and Winnipeg North Centre; under the present situation I do not see how we can reduce the number any further. As I have endeavoured to point out, there has been a reduction less than it was before the war; money does not go nearly as far now and we are training only about half as many men. I am afraid I cannot accede to my hon. friend's request.


John Evans: At this time I would like to
secure from the government a statement as to their policy with regard to the militia. Surely the minister does not expect us to believe that all these men are necessary for a police force for Canada; that cannot be so. There must 'be some .policy behind the whole thing. Last year there was an increase of $230,700 in this vote. That would seem to indicate that the government has a definite policy, and I would like the minister now to show us the need for this vote and the reason why the expenditure under his department is increasing from year to year. I cannot help but think
Supply-National Defence

that we are wrongly teaching young men how to bear arms and giving them instruction in the art of killing.
I was very much struck the other day by reading that Rasmussen, the Danish Minister of Defence, the day after the signing of the Locarno treaty introduced into the Folketing of the Rigsdag of Denmark a bill for the disarmament of the military and naval forces of that country. At the time his colleague Doctor Moltesen, Minister of Finance, declared that the frontiers of Denmark were more secure than ever they had been. Both parties agreed to the disarmament bill on the ground that they were safer under this agreement than they would be than by arming the nation.
I believe that if our government would make a grant which would enable men of foresight and intelligence to study questions which might arise and involve us in inter-antional affairs we would have no need to pass a vote of $20,000,000 for militia and defence. I want to also emphasize the fact that our action in this regard might very well be misinterpreted in different parts of the world. I think the Anglo-French pact of last year Should give us some thought; our action now might be taken as favouring one side or the other. That pact certainly caused a great deal of concern both in Europe and America, and public opinion both in France and in England compelled its withdrawal. I am glad to see that public opinion on this subject is being crystallized; I am also glad to know that the Canadian public are taking up this matter as never before. In a letter which I received the other day from Saskatoon I am told that there is to be a provincial peace conference in Saskatchewan, organized by the women of that province, and every public body which in any way moulds public opinion has been asked to take part.
Coming back to the item under consideration, I think it is quite unnecessary that we should pass it at this time; I cannot see that it is needed and I am going to move in amendment that it be reduced by $2,000,000.


James Layton Ralston: I really cannot think
that my hon. friend, while he may be serious in the sentiments he has expressed, is serious in moving this amendement


John Evans: Yes, certainly I am serious.


James Layton Ralston: As I endeavoured to
explain, the permanent force is simply an instructional cadre; it does not even form an extensive police force. As I informed the
fMr. Evans.]
committee previously, talking all available men from eighteen to twenty-one for three years' service our strength would be something like 240,000, but this item provides for 12 days of training for only 33,000 men. The vote has not been increased over last year; it is exactly the same, so I am at a loss to understand my hon. friend's reference to votes increasing each year. Let me repeat that I do not think my hon. friend is serious in practically suggesting that this vote be wiped out entirely, or in other words that there be no defence force in Canada at all. As I have explained, it is regarded as a part of our national equipment that we should have some defence force. Canada's fortunate geographical position is such that we are not compelled to make the preparations which European countries must carry on; we do not maintain any standing army, and I feel that my hon. friends do not quite appreciate the fact that Canada is disarmed to an extent far greater lhan any other country in the world. I think that is clearly shown when I point out the fact that the per capita expenditure in Canada is only $1.59 as compared with $2.60 for the next lowest country. Let me point out one other instance. The little country of Guatemala, in Central America, has a population about one-fourth as large as the population of Canada, yet that little country maintains a permanent force of over 5,000 men as compared with about 3,300 in the permanent force in Canada. I just mention that fact to show that we cannot be accused of being over-militaristic and that we are simply endeavouring to maintain a skeleton force which may be called upon in time of emergency. We all hope, just as much as does my hon. friend, that that emergency may never arise. My hon. friend has referred to the very laudable action which was taken by Denmark in connection with disarmament. An editorial appeared in the London Times only a few days aigo complaining rather bitterly of Denmark's action in this respect. That paper contended that Denmark was not leaving herself in a position to carry out the international obligations which she had undertaken under the covenant of the league, and it claimed that the action Which that country had taken in respect to the so-called disarmament-after all, if you look at the matter carefully you will discover that it is hardly disarmament, because she has made a coast patrol out of her navy and a police force out of her army 

was not consistent with her international obligations.

Supply

National Defence


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In case of trouble
within Canada would the non-permanent active militia be called out by whoever calls them out?


James Layton Ralston: I do not want my answer to be considered as being made glibly, but I would say that that would depend on whoever calls them out.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Who does?


James Layton Ralston: If I remember correctly, it depends on our constitution; I think it is the attorney general of the province.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: When they were called out in Nova Scotia did the non-permanent active militia go down there?


James Layton Ralston: No.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Have they ever been called out in the history of Canada?


James Layton Ralston: Not that I know of, and that is what I was endeavouring to point out.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What good are they?


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid my hon.
friend is not listening, or else I am not making myself clear. I have endeavoured to point out that the backbone of the defence forces of Canada is the non-permanent active militia. That is not the police force which I have been talking about; it is the defence force for purposes of defence when necessary.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: This afternoon the
minister pointed out, that we had no fear from American aggression, to prove that he quoted from the speech which the Prime Minister had made in Geneva. He did not tell us just whom we should fear; I have no fear of anyone and I do not think anyone else has. This non-permanent active militia does not belong to the permanent force; if it did I would be more in sympathy with the minister. It belongs to a defence force to defend us against something which does not exist. We need this money for so many things, but I do not want to start discussing that question because it would take too long. I want to say to the minister that it is no dislike of him or lack of appreciation of his ability and his desire to serve his country which has kept us on his trail all afternoon. I wish the Prime Minister would move him on to some other department where we could approve of him and put someone in as Minister of National Defence who might be open to censure. I would like to know where the camps are; how many trained last year, and for how many
days; do the same men train year after year or is a new batch sent out annually; what^do they do while they train; do they fight sham battles, do they practise bombing, do they dig trenches and try the poisonous gases to see whether they are effective, or what do they do?


James Layton Ralston: Last year the approximate number which trained at the camps was 33,581 of all ranks. These men received twelve days' training, some at local headquarters and some in the camps. We have not sufficient money to take all these men to camps. The artillery camps are Petawawa, Camp Hughes and Sarcee Camp. The central camp schools are at Camp Borden, Kingston, Connaught, which is near Ottawa, Petawawa and Sarcee Camp. The Central camp schools are as follows:
District-		
No.	1	London.No.	2	Niagara.No.	3	BarTiefield.No.	4	St. John's.No.	5	Levis.No.	a	Aldershot.No.	7	Sussex.No.	10	Hughes.No.	11	Vernon, Rodd Hill, Heal's andMacauley.No.	12	Moose Jaw and Dundurn.No.	13	Sarcee.The	district camp schools are as follows:	District-	No.	1	Port Stanley and London.No.	2	Niagara and Huntsville.No.	3	Barriefield and Peterborough. St. John's, Ayer's Cliff and PointeNo.	4	aux Trembles.No.	5	Cookshire, Levis and Rimouski.No.	6	Aldershot and Halifax.No.	7	Sussex.No.	10	Hughes.No.	11	Vernon, Macauley, Maple Bay andHeal's.No.	12	Moose Jaw and Dundurn.No.	13	Sarcee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, the Minister		
of National Defence a few moments ago made the statement that a skeleton force was being maintained in the Dominion, but I observe that in the estimates for 1927-28 a total amount of $15,932,812 was provided for national defence; in 1928-29 the amount had jumped to $18,936,446, and in 1930 it is up to $20,123,378, quite an appreciable increase since 1927-28.	If we keep on increasing the
estimates at this same rate we will be putting a good deal of life into the bones of the skeleton which the hon. minister spoke about this afternoon. I find that practically all the various items show an increase in the past three years, irrespective of what they cover.
Supply-National Defence

ranging from five to twenty per cent. If that is the way the minister preaches peace propaganda I would like to know what he would do if he assumed a warlike tone.
I cannot see the need of this expenditure for national defence, as I think the trend of events is in an entirely different direction. The nations of the world are beginning to realize the absolute futility of armaments, and this is borne out by the report of the League of Nations. I cannot see why Canada should spend the money which she is spending to-day. It is hardly fair for the minister to compare us with some of the smaller republics in South America; it is hardly fair for him to compare us with some of the European countries, because we are in a totally different position. We have the United States to the south of us and, as has been pointed out this afternoon, I do not think we spend one cent in protecting our shores from any possible menace from the south. I do not think there is any likelihood of an invasion from the north, and possibly the same statement would apply to an invasion from the east or west. Therefore, I cannot see why our estimates should be continually increasing, and I trust that the minister will recognize the protests which have been growing from year to year and that next year instead of an increase we will have a considerable decrease in these estimates.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Evans has moved
t^aLVOte No' 83 be reduced by the amount of $2,000,000.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does not the minister believe that the reason large numbers of men go to these camps is a very natural desire on their part to gather together out-of-doors in the summer time and spent twelve days away from their daily toil? Has he ever thought of the tremendous good that would come by having camps similar to these, with the military idea wholly eradicated, with the camps given over to physical training, to the goodwill that will be generated by the conferences ' and to active educational work along any line, cultural, international or anything they like? My opinion, which I may be foolish in voicing for the first time in the house, is that the reason men go so readily to the camps is that deep in their hearts there is a desire of getting together; the need of good fellowship, the freedom from the ordinary toils of life: these are the things that lure them there. The men themselves are not particularly interested in the military idea and might be quite glad if it was eliminated altogether. I give this as a constructive suggestion.


Robert Gardiner: May I be permitted to ask the minister, in view of the scientific research into destructive forces for war purposes, what value in a future war will be the non-permanent active militia? Will it be of any value at all?


James Layton Ralston: I can assure my hon.
friend that man power is still the basis of any defence scheme or any defence force all over the world. My hon. friend is talking about auxiliaries in the shape of mechanized forces. The principle of military training still holds good.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force, $4,950,000.
John Arthur Clark: I wonder whether the minister could give a statement, not necessarily tonight-I realize he cannot do that-as to how many civilians are employed in this department and the total salaries paid to them over a period of years commencing from say 1910 to date?


James Layton Ralston: I think I have the information upon which such a statement could be made up. My hon. friend understands that it would take a little time to have it prepared.


John Arthur Clark: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Complaints have reached me as to the engagement and discharge of men in the permanent force about Christmas time last year. I understand that men enlist for a year with a probationary period of three months. A number of men had enlisted and seemed to be assured of their winter's service, but before the expiration of the three months, to be exact, the day before Christmas, men in different districts were let out without notice. They were put out into the world in the middle of winter, so to speak, after they had enlisted for a year and had every reason to expect that they were settled for that time at least. Complaints as to what was thought to be rather hard treatment have reached me and I should be glad if the minister could give me any information with regard to the matter.


James Layton Ralston: This was simply a case of not having sufficient money. I thought it was in January. I have under my hand a circular on this matter, from which I will read extracts :
It was found that the permanent force vote would not provide for the strength of 3,272, as

Supply-National Defence
it then stood, for the remainder of the fiscal year. The strength would have to be reduced by 112 so as to bring the vote within the appropriation.
These were the men who were discharged.
(a)	That all deserters who have returned since September be discharged at once.
(b)	To discharge all recruits, except in the cavalry and horse artillery, who have been enlisted this autumn and have not yet been finally approved by their commanding officer; that is, within three months of enlistment.
(c)	To permit all other ranks who may desire, to be granted a free discharge, which would be granted under paragraph 386 (xvi) king's regulations, Canada, "his services being no longer required."
The result was that by the end of December -and my hon. friend is right about the date -there was a net reduction of 200 against the permanent force vote. As a matter of fact, out of the 200 there were only 66 of the class to which my hon. friend refers. Most of them were those who requested their discharge.


George Reginald Geary: That is a circular addressed
to different depots or districts?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Could the minister give
me the number discharged in each district?


James Layton Ralston: I think there is a return of the number discharged. The figures are as follows:
Military
District
No. 1	
No. 2.. .. No. 3.. .. No. 4.. .. No. 5.. .. No. 6.. .. No. 7.. .. No. 10.. .. No. 11.. .. No. 12.. .. No. 13.. .. Headquarters
Number
Discharged
.	21
.	10
.	18
.	51
.	Nil
.	23
.	38
.	1
.	11
.	1
Total	 199


Mr. PLUNKETT:: What district is No. 7? Mr. RALSTON: St. John, New Brunswick. Mr. PLUNKETT:	Were the discharges
carried out indiscriminately or proportionately across the whole Dominion? Was the number discharged in the western provinces on the same basis as the number discharged in Quebec and the eastern provinces?


James Layton Ralston: The discharges were carried out by classes according to the principle which I read in the circular. In St. John it happens that there is no permanent force and there are no recruits. That is why there is not any dicharge there. In military district No. 6, which is Halifax, there were fifty-one.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the minister give
us some particulars in regard to this vote? It is rather hard to understand1 why it costs about $5,000,000 to keep up a permanent force of about 3,300 men.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to remind my hon. friend that I thought we were reducing this vote a good deal. The vote for the permanent force in 1922 was 86,255,000, and it is now $4,950,000. The purpose of the vote is to cover expenses in connection with the general maintenance of the permanent active militia, including pay, allowances, subsistence, forage, fuel, light, water supply, medical and dental servioes. The estimate is based upon a strength of 330 officers and 3,068 other ranks, making a total of 3,398 of all ranks. This represents a decrease of 4 officers and 17 other ranks as against last year.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to have
some particulars of the vote. The minister's explanation does not seem to cover- the point. There are about 3,330 men in this force and yet it costs about $5,000,000 to maintain them.


James Layton Ralston: Pay and allowances
amount to $4,096,000. The balance is made up of transport and travelling; stores; equipment and supplies; printing and stationery supplies; grants to messes, library, et cetera; light and power; water and taxes; telephone rentals; removing garbage and refuse; medical services; dental services; veterinary services: contribution towards pensions of British army personnel on loan to Canada; courses of instruction, and miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, including premium on surety bonds, advertising and so forth. The big item is pay and allowances.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the pay for a private Canadian soldier?


James Layton Ralston: The private soldier over eighteen receives pay, $438; allowance for clothing, $182.50; fuel, $54.75; light, $18.25; rations, $182.50, or a total for the single man of $438 pay, plus $438 allowance, or $876. The married allowance is $255.50. So the married man receives $438 pay, plus $693.50, or $1,131.50.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is by the year?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. The enlistment is for three years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Military College, $375,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How many students were at the college last year, and what was the cost?
Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: There were 199 students at the college last year, and the full vote of $375,000 was spent.


James Charles Brady: I would like the minister to tell the committee as to the real value of the Royal Military College, because I believe there is not an institution in Canada to-day that is doing such a splendid work. You will find there students from the various high schools throughout Canada. They have gone there in doubt as to their future, and they have come out fortified with knowledge and vision, with character beyond words, and they take a prominent place among the bright young men of Canada. I visited the Royal Military College some weeks ago and I found there students from every part of Canada, including western British Columbia, and among them students that I myself had taught in Prince Rupert. I would ask the minister to stand up right now and let us know why he is not adding to this vote, and why he is a little bit timid about showing the educational value of the Royal Military College and asking for only $375,000.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What was the number of students who attended the institution in 1920, and what was the cost that year?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the number of students, but I have here the number of graduates. There were 33 in 1920, and 34 last year. The amount voted in 1920-1921 was $349,819.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the basis of admission to the college, and do the students pay any of their expenses themselves? I notice that the cost per student figures out to about $1,900.


James Layton Ralston: First they pay $100 a year, and then for the four years they pay in addition $1,050 for clothing, and so forth; so that the four-year course costs them $1,450. The method of admission is by selection according to merit. My hon. friend will remember the discussion in the house last year. The word "merit" was retained in the statute, and I can assure him that that has been the basis of admission. Allotment is made to the various provinces according to population and applications are received, the educational qualifications being the matriculation examination for the province. There are certain regulations with regard to the age limit and regulations particularly with regard to physical fitness. Having regard to the marks made, showing the scholastic 
ability of the student, together with his age and physical fitness, selection is made by a selection board up to the allotment of each province.


James Charles Brady: I am pleased that the minister has given us the qualifications for entrance to the college. For the students from British Columbia, for example, is the senior or junior matriculation essential?


James Layton Ralston: Without looking up the regulations, I do not think that senior matriculation is required, although senior matriculation gives the student just that much better standing and a preference in selection.


James Charles Brady: I do feel that the Minister
of National Defence has not yet realized the wonderful work that this institution is doing for the youth of Canada. I do say from my knowledge of that institution, and of the young men who were trained there and have come forth from that institution with courage and faith and knowledge and vision, that the minister should stand up to-night and ask not merely for $375,000, but for a larger vote. He should go further; he should encourage in every possible way our Canadian youth to enter an institution wherein virility, purity of life and courage towards attainment are developed to the limit. I do think, sir, that the Canadian people should be proud of the Royal Military College at Kingston and I am glad to be able to say to-night from honest conviction that it is one of the finest institutions in the whole Dominion for educating the young ambitious youth of Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it is not worth the trouble for me to say that I do not agree with our very affable and polished Irish colleague, but I cannot let his remarks pass without protest. If we want to instil courage in our young men let us elect them to the House of Commons; that will develop it if anything will.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, it will-if they
are men. I think the cost of training our youth at the military college is excessive. It is usually people well able to afford the cost of education who send their children to the military college, and the $1,400 paid by the students for four years is certainly not much.


James Layton Ralston: It is $1,450.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: It is not much for four years. But my main objection is not to the cost. As I have said very many times in this

Supply*-National Dejence
house, we have two schools of thought in Canada; one which thinks security can come by peaceful means, and the other which thinks it can come only by military preparation. The military college was established in the days when the latter school of thought was more dominant than it is to-day-for it is still more or less dominant. In those days the blue* blooded young men were sent there. By the way, I do not know how they became blue-blooded; I thought that all Canadians were "red-blooded" anyway. The colour of the blood is a bit confusing anyway. Some of the so-called "cream" of Canada went to the Royal Military College, the idea being that it was a little more exclusive than most educational institutions and that those young men might serve as officers in the Canadian militia in the event of war.
The reason I object to the grant to this college is that the Dominion government is backing the one school of thought in Canada, the military school, and is giving absolutely no help to the other school of thought, which as I said before, think that security does not come from warlike methods. It is high time that we scrapped the military college at Kingston. If the blue-blooded people of Canada-my blood is red-want to train their sons in military tactics, they have already by special legislation taken enough money from the common people to enable them to build a college for the purpose. I cannot sit silent while the House of Commons votes money for the Royal Military College. My own opinion is that it develops snobbery. If it is not military it is snobbish; I think it is possibly both. The young men can go to any university in Canada and be educated for civil life. But, Mr. Chairman, I am getting into deeper water all the time; not only do I disagree with my friend the Minister of National Defence, but now I find myself out of sympathy with the very affable member for Skeena (Mr. Brady).


James Charles Brady: It is not often, Mr. Chairman, that I really feel at home in the House of Commons, but I do now after listening to the very genial and lovable member for Southeast Grey, who has endeared herself not only to the government-which she often supports-but to the official opposition which she likewise supports, for not later than yesterday evening she supported us on one of the most vital questions that has come before the House of Commons this session. I refer to the debate on the Australian treaty. But much as I revere and appreciate her opinions,-words to me are very significant,-to-night she used three outstanding words when speaking of the Royal Military College - "fashionable" - "blue-blooded" - "snobbery". Now, candidly, I should like to accompany the hon. member for Southeast Grey to the Royal Military College at Kingston, to disprove her statements. During three years only on two occasions has it been my privilege to speak in reply to the very charming and very lovable member for Southeast Grey. After all, hon. members will realize that in the days "when knighthood was in flower" and heroes set out in quest of adventure to rescue some charming female in distress, valour and sentiment were supported by good judgment and discretion. Therefore when to-night I heard the hon. member for Southeast Grey say that the Royal Military College was only for those who are " fashionable," " blue-blooded" and "snobbish", I realized, for the first time in three years that the charming member for Southeast Grey had not visited that splendid institution known as the Royal Military College. Now, I know something of the young men who are educated in the Royal Military College at Kingston. While I would be the last man in the world to reflect upon the integrity, sincerity and truthfulness of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I must tell her that I know thoroughly the type of young men who go through the Royal Military College at Kingston. The hon. and charming member I know has read her history, and she must know something of the days of the plebeians in ancient Rome. Perhaps there is an analogy between the plebeian and the modern democrat, but I wish to tell the hon. member for Southeast Grey right now, that in my sixteen years knowledge of the Royal Military College not one of the students from British Columbia was fashionable, blue-blooded or snobbish-not one. Who were they Mr. Chairman? They were the young boys who failed to get the benefit of the higher education that the universities afford; they were trying to find their way; they were boys who needed the discipline which the Royal Military College could give in order that they might find their feet. And they found what they sought. I wish to say right now, in the presence of the hon. and gracious member for Southeast Grey, that the young men trained in the Royal Military College in Kingston have come forth from that institution not merely as scientific men-and I know many of them who have taken their B.Sc. and M-Sc.-but as an honour to their fathers and mothers, and they are the pride of the community in which they live. Everyone knows the persuasive powers in this
Supply-National Defence

house of the hon. member for Southeast Grey. The moment she rises to her feet, silence reigns in the house, and all give her obeisance. No matter what she says, the male sex bows to her judgment as it has ever done in all ages, to the devobo femineo sexu. Therefore I say that no matter what the hon. member for Southeast Grey says, whether she condemns the Royal Military College or whether she opposes the vote provided for the national defence of Canada, we realize that at least her heart is with us, because I have never yet found myself disagreeing with her even though at times, tentatively, she tries to tell us that if we, the Conservative party, are not good she will vote with the government in power, which she seldom does.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Before the resolution
carries I want to say that. I accept the hon. gentleman's invitation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Air Force-all expenses in connection with the general maintenance and training of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the auxiliary and reserve air force, including training personnel for civil air operations, ?1,-697,694.
William Alves Boys: When the supplementary estimates come up I shall have something to say in reference to Camp Borden.


John Arthur Clark: Is the cost of the air base
at St. Hubert, Montreal, included in this vote?


James Layton Ralston: It is in the next vote.


John Arthur Clark: I can ask the question just
as well under this vote. Has the minister reconsidered the decision made by the government last year to establish air bases in other cities, for instance, Vancouver and Halifax? In British Columbia this is considered a very vital matter. Recently the people of Vancouver passed a by-law and they are going to spend $300,000 of the city's own money to establish an air port. It does seem to me that this is a national matter, and in relation to a city like Vancouver, where there is an all the year round port which is likely to become one of the most important ports in North America, the question is one which should engage the attention of the government in a serious manner. Has the government recently considered cooperating with cities like Vancouver and Halifax, where there are national ports, in this very important respect?


James Layton Ralston: That was considered
quite recently, particularly in connection with Halifax. Halifax was very anxious to establish an air port and, like any other city, desired to have assistance given it. We had 
to give them the same answer we gave Vancouver in that respect. Provision is being made for substantial assistance in connection with the lighting of aerodromes, a matter which has been regarded as a severe tax on the municipalities and those who own them. We have passed an order in council providing for an expenditure of $10,000 as a maximum in connection with lighting, particularly flood lights and special search lights. Boundary lights are, of course, not provided by reason of the fact that each aerodrome has different requirements. But in connection with certain standard lighting equipment the department is making a substantial contribution.


John Arthur Clark: How does the minister justify an airport in Montreal and not at Vancouver?


James Layton Ralston: The airport at Montreal
was established as part of an imperial air route, having regard to the suggestion made at the 1926 imperial conference for the development, if possible, of dirigible communication between Great Britain and the continent of North America. At that time the Prime Minister, who was representing Canada at the conference, undertook that provision should be made for a mooring mast and necessary terminal facilities in Canada, and the aerodrome at St. Hubert was purchased and equipped with that object in view. Perhaps my hon. friend does not know that any commercial companies who are using that aerodrome are paying for the use of it; it is not free.


John Arthur Clark: I raise now the claim of a
city like Vancouver; it appears to me that there is a strong claim for the province of British Columbia. During a great part of the year we are five nights on the train from the city of Ottawa-five nights to communicate between the capital of the country and such a city as Vancouver, and six nights so far as Victoria is concerned. We have a strong claim for the establishment of an air service between that part of the country and central Canada; indeed, our claim is stronger than that of Montreal. I appreciate the fact that Montreal has a strong claim, and also the fact that the establishment of the aerodrome there is partly the result of the imperial conference.


James Layton Ralston: Altogether.


John Arthur Clark: If that was the sole reason- the request of the imperial government-this country would not be spending the money which it is spending on that port. The fact is that this country recognizes its responsibility in developing its airways; that work must be done. Therefore I now advance the

Supply-National Defence
claims of the province of British Columbia, because in my opinion it is far more important to establish close and quick connections within our own country than to establish such connections between Canada and some other country.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


John Arthur Clark: I am glad the Minister of Justice agrees with me; I hope he will bring the matter before council and advocate it very strongly. We on the Pacific coast do feel the need of quicker communication with the centre of Canada, and I think we have very strong claims indeed to some consideration in this respect. We feel so strongly on this question that in Vancouver, as I have said, we have voted $300,000 of our own money for the establishment of an airport for that city, and with all this money being spent we feel that we are entitled to a portion of it.
I bring this matter to the attention of the . minister, particularly in view of the fact that if he reorganized his department as I suggested this afternoon, manning it with men sworn in the service of the Department of National Defence instead of civilians employed at very much higher salaries, he could save enough money to go a great deal towards the establishment of a service between the Pacific coast and the central part of Canada.
Mr. MacLARlEN:	How many cities in
Canada have established airports at their own expense, and what are the names of the cities?
Mr. MicKENZIE:	I should like to ask
the minister whether any arrangements have been made between Canada and the United States for the establishment of airports on the border and, if so, what arrangements have been made for joint control.


James Layton Ralston: No such arrangements
have been made. I am having my officers look up the list of cities which have established airports, but perhaps I can give some of them from memory. Kingston is opening its airport to-day and Hamilton is opening its airport on June 6, I believe.
Mr. Mac'LAREN: At their own expense?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, or at private expense; it. is done without any contribution from the Dominion government. London, Ontario, has had an airport for some time, and in addition there are airports at Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and other places. My hon. friend knows of course about St. John, where I think they are spending about $80,000-
Mr. MacLAR.EN:	I think it is about


James Layton Ralston: -and Halifax is spending about $150,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Winnipeg.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and Fort William.


Mr. BIRD:: Would the minister tell the committee how many fatal accidents occurred last year in this service?


James Layton Ralston: I am informed that there were eighteen fatal accidents in 1928.


Thomas William Bird: How much of the increase is for new equipment, new engines and so on?


James Layton Ralston: Practically none of the increase will be devoted to new equipment; the greater part will be devoted to the development of air routes.


Thomas William Bird: I should like to take this opportunity to point out that economy certainly should not be practised in regard to equipment. An aeroplane engine is not a very costly piece of mechanism; I suppose $20,000 or $30,000 would pay for the ordinary engine, and I think we should realize that human lives are constantly depending upon these machines.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension; the cost of an ordinary engine is from $4,000 to $8,000.


Thomas William Bird: Then that makes my argument much stronger, although of course some engines cost much more than that. However, I had occasion to visit one of our larger bases last fall, and although I am not qualified to judge, it struck me at the time that some of the equipment had seen a good deal of service; it seemed to me that some of these engines had been running quite a number of years. Wherever else we economize we should not do so in connection with the equipment of our air service. During my casual visit I was very much impressed with the type of Canadian manning our air service, not only as to personal character but as to the spirit manifested; it seems to me that a new tradition is being created which some day will rival the tradition of the sea. I was also struck with the type of service they were giving in these daily patrols over the waste spaces of northern Manitoba. In the ordinary course of duty these men are performing what I consider to be feats of great heroism, without any notice being taken by the general public; day after day, at the word of command, they take trips hundreds of miles in length over barren wastes. I agree in general

Supply-National Defence

with the remarks made on this side of the house to-night; I believe we should reduce our military expenditures, but here is a type of expenditure which is not purely militaristic but which serves a civil purpose as well, and which is helping in the conquest of northern Canada. I wanted to say this word on behalf of the men who are exposing themselves every day in that northern country. I should like to see that their equipment is of the best and that all the modem inventions making for greater safety are supplied to them whatever the cost may be.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Could the minister tell us what assistance, if any, is given by his department to the different cities in the establishment of airports?


James Layton Ralston: I outlined to the committee a few moments ago the assistance we give. We have nothing to do directly with the purchase, the la3ung out or the preparation of the airports. Our assistance consists of two things; first, we provide the services of officers of the department as frequently as they are necessary, to make surveys of the proposed airports and to advise as to their suitability or as to what is necessary to make them suitable. Then we give assistance in connection with the permanent lighting of these aerodromes up to the amount of $10,000; I think we provide the total cost of the beacon and 50 per cent of the cost of the other lights, and in each case the assistance is limited to $10,000.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it a fact that the government presents two airplanes to any city which inaugurates a flying club?


James Layton Ralston: That is a fact.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Under what conditions is that presentation made?


James Layton Ralston: The conditions are contained in an agreement, and I will give my hon. friend a brief resume. The club must have at least ten men who have qualified as pilots, either in the war or by other training; the club must agree to provide an instructor and pay for his services, and provide for the maintenance of the machines and a suitable place for operation. If that, is done an agreement is entered into and the department supplies two planes. A bond is taken to provide against injury to the planes through breach of the regulations or on account of negligence. A further provision is contained in the agreement whereby $100 is paid to the club for every man who passes as a certified pilot as a 
result of the activities of the club. A further provision is that if within one year the club provides another plane, then the department will provide one also.


Thomas Cantley: What will be the cost of the mooring mast which is being erected at St. Hubert?


James Layton Ralston: The total cost, including the amount in the estimates of this year, which will include the cost of land, the work which has been done and which will be done this year, is $1,623,262.16. That includes the land, levelling, draining, mooring tower, winches, hydrogen gas plant, buildings, water supply, railway siding, lighting, fencing, full installation of meteorological equipment, cost of day labour, cost of materials, inspection, miscellaneous items, maintenance and operation.


Thomas Cantley: That will complete the project?


James Layton Ralston: That is what we expect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction of magazine, etc., Halifax, $100.000. .
Henry Elvins Spencer: What are the particulars of this item?


James Layton Ralston: This is a progressive item, to cover the completion of the joint services magazine at Halifax.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mackenzie basin system-radio services-for the maintenance and operation of the Mackenzie division radia system with stations at Dawson, Mayo, Edmonton, Fort Smith, Fort Simpson. Fort Resolution, Aklavik and Herschel island. $140,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What does this cover?


James Layton Ralston: It covers the telegraph services which we maintain in the Mackenzie basin right up to Dawson city.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any relation
between those services and the services maintained by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Public Works? There seems to be a duplication which is very difficult to explain.


James Layton Ralston: We provide the services for the Department of the. Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields memorials, $170,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Have these memorials been completed?


James Layton Ralston: I think six or seven of them are completed, but the Vimy memorial

Supply-National Defence
is not finished and one can hardly guess at the time when it will be completed. I believe it will be at least two or three years. My hon. friend will understand that that is the outstanding Canadian memorial on the other side; the others are comparatively small memorials at some six or seven important points on the battlefields.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What arrangement is being made to keep the grounds around these memorials in condition?


James Layton Ralston: The Memorial War Graves Commission which has done such excellent work in connection with the maintenance of the cemeteries are making arrangements with us to do the same sort of work in connection with the memorials.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: What amount is included for Louisburg?


James Layton Ralston: That would not come under this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for legal expenses, etc., re-action in connection with regulation of aerial navigation, $13,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Does not the department employ iegal men to look after these things?


James Layton Ralston: This is a reference which was mentioned this afternoon to decide regarding the provincial and federal jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Nation Defence-salaries, $764,875; contingencies, $70,000.
John Arthur Clark: Does this item include any increases other than the increase granted to the deputy minister?


James Layton Ralston: There are no increases in salary at all but there are fourteen new positions in connection with the civil air service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do they come under the Civil Service Commission?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: There is an increase in the deputy minister's salary?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Will the minister explain
that?


James Layton Ralston: A number of increases
were granted in connection with different departments, as the government felt that the time had come when the deputy ministers should be better provided for. The Deputy Minister of National Defence has to handle the militia branch, the naval branch, the 78594-2061
military air branch and the civil air branch. In view of his professional qualifications as an engineer, and his long service, experience and efficiency, speaking as minister and head of the department I felt quite justified in recommending the increase.


John Arthur Clark: What is the salary of the
chief of general staff?


James Layton Ralston: $8,000.


John Arthur Clark: I am opposed to this increase, first, on the general ground of increases to any deputy minister at this time. We have in this country numerous civil servants who are not being paid a living wage, whose requests have been advanced at various times during the present session on this side of the house. I see nothing in the supplementary estimates for any increase to the postal workers, who are being paid salaries under $100 a -month. It is quite clear from the statements issued by the government that these men are not being paid a living wage according to the standards of government departments; consequently I am opposed to an increase in salary to any deputy minister at this time. I am opposed to an increase to this particular one for very different reasons. First, the men who have occupied the position of chief of general staff are considered the most experienced that the country can find for technical purposes and are supposed to be (he most highly trained men we have. For instance, since the war we have had Sir Arthur Currie who, for all practical purposes was chief of staff although perhaps he did not actually occupy the position; and since then we have had General Burstall, General Ma-cBrien, General Thackeray. This country apparently cannot afford to retain in its service men like General MacBrien. If we cannot afford to pay men like that $10,000 a year, we cannot afford to pay a deputy minister $10,000 a year. I am therefore opposed to the payment of any salary such as this to a deputy minister so long as we are unable to pay our civil servants living wages, or to pay men of the experience, for instance, of General MacBrien a salary equal to that now proposed.
I am further opposed to this increase, because in this department we have many soldiers who receive low pay and also we have civilians who are absorbing a very large percentage of the total National Defence estimates. We have not yet received the exact amount that civilians in this department are getting, but this afternoon the minister gave a rough estimate of $2,500,000 which he said later on was, perhaps, too high. In any case, civilians in the Department of National
Supply-National Defence

Defence are receiving salaries which are approximately equal to the total upkeep of the non-permanent active forces. Under these circumstances I am opposed to any increase in this vote.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the minister how many generals there are in his department? I memember some years ago there were twenty-three generals employed in the Department of National Defence for something like 3,000 men. In time of war one general was considered enough for a whole brigade, which was a little over 3,000 men, but in time of peace we had twenty-three generals on our payroll. I have never been able to find out just what they did. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, I do not wish to defend this department or any department which has increased the salaries of the deputies; but may I point out to my hon. friend that after all the chief of Staff is really a subordinate officer to the deputy minister?


John Arthur Clark: That is not correct.


Charles Gavan Power: I may be wrong. If I am,
I am subject to correction, but my impression i3 that the deputy minister is the head of the department and, after all, the chief of staff is employed in that department, no matter what you call him or how much gold braid you put on him. The duties of the chief of staff are confined to one thing; they are duties of a military character.


John Arthur Clark: What is this department for?


Charles Gavan Power: , The department has to deal with a number of things. Among others it tries to run a navy.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is well put.


Mr.   POWTER@: At any rate, it tries to
train naval cadets. It has a volunteer naval reserve. The deputy minister looks after all that. It is going into the development of aviation. I am not aware that the chief of staff would have anything to do with civil aviation whatever business he might have to superintend in connection with military aviation. Therefore, under the circumstances, not that I am prepared to say that any deputy minister or even that the deputy minister of this department is entitled to a salary of 810,000, I would say that he was entitled to more salary than the chief of staff.


Peter McGibbon: Would the hon. member move an amendment to that effect?


Charles Gavan Power: Well, he is getting it, is he not? I cannot move an amendment to give him what he is getting. fMr. Clark.]


James Layton Ralston: The committee will not
expect me to enter into a discussion of the comparative values of the various officers whom my hon. friend has mentioned. I do not yield to anybody in my admiration of an3f of the officers of whom he has spoken. At the present time General McNaughton is occupying the position of chief of general staff and is receiving a salary of $8,000 a year. I know my hon. friend will not for a single moment criticize General McNaughton's capacity or ability to do that work.
My hon. friend has brought up the question of civilians two or three times, and I do not quite agree with him on the information I get. My information is that if all the civilians in the department were replaced by military personnel, the increase would be very considerable. I have verified that to some extent and I think I am right; I think also that some of the military members of the staff agree with me. I do not know where the hon. member for Quebec South got the number of twenty-three generals. At headquarters in 1922, we had twelve, and in 1929 there are three.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 5, 1929