1931-06-22

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens) moved:: That the recommendations contained in the nrst report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament presented to the house on Friday, June 12, 1931, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, respecting a certain patent application of Emma E. Tait.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 99, respecting the Eastern Telephone and Telegraph Company.-Mr. Black (Halifax).

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

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Were tenders called for supply of seed to the Indians at Burnt Church, .New Brunswick ?
2.	If so, what tenders were received, what was the amount of each, and to whom was contract awarded?
3.	What was price of lowest tender on potato, oats and timothy seed?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	One tender received from Fred J. Macleod. Amount $200. Contract awarded to Fred J. Macleod.
3.	Price of lowest tender (Fred J. Macleod): on potato seed, $1.26 per barrel; on oats seed, 60 cents per bushel; on timothy seed, 20 cents per pound.


CANADIAN HISTORY OF THE GREAT WAR
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Has any officer of the government or any other person been assigned the task of writing an official history setting forth Canada's participation in the great war?
2.	If so, who is he?
3.	When tvas he appointed?
4.	What is his salary?
5.	How long has he been compiling this work?
6.	Horv many volumes have been issued to date?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Under order in
council dated May 27, 1921, (P.C. 1652), the Historical Section, General Staff, Department of National Defence, is charged with the compilation and publication of a complete official history setting forth the participation of the Military Forces of Canada in the Great War; this history to be supplemented by more detailed histories of the work of certain technical branches of the service. One volume has been issued to date, namely, the History of the Medical Services, written by Sir Andrew Macphail.

Questions


SASKATOON FEDERAL PUBLIC BUILDING- EMPLOYEES
Mr. TOTZKE:: 1.	How many temporary appointments have been made to positions on the staff of the new federal building at Saskatoon?
2.	What are the names and ages of persons so appointed, and what is the duty of each?
3.	What is the date of appointment of each?
4.	On whose recommendation were the appointments made?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Twelve.
2.	(a) W. J. Robinson, engaged February 19, 1931; Jock McCaul, engaged April 15, 1931; E. Holmes, engaged April 15, 1931; T. Dewan, engaged February 19, 1931; J. Hewitt, engaged May 15, 1931; J. Cooper, engaged April 15, 1931; P. Dunstan, engaged April 15, 1931; L. Craig, engaged April 15, 1931; D. Taylor, engaged April 15, 1931; G. Draffin, engaged April 15, 1931; F. Currie, engaged February 2, 1931; J. Gillot, engaged February 2, 1931; (b) it has never been the practice of the department to secure ages of temporary appointees so that information is not a matter of record; (c) these employees engaged as labourers to attend to the work generally in connection with the various maintenance services pending the appointment of a permanent staff.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	District resident architect.
collin's bay preferred penitentiary


Miss MACPHAIL:: 1.	How many officers, temporary and permanent, are employed at the preferred
penitentiary:	(a) at Collin's bay; (b) at St.
Vincent de Paul ?
2.	How many rifles, guns and revolvers have been procured for the preferred penitentiary at Collin's bay to date?
3. Do any officers of the preferred penitentiary at Collin's bay carry any kind of firearms by night or by day?
4.	Is it permitted to friends of the convicted brokers to visit them as often as they wish?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1. (a) 29 permanent; 34 temporary; (b) none.
2. This information is not considered to be in the public interest.
3. This information is not considered to be in the public interest.
4.	No. Regulations permit one social visit each two months, and all visits necessary to transact bona fide business.


MR. J. ALFRED BOULANGER
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Is the government aware that J. Alfred Boulanger, engineer in charge of dredge No. 16, at Sorel, was dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason was he dismissed?
3.	Was he dismissed following an inquiry?
4.	Before taking action against Mr. Boulanger was the government aware that this man had seen service overseas?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Political partisanship.
3.	No.
4.	No information.


ST. DENIS STREET, MONTREAL, POST OFFICE SITE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Did the Department of Public Works
purchase from one George H. Robert, a building for post office use on St. Denis street, Montreal ?	_	_
2.	If so, what price was paid for this building?
3.	On what date was it purchased?
4.	What price was paid by the said Robert for this building?
5.	On what date was the said building purchased by Robert, and from whom? _
6.	On whose recommendation was this transaction made by the department?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	The department purchased a site with a partially constructed building thereon.
2.	$24,788.67.
3.	On October 23, 1924.
4.	$17,500.
5.	(a) On September 16,	1924;	(b) J.
Ethier.
6.	Chief architect, Department of Public Works.


FRASER RIVER WORKS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What contracts have been let by the government for work on the Fraser river since the month of June, 1930, up to the present time?
2.	What, are the names of the contractors who submitted estimates?
3.	What are the names of the successful tenderers?
4.	What were the respective amounts submitted by each contractor tendering?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Construction of 8,000 feet of south jetty, Steveston, Fraser river; (b) completion of section 5 and construction of 3,000 feet of section 6 of north jetty, Steveston, Fraser river; (c) extension of north arm jetty, Fraser river; (d) extension to dyke Annieville bar, Fraser river; (e) dredging in the north arm, Fraser river; (f) Steveston-Repairs to tide gauge platform at Point Garry.
Questions

At unit
2,	3 and 4.	prices
(a)	W. R. Jaynes Company
(successful tenderers)	$353,145 40
The Vancouver Pile Driving &
Contracting Company, Ltd		363,976 80
The Coast Quarries Limited ..	371,559	65
(b)	The Coast Quarries Limited
(successful tenderers)	 408,997	20
The Vancouver Pile Driving &
Contracting Company, Limited ..	439,275	00
(c)	The Vancouver Pile Driving ' & Contracting Company, Limited
(successful tenderers)	
28,350	00The Coast Quarries Limited ..	29,550	00
McKenzie Barge & Derrick
Company	
33,450	00W. Greenless	
33,675	00Walkems Shipyards, Limited ..	34,200	00A. B. Kyle & H. Hodder .. ..	34,500	00H. F. Martin	
36,000	00(d)	Fraser River Pile DrivingCo., Ltd. (successful tenderers).	22,080	40W. Greenless	
22,870	10
The Vancouver Pile Driving &
Contracting Company, Limited..	23,833 15
The Coast Quarries, Limited..	23,974 00
(e)	British Columbia Bridge &
Dredging Co., Ltd. (successful tenderers)	approx. 40,527 50
(f)	Fraser River Pile Driving
Co., Ltd. (successful tenderers) ..	927	32W. R. Jaynes Company	1,057	68


' SEIZURE OF CONTRABAND LIQUOR
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is the government aware that a quantity of liquor in tins was seized by the national revenue boat Madawaska, between June 1st and 10th last?
2.	If so. what was the quantity of liquor seized, and where was it stored?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	24 cases alcohol each containing 2 to 24 gallon tins 120 gallons; 9 tins alcohol each containing 24 gallons to 22J gallons; stored in the custody of the sub-collector of national revenue at Riviere du Loup.


HALDI ISLAND-FORT LANGLEY BRIDGE
Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any representations been made in connection with the construction of a bridge over the Fraser river, at Haldi Island, Fort Langley, British Columbia?
2.	If so, has any decision been arrived at by the government regarding the applications made for this bridge?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Application made by Mr. P. Phillip, chief engineer of the Department of Public Works of British Columbia under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
2.	No, application still under consideration.


MAJOR JULES LAFLEUR
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	At what time was Major Jules Lafleur appointed acting physician at the military school of St. Johns?
2.	What was his annual salary?
3.	How many years did he serve in the great war?
4.	When was he relieved from his duties, and at whose request?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Major Jules Lafleur, Canadian Army Medical Corps, was temporarily employed at the military hospital, St. Jean, P.Q., for short periods since June 23, 1921, and on occasions when the permanent Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps officer at that station was necessarily absent on other special duty.
2.	$5.20 per diem for days employed.
3.	He served with the Canadian Army Medical Corps, Canadian Expeditionary Force, from July 8, 1915, to June 12, 1919.
4.	The last temporary employment of Major Lafleur was for period December 2 to 9, 1930.


NEW RICHMOND ILLUSTRATION FARM STATION
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture intend to maintain the demonstration plots at New Richmond, Quebec?
2.	If so, have instructions been given to that effect, and to whom?


Mr. WEIR:: 1.	No demonstration plots conducted at New Richmond, Que. A dominion illustration station was operated on the farm of Mr. J. B. Cyr at Richmond, Que., for a period of
twelve years.
2.	Owing to the retirement of Mr. Cyr from active farming a new location for this station in Bonaventure county was necessary and an inspection is being made shortly with the idea of locating a site for this station.


MR. ADRIEN RATTE
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Was Mr. Adrien Ratte of Ste. Anne de Beaupre in the county of Montmorency .appointed census enumerator in the neighbouring municipality from where he resides?

Questions


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 The area for which Mr. Adrien Ratte was appointed as census enumerator is described as follows:	"Arrondissement de
votation No. 5-(Riviere aux Chiens)-com-prend toute la partie ouest de la paroisse de Ste-Anne de Beaupre, a partir de chez M. Alphonse Boucher sur la cote et de M. Ernest Pare (Etienne) en bag de la cote inclusive-ment jusqu'a la limite ouest de la paroisse Ste-Anne de Beaupre."
The above is a part of the parish of St. Ann.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-APPROVAL OP PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Mr. POULIOT:: Are the plans and specifications for Canadian National Railways' constructions approved by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways before or after they are submitted to the Minister of Railways and Canals for approval, and before or after tenders for same are called for?


Mr. MANION:: The Department of Railways and Canals deals only with proposed capital expenditures on the original Canadian government railway portion of the Canadian National Railway system. Plans and specifications are not forwarded to the department for approval. Proposed contracts are forwarded for consideration of the department after they have been recommended by the board of directors or by the executive committee of the board of directors.


RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
Jean-François Pouliot: What date was set for the completion of the proposed new station building at Riviere du Loup, as specified in the instructions for tendering?


Robert James Manion: February 28, 1931.


RAILWAYS AND CANALS-ACTING MINISTER
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who was the acting minister in charge of
the Department of Railways and Canals after the minister had left for Fort Churchill on October 1st and before the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) was appointed Acting Minister of Railways and Canals by P.C. 2349, approved by the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General on October 7, 1930?	.
2.	Was that acting minister appointed by order in council ?
3.	If so, what was the P.C. number and the date of such order in council?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Sir George Perley as Acting Prime Minister.
2.	Prime Minister or Acting Prime Minister may act for any minister at any time during absence of said minister
3.	Order in council not required.


RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the Minister of Railways and Canals give instructions before leaving for Fort Churchill on October 1st, regarding the tenders received by the department on October 4th and relating to the building of a station at Riviere du Loup?
2.	If so, at what dates and what were such instructions ?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No; the matter was still before council when Minister of Railways and Canals left for Churchill.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


FRASER RIVER-GOVERNMENT EQUIPMENT
Mr. RBID:: 1.	Is any government-owned equipment being used by the contractors or others in the performance of contract work on the Fraser river?
2.	If so, is any charge being made for the use of government-owned machinery or equipment to the contractors or sub-contractors?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
relief EXPENDITURE IN MONTREAL


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What sum of money has been spent in the city of Montreal by the federal government out of the twenty million dollars voted at the special session of 1930: (a) on works as a relief for unemployment; (b) as direct assistance?
2.	What corresponding sums have been spent for the same purposes: (a) by the government of the province of Quebec; (b) by the municipal administration of Montreal?
3.	What is the actual number of unemployed in the city of Montreal?
4.	How many w'orkingmen are at present employed: (a) by the harbour commission at Montreal; (b) as longshoremen in the harbour; (c) in any other capacity in same?


Mr. BENNETT:: With respect to question No. 2, it would be very difficult for this government to secure any information that would be nearly as accurate as that which the hon. gentleman could obtain for himself, being a representative of one of the Montreal constituencies. It is no part of the duties of the government to write letters to various people and ask for information that any hon. gentleman can himself obtain. The question will not be answered, unless there is some other view.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In regard to
what my right hon. friend has said, is it not a fact that the federal contribution is contingent upon a contribution in the first instance from the province and municipalities, which amounts are made known to the government here?

2SS5
Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: There would be no difficulty about it, if the question were limited to that, but it asks, "What corresponding sums have been spent for the same purposes?" We do not know whether they have been spent or not. I trust that the right hon. gentleman realizes that there is no difficu^ with respect to the question of actual relief under the provisions of the statute, but he will note the form in which the question is asked:
What corresponding sums have been spent for the same purposes: (a) by the government of the province of Quebec; (b) by the municipal administration of Montreal?
That is something of which we have no knowledge or control.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the use of the word "corresponding" would convey that the questioner had in his mind only such sums as related to the relief, not the general expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the right hon. gentleman will notice the next question:
What is the actual number of unemployed in the city of Montreal?
That also is a question as to which the civic authorities alone would have complete knowledge.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL, OCTOBER 7, 1930
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What was the P.C. number of each order in council passed on October 7, 1930?
2.	At that date did the sitting of the council take place in the forenoon or in the afternoon?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question involves answers that it has never been regarded in the public interest to give. The right hon. leader of the apposition will remember that on a somewhat similar occasion he took the view that he could not disclose what transpired in council. There is no trouble about the numbers of the orders in council. The difficulty is with regard to the question as to when the orders in council are regarded as having passed. Two questions are asked:	when
approval was given, and when the order in council passed council. On one occasion in a court of law I remember when the clerk of the privy council was called he was told that he need not answer the question, on what date did the council sit? Those are hardly questions pertinent to the conduct of the executive government, and I think the question should be dropped.
Question dropped.


RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Under the authority of what minister, acting minister or person did the Department of Railways and Canals make a decision on October 4th, in connection with tenders submitted by the Canadian National Railways to the department for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup?
2.	Was such decision put in writing?
3.	Who signed or initialled it?
4.	If it was given verbally or in a telephone call, what official, civil servant or employee: (a) received it; and (b) took note of it?
5.	Who transmitted same to acting Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals?
6.	Was it submitted afterwards for approval or confirmation to the acting Minister of Railways and Canals appointed by order in council P.C. 2349. and to the minister on or after October 11, 1930?
7.	If so, at what dates?


Robert James Manion: This question is of the same type that the Prime Minister mentioned a moment ago. It asks which ministers took responsibility for this, that and the other thing. The government as a whole takes responsibility for what an individual minister does in council. I do not think the question is a proper one and it should be dropped.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I suggest that the question should wait until the member is here.


Robert James Manion: If it is an improper question, it does not need to wait until he is here.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It does not seem to be a proper question, and it will be dropped.
Question dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Did Mr. Maurice Pelletier, lawyer of Quebec city, hold inquiries for the Post Office Department or any other department between August 30, 1930, and May 30, 1931?
2.	If so, what inquiries were held and what amount was paid to him for these inquiries?
3.	How many postmasters or employees of the various other departments were found guilty as a result of said inquiries so held, and what are the names and addresses of those who were dismissed?



MILITARY PENSIONERS EMPLOYED BY DOMINION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. NEIDL:: How many men receiving a military pension of 70 per cent, or over, are employed in the federal government service in British Columbia ?

Motions for Papers



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MARCIL (for Mr. Denis):: For a copy of all documents in the possession of the Department of National Revenue in connection with the inquiry held by Mr. Lafontaine into the administration of customs and excise district inspector, Mr. J. A. Bernier, at Montreal, during the last three years.



VICTORIAVILLE, PUBLIC BUILDING CARETAKER

Mr. HOWDEN (for Mr. Girouard):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, regarding the position of caretaker of the public building in Viotoriaville, and a statement giving the reasons why the appointment is being so long delayed.



STE. CLOTIIILDE DE HORTON POSTMASTER

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, telegrams, and other documents in the possession of the government in connection with the appointment of postmaster at Ste. Clothilde de Horton, in the county of Artliabaska, including a copy of all letters received by the Postmaster General or any of his officials, or by any member of the Civil Service Commission, referring to Alfred Laforest. Also a return showing a list of the applicants for the above-mentioned position and the report of the inspector of the Post Office Department regarding the same.
J. ALFRED BOULANGER	.


Mr. HURTUBISE (for Mr. Rheaume):: For a copy of all documents, reports, letters, telegrams, recommendations, requests, inquiries, protests, and correspondence of all kinds, in the possession of the Department of Marine, relating to the dismissal of J. Alfred Boulanger, engineer in charge of dredge No. 16, at Sorel, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, TRAVELLING EXPENSES

Mr. GAGNON:: For a return showing the travelling expenses of the three commissioners of the Civil Service Commission, and the secretary of the said commission, since June, 1926, showing the names of places visited and the amounts expended on each trip.



SOUTH JETTY FRASER RIVER DISPUTE

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and findings, and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Labour, the deputy minister of Labour, or any official of the Department of Labour, in connection with a dispute which occurred on the work being done on the south jetty of the Fraser river, Steveston, British Columbia, between the men engaged on said work and the contractors or sub-contractors, from the month of September, 1930, to the present time.
22110-182J



FRASER RIVER CONTRACTS

Thomas Reid: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and findings, in connection with all contracts let and all work to be done on the Fraser river since July 1, 1930, np to the present time, between the Department of Public Works, the district engineer at New Westminster, and any persons, contractors or sub-contractors.



LABOUR GAZETTE CORRESPONDENT, WESTVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. VALLANCE (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all correspondence, applications, reports, memoranda, recommendations, and other documents sent or received by the Minister of Labour or any other minister or ministers of the government, or any official of the Department of Labour, or any other person or persons, referring to the dismissal of Mr. Thomas Hale from the position of correspondent to the Labour Gazette for Westville, Nova Scotia, in April of this year.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, RIVIERE DU LOUP STATION

Mr. BOUCHARD (for Mr. Pouliot):: For a copy of specifications and instructions for tendering for station building at Riviere du Loup referred to in advertisement dated July 25, 1930, calling for tenders.



WILSONVILLE, ONTARIO, POST OFFICE

Mr. TAYLOR:: For a copy of all letters, reports and petitions having regard to suggested change in the mail service from Wilsonville post office, Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Within what period is
this information required?


William Horace Taylor: Since the 1st of January,
1931.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: For a return showing:

1.	Number of cases (not including eases of commuted pension) allowed by the Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930, and June 15, 1931.
2.	Number of cases of pensions previously commuted, dealt with by Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930, and June 15, 1931.
3.	Amount of money paid to pensioners under
2.
4.	Number of cases rejected by said board and allowed by the pensions tribunals in the same period.
5.	Number of cases rejected by the pensions tribunals and allowed by the Pensions Appeal Court in the same period.
Motions for Papers

6.	Number of oases allowed by the pensions tribunals and rejected by the appeal court in the same period.
7.	Cost during the same period of: (a) The Board of Pension Commissioners and their administration as such; (b) the pensions tribunals and their staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses; (e) Pension advocates and staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses; (d) Commission counsel and staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses; (e) Pension appeal court and staff (1) salaries, (2) travelling expenses. _
8.	Monetary value of all pensions paid during same period: (a) by Board of Pension Commissioners; (b) by decision of pensions tribunals and not appealed; (c) by decisions of the appeal court.
9.	Number of cases (outside the decisions of the pensions board) finally disposed of during the same period.


Mr. MacLAREN:: In the absence of the
mover I would like to have the motion stand.
Motion stands.



MOISIE, SAGUENAY, PROTECTION WORKS

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, including reports of engineers of the said department at Ottawa and Quebec, specifications, plans and estimates prepared, in connection with extension of the protection works at Moisie, in the county of Saguenay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact I have permitted these motions, numbering from one to thirty-two inclusive to stand on the order paper for several days, the hon. member concerned may state his views in the matter.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: May I interject that the mover has been to the offices of the Department of Public Works, and I believe he has been supplied with practically all the information asked in the motions which will come before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I heard the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) say that he would be agreeable to dropping the motions, but that at the time of such action being taken he wished to make some observations. Whether his desire is to express his thanks to the minister for his courtesy in the matter, I cannot say, but I suggest that the motions, with the exception of one, be dropped. With one motion standing the hon member will be afforded an opportunity to make the remarks that he desires to address to the house. Probably the minister would be content to let motion No. 1 stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion No. 1 shall stand, the motions Nos. 2 to 32 inclusive shall be dropped.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS, REVENUES

Mr. BUCKLEY:: For a return showing the revenues collected by the Canadian National Railways for the fiscal years of 1928, 1929, 1930, for the following services at each of the stations hereunder mentioned:
1.	Passenger service in and out-going;
2.	Freight service in and out-going;
3.	Express service, in and ouit-bound.
4.	Telegraph services out-bound;
Spedden. Ashmoumt, Owl's Eye, St. Paul, Elk Point, Lindbergh and Heinsburg, all in the province of Alberta.


Robert James Manion: I would like to suggest that it is not in the interest of the Canadian National Railways to give such information as is requested in this motion, and I do not think it is proper that the motion should be passed by this house.


Ernest Lapointe: Why?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Might I suggest that the minister agree to let the motion stand until the hon. member interested is in the house.


Robert James Manion: All right.
Motion stands.



REPORT OF MINISTER TO JAPAN

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Fur a copy of the report of the Minister to Japan on trade opportunities in the far east.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know with the exception of a verbal report made by the Minister to Japan when he was in the city, no report has been made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Any report made to the Department of External Affairs was not for publication but was for the information only of the minister in dealing with political and like matters which it would not be in the interests of the public to publish.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When I spoke the other day on the orders of the day and asked for a report the Prime Minister replied that any report made had been of a departmental nature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, any report to the Department of External Affairs.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. It seems to me however that a matter of this kind is of general interest to the citizens of Canada. We were told that the Minister to Great Britain was in a position different from that of the Minister to Japan, that he was in a confidential position and was practically a member of the cabinet. That condition however does not prevail with regard to the

Unemployment Relief
Minister to Japan. At the expense of this country he went to China and as a result of his very extensive tour he has brought back valuable information concerning trade opportunities in the far east. To my mind his report is not merely of departmental interest.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), in view of the Prime Minister's statement, intends to drop the motion, or does he intend to press it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to see the report. I am not satisfied with the statement of the Prime Minister. To my mind he has given no good reason why the public should not have this report.
Motion negatived.



NEW WESTMINSTER HARBOUR


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize a loan to the New Westminster harbour commissioners not exceeding $300,000, to complete the grain elevator structure and facilities on the south side of New Westminster harbour and provide for payment of outstanding indebtedness chargeable thereto or arising therefrom, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover such loan; and the loan available to the corporation shall be for the amount of expenditure certified by an officer of the Department of Marine who shall have supervision and control of all expenditures.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I
notice in a Canadian Press despatch of June 19 the following appears as a statement by the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson). I quote from the Evening Citizen of that date:
The dominion government is willing to increase its contribution to the costs of caring for transient unemployed from one-third to one-half of the total, Senator Gideon Robertson, federal Minister of Labour, announced last night.
I should like to ask the government if that is a correct statement of policy with respect to the matter referred to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, Senator Robertson has
not yet returned to Ottawa, but I am in a position to say that a temporary arrangement of that sort has been made with the western cities. It is purely a temporary arrangement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that
the Minister of Labour is also reported as having remarked that:
-some $2,000,000 of the relief funds remained unexpended and may be used to meet the present situation.
May I point out that when this house was considering the bill for the appropriation of $20,000,093 at the special session last September, the Prime Minister himself moved the following amendment, which was adopted by the house:
Any portion of the said sum of twenty million dollars remaining unexpended or unappropriated for the purposes of this act on the 31st day of March, 1931, shall thereupon lapse.
I assume that the Minister of Labour may not have had that particular section of the act in mind when he made his announcement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Labour had that in mind. His announcement refers to that portion of the $20,000,000 that was appropriated but unexpended; that is, it was appropriated for direct relief, and a portion of that money still remains unexpended. The whole particulars were laid upon the table within the first fifteen days of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to argue the point at the moment, but certainly a reference to Hansard shows very clearly that my right hon. friend led the house to believe it was intended that commitments prior to the end of the fiscal year in the nature of payments that would have to be made of known amounts to complete the transaction or agreement would come under the heading, but certainly not amounts that even at the present time cannot be accurately stated and estimated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no right to speak again except with the consent of the house, but the position is this: The report by the minister clearly indicated that in some instances the municipalities made estimates of what they would be compelled to pay for direct relief, and appropriations were made by order in council accordingly. Within those appropriations expenditures have been made. There still remains a portion of the aippropri-

Unemployment Relief
ated money that has not been expended. It is to that portion that the Minister of Labour was referring and to nothing else.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I can of course bring this matter up on going into supply, 'but am anxious to save the time of the house, so shall just draw my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that what the Minister of Labour now announces is that the government intends to pay, not a third but a half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Within the appropriation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is something that was not thought of at the time the appropriation to which he now refers was made. I think it is irregular in this way to remove from parliament control over its own expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since we anticipate going into supply the discussion may be then continued, but I may say, (1) the amount will not be increased; (2) the distribution of the amount is different from that originally contemplated, but as the. expenditures will not foe increased beyond the appropriation and the method of expenditure only is being changed, I cannot quite understand the point made by the right hon. gentleman. The object being one and the same thing, the necessity for making a larger contribution out of the appropriation being brought home to the minister, he agrees that out of the appropriation-which means it will be exhausted more quickly there will be a contribution of one-half instead of one-third for direct relief That is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says he does not understand the point that I have in mind. In a word, it is this. The only opportunity the house has to discuss appropriations and to exercise its control over expenditures is when appropriations are being made. My contention is that if money is needed for expenditure within the present fiscal year, parliament is now sitting, the government should bring down its estimates, and give us an opportunity to discuss the whole question of present and further expenditures on those estimates. I have no desire in what I am now saying to limit the amount of money the government may find it necessary to expend on unemployment relief, but I do submit that we have a right and a duty to control expenditures from year to year according to the well-recognized rules of procedure of parliament.



SUSPENSION OF WAR DEBTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government is prepared to make a statement as to its attitude towards the policy of President Hoover as announced in to-day's papers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. gentleman saw in the press to-day the statement I made that this matter would necessarily have to be considered by the government when the proposals were presented to it, and that therefore any antecedent statement by myself would be premature. I need hardly say that the government is heartily in accord with any plan that may be put forward by the President of the United States or by the head of any other government that will do anything towards relieving present world wide conditions; but to express any opinion with respect to a matter when it must necessarily come before the government would, I think, be regarded as premature. As the statement in the press stands, the proposal of course would involve the loss of $4,000,000 revenue to this country during the present fiscal year.



EMPRESS OF JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr A. E. MUNN (North Vancouver):: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: The ship is not subsidized; it carries
mail and is paid for the service. The position is this:	There is no subsidy being paid to
that steamship for that service but, like any other transportation company, if mails are carried they are being paid for on a poundage basis, the same as freight.


Mr. VENIOT:: Or by space.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Either by poundage or
on a space rate, and sometimes a combination of both, as my hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) has said; sometimes it is a purely space basis and sometimes a combination of poundage and space. I think on the steamships it is a space basis, so much per cubic foot or cubic yard.
With respect to the place where repairs may be made by private owners to their ships, I recalled when the hon. member was asking his question making a similar inquiry, not in the House of Commons but privately, and I was given what I at once realized was an excellent answer, namely that the repairs must be made at the point where the schedules of the ships will be least interfered with so that they may be maintained and continued. Whether repairs shall be made on an eastbound or westbound voyage; whether on the outgoing or incoming trip, the place where the repairs are made is determined largely and in fact almost wholly by the schedule factor. For instance, ships are sometimes repaired at Quebec, sometimes at Southampton, depending on the schedules which are usually prepared at the first of the year. If the hon. member will take the trouble to look at any time table of the Canadian Pacific, he will find a schedule which carries forward into 1932. That schedule was prepared early in 1931 or, in some instances, at the end of 1930.
While I have no knowledge of this particular matter, I can only say that this was the explanation given me at that time when a similar circumstance was brought to my attention, and then it appeared to me that the reason given was fairly good. However, I will take an early opportunity to make inquiries, and if the steamship company is disposed to answer-and they are usually very courteous-I will communicate with the hon. member.



PRODUCTION OF BUTTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: In view of certain statements which
have been made elsewhere I should like to
ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if requests have been made to him or to the government for the granting of a premium to producers of butter, and whether the government is contemplating such a course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last part of the
question destroys the first part.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I have not received any communications to that effect, so far as I am aware.



HYDROGRAPHIC STEAMER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alan Webster Neill: I
should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) a question. On May 20 he told this house that he anticipated being able to let a contract within a few days for the new hydrographic steamer to be used on the Pacific coast. I should like to know if he has done so, and whether the steamer is to be a coal burner.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The contract for this hydrographic steamer was given the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company about a month ago. This was the lowest tender, and the company are proceeding with the work.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it to be a coal burner?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. As I told the house some time ago, we had the specifications changed to that effect.



SUPPLY-SEALING COMMISSION PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF SEALERS ON PACIFIC COAST

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['I have answered the question, but the hon. member does not like my answer. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nProgress reported.']
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to bring up a matter which would be much better discussed in committee of the whole, where it could be debated and where questions could be asked and answered, 'but I am compelled to do it in this way because of the uncertainty of the interpretation of our rules of late, by reason of which I do not know whether I would be allowed to discuss the matter. There is no item in the estimates referring to this subject which would in the opinion of some, permit me to discuss it in committee, and it is a rather striking commentary upon our rules that while this is not a politically contentious matter, if I want to take more than forty minutes to explain it
Sealing Commission-Mr. Neill

I can only do so by moving a vote of want of confidence in the government, which would invite and indeed compel the government to vote it down. This is a matter in which I want the government to take adtion, but the only way in which I can ask them to do so is by making them vote it down. However, I think by rigid economy of words and possibly of ideas I shall be able to get through in forty minutes.
I wish the government to consider-and to urge upon them-the advisability of appointing a commission to deal with the claims of sealers on the Pacific coast. I use that very broad language because in the past whole classes and categories of these men have been deprived of justice because of a too narrow wording of the situation. I am not asking this house to grant compensation now; that would be ridiculous. It would take me a fortnight to prepare a brief and a day in which to deliver it, and then I would not be any further ahead. I would be only making out what I seek to do now, a prima facie case for investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are these claims antecedent or subsequent to 1891?


Alan Webster Neill: Beginning after 1891; I will
explain as I go along. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding in connection with this matter. I will not guarantee my dates or the strict accuracy of my statements, because they are taken from a great mass of involved documents, but the facts are to this effect: In 1886 the government of the United States took it into their heads that the Bering sea was what is legally called a mare clausum, or in other words that it came within their territory and they sought to demonstrate that fact by seizing British or Canadian ships in Bering sea and putting their crews in jail. The sealers, of course, appealed for protection to the British government, and negotiations took place and finally the matter was submitted to what was known as the Paris arbitration tribunal. Before that tribunal the United States government waived their claim of territorial jurisdiction over Bering sea and agreed to give compensation to the owners of the ships which had been seized. This was later done, at a cost of something like half a million dollars. I believe the claims were all dealt with, excepting one small claim in connection with a steamer called the Ethel; with which I will deal presently. However, the main issue was entirely cleaned up at that time, and forms no further part of my presentation.

In the meantime, and while this was going on, the seals were being rapidly depleted by over killing, by Americans and Canadians and latterly by Japanese, who had entered the field. Britain acted for Canada; I want to make that point clear, because it has some bearing upon my argument later on. Then we had not the status of a nation; everything was done through Great Britain, and Great Britain, acting for Canada, incurred certain obligations which we must inherit now at least in some part. In 1891 they agreed with the United States to a modus vivendi, which was that for one year ending in May, 1892, there would be a total cessation of sealing in Bering sea. Great Britain proceeded to carry out her part of that agreement by sending warships into Bering sea and stopping Canadians from sealing. They did not arrest them; they simply turned them out, and of course the sealers made an immediate claim for compensation. It came upon them like a bolt from the blue, and they were subject to heavy losses. It did not seem the financial business of Great Britain at that time, but she put her hand in her pocket and compensated these people. I have not the exact amount under my hand, but it was substantial and, I think, satisfactory.
Then the situation arose which is one of the points I desire to bring to the attention of the government. That modus vivendi was to expire in May, 1892, in the belief that the Paris tribunal award would be made by that time, which would settle the matters in dispute. Along about February of 1892 it was seen that the Paris tribunal would not complete its work in time, and something in the nature of a small convention was agreed upon between the various nations, I suppose principally between Great Britain and the United States. They made some sort of agreement that they would extend the modus vivendi for another year from May of 1S92.
But here is where the mistake was made, in my opinion and in the opinion of people more competent to judge than I am. They did not notify the sealers in time. To make the thing clear, I may explain that the sealing in Bering sea begins in the latter part of June. The sealing schooner that was going out from Victoria did not start in June but in February, because she went down the coast to the Californian and Mexican grounds and followed the herd up north, attacking them all the way up, and finally entering Bering sea. So that the sealers in the month of February had this situation to face. They went out in the full knowledge that the modus vivendi would end in the following May, and therefore they were safe in

Sealing Commission-Mr. Neill
starting out, equipping themselves at much expense to go on their regular trips down south, finally ending in Bering sea, and in all probability not calling at Victoria on the way up. There was of course possibility that the modus vivendi might be extended, but they had no knowledge of this. Now, suppose they had decided, as afterwards some authority suggested they should have done, not to go out until they were certain whether the modus vivendi would be extended or not, in that event it would have been too late for them to set out. And had they not gone out, the answer which any government would have made, had they applied for compensation, would have been, "you should not have remained. The law advised you that the modus vivendi would end in May, and it was your privilege to take advantage of the opportunity which was available." I say, therefore, that they were not notified in time. I do not know whose fault it was, and it matters not. A notice was put up in the customs house at Victoria on March 20, four to six weeks after the schooners had sailed, and then a British boat was sent to Alaska to intercept them and prevent their going in. This was some time about the beginning of June, and then this situation developed. They were again suddenly cut off in the middle of their operations.
Circumstances immediately divided the sealers into four categories. First, there were those who were well equipped, with well-manned vessels of suitable size, and these went to Japan. They ran across the Pacific and sealed there in waters which under the conditions then prevailing were open. They made a good catch and made money. The second group were not so well equipped. They had Indian crews and small boats, and they had neither adequate equipment nor ample food supplies. They were therefore compelled to return to Victoria at an enormous loss. In many cases they entirely forfeited their interest in the ships, the mortgagees and the banks taking them over. In the third category were those who went to Japan and lost money. Whether from a lack of knowledge of the grounds, or for other reasons, they went and lost money. And the fourth category I need not waste time over: it consisted of one steamer. This steamer returned to Victoria, the assumption being that she was not able or was not willing to go to Japan.
There was then an immediate application to Britain for compensation for the losses sustained as in the previous year. Britain took the position that they had received sufficient notice and therefore had no claim. That is a real lawyer's decision. If it had been a case of a mortgage due on a certain date and the date was in June, it was ample time to give them notice on March 29. But under the circumstances, in a matter of this kind, it was not what one would call fair or reasonable notice. Britain is notorious for not being niggardly in dealing with claims of this kind, especially with her subjects, and I do not believe that if the matter had been properly represented to her she would have taken the stand she did. Some fault is due, possibly to some officials in Canada. It was so much easier to write, stating that the matter had been closed, or referring the applicants to this or that letter of such and such a date, instead of pressing forward the matter and submitting to the British government further arguments adduced, indicating the situation as I have outlined it. However, Britain took that attitude. We must remember that Britain was acting for Canada, and for any obligation that she incurred we must be in some part responsible, especially as Canada has since obtained something like a million dollars as a result of the treaty made later. And so far as I know she has not had the grace to repay Britain the money expended in the first instance.
Later on a commissioner, Mr. Justice Audette, took the matter under consideration and refused to hear these cases at all. I do not blame Mr. Justice Audette; his commission was so narrowly drawn in Ottawa as to leave him no alternative. At any rate, he refused to hear these cases, and they have never been given any hearing whatever. But surely every litigant or claimant is entitled to his day in court. These people have never had the ghost of a chance to get their day in court, for the commission never looked into their claims. The commission, as I say, was so restricted that these people received no consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What year was that?


Alan Webster Neill: I believe it was some time
about 1914. It was subsequent to the treaty, which was made in 1911. The refusal to hear these claims was based on two reasons: first, it was a British question with which Canada had nothing to do; and in the second place, the scope of the commission was restricted to anything that took place since 1894. And this occurred in 1892.
Now to come back to the relations between Britain and the United States. It was decided by the Paris tribunal, with the consent of the United States, that they had no claim over Bering sea. It comprised extraterritorial

Sealing Commission-Mr. Neill
called this matter to the attention of the government; there was some red tape but in the course of time we got the thing smoothed out, and the Department of Fisheries attempted to stop this practice. The present custom, as we understand it, is that these men are permitted to come into our waters at any time for what is called wood, water, shelter or repairs. The government men were very reasonable and they accepted almost any excuse at first but when it was found that these men were coming in night after night it was felt that something would have to be done. These men were asked, "What did you come in for?" They would reply, "Oh, captain, it is so rough outside." The captain would reply that he had just come in from outside where it was quite smooth. The next excuse was that the engine had broken down, and it is a well known fact that when these men saw the patrol boat coming they would tear their engine apart. The cylinder head would be taken off in order to convey the idea that something had gone wrong. However, the captain of the patrol boat overcame that excuse by putting aboard one of his own men who understood engines, and in ten minutes he would have the engine reassembled and ready to work. That thing went on all the time. Finally patience ceased to be a virtue, and they seized some ships. Four were seized this year. Some were let off on technicalities and others Were taken to the courts, and the lower courts decided against the American boats. The American boats took the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the case against them was sustained. It was held at that time that Canadian officials were entirely within their rights in prohibiting the abuse of hospitality by foreign fishing vessels within our waters. Though I had only knowledge of a general nature as to what had occurred in regard to the Sea Belle, I said I was quite sure that none of our Canadian patrol officers would drive these men out to destruction, and I have now absolute corroboration of what did happen to these unfortunate men. Here is a letter that I have received from Vancouver. It is short, and I will read it because it explains the whole thing so clearly.
Referring to an article in the Vancouver Daily Province, in which your name appears.
The article is in regard to a complaint from some Seattle interests about the loss of the fishing boat Sea Belle of Seattle, on Goose island, Queens sound, B.O.-
He means Queen Charlotte sound:
-stating the crew of that boat feared Canadian marine laws, which forced them to take the outside passage on the ocean, causing the loss of the two men's lives and their boat.

I wish to say that during April, I was cruising the coast with the M.S. Forest Queen, on the 8th of April, was anchored close to the dock at Royston

That is near Courtenay:
*-about three p.m., a friend and myself were ashore digging clams. We were also watching a fishing boat cruising Kelp bar, heading for Comox harbour, disregarding all aids to navigation in the form of buoys on the bar. which is well marked. They managed to cross the bar all right, more by good luck than good navigating, and came alongside the Forest Queen for directions up the coast. I was called to the boat by other friends to furnish the information. The boat was the Sea Belle of Seattle with two men and a small dog aboard. They were travelling to Ketchikan, Alaska. They asked for directions through Seymour narrows. On being informed of the course and distance to the narrows, they were quite surprised to find they were twenty-five miles from there. They had mistaken cape Lazo for cape Mudge-
Which I may say was a very big mistake:
-and were going to head up the Courtenay river for the entrance to Seymour narrows. This would show that they were not familiar with British Columbia coastal waters, were lost and admitted it to me.
There is no question that anybody who is going up Courtenay river and thinks he is going up the Seymour narrows is very much lost:
I examined their charts and found them to be United States charts and in good order. The men were sober, and I saw no evidence of liquor on the boat.
They carried two very tall trolling poles, which I advised to be lowered to the deck when they crossed Queen Charlotte sound.
That is north of Vancouver island.
The men informed me they had come through some very rough water on the gulf of Georgia that day and did not think it could be worse crossing the sound (which also goes to show they were not familiar with our coast waters).
It certainly does, because the waters of the gulf of Georgia and the waters of Queen Charlotte sound are very, very different, and if a boat can cross the gulf of Georgia, it by no means follows that she can cross Queen Charlotte sound, which is dreaded even by large steamers. The letter continues:
They asked about the next anchorage where they might stay for the night. I advised Quathiaski cove or Menzies bay. They intended anchoring in Canadian waters for the night, showing they did not fear Canadian marine laws.
As these men had lost their way on the straits of Georgia, it is quite right to assume they had also lost their way on Queen Charlotte sound.
As you are acquainted with the district mentioned in this letter, you will understand I do not intend any disrespect to the two unfortunate men who lost their lives, but like

Sealing Commission-Mr. Bennett
yourself, resent the implication against our Canadian laws. My statements can be vouched for by three other men.
I remain,
Yours truly,
Geo. H. McKinnon.
I may say further, as regards the situation where the boat was found, that if they were really wrecked on Goose island and did not drift there afterwards, they were wildly off their course. Queen Charlotte sound is very turbulent water, and even the biggest boats invariably go u.p the inside passage where it is sheltered. These men did not appear to know that. They .continued up towards the mouth of Hecate strait. There was no reason in the world to go there. A man with a boat as big as the Canadian Pacific liners would not have taken his boat up there. He would have taken the inside channel. That simply shows that these men were entirely ignorant of the local situation.
Canadian and United States fishermen foregather a lot in joint waters, and we do not want even a slur thrown on our Canadian fishermen bhat they were in any way responsible for the loss of these men's lives. This letter from this man, a disinterested party who happened to be there by chance, corroborates the statement that these men, however much we may regret the loss of life, did not come to their deaths by reason of any strict enforcement of our marine laws.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps, in view of the importance of the matter mentioned in the earlier part of the hon. gentleman's remarks, it would have been bettor had he given the government some notice that he intended to speak on this question this afternoon. The first intimation that I had that he was to speak on the matter was after he opened his address, and I find that no member of the government has been advised. What I am about to say is subject to correction, because I am speaking wholly from memory, but my recollection is that when Alaska was acquired from Russia by the United States, that country, shortly after, claimed that Bering sea was a closed sea. Great Britain took the view that it was not a closed sea, and the dispatch written by Lord Salisbury at that time to Mr. Blaine, in answer to his contention, was I think sufficiently clear to indicate that there was no doubt in international law that it was not a closed sea. However, the claim was persisted in, and finally it was agreed that the whole matter should be settled by arbitration. This dominion retained counsel and presented
its case before the arbitration tribunal which met in Paris, where the British case, if I remember aright, was presented by a great jurist who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice of England. Our case was presented by a very distinguished counsel, and the agent on that occasion, if I recall, was the late Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. As a result of the arguments that were presented and the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the arbitrators decided that Bering sea was not a closed sea, but that it was an open sea. It then became important to determine what could be done to preserve the seal industry from destruction, and the regulations to which the hon. gentleman has referred were put in force for the purpose. Those regulations contemplated the preservation for all time of the sealing industry, and a division of the annual profits was made by mutual arrangement between the United States, Japan and Canada, and I think Russia, although I am not quite sure about t'he latter. We receive 15 per cent as a recognition of our right to take seals in the open sea and which has been prohibited or interfered with by the regulations.
Mr. NEI'LL: If the right hon. gentleman will pardon me, it was under the treaty, not under the regulations. The treaty came later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The regulations followed the treaty.


Alan Webster Neill: It was the other way. The regulations were in 1893, and the treaty was in Mil.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The hon. gentleman is talking about another treaty. I am talking about the inception of regulations when the difficulties arose between the late Lord Salisbury and the late Mr. Blaine; but there was another treaty in 1011, to which I shall presently refer. Of course, I am speaking from memory, and the hon. gentleman has his papers in the case, which I have not seen for many yars.
What happened was that we entered into an arrangement with the United States, Japan and Russia by which we were to save, if possible, this sealing industry from destruction. The regulations were agreed to. Undoubtedly they are very drastic indeed. The regulations not only forfeit property, the ships, but impose very severe penalties on ail those who are engaged in capturing seals in the described area. The seals breed on the Pribilof islands, and, as the hon. gentleman has said, the evidence clearly indicates that the seals congregated on those islands are easily killed,

Sealing Commission-Mr. Bennett
and those selected are in the main not valuable for the propagation of seals, and thus the industry is preserved. Speaking subject to correction I would say that in 1911 a further treaty was made. The regulations under the treaty created sanctions which otherwise did not exist and had behind them an international authority. Since that time we have been carrying on under the treaty of 1911. My memory is that the treaty was for twenty years.


Alan Webster Neill: It expired some years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it was for a limited number of years, at any rate. Undoubtedly these regulations worked an apparent hardship at least upon certain Canadians because the effect was to prevent Canadians from killing seals in the open sea to which the jurisdiction of the United States did not extend. It was possible to prevent seals being killed on the Pribilof islands, for they were United States territory, but it was not possible to prevent Canadian boats from killing seals on the open sea beyond the three mile limit, and not upon Pribilof islands.


Alan Webster Neill: Except by treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Therefore this treaty arrangement was made. We undoubtedly sacrificed something. As a country we sacrificed the right to kill seals in the open sea, and as compensation for that we received 15 per cent of the takes, pelts or value of the pelts of the seals killed upon the Pribilof islands. The undertaking was of a mutual nature. The United States was not to kill in the open sea, neither was Japan nor Russia to kill in the open sea, and so by reason of each of the countries sacrificing or giving up the right to kill upon the open sea there was a substitution of the limited right to kill on the Pribilof' islands by the United States only under proper inspection and control, compensating adjustments being made by the payment of moneys to which the hon. gentleman has referred and which moneys have increased as the years have gone by by reason of the herds not diminishing but increasing in numbers and in value.
I recall that during the administration of Sir Robert Borden it was claimed that the regulation had unduly interfered with and prejudiced the interests of Canadian seal fishermen. Mr. Justice Audette of the exchequer court was appointed to make inquiries and to determine to what extent there had been a damnification of the rights of individuals. The inquiry was carried on to find to what extent damages had been suffered by Canadians by reason of the enactment of the regulations in question.

I would again ask my hon. friend to remember that I speak from memory. The date however fixed for the beginning of the accounting or for the determination of the beginning of the damages was the year 1894. I believe the year 1894 was chosen because it was the year subsequent to the determination that the Bering sea was an open and not a closed sea. The very contentions now made by the hon. member to the effect that we should go back to a date antecedent to 1894 weore made at that time. In view however of the fact that the contention of the United States had been negatived by the arbitration tribunal it was felt-and I am bound to say, to my mind with much reason-that the point of beginning was the year that marked the recognition of the fact that the claim of the United States had no foundation in international 'law. After the report of Mr. Justice Audette the matter ended. My memory is that he awarded substantial sums to quite a number of claimants. Of course however there were those who had been engaged in the industry if I might use that word antecedent to 1894. And as the inquiry which he conducted was limited to that date it followed that those cases which were antecedent were not dealt with. The position had been taken by successive administrations that it was not sound either nationally or otherwise to deal with the problem on any other than the basis upon which it was dealt with.
At the moment the position is this: There was a claim by the United States that Bering sea was a closed sea and a refusal on the part of Great Britain to recognize that claim. A clear recognition by both countries as well as by Japan and Russia that the seal industry would be entirely destroyed unless some regulating action were taken. An exchange of protocols, the completion of a treaty and an arbitration under a treaty which decided that Bering sea was not a closed sea; thereafter the right arose common to Canadians as well as to others to take seal upon the open sea. The clear recognition that to exercise that right v'ould have meant the extinction of the industry, and therefore regulations. Those regulations provided that the great sealing industry should be preserved by the action of the United States exercising not only police powers but punitive powers with respect to those who killed seals within the area of sea covered by. the treaty. There was a further recognition that Canadians should be protected by reason of these strict regulations and the granting to this country of an interest in the seal catch from year to year represented by 15 per cent. There was a claim put for-

Supply-Defence-Cadets
ward by seamen and others who were the owners of vessels that they had suffered loss and damage under the regulations, taking from them an unquestioned right to take out of the high seas the seal that they might kill. An investigation of that claim by Mr. Justice Audette of the exchequer court and a report under which payments were made aggregating less than $100,000 if my memory serves me correctly. That is the position to-day. The hon. member now asks that we should appoint a commission to inquire into conditions antecedent to 1894. I am bound to say that as at present advised I can see no reason for doing so, nor have I any reason to believe that the attitude taken by successive administrations in dealing with this question is an attitude that can be properly questioned.
However, now that, the opportunity presents itself I shall make inquiry and ascertain from a study of the documents whatever may be necessary to aid my somewhat faulty memory upon some of these points.
I shall now direct iny remarks to the second matter mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). In that connection I can say only that the Department of External Affairs, so far as I have been aware -and I have kept in close touch-has received no complaints of any kind along the lines suggested by the Seattle newspaper. At times it is not uncommon to read in the public press reflections upon one's own country by others who do not in any sense understand conditions in the neighbouring country. No representations have been received by the Department of External Affairs nor has the matter been the subject of any communication of any kind so far as I am aware. I am certain that those directly concerned-possibly the relatives and near friends of those who lost their lives-will read with, shall I say, some satisfaction at least, that there has been no failure on the part of the friendly country to the north in the discharge of its duties to all people who. for the moment, seek refuge or asylum within our harbours or on our shores.
I do not think I can usefully add anything further to what has been said in the matter.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Militia services-administration, $332,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: To what items is the reduction of $13,000 applied?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is a reduction of
$7,000 effected in the transportation and travelling expenses, and $6,000 represents the amount in excess of the appropriations last year for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenditures. This latter amount is made up oi sundry small economies.


James Layton Ralston: The transportation anr
travelling expenses would be in connection with the headquarters staff?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: And the district
staff?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Are the expenses
of the officers who attended the Imperial conference paid out of this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, they are paid
out of the permanent force appropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cadet services, $400,000.
Eugène Fiset: Why has this vote been reduced by $100,000? As the minister knows, the reduction has created an awkward situation, especially in the province of Quebec. I received a few letters on the subject which I transferred to the hon. gentleman, and he was kind enought to say he would inquire into the special cases of the Rimouski seminary and the normal schools. The province of Quebec has always strongly favoured cadet services, and the failure by the department to notify some of the educational institutions of this reduction has brought about an awkward situation. They claim that not only will they be out of pocket for the expenses incurred for the cadet work that they have already completed, but that all through the county of Rimouski-and I suppose elsewhere in the province-they were not notified in time to cancel orders that they had placed for uniforms, and they do not know how they will be able to meet these liabilities. Can the minister assure me that at least these institutions will be reimbursed this outlay?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I regret very much
having had to cut down this vote, for I consider it is one of the most important in the department, but it was felt that as the appropriations for all the departments were being reduced this movement would have to make some sacrifice. The reduction could have been effected by a 20 per cent cut in the number of cadets or by withdrawing the instruction item, but it was thought that probably the movement would suffer less by discontinuing for this one year the clothing allowance of $1.25. I repeat, I regret the reduction very much. I hope it will be only for this one year, and that the movement will be able to get along fairly well under the
Supply-Defence-Cadets

circumstances. I may say that I appreciate very much indeed the' many letters I have received similar to those that the hon. gentleman gave me in reference to this matter and sympathizing with the various boards of trustees that have been considerably embarrassed by the curtailment.


Eugène Fiset: I quite understand that where the inspector notified the schools within his district that this step was going to be taken no great hardship would result, but in the case of these special schools no notification whatever was received, and consequently the authorities in charge went ahead as usual with their preparations. Is there no possible way of compensating them at least to the extent of the expenses so incurred by them? After all it is a general vote and I think the minister could apply part of it for this purpose. May I also ask if all the cadet camps have been cancelled for this year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, there will be
no cadet camps this summer.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I was about to congratulate the Minister of National Defence for having reduced this vote by $100,000, but since he states that he did so with great regret and hopes that the reduction will be only for one year, I think I shall save my congratulations for another occasion. I had hoped that Great Britain having set such a very fine example by doing away with military training in schools, this reduction was an indication of a gradual change of heart on the part of the Canadian authorities. Apparently that is not so. The number of cadets in Canada has increased very rapidly since 1914 up to the present time, and to-day we have three times as many as Great Britain, and, relatively to population, sixteeen times as many. We seem to have a sufficient number of cadets at any rate. As I receive a great many requests for Hansard, I think it might be interesting to the house and to the country to know how our cadet force has increased in recent years. Beginning with 1920, the number of cadets in Canada was 74,991. I have not figures for the succeeding years until
1925-	26, when the number was 120,054. In
1926-	27 this had increased to 126,757; in
1927-	28 it was 133,320; in 1928-29 it was 137,514; and for the last year, 1929-30, it was 137,829. So we see that the number of cadets is steadily increasing, and I think we can say also that everything that can be done by the department to increase that number has been done. I think it is well known that the largest item of expenditure in connection with cadets is that which has to do with the
{Mr. Sutherland.]
allowance to instructors, who receive $2 per head up to 50 cadets, and $1 per head over that number. They also get $1 for the upkeep of their uniform and 25 cents for a suitable military head dress.
I should like to point out to the Minister of National Defence-and I do it respectfully, because I think he should make some note of it-that some of the organizations most interested in education have passed resolutions against cadet training in schools. The first one I want to mention is the world educational conference which, at the last meeting, passed a resolution against military training in schools. Last Easter the Ontario Educational Association passed a resolution against cadet training, which is reported in the Toronto Daily Star of Saturday, April 11, 1931, as follows:
The condemnation of cadet training by a meeting of school trustees and ratepayers held in Convocation hall under the auspices of the Ontario Educational Association will occasion surprise in some quarters, not lessened by the fact that the resolutions committee tried to sidetrack the question.	_
Victoria county proposed that the meeting should disapprove of cadet training in the public school and collegiates as savouring of militarism. The resolution committee's suggestion that no action be taken raised a storm of protest which resulted in the adoption of a resolution definitely disapproving of the cadet system .... The delegates felt it would be inconsistent to display in the schools the words of the Kellogg pact by which the nations, including Canada, renounce their right to wage war and at the same time put rifleB into the hands of pupils and teach them the rudiments of military drill.
I am not going into a long discussion on the subject of whether or not cadet training is military training; I think we are now pretty well convinced that it is military training. I would suggest to the Minister of National Defence that if the government want to promote military training in schools 

and I judge they do-and if certain parents want military training for their sons, the cadets be attached to the military units, which would completely free the schools of Canada from military training. Then you would give the people who want military training for boys an opportunity to have it, and you would leave perfectly free the boys in school who do not want it and the parents who do not want their boys to have it. Then we might open the way for some real physical training, which would take into account the fact that there are girls as well as boys in the schools of Canada.
May I put on Hansard the object of training, as given in section 2 of the regulations governing cadet services in Canada:

Supply-Defence-Cadets
The object of training lads is to develop in them principles of patriotism and good citizenship.
The report of the Department of National Defence for the year 1909 goes into it rather in more detail and says:
.... as feeders for the militia-both for officers and other ranks-the cadet corps are of much value, to say nothing of the other material benefits to youth.
The report of 1910 says, with regard to
cadet corps:
The value of such training from the standpoint of national defence cannot fail to be very great, since much of the cost and trouble of instructional work for recruits in the event of mobilization will be obviated.
It is pretty clear that this is military training, and if so I feel the government should put it where it belongs. These corps should be attached to military units and we should no longer try to spread this military spirit through the schools. The exact training itself is not extensive enough to concern anyone very much, bu,t certainly it gives the boys in school a mind set in the direction of war as a method of settling international disputes. I think in Canada we lay ourselves open to be called hypocrites, if, while we are talking about never using war as an instrument of national policy, and while we are looking forward seriously to the coming disarmament conference for a real reduction in armaments over the world, we propagate military ideas through the schools in the way of military training.
I am not going to direct the attention of the minister to any other resolutions along this line, from organizations such as the Canadian Council of Agriculture, the United Farm Women of Alberta, the United Farmers of Ontario and many others, but I do hope the resolutions of the world conference of educationalists and the Ontario Educational Association might have some weight with him.
I have a communication from St. John, New Brunswick, and also a letter from a minister of St. Andrews, New Brunswick, which reveal a very odd circumstance. The district cadet officer in New Brunswick;' Major G. L. P. Grant-Suttie, offered $100 as a scholarship to the student obtaining the highest average marks in the provincial matriculation examinations. However, students contending for the prize were required to be members of an organized cadet corps for the two years next preceding the date of the examination, and had to be certified by the corps instructor to have attended sixty per cent of all the instructional meetings during that period. The information came to me from Rev. W. Ideson, 22110-183
of St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and in a letter which is rather lengthy and which he does not mind my making public if I wish, he tells me that this man with the complicated name came and ratheT threatened him because he had publicly taken a stand against such a prize, saying it was really intended to encourage boys to go into the corps rather than as a scholarship. This gentleman came to the home of this clergyman and said some rather objectionable things, which the minister says he did not mind in the least. The thing he did object to, however, was that in this insidious way military training is being foisted upon the people. They are being cajoled and coaxed and almost threatened into it. Other correspondence under my hand makes quite clear something I have long suspected, that certainly in some schools where military training is being pushed, boys who do not want to take that training are more or less blackballed when it comes to school sports. Thus the whole idea of school sports is killed.
I feel that I cannot let any year go by without protesting against this expenditure. It is not that I think it will have any effect; I have come to the conclusion that it has no effect at all, but for my own peace of mind, I feel I must say something. The thing is simply ridiculous. If we must have military training let us be honest and say it is military training. Let us say we do not believe what we said in connection with the Kellogg pact, that it was all twaddle, that what we are getting ready for is to fight, and that we are so afraid we will not be ready that we are getting the boys in school in training. Apparently that is what is meant by the department. I would be very glad indeed to have the minister say whether this cadet training is military training; I should like to know if he is one of those ministers whom we have had before, who thinks it is physical training rather than military. I should be glad to hear something from the minister in that connection.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I wish to add my word to what has been said by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, but my attitude is rather different from hers. She expects that nothing will be done; I am going to approach the matter in the expectation that something will be done but also with the determination to keep at it until the purpose is accomplished.
I feel sure that as time goes on we shall have the thoughtful people of this dominion behind us, because the people of Canada are coming to realize that the peace and progress of the world will depend not upon the country that has the greatest military prowess. I do

Supply-De je nee-Cadets

not know whether there have been directed to the minister's attention some rather sensational charges that were made by Major W. J. Wilby, former cadet instructor at the Victoria high school. Because of pressure brought to bear upon him in the conduct of cadet training there, he resigned his position. A report of these charges appeared in the Daily Province of Vancouver of August 27, 1980. The minister will know whether the matter has been investigated or not. The views expressed by Major Wilby amplify some of the statements made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey as to pressure brought to bear on school children to enrol in cadet corps. Summarized Major Wilby's charges are:
1.	In many cases boys are informed by the instructor that they are cadets without even seeing the enlistment form and without knowing of the obligation to be taken by a cadet.
2.	That cadets are not being told of the liability of cadet corps to military service.
3.	Cadets are not told that the cadet service is part of the defence force of Canada and corps are under the military authorities.
In other words, that the boys are beiing enrolled under false pretences.
4.	That cadet corps funds are not accounted [DOT]for at annual inspections and in many cases cadets are not informed of the existence of corps funds nor are they shown any statement.
5.	That check is not made at cadet inspections as to whether all boys are cadets or not. In many eases no count is made at cadet inspections.
6.	That the names of boys are written or typed in a form by the cadet instructors though the form demands signatures. These typed lists are accepted by the district cadet officer and made the basis of payment.
In reference to the foregoing, Major Wilby states: "All this means the paying out of large sums of money from the federal treasury unlawfully."
In another part of the letter the major states: "In an effort to have the pressure, to obtain large numbers at the high school, abated, I interviewed the general staff officer of headquarters of military district No. 11, but was told that nothing could be done. The government's policy was to obtain large numbers and I was to fall in line."
Major WTilby further charges he was requested to persuade all the pupils of the high school who were not cadets to "don the blue jersey and march past the general at the annual inspection."
This, I presume, was in order that the full grant might be made. In the various municipalities of British Columbia attempts have been made to discontinue cadet training. In the municipality of Burnaby they have decided, I understand, not to accept the grant for cadet training and in the city of Nanaimo cadet training, if carried out at all, must be done after school hours.

Now, at a time like this, when the government is bending all its energies towards economy, I do not know of any other estimates in which economy might be practised to such useful purpose as in connection with the estimates before us. This money could be devoted to other things that are urgently needed. The moneys voted for cadet purposes are expended for the payment of instructors, and these instructors are in most instances teachers who are receiving fairly reasonable salaries as things are now. So that you are merely adding to the salaries of people who are already getting a fair remuneration. This is one direction in which the money is spent. It is also spent for uniforms, which the pupils, generally speaking, wear only once a year during inspection.
I thank the minister very much for cutting down the amount of this vote by one-fifth, but I submit that this is a favourable time for him to cut out the appropriation altogether. I quite agree with the hon. member for Southeast Grey that pressure is brought to bear on pupils to join cadet corps. Many of the schools are trying to get away from this and to interest the pupils in other things. In one of the largest high schools of the province where cadets had won high honours in rifle competitions, the principal decided that the corps was not in the best interests of the boys, and discontinued it. This principal, with his staff, recently established a model League of Nations Assembly in which over two hundred high school pupils take part. This was highly commended by the press and the public in both Vancouver and Victoria.
The Minister of Justice some time ago, when matters of peace and war were being discussed in this house, made the statement that Canada was among the first of the nations to subscribe to the covenant of the League of Nations, among the first to subscribe to the World Court of International Justice, and among the first to sign the Versailles Peace treaty. Now, having taken a leading part in these great undertakings to promote world peace, we should go one step further %nd be the first nation to discontinue entirely the training of its youth in military matters.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Great Britain has
already done it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Well, we could be among the first. Many thoughtful people in all parts of the dominion are taking this subject into consideration. At a recent convention of the United Church of Canada, a very in-

Supply-Defence-Cadets
2883'
fluential body, a resolution was adopted with regard to ways of promoting world peace. It was at the Alberta conference, I believe. I quote the following:
1.	Earnest thought and prayer upon the subject of wrorld disarmament that the World Disarmament Conference of 1932 may achieve definite results.
2.	An increasing study of the possibilities of the League of Nations as a great medium for international understanding.
3.	A continuance of the agitation against cadet and military training as being out of harmony with the will to peace.
This is important, coming from so influential a body as the United Church of Canada. But not only are institutions of this character taking a definite stand on this question. I have here a resolution which was passed by the Manitoba legislature at the session of 1930. It reads as follows:
Whereas governments and people in all parts of the world are striving to substitute methods of peace and arbitration for those of violence and war in international affairs; and whereas cadet training fosters militarism and the war spirit in the rising generation; therefore be it resolved, that this house is of the opinion that the government should discourage the continuance and future organization of cadet training in the public schools of Manitoba; and be it further resolved that this house petition the dominion government to substitute for the present grant for cadet training, a similar grant for national physical instruction under a department other than the Department of National Defence.
That resolution was passed last year by the Manitoba legislature. The physical side of cadet training has been discounted by those who are best qualified to speak. An educational survey was made in 1924 by the province of British Columbia, this survey being conducted by Doctor G. H. Putnam, who for many years was inspector of schools for Ottawa, and Professor G. M. Weir, of the university of British Columbia. In making their report they say:
We take strong exception to the plan of having any part of this -work (physical training) done by military officers who naturally give it a military bent. The physical education of children is part of their general education and should be given as such.
The statement was made not so long ago in this house that training of this kind was of value because of the discipline imposed. "Imposed" is the correct word, because discipline is imposed upon those who are trained. I think it is beginning to be understood that discipline of that sort is of very little use either to children or to adults. The only discipline that is of any value is that which is self-imposed or imposed for different reasons than those of the military authorities.
I would like the minister to give this matter his very thoughtful consideration, particularly at this time, because, as I said before, the government is in a favourable position to discontinue this vote without any objection being made by the people of this dominion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
had hoped the minister would say something in reply to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) and my colleague who has just spoken (Mr. Madnnis). It seems most remarkable that a grant of this kind can be continued year after year in spite of the protests made by a large number of our best citizens in various walks of life. As far as we in this corner of the house are concerned we have stood for years against cadet training and during those years we have seen public opinion steadily coming our way. I have very little complaint to make so far as my own province is concerned because the government of that province is definitely committed to the discouragement of cadet training. It has not prohibited cadet training within the province, but it has been urged to do so by a number of bodies, and it is only a question of time when such training will be prohibited in Manitoba. In the meantime it seems to me to be absurd in view of all the talk about provincial rights that we should have constantly to assert ourselves in order to safeguard our boys from becoming militarized.
The situation is not quite so favourable in connection with other provinces. A number of organizations in Ontario have been protesting against military training. A Canadian Press despatch of April 7 reads as follows:
Colonel Wood, principal of North Toronto collegiate, doubted the value of cadet training. "As a commander of a battalion of militia," said Colonel Wood, "I can hardly be accused of treason when I say this, but as a principal of a school I would not mind in the least if the cadet corps were abolished .... We don't need the cadet corps to develop physical training for students."
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, that opinion was endorsed by the educational conference held in this province. I have before me an extract from the minutes of the board of education of Toronto, dated March 5, 1931. This extract was forwarded to me by a ratepayer of the city of Toronto, who asks me to find out from the dominion government why the moneys appropriated by the government should be spent in this way. The extract is headed "Technical Schools" and reads as follows:
Supply-D e fence-C adets

The sum of $200 received from the Department of National Defence as a result of two former pupils of Danforth branch technical school having enlisted in the permanent air force after taking a two years course at Camp Borden, be appropriated to the credit of the school for orchestra requirements.
Two hundred dollars of the moneys devoted to the national defence fund is turned over to the school board of the city of Toronto and is appropriated by that board for their orchestra. If we are going to make appropriations for orchestras in different schools, they should be made openly and aboveboard; they should not be made as a prize to some boy and then turned over in this fashion.
A few weeks ago my hon. friend from Southeast Grey was urging that some money be spent to provide scholarships for the promotion of peace. We were told at that time that it would not do at all to provide such scholarships, that we would be interfering with provincial rights, and page after page of Hansard is devoted to show that we must not infringe in any way upon provincial rights. Yet here we have the national defence authorities turning over large sums of money for the promotion in our schools of military sentiment. It is, it seems, against our constitution to turn over any amount at all for the promotion of peace sentiments; that is an interference with provincial rights, but it is not an interference to maintain officers of the department and have them use every influence to induce boys to enlist in the cadet corps and in that way to extend gradually in the schools the idea of militarism.
I think we in this comer, in this matter, have fairly represented the opinions of the organized farm movement and the organized labour movement of Canada. In order that there may be no doubt with regard to the labour movement, I should like to put on record a resolution passed by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and submitted to the dominion government. This resolution is dated January 22, 1931, and reads as follows:
Cadet training. That all money grants for cadet training and other military training in schools be abolished and grants for nonmilitary physical training be substituted therefor.
That is the position taken by the body generally recognized as being the largest labour body in this country. I suppose if that resolution were submitted to the government they would reply that it would be impossible to make grants for physical training. They would say it could not be done; that it would be contrary to the British North America Act, an infringement upon provincial
fMr. Wood*worth.]
rights, and contrary to all the traditions of Canada. Yet they continue to make these grants for military purposes. As a protest against the continuance of this grant, I beg leave to move that item 147 for cadet services be'reduced to the sum of one dollar.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the views that have been expressed by the different speakers with regard to the cadet movement.
First let me say that the cadet movement is not a military movement, in spite of assertions that are made from time to time to that effect. I base my conclusion on this fact, that whilst there is a certain amount of very elementary drill in the cadet corps, it is the same as is carried on in very elementary military drill, and it is done simply to teach the cadets to move in a body in an orderly way. It has given rise in the minds of some to the belief that military drill persists all through the cadet movement; but that is not so. The cadets do not get any more military drill than is sufficient to teach them to move in a body from place to place in an orderly manner, instead of going in a crowd pell-mell. They are taught how to turn and march in an orderly way, and that is practically all the military drill they get. In the whole cadet movement there is no idea of an enemy, which is the distinguishing feature of military drill. It is true that the cadets are dressed alike for the sake of uniformity, and that they go through a few preliminary movements, which any Sunday school class could be taught with benefit in moving from one room to another. All that the cadets are taught, and this is the reason for the whole movement, is discipline and respect for authority, and there is some patriotism worked in, in connection with it. I fail to see how that could harm a boy in any respect. I think it cannot do him anything but good. It certainly tends to make him a better citizen to go through a certain amount of training of that kind.
There have been a few specific complaints. One hon. member mentioned a minister in New Brunswick having had a cadet officer visit him and behave in rather a belligerent way.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not know that he was a cadet officer. He was the head of the military unit for that division.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am very glad to
have that information, and I shall make inquiries, for certainly that is no part of the duty of any cadet officer or of anyone connected with the organization.

Supply-Defence-Cadets
As to giving scholarships to the cadet corps,
I understand that a scholarship was given for efficiency in passing the matriculation examination. Surely there is no harm in that, and if the scholarship was restricted to members of the cadet corps, that merely shows that the donor was interested in the corps, and wished to make his gift conditional on membership in it. I cannot see any harm in that. We see instances of that kind every year when the examination reports come out.
The hon. member for Vancouver South mentioned the case of Major Wilby having some trouble with a school board in Victoria.
I have looked into that matter. Apparently the major's contention was that some of the funds had been misappropriated and not put to their proper use. We could not conceive that the school board of a city of the prestige of Victoria would maladminster funds put to their credit. We made an investigation and that was the conclusion we came to. There was some difference of opinion between the two, but nothing of which the Department of National Defence could take any cognizance. With regard to the orchestra which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says was provided out of cadet funds, I really do not think that was a proper expenditure to be made out of the grant, and I shall certainly make some investigation in that regard. A number of the cadet corps in the wealthier centres have bands connected with them, but the expense of that does not come out of the grant that is made by parliament.
The hon. member for Vancouver South said that the United Church of Canada in the province of Alberta had passed a resolution condemning cadet training, but they do not speak for their church as a whole at all. I have the honour to be a member, a very humble member, of the United Church of Canada, and certainly I feel that it is high time that somebody got up and stood up for what the United Church of Canada really stands for. The United Church of Oanada took to itself a name conveying that it was the church of Canada, and certainly it owes something to Canada. It should stand up for the inculcating in the youth of the country a love of country, respect for authority, and discipline. I think that that is only proper for a church that makes the pretension of being the national church of Canada. There are many people who do not go to the conferences of the church at all, and still I hope they are helpful members of the church, whose ideas however are not indicated by such resolutions as are passed from time, to time. There is not a regiment in Canada, for that matter, which
has not a chaplain. Only last summer I went to a church parade in the city of Woodstock, to the United Church of Canada. They welcomed the local regiment there, and the same is true of practically every city and town in Canada. Therefore I do not think that in resolutions of that kind the church speaks at all for the great mass, the rank and file, of the members of the United Church of Canada.
I welcome criticism. If a thing cannot stand criticism it is of no use, but the very fact the movement is a popular one and is growing in Canada-one hon. member quoted figures to that effect-shows that there is some good in it. The movement has dropped off in some provinces.
In conclusion I want to say that there is not a bit of organization of any kind connected with the Department of National Defence to encourage people to join this movement. It is simply a matter for the parents of the boys. They join or not, just as they feel free to do. That is all I oan say. I do not think the amendment that has been moved should be adopted.


Mr. HARRIS:: I have just a word or two to say with regard to the city of Toronto which has been mentioned to-day. Let me tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the citizens of Toronto are wholeheartedly behind this cadet movement. On every occasion which presents itself the real, solid citizenship of the city of Toronto endorses the ' cadet movement. It ill behooves any hon. member from Winnipeg to get up in the house and pass remarks with regard to the observations of one odd man here or there or of one chap who perhaps had a peculiar slant on the matter. Because Colonel Wood of the North Toronto Collegiate or some other ratepayer observes that the cadet movement is one which should not be tolerated is no reason to abandon such a worthy movement. The day the cadets turn out and parade on the streets of Toronto is one of the brightest in the year. My hon. friend from Southeast Grey referred to a resolution passed by the Ontario Educational Association and she made further reference to the World's Educational Conference. I am sure if she were to make a survey of the people who passed that resolution she would find that the rank and file of them are of a type who do not know a great deal about raising a family or how to train boys and girls.


Mr. DUFF:: Is the minister excepted in that statement?
28S8
Supply-Defence-Cadets


Joseph Henry Harris: I think you would find that the personnels of those particular organizations are made up chiefly of bachelors and married people who are childless. Not having half a dozen children around your knee it is hard for you to understand the training children would receive if they were given the opportunity of joining a cadet corps.


Peter John Veniot: I suggest that the hon. member address the chair.


Joseph Henry Harris: I wish to make the point that the people comprising the organizations to which the hon. member for Southeast Grey has referred arc not people who have had the experience of raising children and do not know the advantage the children receive through cadet training. May I add that the people of the city of Toronto will regret that the minister has seen fit to cut off even one-fifth of the vote, and certainly they would not tolerate a reduction of the vote to the sum of one dollar. My bon. friend from Southeast Grey has been talking about sports, and about -boys who were black-balled in sports because they were not members of cadet corps. With much respect I would say to her: You do not know what you are talking about.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. I think it is not fair to hurl insults at any hon. member in the house, especially when that hon. member is a lady.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think thg hon. member had better withdraw his last remark.


Joseph Henry Harris: Very well, I shall withdraw that remark.


Mr. HEAPS:: To address a member personally is I think contrary to the rules of the house. The only proper way to address a member is through the chair, and I would respectfully request that the hon. member now speaking should in that respect comply with the rules.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must, address the chair, and must not be personal in his remarks.


Joseph Henry Harris: I shall withdraw the remark to the effect that the hon. member for South east Grey does not know what she is talking about. I would say however that the hon. member has not had sufficient contact with the cadet movement of the city of Toronto; she is not cognizant of the physical training the cadets receive in the schools of Toronto, and for those reasons she is not in my judgment qualified to form any opinion which should receive the serious consideration of this com-
?Mr. Duff.]
mittee. Those folks who to-day are suggesting that this vote be reduced to the sum of one dollar would be well advised to consult the parents of boys in the cadet corps not only of the city of Toronto but of other cities. If they were to make inquiries they would come to the same conclusion as I did, namely, that the large majority of the parents whose children are in cadet corps are anxious for the continuance of cadet training in the public schools.


Mr. MacNIOOL:: I desire to add my support to the vote now before the committee. My only regret in connection with this matter is that the vote has been reduced already by $100,000. I have no doubt the reduction was made because of present conditions prevailing throughout the country. I would however strongly oppose any further reduction in the vote.
The cadet movement in the city of Toronto was initiated in the year 1875, and has grown until at the present time there are 11,581 cadets in the schools of Toronto, distributed
as follows:
Number
School-	of cadets
Public schools	 6,800
Technical and	commercial.. .	1,371
Collegiates	 3,410
11,581
I agree with the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) that if the government abolished the grant for cadet training the citizens of Toronto would be big enough, and I believe would be generous enough, to carry on themselves a system of cadet training. The people of that city are so certain that cadet training is in the best interests and for the best training of their boys-and I may add, the girls, too, because there are many corps of girl guides-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I protest; the girl guides and boy scouts are entirely different bodies.
Mr. MacN'IOO'L: Very well, I shall not refer to the girl guides but shall confine my remarks to the cadets.


Mr. SPENCER:: Would the hon. member also exclude the boy scouts from his statements? That also is an entirely different movement.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a matter of fact I do not think I mentioned the boy scouts. If I did, however-


An hon. MEMBER:: No, you did not.

Supply-Defence-Cadets
Mr. MaoNICOL: I believe I confined my remarks to the cadets, and merely made mention of the girl guides.
I have had some experience in the training of cadets, and I must confess I like to see the boys in uniform. Although I cannot make a definite statement, yet I believe that the uniform induces the boys to carry out their training in a more efficient manner. I like to see the erect carriage the training develops and the respect for authority reflected in the practice of saluting. It is an unfortunate faot, Mr. Chairman, that to-day there are many movements which would result in breaking down authority in Canada, and for that reason I am all the more zealous in my determination to support the cadet movement. When a boy has received cadet training he answers his superior, "Yes, sir," or "No, sir;" he addresses his superior as he should be addressed because he has been properly trained. I was not in the house when this discussion began, but I have before me something in connection with the United church which may interest hon. members.


William Duff: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is a pamphlet which
appears to have been issued by the United Church of Canada, in connection with the third general council, held at Winnipeg, September, 1928. The pamphlet contains a report by the commission appointed by the church to inquire into cadet corps and officers' training corps. At page 12 I find the following:
The evidence before us indicates that the cadet corps embraces some features of educational value, though some believe that those features could be conserved apart from any relation to the militia.
Well, the cadet movement has nothing to do with the militia.
In obedience to the instruction of the general council the commission reports its appreciation of certain distinct features of the cadet program.	r	,
The habit of prompt obedience is still an essential part of the "good life" and is one preparation for fitness to command in any sphere of life.
I submit that that is true, Mr. Chairman. The training that boys receive in a cadet corps teaches them later in life to command in any sphere, business or otherwise. Then the report deals with the subject of uniforms:
Uniform has abundantly proved its social value, and the only question concerns the types of uniform, if any, which shall be adopted. The regulations of the Department of Militia governing cadet corps do not prescribe any particular uniform, and a large percentage of units have not adopted any.
With respect to rifle shooting the report continues:
Rifle shooting at targets awakens very different interests, entirely unrelated to war, and is a form of sport which calls for such self-control as gives it value in the development of character.
I think that is true. A boy who can shoot straight at a target must of necessity benefit by learning to maintain complete self-control. In a word, target practice tends to the cultivation of a steady hand and a cool head which we require all through life. Dealing with signalling the report continues:
Signalling has proved itself a valuable means of promoting concentration of attention, together with rapid and sensitive response to others.
The next subject dealt with is first aid: First aid needs no argument to demonstrate its high educational value both as equipment for service and as promoting a desirable attitude of mind.
On the subject of company or squad drill I find the following:
Company or squad drill is the only feature remaining for consideration. As to the value of this, there is some difference of opinion, but the preponderant view is that as a factor in the total discipline of the school it is a desirable element.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think most hon.
. members will agree with those pronouncements. In a pamphlet entitled The Cadet System in Schools, circulated in the schools of Toronto by the Toronto Board of Education, I find the following:
The speech of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales at the Guildhall, London, England, on December 7, 1920, shows that he was much struck by the benefits of cadet training in the two overseas dominions where it is a national measure.
Here are the Prince's words:
Both in Australia and New Zealand I was particularly struck by the appearance and bearing of the school children, and with the splendid way in which the governments are carrying on their education. I can truly say of their systems that they instil discipline and patriotism into their youth without militarism. I am sure you would all have enjoyed as much as I did the many thousands of gatherings that those school children organized for me everywhere, and I did not see one single child who did not reflect in its healthy, happy little face that spirit of well-being which is the pride of both these dominions.
And that has been my experience, Mr. Chairman, and, as I said a moment ago, I have had a good deal to do with cadet training.
Something has been said against cadet bands. Well, the boys cannot very well march without music. I like to hear their bands
Supply-Defence-Cadets

and to see them march and to observe their discipline and their respect for authority. There are altogether too many attempts today, to break down authority. In my humble opinion cadet training in our public schools is one of the best means of maintaining respect for authority, inculcating discipline, and teaching children to respect their elders. I heartily support the vote and my only regret is that it has been reduced.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I suppose the self control and the very courteous manner of the member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) is the result of cadet training.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have always found that when people become abusive they have exhausted their arguments; when those run out they use the bludgeon. I am sure the world federation of teachers would be most interested in the complimentary remarks to which we have listened this afternoon. I did not intend to put the whole resolution of the federation on Hansard, but now I think 1 had better do so. The World Federation of Education Associations passed the following resolution in 1929:
1. That an endeavour be made to secure that systematic military training shall not be given in civil educational institutions; but where such institutions undertake military training it shall m no case be a compulsory subject of the curriculum.
, 2. That every endeavour be made to secure the substitution of physical training, of exercise and of sports for the military training too otten now given in civil educational institutions; and so to ensure adequate training in character and citizenship, and thus to lead the youth of the world to a better and wider appreciation of the real meaning of patriotism and the duties of citizenship.
3. That steps be taken by the organizations connected with the federation to carry out these resolutions as far as possible in the educational institutions of the country to which each organization belongs.
The Minister of National Defence in apologizing for cadet training in our schools said that cadets did not aim their rifles at anybody, so it was not military training. I am sure there are members of the government who would be very glad if to-day they could have a lot of Russians strung up as targets for rifle practice. Simply because you have nobody in mind when you are at rifle practice does not mean that such practice does not constitute military training. That is too finely spun an argument altogether. If you have rifles and are learning to use them with the idea that some day they will be directed against some other nation, that is military training. We have not our wars so well ar-
ranged that we know ten years in advance whom we are going to try to kill. All we know is that we are getting ready to kill someone; just who it is we do not know. To say that for this reason it should not be called military is quite the most interesting argument I have heard in this house on this subject.
I feel that physical training in schools .is very much needed, but I feel also that physical training for boys and girls never will make much headway while cadet training stands in the way. I am borne out in this opinion by a prominent school trustee who, in addressing the provincial parent-teachers federation last year, stated:
. Personally I think the provincial federation is just playing with so many resolutions on physical education. Very little will be done in this regard until the cadet movement is out of the way.
I feel that for the sake of physical training we should get rid of cadet training in schools as rapidly as possible. May I say through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough that it is quite possible no one in the house knows more about cadet training than I do. Since 1924-25 I have been making speeches on the subject, and I receive thousands of letters from one ocean to the other and from every province in Canada with regard to this matter. So I am not really an irresponsible person speaking without knowledge when I speak about cadet training. I have not made a statement, including the statement that certain students have been black-balled in regard to school sports because they did not take cadet training, without knowing what 1 am talking about. I suppose at times we all speak without knowing much about what we are saying, but on this subject I feel that I do know what I am talking about.
I have one last word to say. Those who defend cadet training say they want it because it will train people in citizenship and patriotism. I was amazed a moment ago to hear one of the hon. members from Toronto, who spoke most courteously, say he liked to see the boys parade. I thought of what he missed by not being in Germany before the war; he would have enjoyed the goose step so much. His is a curious mentality, which I fail to understand. Certainly we need discipline and some respect for authority, but that little boys should be dressed up in uniforms and go touching their caps to their elders-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did I understand the
hon. member to say I had a curious mentality?

Supply-Defence-Cadets
28S9


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Perhaps "strange
mentality" would be better. It is strange to me; I fail to understand it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I was not personal in
my remarks; I never enter into personalities, and I do not see why the hon. member should do so.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I appreciated that
very much, but I am afraid the expression "strange mentality" must remain. Things we do not understand are strange, and I do not mean this to be a reflection upon anyone. It is said by at least some that cadet training promotes a spirit of patriotism and citizenship. I want to point out what every hon. member already knows, that to-day patriotism and good citizenship are no longer confined to our own country. If we are to be patriots and good citizens in our own country we must have an understanding, a tolerance and a love which goes far beyond our own borders. I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence just how he thinks military training will help the boys to solve the problem of international trade. What will it do to relieve the unemployment situation which is facing the whole world? What has it to do with the scarcity of currency or with the misery in the midst of plenty? The answers to all these questions have to do with good citizenship, so I think we can recognize that what once passed for patriotism and good citizenship does so no longer, but that a much wider knowledge and a much greater feeling for peoples beyond our own borders must be in the heart of every good citizen in Canada.
I think nothing is more needed in Canada to-day than to train our boys and girls in good citizenship and patriotism, but quite likely my idea of good citizenship and patriotism is not that of most hon. members of this house. Nevertheless it is mine and I hold to it honestly and firmly, so with much pleasure I support the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this vote be reduced to one dollar.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to say just a further word in reply to one or two remarks of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough. I thought we were discussing this matter on its merits; it is very strange indeed if we cannot discuss an affair of this kind without having personalities introduced.
The hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough suggests that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey is not in a position to discuss this matter because she has no children of her own. I should like to point out that under
that principle the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition also would be excluded from a debate of this character. The hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough thinks he is in a position to discuss the matter because he has children, and I note that he has three girls and one boy. I have two girls and four boys, so presumably I will be able to discuss the question with four times as much authority since I have four times as many boys. I say this because it seems absolutely ridiculous that a discussion of this character should be put on the basis of our personal relationships. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest, quoted the Prince of Wales with great approval. So far as I know the Prince of Wales has no children, and I do not quite see why he should be dragged into this discussion. I point out that he would be entirely excluded from a debate of this kind under the principle enunciated by the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough.
Further, the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough rather resents my quoting the opinions of some citizens of Toronto. I have heard a good many members of this house quote citizens of Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg and other places; I thought we were here to discuss general policies relating to all parts of the country. If certain citizens of Toronto choose to write me and make known their grievances I consider myself perfectly justified in referring to those grievances even in the presence of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough. As a matter of fact I was born in the city of Toronto and my father and mother were born there before me, so I naturally have an interest in my birthplace. The fact that I moved west is no particular reason why I must speak of the city of Toronto with bated breath.
There is just one other consideration. We are talking about economy, but here we are proposing to spend $400,000 in order to provide uniforms and instruction for certain classes of boys whose parents desire to have them take this training. In view of the large number of hungry people on the streets, people whose clothes are ragged and who do not know where they are to sleep, I think the government would be well advised to spend that $400,000 in looking after the unemployed rather than in promoting-as I still believe is the purpose of this training-a military spirit in the minds of the boys and girls of this country.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say just
a few words in reply to the statement of the minister that there is very little of the military in the instruction given in the
Supply-Defence-Cadets

schools. Before proceeding, however, I might say that the attitude of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough reminds me of the social worker visiting a woman to give her instruction in the care of children. The woman rather indignantly asked why anybody should want to tell her anything about taking care of children, saying, "I have buried nine of them." I do not know what training the hon. member has given his children.
With reference to the statement of the minister, I might quote the following from the report of the Department of National Defence for the year 1909:
As feeders for the militia-both for officers and other ranks-the cadet corps are of much value, to say nothing of other material benefits to youth.
The report for 1910 has this to say with reference to cadet corps:
The value of such training from the standpoint of national defence cannot fail to be very great, since much of the cost and trouble of instructional work for recruits in the event of mobilization will be obviated.
That indicates clearly the position of the department with respect to cadet training. Recently a woman resident in Vancouver, who has a boy training in one of the grade schools there, noticed when he came home one evening that his clothes were all muddy, and she asked him the reason. He said, "In cadet training to-day we had trench warfare and we went over the top and everything." That is the sort of training the children are getting in some of the schools. In other schools the training is not so distinctly military. I am convinced of that from personal knowledge, because I have had personal knowledge of school affairs in Vancouver for some years.
Another illustration of the military significance of the cadet service is the fact that the department does not pay the grant except where the boys wear the uniforms on inspection day. But why the uniform? Why a military uniform? These things will have to be explained before we can accept the minister's statement. You cannot even hide the fact from the boys themselves.
In one school where some of the boys did not wish to join the corps they offered to debate, with members of the cadet corps, the value of cadet training. The two boys who spoke for the cadet side declared that the training did not aim at inculcating a military spirit, and their opponents pertinently asked "why the defence department should pay for it then." If this does not come under the defence department as a part of military

training, why not transfer it to some other department?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to support those
in this corner who have spoken against this vote. The difference of opinion seems to be whether this vote is in support of military training or in support of physical training. If we could come to a decision on that point the difficulty would be removed. I was rather amused that while the two Toronto members distinctly supported the vote the minister more or less apologized for it.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Don't get the impression that I apologize for it. I think it is one of the most important votes in the department, and I do not want anyone to suppose that I am apologizing for it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I had better put it this
way: that the minister tried to make the committee believe it was not a militaristic vote.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: And it is not.


Henry Elvins Spencer: He thinks it is a vote to provide suitable training for the purpose of inculcating" discipline, patriotism, and so on and so forth. Does he think for a moment that boys cannot be made into the best citizens if they do not put on a military uniform? I strongly oppose such a theory. The hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough rather got away from the subject. In my opinion he did not show any appreciation of it when he suggested that, first, those who criticize this resolution do not know what they are talking about; that, in the second place, they are not family people; and, thirdly, that they do not know anything about bringing up families.


Joseph Henry Harris: I said that the majority
were not, and I stand by it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member may
stand by it, but he is entirely wrong. Take resolutions passed by such very well known organizations as the United Church of Canada.


Joseph Henry Harris: Again I rise to a point of
order. I never mentioned the United Church of Canada.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I did not say the hon.
member mentioned the United Church; he was mentioning personalities most of the time. But highly important organizations, including the United Farmers of Alberta, have passed resolutions criticizing this vote. Not that they do not want physical training, but they are opposed to the military aspect of the matter. They are willing to have the money spent in furtherance of physical training in the schools, to make boys and girls physically

Supply-Dejence
fit and to inculcate, if you like, the right sort of patriotism and discipline. But they are opposed to the military tendency. I should like the minister to give us the figures in regard to the number of cadets in the different provinces in the last two or three years, to show whether the number is increasing or decreasing.


Mr. SPENCE:: No one in this house
need apologize for supporting this vote for training. No one need be ashamed to say he supports it, because as far as I know the people of Canada are behind it. There are to-day so many self-appointed organizations and federations trying to dictate to governments and legislatures that we do not know what to do next. There is no doubt that physical training and cadet training go together. It develops the boy's intellect, develops a good physique, teaches him good manners, and disciplines him in a way he cannot otherwise be instructed. I hope we will not waste more time discussing this matter.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister give us comparative j'ears?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I will give first the figures for the year ended August 31, 1930, and then for the year previous. They are as follows:
1930	1929
Nova Scotia	3,923	3,775Prince Edward Island..	882	787.New Brunswick	3,066	3,146Quebec	66,804	66,266Ontario	42,561	41,850Manitoba	3,180	3,429Saskatchewan	4.613	4,546Alberta	6,531	6,843British Columbia	6,282	6,255


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister give the committee an idea as to how this money is spent? How much is spent for uniforms, how much for equipment and so on?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: A bonus of $1.34 is
given for instructions. A grant of $2 per cadet is given up to fifty cadets, and $1 for each additional cadet. An allowance of $1.25 has been given in previous years, but is not being given this year for uniforms. The remainder goes for the training at the normal schools of physical instructors and teachers who are taking cadet instruction courses.


Mr. ERNST:: The objectional feature, the uniforms, is out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was endeavouring to find
out how much was spent of the money voted last year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The difference of
$100,000 is practically the uniform allowance for the whole country for one year.
Amendment negatived; yeas, 7; nays, 53. Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Engineer services and works, $700,000.


Mr. GRAY:: How does the minister propose to effect this reduction of $139,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We are making
provision for only the most urgent services and such expenditures as are absolutely necessary for the preservation of the buildings and properties. This is a general vote for repairs and upkeep of all military buildings, rifle ranges, camps and so on throughout the country. The reduction simply means that certain work will have to be put off until next year.


Peter John Veniot: Does this item include salaries for the engineers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. That comes under the permanent force vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores, $683,000.
James Layton Ralston: What is the large item of reduction here?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is a reduction in clothing and necessaries of $14,000; miscellaneous stores, $35,000; artillery stores, $232,000; telephones, signal and wireless, $18,000; army service corps, mechanical and water transport, $30,000.


James Layton Ralston: The chief reduction is in the artillery item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manufacturing establishments, $550,000.
Peter John Veniot: Was the amount of $587,000 all spent last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Is anything being done at the Lindsay arsenal?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, except that four men are being kept on as caretakers.


James Layton Ralston: Is the same rate of manufacturing amunition being maintained at Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, it is being cut down.
2892	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Non-Permanent


James Layton Ralston: Small arms or eighteen-pounder?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Small arms are cut one million rounds.


Ernest Lapointe: How many men have been dismissed from the service at Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Twenty-three.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,606,000.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would ask the minister to explain just what is meant by non-permanent active militia.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We have in Canada two kinds of militia, the permanent militia, professional soldiers on duty all the time, such as the Royal Canadian Dragoons, the Royal Canadian Regiment, and so forth, and the non-permanent active militia, what is generally known throughout the country as the volunteers. They train for eight or nine or ten days every year, and then go back into civil life.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: How does the minister propose to effect the reduction this year? By training less men?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The vote is cut
down very largely by doing away with the camps which have been held annually for many years at various places; for instance, in our part of the country, in London. That camp will not be held this year. There will be no non-permanent militia camps held during the year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then how does the
minister propose to spend this $1,606,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The city corps will be given four or five days' training at their own headquarters. There is, in addition, training in connection with various schools of instruction which are held all the time. They will go on as before.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The minister says that the
city corps will have four or five days' training at their own headquarters. As I understand it, it is not the intention of the minister to reduce the number of men who will train at these city camps. The full complement will be trained for four or five days. That is a reduction in the usual number of days' training of about six to eight, because they used to train from ten to twelve days each year. I would suggest to the minister that four days' training, even though it be in the local unit establishment, is just about useless and practically a waste of public money.

Instead of having the full complement trained four or five or six days, I suggest that the complement be cut in two and that half the complement be given the full number of days' training as in past years. In this way you would build up an efficient nucleus of trained non-commissioned officers, which is the backbone of any militia unit that may be gathered together. I think the minister will agree with me in that. It does seem a great pity that these militia units, which have been built up over a long period of years, and at a tremendous sacrifice to the men who have taken an interest in them-I am sure that the minister himself is one of those who in past days before the great war were interested in these local militia units-should now be practically forced into the position where they will have to disband unless some public-spirited men together with the officers, which will happen in some localities, see to it that the local training camps are kept up and the men receive the usual number of days' training. I do not think that it should be left that way. I do not suppose that many men have gone into training as yet, and so I again suggest that instead of attempting to train-because it can only be an attempt at training in so short a time-the full complement, the complement be cut in half, and half the men foe given the full period of training as in past years. I hope the minister will seriously consider that suggestion.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would ask what the
men in the non-permanent active militia are paid for their four days' training. What do the men get out of it?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It is customary in all city corps, practically without exception, for the pay to be what is called pooled. While the men sign for their pay, the men's pay and the officers' pay all goes into one pool. They do not actually draw it in most cases. By unanimous consent that plan has gradually developed and is now the general procedure. When men go to camp with the rural corps it is the custom that they draw their pay.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If the men in the nonpermanent active militia do not get anything out of it, I do not think any hon. member could stretch his imagination so far as to suggest that four days' training would make any difference in military efficiency one way or another, why spend the money? Would it not be better to keep this money and send a strong delegation, the very best the Conservative party can muster, to the disarmament conference to be held at Geneva, and give what is left to the unemployed? To my
JUNE 22, 1931	2S93
Supply-Defence-Non-Permanent .
mind it is laughable to give a man. only four days' training. Certainly they would be wonderful men if after such a short training they became efficient soldiers.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am very glad the lady member has added her voice to the many protests I have had with regard to the cutting down of this vote. May I say that she is quite right. That the men have to do such an amount of work and do it for practically nothing is indeed unfortunate. I do not know that I could better use my time for a moment or two than to express my thanks, the thanks of this government and I think of the country as a whole, to the men of the non-permanent active militia who during all these years have kept things going. As the hon. members for Southeast Grey and West Lambton have said, the men in the city corps receive nothing, and in the rural regiments they receive very little. Nothing but a desire to do real public service has kept them active all through the years. The hon. member for West Lambton said that it was hardly worth while to train a man for only four days, and may I state that I agree entirely with his statement. I am sure however that what has happened in the past will repeat itself in the future, namely, that these men in the non-permanent force will give a great deal more than they receive. For years the non-permanent active militia have been doing a work and giving of their very best. A certain amount of that work will be done this year. I should not like to see those regiments, especially some of the city regiments, neglected. While between drill seasons they are not actually drilling, still they keep alive the regimental spirit. I am convinced that that spirit will be kept alive in full force because very strong representations have been made about the vote now before the committee, to the effect that it should not be cut down. We are realizing more and more that the city battalions particularly have not been able to get along on what they are receiving from the government. In many cases good friends have donated large amounts of money. In hard times however that money is not forthcoming, and the regiments find themselves in a very difficult position. Personally I should like to see an addition to the vote, because, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey has said, it is not fair to ask the men to do their work for so very little pay, and I hope that something may be done for them.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I can see only one use for a non-permanent militia, namely that if men were paid for a sufficient number of days they would be sure of something and
in that way some of the unemployed would receive a certain amount of relief. Other than that however I can see no use at all in having the non-permanent militia.
I do not wish the minister to get away from the point by saying that I was very sorry to see the vote cut down; on the contrary I am Very sorry not to see the vote cut down still further. To my mind this vote will not be pleasing to those who believe in the necessity for a non-permanent force, and it certainly does not please people like myself who do not believe in the necessity for a nonpermanent militia. The result is that the _ vote now before the committee does not please anybody, and in displeasing everybody we are spending SI ,606,000. To my mind we would be well advised to lay this money aside for the relief of unemployment in the coming winter or for use in the furtherance of other projects for which we require money.
I protest against the spending of such a large sum of money in what really seems to be a ridiculous manner. The minister has referred to "these splendid men." I know they are splendid men. He referred to the fact that they "kept things going." What things did they keep going?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The fact is that the honest, true militia man is one of the best citizens we have.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Oh, quite.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Eveiyone will agree to that. He gives of his spare time and of his money, and the fact is that the Department of National Defence receives more for nothing than all the other departments of the government combined. To my mind the non-permanent active militia should sometimes receive a word of praise from the prominent people throughout the country and from members of this parliament in token of appreciation of the work they are doing.
I am for the non-permanent active militia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
make some inquiries concerning a type of activity that has been going on during the last year. A few weeks ago in one of the labour papers in the city of Winnipeg the following appeared:
Under the guise of an athletic club Major Banks, with the assistance of the manager of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway Telegraphs at Winnipeg, has circularized the employees of the two above-mentioned companies in order to have them join the Winnipeg Light Infantry.
I shall now read the circular which was sent out:

Supply-Defence-Non-Permanent
Would you like to join a young man's athletic club? No membership fee. A club with plenty of floor space for gymnastics, indoor ball, volley ball, basketball, physical training classes, track work, boxing, wrestling. Private room for chess, checkers, or cards. Indoor range for rifle and revolver practice. Shower baths, etc. Snowshoe tramps during the winter. Football and track events in summer.
Instructors to teach you radio engineering, telegraphy or signalling with heliograph, semaphore and flags every Thursday evening each week. Open from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. Also open every Tuesday evening from 8 to 11 p.m. for athletics and games.
The management of Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways Telegraphs favour the suggestion that you should join. Members enrolled from the respective companies will be trained in two classes and regular competitions will be arranged if a sufficient number enroll. Plenty of healthful exercise, recreation and valuable instruction of subjects you wish to learn. No expense to you.
These privileges are extended to all members of the Winnipeg Light Infantry Athletic Club. Only one hour per week for military training such as drill, rifle exercise, bayonet fighting, fencing, etc. It is of course understood that every member must take his part in military drill classes when present.
Only boys of good character and medically fit accepted. If you join, you can also quit any time you wish without obligations. Special concert with free refreshments on Saturday, November 29, for members only.
Be at McGregor St. Armoury, corner Machray and McGregor, Thursday, November 20, at 8 p.m. Report to Major E. C. Banks who will take your application. Canadian Pacific Railway versus Canadian National Railways. Enroll now and competitions can be arranged at once.
As this labour paper points out, in the first place it is a very serious matter when such a movement as the one I have described is founded in close connection with an industrial organization. The management is favourable to it, and for any man who will not enlist there is a note of intimidation. As everyone knows perfectly well, for the management to urge that the men should join is tantamount to an order that they must join.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I respectfully suggest that some of the hon. members in this house do not quite understand how intimidation operates; they do not know that if men refuse they find themselves discriminated against.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is rather a serious thing when this action is taken. There are also free refreshments and so on. I should like to ask who is paying for all this? Is it the officers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it the government?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
know who is paying for entertainment of this kind. Apparently this kind of activity is not confined to the city of Winnipeg, for I have had sent to me by the International Association . of Machinists, Montreal, the following resolution:	[DOT]
Montreal, November 11, 1930.
Whereas, the civilized nations of the world have declared their aims to be peace, the reduction of military armaments, the abolition of war and the settlement of all international disputes by conference and arbitration, and
Whereas, the League of Nations, of which Canada is a member, was organized for the purpose of bringing about the above objects, and Canada, in the person of her ministers and representatives has repeatedly avowed her desire to advance the cause of international peace and the progressive disarmament of the civilized world, and
Whereas, the entire experience of mankind has shown that it is impossible to ensure peace by preparing for war, but that, on the contrary, the organization of military force inevitably leads to its use for objects that have no relation to the advancement of the fundamental interests of mankind, and
Whereas, the last great war which devastated the world and brought civilization near to complete ruin was proclaimed to be a war to end war and to remove the threats of militarism from the earth, and
Whereas, it has come to our knowledge that the Canadian National Recreation Association has obtained authority from the military department of the Dominion of Canada to form a battery of field artillery, and is soliciting its members to join the said military organization, therefore be it
Resolved, that we, the members of lodge 111, of the International Association of Machinists declare that we are in accord with every influence that makes for peace, and are opposed to every influence that makes for war, that we view with distrust and disquiet the tendency to link military organization with industrial establishments and protest the action of the Canadian National Recreation Association in furthering this tendency.
I read that resolution because I think it is sensible. It is not put forward by a lot of men who know nothing about war-a very considerable number of the members of this organization were at the front; it is not put forward by a group of sentimentalists; it is not put forward by men who have no children of their own. It seeims to me that it is a reasonable position. I would ask the minister, what- are the regulations with regard to matters of this kind, and where do the funds come from to subsidize recreational and athletic organizations of this character.
2S95

Supply-D ej ence-N on-Permanent


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I should think the man in Winnipeg who wrote the first letter is a splendid citizen of Canada. He is evidently connected with some signal corps and is trying to get young men interested in his company. As he says, they are only at actual military drill for an hour or so each week, and devote the major part of the time to technical work in telegraphy, telephony, and wireless communication, which is the principal part of their training. As to the source of their funds, as I said, the officers and men contribute their ordinary military pay and this fund is supplemented by contributions from private sources. No government funds are available. All the government does is to supply the military quarters and provide the ordinary flat rate of pay. As to the Montreal battery, it is formed under exactly the same circumstances. Probably some of the senior officers have thought they could do something for Canada by encouraging the men to become interested in this work. In my opinion they are to be heartily commended for the stand they are taking.


James Layton Ralston: How many men does the minister propose to train at the headquarters camp this year, and for how many days?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Approximately 32,000 for four and a half days.


James Layton Ralston: With regard to this particular vote, I join the minister in appreciation of the excellent work that has been done by the officers and men of the non-permanent active militia throughout Canada. For the last three or four years I had the privilege of encouraging them in their activities. Nobody can overestimate the loyal work they have done, and the time and money they have expended under circumstances that have occasionally been rather discouraging. I do not know any group of men who have performed such a commendable public service more faithfully than the officers and the rank and file of the non-permanent active militia. If I may be allowed to speak of the few years during which I had something to do with the administration of the department, I should like to express my considered view that there is no portion of the service of the Department of National Defence which is entitled to greater encouragement than the non-permanent active militia. During the last four or five years the officers of the department, the government and parliament have endeavoured to show their appreciation of that very fine branch of the service.
I want to give the committee some figures with respect to the training camps. These are
round figures, but I think they are accurate. In 1926-27 we trained 27,000 men for nine days, only 7,000 of them in camps; in 1927-28, 33,000 for nine days, of whom 13,000 were eight days in camp; in 1928-29, 30,000 for twelve days, of whom 17,000 received nine days' training in camp; in 1929-30 about the same number as the previous year; in 1930-31 about the same number again, 33,000 of all ranks, received twelve days' training, of which about ten were spent in camp. It was pointed out to me, and I am sure it has also been urged on the minister, that you cannot do very much in the way of training men by giving them only three or four days in camp, and I agree with my friend from West Lambton that the minister would be well advised to reduce the number of men and increase the number of days' training. After all, I submit to the minister that he is endeavouring to spread the training altogether too thin in giving 33,000 men only three or four days in camp; by his method I do not think we are going to get the worth of our money.
I have no doubt that the minister has sought the best advice, but I do not believe it is fair to the service to make it bear one-half of the total reduction in the militia vote this year. Seven hundred thousand dollars is being cut off the non-permanent active militia vote, and the militia vote altogether is being reduced by $1,300,000. So I urge the minister to consider that point of view. A few minutes ago I thought he rather intimated that there might be a possibility of further grants in this respect. He expressed a hope- and generally a minister does not do so without there being something tangible behind his hope-that such would be the case.
I commend to him the work of these officers and men, and for the purpose of encouraging them in what they are doing on behalf of the country I submit they should not be made to bear over 50 per cent of the reduction in this vote. I should like to see it go back to where it was in 1926, $1,660,000. By slow stages it reached $2,324,000 last year. Now, by one cut the vote is brought back to $1,606,000, about $50,000 below what it was in 1926.
I want to say also, in connection with training, that I was advised that it would be good to carry on special schools and if necessary to double the attendance at those schools. I thought it was good business and that was done. I do not ask the minister what is being done this year in that respect, but I believe the success of the non-permanent active militia lies in their having well trained com-
2S96

Supply-Defence-N on-Permanent
missioned and non-commissioned officers, and I hope that will receive his attention in connection with this vote.


Mr. ROSS:: I know that to favour a military vote is not at all popular, and that to do so at this particular time is still more unpopular, but I do think there are more dollars spent in this vote without the knowledge of hon. members than in any other vote in the estimates. I appreciate all that has been said in regard to the non-permanent active force, but at the present time there is a feeling throughout that force that things are not just right, that one arm of the service is getting too much attention to the disadvantage of other arms. There is not a very great reduction in this vote from the vote of two or three years ago, so one wonders if perhaps a little more training could not be done. As far as I am concerned-and I think perhaps I have seen as much training as most men in this country-the system we have followed in the past has not brought the results we should have obtained. A little patch of training here; a little patch of training there; a few men out in one unit here and a few in another there, is not getting us anywhere. I do hope that since we have a minister who is determined-and I know he is pretty strong minded -he will adopt some policy in regard to the spending of this money. We are without a policy at the present time. One year we are up; one year down; one year no training; one year a little patch of training. What encouragement is offered to these officers, noncommissioned officers and men of this country who are trying to do their duty in this way? It may not be approved by all, but there should be a policy under which we could work.
If I might just refer to a vote which was passed before six o'clock, why was that vote reduced by $100,000? It was reduced by cutting out what is perhaps the most practical and most necessary part of the whole cadet training, the uniform. I do not look on this as a little bit of display; I think this money should be spent so that all grades of our citizens can participate in it, and when you take away that uniform from the little cadet boys you bar a great many of the poor boys of Canada from taking part in the training. If you have followed it as I have followed it, you must know that the uniform is the thing that gives equality. The poor boy will not turn out to parade or drill perhaps without shoes or stockings; it was the little $1.25 uniform which made all the boys equal. That is what we are trying to do in the higher schools to-day; we are trying to cut out the

disadvantage under which the poor child sometimes is placed by making a school uniform, so there will not be such a great display of silk stockings on one side and perhaps none on the other. This little uniform you have cut out is a most important part of the cadet services.
To return to the item under discussion, there is a feeling throughout this country that one arm of the service is getting a little bit more attention than the other arm. I think perhaps the ex-minister, who just sat down, is a little bit responsible for that. Without knowing what was being done, hon. members have put through votes of several hundred thousand dollars for mechanization. Perhaps I should not be the one to criticize that action, because I have received a little threat that if I criticized it something might happen, but I do not care. I realize that one arm of the service is of no use to this country without all arms, and there is a feeling throughout Canada that perhaps the present chief staff officer is just a little strong-willed in regard to the course to be followed. In my city we have one unit which goes to training in automobiles; the other unit can walk. There is also the feeling that you could do away with about forty battalions of infantry, I have been told. There is the feeling that the infantry does not count now, that it must be all artillery. Personally I believe you could do away with a lot of these expenses. Why, any day you can read that gazette and find page after page of equipment for units which are not in existence. Of course, it is only in connection with mobilization, but at the present time if we are to cut down our infantry by forty battalions the country should know it and there should be a policy to be followed. If the day has come when a great part of our infantry is not necessary, that policy should be made known, and the infantry should be cut down. The dress uniforms worn by some units are not even made in Canada; they must be bought in the old country. If this government is 100 per cent Canada first, let us begin and go right through the list, with everything we want made in Canada. Hon. members would be surprised to know what percentage of our dress uniforms cannot be bought here. That should not be necessary, I submit.
I suggest to the minister that his policy should not be hidden; it should not be known only to two or three staff officers at headquarters. I shall have something further to say when we come to the vote for the permanent force, and I shall have a word to say in regard to the policy pursued in connection with the Royal Military College, but at the moment

Supply-Defence-Non-Permanent
I have a suggestion to make in connection with training. If we throw $1,000,000 all over this country it ought to help in some way, but I should like to direct the attention of the minister, and also of the staff, to the possibility of putting on winter training. There are a great many single men throughout this country who will have to be fed during the winter. They are without support, because the municipalities say, "We cannot help you; we must only attend to the married men or those with dependents." These men must be kept by somebody, and I suggest that part of this money be kept for what we call winter training. These men might be fed in that way, and the country would get something in return. It would not be a dole, and the honest man out of work would not be ashamed to take it.
In conclusion I should like to say that of all the service, you cannot possibly do without the non-permanent active militia, and sooner or later the minister must bring down some policy and say what we are going to do. If we are to keep on doing a little bit of training here and a little there, I do not think it will be nearly as effective as if we established one good camp where we might have combined training. It might be held in one province this year and in another province next year, so that we might get some good from the money we spend. At any rate, let us have a policy of some kind with regard to the spending of this money.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: It seems to me that the first question to be decided is whether we believe in a national defence force or not. I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Southeast Grey that she does not believe in a defence force of any sort. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected.


Miss   M AGP HAIL@: Not a non-permanent force.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would the hon. member say, any defence force?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I will say what I want to say myself. Thank you very much.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Very well. Far be it from me to enter into any argument with ladies-they will have the last word. But let me say this-and I think it is a matter for fair discussion. Surely we must decide this question: Shall we have a defence force or shall we. not? If we decide that we shall have one, then let it be adequate as far as possible. I know I hold different views on this question from some members in this house, and I credit them with every sincerity. If the hon. member for Southeast Grey does not 22110-184
believe in a non-permanent force, very well. I would gather that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is also of the same view. If I am wrong, he will no doubt correct me. But whait is the situation? The majority of the people of this country have felt in the past, and I believe they feel now, that we should have a defence force of some sort. Let me illustrate. In civic government we maintain police forces. Is there any hon. member of this house who would say that we should do away with our police forces, which are maintained in the cities for definite purposes? They represent force. And so do the defence forces of the country.
There are in this country certain sects who are conscientiously opposed to force of any sort. For instance, the Mennonites, who are a splendid agricultural people. They were brought to this country as a colony in the west and, if my recollection is right, they came under a distinct agreement that as military service was contrary to their religious beliefs they would not be asked to serve in His Majesty's forces in Canada. That agreement has been respected. There is another sect, the Doukhobors, who I understand are also opposed to military service. But people of that class are not in the majority in this country. That is the point. And when the country as a whole believes in a system of military training for defence purposes, then I submit we should not treat them shabbily and they should be allowed sufficient at least to make some decent sort of progress.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre referred to an article that appeared in a newspaper with regard to some recruiting activities of the Winnipeg Light Infantry. I happen to know something about that unit, having belonged to it some years ago. The question was asked the Minister of National Defence-Where do they get the money to provide these entertainments and refreshments? There was also raised some question regarding the propriety of a member of that unit circularizing industrial concerns-the telegraph or the railway companies were mentioned, I believe-urging their employees to join that unit. Let me say from firsthand knowledge that, in connection with all these entertainments, of whatever sort, not one dollar is asked or received from the government. The refreshments spoken of were not mentioned in detail, but in the city of Winnipeg they go around to different companies, the Crescent Creamery Company, Canada Bread, Purity Ice Cream, or some other concern and say, "This regiment is giving a little affair for the rank and file on such an afternoon or evening; how about helping us out?"

2898	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-N on-Permanent
And these concerns do come through and help. They also go to the business men, who will put their hands into their pockets and make contributions. That, together with such funds as the officers and the sergeants' mess may contribute, will provide a small fund out of which the entertainment is given. That is the way it is done, and in no other way.
So far as intimidation is concerned, I can say from my own knowledge that nothing could be further from the facts. Let me explain what is done. In building up a hockey team, in an endeavour to create some esprit de corps, one village establishes a team and a neighbouring village will emulate, building upon the community spirit. And it is much the same in connection with the building up of these units. I refer to the Winnipeg unit because I happen to know conditions in my own city. The Winnipeg Light Infantry, in obtaining recruits, will endeavour to concentrate upon certain institutions-it may be the railways or the telegraph companies. A few of the employees of these companies will get into the unit and, becoming interested, they will bring their friends along. It is true that officers do sometimes go to the heads of industrial concerns and have a talk with them. In preparing for the summer camp, the employees having drilled all winter at their own expense and without any remuneration, the officers will interview the heads of industrial concerns and say to them: "You have on your pay roll half a dozen or a dozen men who belong to our unit. Will you cooperate with us to the extent of adjusting these men's holidays when the camp season comes around?" That is all. A man is entitled to say two weeks, and if the camp lasts that length of time arrangement is made with the head of the concern to have the employees take their holidays at that period.
One otiier point. There is a general feeling throughout the regiments of Canada that the estimates have been too greatly cut down. That is natural. But the men are endeavouring as far as possible to meet the situation. They recognize that there is depression and they are reconciled to the reduction of the grant. But regarding the question whether or not the moneys available should be spread out so thinly as to allow only four days' training for a given number of men, or, by taking a smaller number of men, allow for a week or two weeks' training, personally I am in entire accord with the principle of spreading it out. And for this reason. I will grant you that in four days' training-or four and a half, as an hon. member says- not much can be accomplished in the way of what one might call tangible results. But

there is another angle to it, and to get that view you must observe just how a regiment is built up. I am speaking of the non-permanent units. In September or October each non-permanent unit commences winter training. They go to the armouries one or two nights a week, for two hours a night. The officers, the non-commissioned officers and the men attend. These men are paid nothing and expect nothing; they give their time to the militia and to their country. What recompense do they receive? Drilling together and getting to know each other, there is built up a spirit of camaraderie which means something to young people. When summer comes these young men look forward to the opportunity of getting an outing of one or two weeks, and that is a great incentive. The question now arises: shall or shall not we have camps? They are on the qui vive to go, and those who have trained want to go, but if an order comes through that only twenty-five or fifty men are to go from a unit of one hundred and fifty men, it breaks down the morale and spirit of the whole unit.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend
understand there are to be no camps?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, I did
not understand that.


James Layton Ralston: There is to be no camp
training at all this year.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is
to be a certain amount of training.


James Layton Ralston: Four days' training at
headquarters, that is all.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When the
training is cut down, those who are not allowed to go lose interest. That is why it is important to keep up the training. So far as I am concerned I am heartily in accord with the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force, $5,050,000.
James Layton Ralston: Will the minister advise the committee just what is the status of the pay corps at the present time? A movement was on foot last year to alter the constitution and to absorb the pay corps into the service. The dental service was taken over, if I remember correctly, by the Department of Pensions and National Health, but I understand that it has been put back and is now being administered by the department. The reason for putting this service under the Department of National Health was the feeling that here was a splendid service which had been organized for the benefit of ex-service

Supply-Defence-Permanent
men, and considerable money could be saved by using for this purpose the dentists who worked for the Department of Health.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The pay corps at the present time is carrying on in exactly the same manner as when my hon. friend left the department. The policy put in vogue at that time is being carried out. No promotions are being made and it is gradually passing out of existence as such, the work being done by civilian labour. Nothing has been done about the dental corps since I have come to the department. For instance, in the city of Winnipeg, the men go to a certain choice of dentists throughout the city.


James Layton Ralston: I know there is no idea of forming a dental corps, but the system of having a list of dentists, to whom members of the permanent corps could go for treatment, was abolished and the service was handed over to the Department of Pensions and National Health. Do I understand from the minister that the previous system has been reverted to and that a list of dentists has been established?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The deputy informs me that we do not go to the Department of Pensions and National Health. Apparently that was not found to work out well.


James Layton Ralston: Do I understand that a list has been formed in the various centres containing the names of dentists to whom the men may go?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I presume so.


James Layton Ralston: Is that list established on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission or merely on the recommendation of the minister?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: On the recommendation of the minister.


James Layton Ralston: Has the minister any record showing the comparative costs of the two systems?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not that information before me but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


James Layton Ralston: What amount is included this year for dental service?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Twenty-four thousand dollars.


James Layton Ralston: I would like to state my opinion, for what it is worth. I think the minister is taking a retrograde step in going 22110-184j
back to the old system. I admit that it was done for some time, but we realized that from the point of view both of service and of economy it was better to utilize the dentists already in the government service rather than have a special list of dentists who would be paid private fees from the public funds for the benefit of a comparatively small number of men in the Department of National Defence.


Mr. RHEAUME:: Will the minister advise the committee why the department paid one quarter cent more per pound for bread delivered to the military quarters at St. Johns, Quebec, in March, 1931, as compared with last September?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I noticed that when the hon. gentleman asked the question the other day. I cannot give a reason except that one cannot run a department like this without sometimes making mistakes. I think it was a mistake; I do not think it should have been done, and it will not be done again.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The records show that during the Liberal regime in March, 1928, three tenderers submitted bids; in September,
1928,	four tenderers submitted bids; in March,
1929,	there were three; in September, 1929, there were three, and in March, 1930, there were four. The information given in reply to my question, asked on June 1, was that tenders had been received from A. E. Chaput at 5J cents per pound and from Pierre Daneau at six cents per pound, the contract being awarded to Mr. Chaput. There is not a baker by the name of Daneau in St. Johns or even in Iberville. I am not surprised that the expenditure has increased by 839,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Speaking first with regard to
the dentists, I think the ex-minister knows from close experience that the old system was not altogether satisfactory. The dentists were employed under the Department of Pensions and National Health, and had this extra work thrown upon them. They were not very anxious for it, and the result was that the permanent force did not get just the service it should have received. I know what my hon. friend the ex-minister is thinking about. He is thinking about a patronage list. I repeat, however, that the service was not satisfactory. There has been a rumour that the turn of the medical corps is coming, that it is now due for extinction, but I have nothing more to say on that.
I do think that the minister and the department should at this time take up one very necessary work of permanent training, and that is the preparation of medical history

Supply-Defence-Permanent
sheets. If some attention had been paid to this matter before the war, this country would have been saved millions of dollars. We are paying very sorely now for what was neglected then. The minister could not do better than see that in some of these schools, which will now be in charge of the permanent force, the preparation of medical history sheets is taken up. Instead of the old system of having a man's attestation in one paper and his medical history sheet in another, the whole thing should be in one paper, because as it is now sometimes we find part of the medical history sheet being lost or part of the other paper being lost, and we are paying millions for our neglect in that respect. I would like to see the minister establish in the schools a special course of instruction in that work and get out a new form of attestation along with the medical examination sheet that would be a little better than we have had in the past.
There is one other thing that I would ask the minister to take up, and that is a revision of the Pension Act so far as it affects the permanent force. The present situation is the most ridiculous in the whole of this country's service. If you are a good man with under ten years' service and you wish to retire for something better, you get out without anything. If you are a man they want to get rid of, you are compulsorily retired and get a pension. Another thing; if a man is a favourite with the service he can get six months' leave when he retires, and if he is not a favourite he may get only one month's leave. That is too much of a haphazard thing. I would like to see the minister take up the Pension Act and make it a real Pension Act applying to all the permanent force. There should be no favouritism. If a man is worth anything, he should get what he is entitled to. If he is not worth anything, under the present system the more favours are thrown to him if he is, as they call it, compulsorily retired. A pension list is made up from time to time to suit just a few. As the ex-minister knows, the act has been amended from time to time always with the intention of helping one person or two persons. An act should be passed to cover them all, and the same privileges should be given to every member when he retires, and no favouritism. I hope that before next year the minister will bring down a revision of the Pension Act so far as it affects the permanent force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What the hon. member for South Winnipeg said a few minutes ago under the preceding item applies with even greater force to this item. We ought to know what the policy of the government really is.

We are simply carrying on a policy which has been in vogue for a great many years, but which has at least in theory been abandoned. Two years ago, we as a nation signed a peace pact, the so-called Kellogg pact. At that time the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, had this to say; referring to the Kellogg pact:
The very essence of this instrument is that those who sign it ... . begin at once 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.
That is a clear-cut statement. I do not know whether the then leader of the opposition was carried away by his emotions of the moment. I do not know whether he was making a popular appeal. Personally I would not go so far as he did at that time, because I do not believe that mere disarmament is going to settle our problem. I think there are in the world a great many things which make for war that are more fundamental than armaments. The whole economic situation is much more important than armaments. Then the question of diplomacy and the political relations between nations is of much more importance than armaments. However, the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, made this unequivocal statement:
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.
We in this corner to-night are simply asking that the Prime Minister and the government carry out that proposal. Did he mean it or did he not?


Ernest Lapointe: In what debate was that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was in the debate on the Kellogg peace pact. I say that the then leader of the opposition may have been carried away by his emotions, or it may have been a political appeal. I do not know what it was that actuated him, but I think we have a right to ask him, did he really mean what he then said and does he still mean it? Is that what is involved in the Kellogg pact? If so, then it seems to me that we ought to begin even in Canada to reduce the force that we have.
I know perfectly well that it will be said that we have not extensive armaments in Canada. Our navy is more or less of a joke. We have a couple of boats.

Supply-Defence-Permanent
Mr. MERiOIEiR (St. Henri): Good boats.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They may be patrol boats, but we can hardly talk about them as a great navy. Certainly they would not save this country from invasion. We have aircraft. We have spent a great deal of money on our air force, but I do not think our air force will save us from invasion. On this particular item before us a very considerable amount is to be spent. Now does the Kellogg pact mean what it says? Did we mean what we said when we signed the pact? I have quoted what the then leader of the opposition said. The present leader of the opposition also spoke in that debate. He rather suggested that we need not worry over national defence because there was no one to attack us. He said in that debate on February 19, 1928:
We have no countries to the north of us with which there is possibility of any international difference or conflict. So far as the east and the west are concerned we are Separated by great oceans from any countries that might conceivably come to have differences with us. We have but the one neighbour to the south, and this neighbour one with whom we have lived at peace for over a hundred years, on a policy based on the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy and which to-day, along with the other nations of the world, gives its solemn pledge that never for all time to come will it resort to war as a means of settling any controversies that may arise.
That seems to be good sense. I believe that was true two years ago and it is equally true to-day. As I have said in previous years, when any estimate is brought before the house most hon. members will ask "What is the reason for the expenditure of this money?" We have still to hear from the minister any good reason why we should continue to spend the money we are asked to spend in this vote. No reason has been advanced, but the vote is placed before us for our approval simply because it has been the practice and we have kept on doing it. Such votes have been made, although at least in theory the policy of the country has absolutely changed. By our very spending however we are showing that we do not altogether trust our neighbour nations. If we were really sincere ourselves and believed that others were sincere when they signed the Kellogg peace pact there would be absolutely no need of armaments and we would settle all our disputes amicably. By voting these sums of money however we implicitly renounce this peaceful means as our national policy. For those reasons I believe that in all fairness we should have from the minister some reason for the continuance of a policy which in view of the pledges we have given and have received would seem to be obsolete.
I suppose the present minister will do as his predecessors have done and fall back on the general idea that some way or another- we do not know exactly how-the militia is an insurance against possible aggression. To my mind that is an absolutely inconsistent position to take, but if the minister views the matter in that way I should like him so so state. One of the hon. members who spoke a little earlier suggested that the great majority of the people of Canada were still in favour of armaments as a means of national defence. Probably that is so, I do not know. I do know however that Canada solemnly signed an obligation to the effect that she had given up that policy. If we do not believe in the peaceful means of settling disputes, we ought to say so, and in so many words. If we are not afraid of aggression from the outside, what is the reason for this standing army?
Under the circumstances I can see only one reason, and that is that it may be used as a sort of police force to keep down the people at home. I do not know why we require a large standing army to watch certain classes of people in our own land. Somebody near me has suggested that we have an unemployed army. I am glad the suggestion was made, as it brings to my mind the fact that a few days ago, according to a press report, troops were sent into the city of Edmonton in order to quell any possible riot in that city. I am not blaming the government for having sent the troops, because I. presume they did it through requisition. I do say however that as long as we have an army ready to crush down any possible uprising of the unemployed we are likely to resort to that army instead of adopting methods which will cure unemployment. We ought frankly to face the fact that we are going to have riots. I said that a while ago, and at present the situation is more serious than ever. I fear that we will have riots next winter unless something radical is done before winter comes. I am not provoking riots-*


James Houston Spence: Every time my hon. friend talks he provokes riots.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In view of possible riots there are two policies before us. One is that we may resort to military force; we may have a sufficiently large force to shoot down those Canadians who are unemployed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I make that statement; we will have to have a military force to shoot down the Canadians who are not employed. That is one policy.
Supply-Defence-Permanent


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the other hand we could adopt such methods in this house as would tend to relieve the unemployment situation and prevent riots. I am hoping that the government will adopt the latter policy. For weeks I have been urging that the government adopt a constructive policy, but so far we have had no statement. If the government intend to maintain an army so that it may be prepared for contingencies of that kind, I think the country ought to know it and ought to know it now. If we have to maintain an army for such purposes, we have indeed reached an unfortunate state of affairs. An army is not a police force. I know there are some people who will urge that we need a police force to keep down thugs and outlaws. That may be conceivable, but I submit that an army is not a police force, and in order that we. may be provided protection from thugs, we do not need to spend such sums of money as here proposed.
I wish then to ask the minister if it is his policy and the policy of the government to implement the Kellogg peace pact by making modifications. Are we prepared to decrease our armaments as we expect others to decrease theirs, or on the other hand are we keeping up a big force in order that we may maintain what is generally known as law and order?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: This country has to have a military force, and such will be the case long after my hon. friend and I have gone. Take the League, of Nations itself; if moral and economic pressure are not successful that great body as a last resort has to call upon armed force. My hon. friend said that the Prime Minister spoke about general disarmament. Certainly the Prime Minister made no suggestion that Canada should disarm before every other nation did. When the world is ready to disarm no nation will be more willing to do so than Canada. But it would be the height of folly if this country were to accept the advice given in this committee tonight and toss away our .means of defence when every other nation is showing only very slow signs of doing the same. Canada is not in a position to do that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I should like to ask how are we going to get this thing going? Who is going to disarm first?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Some country older than Canada should begin the movement. So long as it is necessary for the householder to

turn the lock in his house at night for his own protection, it will be necessary to maintain an armed force in Canada. The minute we reach a state where the people everywhere in Canada can leave their doors open and go to bed knowing that they will not be molested before morning, we shall be in a position to do without armed force. Until then we shall have to have a permanent force, and the one we now have is excellent. The morale and the training of our permanent force is of the best, and as I have often said, a great deal of credit must be given to them for the excellent showing they .made in the last war. Our permanent force was responsible for the training, of the first and second divisions, the back bone of the Canadian army, and to that force should be given the credit. Their vote has not been cut down, because as I say they are. the foundation structure of the Canadian forces. They are responsible for instruction and for that reason we must keep their standard at the very highest mark. As long as I have anything to do with the Department of National Defence they will be kept that way.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The most sensible
suggestion I have heard regarding the vote concerning the non-permanent active militia was one made by the hon. member for Kingston City. If we could gather all the unemployed into an army so that they could be fed and given the opportunity to do the things -the work that needs to be done in Canada, and pay them for it, we might be doing something really sensible. He did not go quite that far, but he very nearly did.
Now we come to the permanent force. I have never criticized this force because of the timidity of my fellow members. I shall be glad to hear the minister tell the committee how many men are now in the permanent force. I am quite sure that if some country suddenly attacked us we would have difficulty in defending ourselves with the number of men that this vote covers. Would the minister kindly state the number of the permanent force?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The force consists of 315 officers and 3,060 men.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do not think that
such a force could defend this country against aggression. Nor do I take very seriously the statement that the permanent force is maintained to quell riots and other domestic troubles. They may be used for that purpose before very long, but they ought not to be.	'
Surely the government of this country will not let this vote for national defence pass

Supply-Defence-Permanent
without saying something about the approaching disarmament conference and the new attitude the world is adopting towards armament? I deeply regret that actual armaments to-day are greater than they were in 1914, but surely we as members of this house ought at least by word, if we cannot go further, show that we were in earnest when by solemn agreement we said we would disarm. Article S of the covenant of the League of Nations binds us to diasarmament, as does part 5 of the Treaty of Versailles. We have given our solemn pledge that we will do all in our power towards bringing about world disarmament. After a great deal of effort the first world's disarmament conference will be held in February next year. We have the best thinkers in the world on our side. Public men in Great Britain, in Germany, in France, in Canada and in the United States believe, not that armaments will bring about world security, but that disarmament is one effectual way of obtaining security. We have passed from the time when armaments were relied upon to bring security, to the time when we believe we can have greater security without armaments. Should the approaching disarmament conference fail there is no doubt the world will see another race in military preparation, each nation trying to win security in that way, and this inevitably will end in another catastrophe. I cannot reconcile the attitude which first the Liberal and now the Conservative government take with respect to this matter. In some high flown debate the ministers of each government are eloquent in their advocacy of disarmament and measures to bring about world peace, but when an opportunity presents itself to show our sincerity by making a reduction in our expenditure on national defence, nothing is done. The vote for the permanent force is the one I have the least desire to see cut. I would be glad to cut it, but I am not so anxious about it as I am about the preceding vote-the non-permanent force-and the one that follows for the Royal Military College. But I do think it is quite time we said whether these few men are being trained at this great expense of $5,050,000 to defend Canada against some aggressive nation, or whether they are simply intended for a police force. If the latter, the nation can endorse this vote; but if the permanent force is intended to be the nucleus of an army which we intend to organize to fight someone in the future-we do not know whom. at the moment- then it is contrary to the policy of this country declared many times in this house during the last couple of years, that war as an instrument
of national policy is discarded. For the sake of Canada and for the sake of the government itself I would like to have the minister in charge of these estimates make some definite statement. Does he really base the security of Canada upon armaments, as was our policy in the past; or is he willing to support the attitude taken not only by this government but by governments all over the world, that security lies in disarmament?


Mr. McGIBBON:: I want to take a moment or two, Mr. Chairman, to deprecate the statements made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. This is not the first occasion, even this session, that the hon. member has made speeches along this line, and I submit they can have only one effect, and that, is the very effect that he says he does not want to produce, the effect of inflaming the people to rebellion. It is quite true, sir, and I think it is regretted by everybody in the house and elsewhere, that there is a lot of distress throughout the country at the present time, especially among the labour people. But I submit also that there never was a time when individuals, heads of business firms, heads of corporations and governments were trying to do as much as they are to-day to relieve that distress. I would ask the house this question: What has the member for Winnipeg North Centre ever done in a practical way to facilitate this question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Nothing.


Peter McGibbon: Nothing. I have sat in this house many years with the hon. member, and I have heard him make many speeches in times of industrial peace and in times of industrial distress, and they are all flavoured with the one thing-agitation. I do not think, sir, there ever was a man in this house, certainly not in my day, who has done so much to agitate the working classes of this country and has done so little to help them.


Miss   M AGP HAIL@: Ridiculous.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that is ridiculous?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, I say it is ridiculous.


Peter McGibbon: Very well. Then let some of his defenders get up in the house and tell us one practical thing he ever did to make a job for the working men of this country. I have been here a good many years, and I cannot remember a single speech he ever made that would bring to the workingmen of this country even an hour's employment. We hear repeatedly year after year the same speech

Supply-Defence-Permanent
on the same subject that we are discussing to-night. It has become nauseating. One would think at least that he and his friends might clothe the subject in a little different raiment, but we hear the same thing expressed in the same way, only every year it is getting a little more irritating.
Now, sir, have we learned nothing from history, have we learned nothing from the past war, have we learned nothing from the operations of the League of Nations? Why, sir, at the beginning of 1014 what was the condition of the world, what was the military standing of the great powers? Germany could put into the field in 60 days 12,500,000 men fully equipped for war; France could put in the field 7,500,000; Russia 15,000,000 and Great Britain only 6,000,000. Is there a man who knows anything about the history of the war to-day who would not admit that had England been prepared even to a fraction of the extent that the other nations were prepared, war would have been averted? Every man who knows anything about the world war knows that if England had possessed a large standing army at that time and had acted with decision, the great catastrophe likely would have been averted. Are we learning now from the past? What has the League of Nations done? Why, sir, the only article they ever had worth anything had to be withdrawn; I refer to the article which said they could back up their decisions with military force. I ask you, sir: What good is an academic decision in time of war? Is it not a fact that the nation that can talk with power behind it is listened to in the councils of the nations of the world in times of crisis?
I congratulate the Minister of Militia on his courage in standing up in this house and telling the House of Commons and the Canadian people that as far as he is concerned, while he occupies his present office there will be no reduction. In times such as these we must not lose our moorings and our sanity; we must keep our heads, and I say we owe it to this country and to the people of Canada, as well as to that vast army who stepped into the breach in 1914 to save the honour and dignity of this country, to maintain our defence organization. How was this country saved in 1914? It was not saved by speeches such as those made iby the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which agitate this country and set class against class and creed against creed. No, it was done in a practical way; it was done by sacrifice and death. Today the world is paying dearly for that transaction.
I say to you, sir, that this is no place and this is no time for speeches to be made which
[Mr. McGibbon.l
will agitate the people; this is no time for members of this house to be setting class against class. We all regret the unemployment and hardships which exist in Canada today, but I do not think there is an honest patriot who is not trying to do what he or she can to limit that unemployment and lessen the burdens which are being carried. In my opinion it would be much better for hon. members of all parties to sit around a council table and try to do something to solve these problems instead of creating dissension and increasing the hardship and bitterness which is rife in Canada to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member who says "carried" is one of the greatest transgressors on the time of this house; he belongs to that class of hon. members whose contributions to the debates are not in proportion to the intelligence they bring to bear on the problems before us.
I simply rise to say that I think at this time party strife should be minimized. There is something for us all to do; we must create harmony in Canada and relieve the terrible burdens which are resting on the backs of the labouring people in different parts of the country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems a great pity, Mr. Chairman, that when some hon. members rise to take part in the debates of the house they cannot refrain from personalities. It is all right for the hon. member who has just spoken to discuss the question before the committee, but it ill becomes any hon. member to attack my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre in a personal way. I have never risen in my place in this house to say a word in defence of my colleague; he is quite capable of speaking for himself. On this occasion, however, I feel constrained, as one who has known him perhaps longer than the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, to say a word or two in his defence, because the views he has expressed to-day he has held for a great many years, both before and since coming to this house. 'If there is any private member of the house who holds the esteem of many hundreds of thousands of people throughout Canada, it is my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. His friends and supporters are to be found not merely in his own constituency but right across the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and I am satisfied that the views he has expressed today on the question of military expenditure are those entertained by a very large number of the Canadian people. And if there is any

Supply-Defence-Military College
place where the views of the people should be expressed it is in this House of Commons; when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expresses those opinions he is only
exercising the legitimate right of every hon. member to state the views of the people whom he represents. When my hon. friend expressed his opinion with regard to the estimates now before the committee, he was doing just what the hon. member for Muskoka is doing, and it ill becomes anyone to criticize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because he dares to express sentiments which, for the time being, are unpopular with the majority of hon. members. What is unpopular to-day may be popular to-morrow; hon. members who to-day are howling for larger military expenditure may in a few years be shouting for disarmament. A few years ago, Mr. Chairman, during my first session in this house, my colleague and myself were likened to Robin Hood because we dared bring up the question of old age pensions. At that time all sorts of epithets were hurled at us because we attempted to do something for the common people. When my hon. friend (Mr. MdGibbon) asks, "When has he done anything for the workers of this country?" I siay I can leave that to the judgment of the workers themselves. I am satisfied that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre 'has expressed the viewpoint of a large section, if not the majority, of the working people of Canada. I would further point out to the hon. member and those who support his views that the present Prime Minister of Great Britain is a gentleman who totally opposed the war between 1914 and 1918, and the viewpoint expressed by the Prime Minister of Great Britain is that of many other people holding responsible positions in other parts of the British Empire.
When it comes to the question of inciting the unemployed of this country against the authorities, I think my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre would be the last person in the world to do anything of the kind. Let me say that the greatest incitement of all was given by those hon. gentlemen opposite who, only a year ago, went up and down the country promising all manner of jobs if only they were returned to power. To-day those jobs are not forthcoming, and the unemployed have a right to feel disappointed and somewhat disillusioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Military College, $375,000.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I object as strenuously as possible
to this vote for the Royal Military College. We are back to the same old story; we ought to be looking to new methods for security, but what are we doing? The government of Canada has said officially that we renounce war as an instrument of national policy. 1 want to make that statement as often as possible, in order that we may know that we have solemnly made that assertion. We are members of the League of Nations and I hope we shall be well represented at the disarmament conference next February. We have spent a lot of time talking about new neans of security, and yet we go on doing just the same old things, without giving new methods a chance at all. I have tried repeatedly to have some of the new methods started, so that at least they might run side by side with the old methods. I have tried to have a Department of Peace established but have been told that all departments work for peace. I have tried for two years to have some federal money set aside for scholarships, for students from other countries coming to Canada, and Canadian students going abroad, and possibly to have in one or two universities a chair on international affairs. But in this house I can get support for none of these things.
We were told by the professors who came before the committee on industrial relations last year that we have not in all Canada a library fully equipped for students of international relations. We have not in Canada anything in the nature of a school of international affairs such as you will find in Europe, in the United States and in practically every other country. You cannot induce either wealthy individuals or governments in Canada to back new methods. Yet we go on voting $375,000 to train boys in the Royal Military College. I object to this for many reasons. For one thing, it tends to make boys, if you do not mind my using the term, snobbish. It is a military school, paid for by the people of Canada generally, and most of the young men who go there are the sons of people who could afford to send them to exclusive military colleges if they so desired. And they should be free to send their sons to such colleges if they wish, but not at the people's expense. The people of Canada should not be taxed to keep up an exclusive school for the blue bloods of the dominion. I have absolutely no use for it, and I want it to be known that in my opinion all that money is wasted, and much more than wasted, for we are doing the very thing which we have invariably declared we have ceased to do-prepare for war. 1 have attempted once or twice this year to

Supply-Defence-Military College
obtain pitiful bits of money for worthwhile causes, but have not been able to get a cent. But we' have money to spend as we have been spending it to-night. I know it will be voted, because this is government policy and the government have a majority. But it is absolute nonsense to maintain in Canada a royal military college for the education of boys along military and exclusive lines, while we refrain from doing other things which would tend to promote peace.
It is suggested that we are not going to ensure security except by military means. We do not know. It is like Christianity; if we tried it we might find out. I am not sure that we shall get a report back from the committee on international and industrial affairs this session, but we may be sure that, if we do get a report from them we will win nothing for the house. We shall not be able to convince the house of our position. At any rate, this vote will not go through with my consent. It is a piece of utter nonsense.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister explain the organization and administration of the college?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The college provides military and scientific training. At the head of it is Brigadier Elkins, who is assisted by two staffs, one military and the other a professorial staff of civilians. Their term is about ten months, the course covering a period of four years. There are approximately two hundred cadets there all the time, thirty or forty graduating annually. The college was established in 1876. I am proud of that college, I may tell the hon. member for Southeast Grey. It is one of the best colleges of its type in the world, and as regards the type of young men there-well, it would do your heart good to see them. If I might do so, I would courteously extend an invitation to the hon. member for Southeast Grey to come with me and see these students. If she would do so, I think that even she would relent. I am afraid they will take it rather unkindly that the hon. member should refer to them as snobs. There is nothing farther from the spirit of these young men or from the college professors either. The students come from ordinaiy Canadian homes and the college is open to anyone. There are no special families who get preferences. It is open to anyone who can meet the physical and educational requirements. There is a large waiting list each year, showing the popularity of the college. Probably 25 per cent of the graduates go into military life, the others entering the professions or business.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Are the military expenses paid by the government?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It costs the government about seventeen hundred a year.
'Mr. SPENCER : What part of the expenses do the students pay?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It costs the student for the four years 81,450.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Out of their own pockets?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, 81,450.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who draws up the curriculum?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is an advisory board which is partly responsible for that. The course has evolved through the years, but they depend largely upon the advice of the staffs that are there to keep up to date.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who compose the advisory board?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot give that information offhand. There is one from each of the provinces, except Ontario and Quebec, from which there are more.


Eugène Fiset: Is not that the board of visitors?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: As this institution is almost in my constituency, I am pleased to say that I agree with all that the minister has said. It is one of the most useful institutions in this country. I am sorry that the hon. member for Southeast Grey and others have the idea that it is select. It is not; there is in the college a student whose father was a taxi driver in the city of Kingston, and who had as good an entree into the institution as any other student. All classes are represented among the students. I submit to the minister, however, that the administration is very loose. It is difficult to find out who arranges the curriculum. One criticism which could be made is that this work is done by one man. Who that man is no one knows. If inquiry is made of the officer in charge of education at the college he replies that this man is here at headquarters; if you go to headquarters they tell you it is a man at the college. I believe at the present time they are pursuing the right course, but mistakes were made in the past. The former minister of the department (Mr. Ralston) will remember that in the last year of the course it is possible for some person to change the curriculum. That is a situation which should not be allowed to continue, but I

Supply-Defence-MHilary College
know that my criticism will be laughed at by the people in charge. The matter is important; the government should formulate a policy and not leave it to be run in the haphazard way in which it has been run. I know what I am talking about, and I know that there is not a better institution in the country.
The charge is made that the graduates of this college are snobbish. These boys are taught to go to a certain place, to have an object in view and not to be diverted. They are told that when they are on the street they should go to the comer in order to cross and not to criss-cross, and that discipline affects them all through life. They have received such discipline for four years and you can place one of these boys in any profession, in any industry and he will be pointed out as a graduate of the Royal Military College. These boys are given a preference. Why? On account of the training which they have received. If it is snobbishness to be taught to go straight, to perform one's duty and not be diverted, then I am in favour of snobbishness. To those of us who have watched their training it means the best kind of discipline, and there is no other institution of which I know which gives that direction and impetus to the boy.
The first thing the department should do is to formulate a policy in connection with the commandant. Has the department adopted the policy that the commandant must be a member of the permanent force? I do not object to that, but the time is coming when the permanent force may be unable to provide proper commandants for the college. At times it has worked fairly well, but it has not always been a success. The commandant of that college should be a man who is well disciplined himself, he should not be a man at whom the boys can laugh. I know of more than one at whom the boys have laughed, and the results obtained by the school depend upon the discipline among the boys themselves. There is a very good man at the head of this school now, but who is to be the next? Those who are interested in the school would like to know. Has the department laid down the policy that he must be a member of the permanent force of Canada, or will it be the best man that can be obtained in the British Empire?
The minister has referred to a board, but the only board I know of is a farcical board called the visiting board. If I am wrong the former minister can correct me.


James Layton Ralston: I do correct my hon.
friend; I do not agree with the statement that it is a farcical board.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have looked over the recommendations made by this board for the past five years and I have not found one practical suggestion. It is impossible simply by viewing a parade of the boys once a year to make a report upon the conduct of the school. There should be a real board, an advisory board. This visiting board is made up of members from the different provinces. Some of those members are my best friends, but they accomplish nothing. A board should visit the oollege every three months instead of once a year. Some of the best men in the country are on this visiting board, but they should be in closer touch with the administration of the college and with the curriculum.
I can only commend this college, but I think the time has now come when it should be linked up closer with the administration. What has succeeded in the past may not succeed in the future, and this visiting board should be replaced by an advisory board, or else have the present board visit the college oftener than once a year and do something more than watch the boys on parade.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: How many
students are there at the Royal Military College?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are two hundred students at the beginning of every term [DOT]-the senior class graduates. Some students may fail in the examinations, but the total enrolment is brought up to two hundred at the commencement of every term.


Eugène Fiset: Is the college under the control of the adjutant general or of the chief of general staff?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The chief of general staff for training, and the adjutant general for discipline.


Eugène Fiset: The contention of
the hon. member for Kingston that the Royal Military College is under the officials of the headquarters staff and that one man arranges the curriculum is not borne out by the fact. They have a board at headquarters to look into the curriculum, and there is also a board of visitors which visits the college once a year.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Mr. Chairman, I have
great admiration for the Royal Military College. I think it is one of the greatest assets to Canada. A splendid type of boy comes out of this college, but I have one criticism to make. This is considered as a federal

Supply-Defence-Military College
college, but the teaching of French is somewhat neglected. I may be wrong, but I understand that the French professors are not paid on an equal scale with the other professors. Despite what has been said by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I believe military education to be the best possible for any boy.


Paul Mercier: Who is the
representative on the visiting board from the province of Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I understand it is General Currie. There are two representatives from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and one from each of the other provinces. There is a representative selected by the Royal Military College; the Deputy Minister of National Defence, the chief of the general staff and the chief of the naval staff, all three ex-officio. There is an associate professor of French, Mr. C. A. Chabot, receiving $3,780, which is exactly the same salary the other associate professors receive; also an instructor of French, Mr. J. A. Bleau, receiving $2,940, which is exactly the same as the English instructors receive.


Mr. SPANKIE:: I should like to say just a few words in support of what the Minister of National Defence said a few minutes ago when he referred to the Royal Military College as an educational institution. I have no hesitation in pronouncing it one of the best educational institutions in every way that Canada ever had. It is situated in the beautiful township of Pittsburg, in the county which I have the honour to represent in this house. I have lived within three miles of that military college all my life until I came down here, and I have heard more about war here than I ever heard there in my whole life. The military college is surrounded by a purely agricultural, pastoral, peaceful people. There is nothing warlike about them, and yet they have lived facing that military college every day of their lives. People from all over Canada come there regularly every year on the military college gala days.
The Royal Military College gives the finest education it is possible for any young man to receive, physically, mentally and morally. I have yet to hear of the first clash between the cadets of that college and any portion of the civilian population, a condition that would not exist if the kind of training they receive made them quarrelsome. During their hours off duty these young men come across in their boats in the summer time to the island where I live, and in winter they walk or ride over
[Mr LaVergne.]
on the ice, just for enjoyment. I see a great deal of them and I never observed any bad behaviour amongst them. I have yet to hear of any one of them being charged with an indictable offence. It speaks well for the education they receive.
As to the suggestion that their military training makes them warlike, I say that it is just the opposite, that the man who is trained physically and who can defend himself is never a quarrelsome man. That is my experience, and I have had a great deal to do with the training of boys and young men. Those persons who everlastingly talk of peace, those human partridges of peace or peace doves-where would they be in case of war and our country was attacked? A cowboy mounted on a bronco could not get near enough to one of them to lasso them when they took to the tall timbers. When a man can defend himself he knows it, and is not quarrelsome, but he is ready. That is the way it is with these young men.
It has been suggested that all the students at the college are preparing for war. That is not so. Only a very small percentage of the graduates from the Royal Military College pursue a military career. I did know the percentage at one time, and my recollection is that less than ten per cent follow a military life after they graduate, but they make the best engineers we have in this country. They hold high positions in every part of the empire. No matter where you go throughout the empire you will find graduates of the Royal Military College upholding British traditions. That is quite a different story from what we have heard here and elsewhere about the training these young men get. I tell you when you see them on parade or in doubles or walking singly on the street, the manner in which they do it is an object lesson for the whole world. They are admired by all men and, I might add, loved by all women.
So far as the blue-blooded business goes,
I do not know what that means, but I will tell you what they have, and that is lots of red blood in them. They are not snobs; they are not a bit snobbish. No more gallant young men ever walked the streets of Kingston. I have observed them. I like to see them on parade. I like the strong way in which they walk through the streets. It attracts the attention of everybody. Visitors from all over this country come to that institution, and admire its students in every respect. They are perfect samples of manhood. What is blue blood? I know the

Supply-Defence-Military College
son of a taxi driver who is at the Royal Military College. Would you call him a blue blood? I know the son of a commercial traveller, who is attending the college. Would you call him a blue-blooded man? I know farmers who have sons there, and doctors and lawyers. The students come from the ordinary walks of life. It is wrong to speak of these young men as snobs, and it made me think just how little those who criticized knew what they were talking about. When a man sees these students every day year after year he should know something about them, and I say there is no better behaved class of young men in this country than the students of the Royal Military College at Kingston. I say that without any fear of contradiction, and the records will show it. These young men are brought up right. They get a training that is bound to be good for them all their lives. If I had a dozen sons I would want every one of them to go through that institution for the sake of the training they would get. Not to take up a military career. That is a mistake many people make-thinking that these students are all going to pursue a military career. I tell you that if you want to prevent war you should prepare to meet war if it comes, and the way to destroy peace is everlastingly to talk about peace. Let peace alone and it will come of its own accord. Talking about it will break it up, and will cause war.
I shall not detain the committee any longer. I know that I shall have the indulgence of hon. members for speaking these few minutes, the first time I have spoken. I have sat here long in silence, but I have read every speech that has been made in this house up to the end of last week. I do not mean to say that I have digested them all, because there were many that I could not even swallow. But I have read them, and I could not sit silent when I heard that splendid educational institution in my own riding abused by persons who, I am satisfied, do not know the Royal Military College or what it is doing. To them I say, go and visit it and see for yourselves the work it is doing, and if you fail to admire the young men who are on parade there, then I say you are too hard to satisfy to be in this world.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: From the little I know of the Royal Military College and from the little I have seen of its students, I am in almost full accord with everything that has been said in their favour. It is undoubtedly one of the best educational institutions in
this country. From the little I have seen of its graduates I would say that it turns out not only young men with high scholastic attainments, but young men who walk straight-and by that I mean morally and mentally as well as physically.
There is one thing in connection with which I should like to have some information from the minister. Other than what may be termed a federal university, is this college anything more than an educational institution? If it is merely an educational institution, no matter how splendid it m^y be, we are simply doing what the house has always consistently refused to do, namely, encroaching upon provincial rights in the matter of education. I understand of the two hundred young chaps who attend the school yearly at a cost of between $1,800 and $1,900 each, only a little less than ten per cent eventually find their way into the permanent force. The others find their way into civilian life where their excellent training undoubtedly gives them an advantage. I wish to know whether those graduates form a reserve and are bound to join the colours on certain occasions, or if they are called upon for annual drill. Do they constitute a semi-permanent reserve force of officers, or do they simply become good citizens in the ordinary sense of the term, who may or may not in time of war enlist but who except during the time of their training, are in no way different from the majority of young university students who leave our other colleges? In what way does this college differ from other colleges and universities? How does it differ to such an extent that it becomes a federal institution, and operates contrary to all our constitutional ideas of educational responsibility? I would like to hear from the minister concerning the obligations of graduates in relation to the federal department and I would like to know what part of our defence forces is made up of graduates from the school?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In the year 1876
the school was founded undoubtedly so as to provide the country with first class military officers. Down through the years a percentage of the men from the school have followed military careers. In the last year 23 per cent of the graduates took permanent commissions, one in the imperial army and eight in the permanent forces of Canada. In previous years different percentages have followed the military life, namely, 12 per cent, 29 per cent, 18 per cent, 29 per cent, or an average of about 25 per cent who take permanent commissions, some in the imperial

Supply-Defence-Military College
army and some in Canada. The ones who do not take in the permanent forces commissions are bound to take them in the nonpermanent active militia. At the time of the war practically 100 per cent of the graduates who had entered civil life but were of military age responded to the colours and went into active service. Those graduates constitute a class who are in reserve as officer material.


Alfred Speakman: Undoubtedly the record of enlistment of graduates is a very fine one, but is that enlistment voluntary or are they under statutory obligation to enlist?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: After graduation if
they do not go into the permanent forces they are obligated to serve in the Canadian militia.


Alfred Speakman: That is their obligation?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does the educational side of the college come under the control of the Department of Education of the province of Ontario?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, not at all.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the minister willing to admit that the federal department does interfere in education and in the affairs of a technical educational institution only ten per cent of which is military?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Undoubtedly the college is a very fine educational institution, and it is conducted by the federal government.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is the other value of the military college a purely decorative one?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Purely what?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Purely decorativecomposed of straight walking and gaily dressed young men. Three speakers have stressed the decorative value, and I will admit that a lack of beauty is sometimes depressing. I am quite willing to pay for some decoration if it is necessary.


Alfred Speakman: I am trying to reconcile two statements which have been made but which to my mind are somewhat contradictory. It has been said that the college is not militaristic in spirit; that it is not designed to foster war-like tendencies; that in the true sense of the word it is not a military institution. Yet the college can exist only because of its military nature. The fact that it is a military college offers the only reason-I shall 
not say excuse-the federal government can have for operating a college at all under federal jurisdiction. The federal government must identify itself with the college through military connection. These students being trained in a manner contrary to our whole constitution, in a federal college, the only excuse for which would be its attachment to the military side of. the work of the Department of Defence, I wish to know to what extent the attachment of these graduates to the militia or permanent force is voluntary and to what extent it is statutory.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall get that information for my hon. friend, and read it to him. The school now under discussion i3. a military college, and the fact that it is military brings it under the jurisdiction of the domin-. ion. The federal government would have no reason to interfere in the management of Queens university, the university of Toronto or McGill university. The one in question, however, is military in character and for that reason the dominion has control. I shall be pleased to give the information to my hon. friend either in committee or afterwards.


Henry Elvins Spencer: From the information the minister has given the committee I should judge there is nothing in the British North America Act which prevents the federal government from operating a college or school. In the ordinary case we understand that education is a matter within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but in this particular case we find that a college is controlled by the federal government.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is nothing to prevent the federal government from operating a military college; we are doing it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It is being operated as an educational institution, because seventy-five per cent of the pupils graduate into ordinary business life.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think at this time if the committee will agree we will consider an item of the Department of the Interior.


Charles A. Stewart: Should we not rise and report progress?


Hugh Guthrie: No, we may proceed directly from one department to another.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[Stage Direction]
Scientific institutions - expenses connected with the Dominion observatory at Ottawa, $66,880; expenses connected with the Dominion astrophysical observatory at Victoria, B.C., $25,170.

Supply-Interior
Charles A. Stewart: Would the minister explain the reduction of $4,670 in the appropriation for the observatory at Ottawa?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: The reduction covers the four following items: salaries, $57,210 last year as against $52,730 this year; astronomical and geophysical research, last year $7,365 as against $7,400 this year; general scientific maintenance, $4,655 this year as against $4,525 last year; general expenses, $2,095 this year as against $2,450 last year. There is therefore an increase of $165 in two items and a decrease of $4,835 in the two other items, or a net decrease of $4,670.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no decrease in the personnel?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, I think there is.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Is the Dominion observatory one of the branches of the Interior department affected by the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces?
iMr. MURPHY: No, the functions of the Dominion observatory are not affected by that transfer.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Were any employees
retired from the Dominion observatory?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I will have the information for the hon. member in a moment.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I may tell the minister that five permanents were retired. What was the reason of the retirement if that branch was not affected by the transfer of the natural resources?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Under the process of reorganization a few adjustments were made.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: So that would be one branch of the Department of the Interior where retirements were made not because of the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The work of the department was not affected by the transfer of the resources, no.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Were any of the five positions abolished?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I understand that four permanent employees were retired to make way for returned soldiers in other branches of the service, who were thus put into those positions.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I understand that five of these employees were, retired in order to enable four returned soldiers to step into their places. Is that the minister's explanation?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What was the reason?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In effecting the general retirement of those in the department we laid down certain definite rules, and we endeavoured to take care of returned soldiers, especially those who had dependents.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am trying to get at the reason why these five permanent employees were retired, when it cannot properly be ascribed to the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces. Why should four returned soldiers be put into these vacancies; was it because of age, or of inefficiency? There must have been some reason.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The positions affected
clerical positions. The men who were retired not being returned soldiers, and returned soldiers having been given the preference in the government service for a number of years, they were appointed to these clerical positions.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I find that five permanent, and four temporary employees were retired from the Dominion observatory. Why were the five permanent employees dismissed or retired?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have already explained that these men were retired simply in order that returned soldiers might be continued in the service.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There must be some reason for these retirements. The minister either knows or he does not know. If he knows let him say so; otherwise let him say he does not know. But the fact that there were some returned soldiers outside looking for these positions, does not to my mind constitute an adequate reason why five permanent employees were put out.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Their places were filled by employees who were in the service already in another branch of the department.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: In the view of the hon. minister that may be an excuse, but it is not a reason. I want to know why these five men were let out. I thought the reason might be the cessation or decrease of work due to the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces, but the minister himself says "No." Is it a matter of economy? This cannot be so because they were replaced. Why were these five men let out?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I do not think I can do better than read to the committee what I
Supply-Interior

placed on Hansard on April 20. At page 718 I stated that the following instructions were given to the various heads of branches:
In the matter of retention on the staff, regard will then be had for preference in the following order, provided always that no employee will be retained unless efficient to perform the service required,-
That is, efficiency is the first test. Then come the qualifications:
1.	Those who enlisted in Canada and saw active service in any theatre of war and who have now domestic responsibilities.
2.	Other employees with domestic responsibilities.
3.	Those who enlisted in Canada and saw active service in any theatre of war and who have no dependents.
i.	Others with no dependents.
Generally speaking it will not be possible to retain any employee who has reached the age of sixty-five years or who has put in the full thirty-five years of service unless such retention is a matter of special necessity to the department.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is no answer at all. I have that statement also; it begins:
The following instructions were given to the various heads of branches of the department when this reorganization was to take place:
Then the minister quotes:
In effecting staff reductions to bring the salary list within the limits of the figure set by treasury board. . . .
That is the answer:
.... to bring the salary list within the limits of the figures set by treasury board, the department will work in cooperation with the Civil Service Commission.
Then the statement proceeds as the minister has already indicated. I want the minister to tell me why these men were let out. 1 understood it was because of the transfer of the natural resources, but now the minister himself says that is not so. The transfer of these resources did not affect this particular branch. Then, in his statement, the minister gives the reason, which was to bring the salary list within the limits of the figure set by the treasury board. I want to protest against that method of procedure. I will make my remarks at greater length on another item, but we were told that these retirements were due to the transfer of the natural resources. There were a large number of retirements made in the civil service which had nothing to do with the transfer of those resources. That was just a deception practised in order to hide something.
Here is the evidence; five men were retired from the Dominion observatory, whioh was not affected at all by the transfer of the natural resources. Out of the minister's own mouth

we have the statement that this was done because the salary list had to be brought within the limits set by the treasury board. I will ask the minister by what means the treasury board arrived at this decision. Did the treasury board investigate; did the treasury board have the benefit of any investigation prior to the date of the discharge of these five employees, by which they might decide to drop them from the salary list? Where did the treasury board get sufficient information to say that five employees should go from the Dominion observatory?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The transfer of the
natural resources certainly affected the Interior department as a whole; that was bound to happen. Many services formerly carried on by the Department of the Interior now have been discontinued, and in affecting general reductions we adopted the plan of procedure which I read just a moment ago. These five returned men were affected by the transfer of the resources; they would have lost their positions, and in order to retain them in the service they were placed in clerical positions formerly held by others in the Dominion observatory. That was all.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Before these returned men were put into the holes created by the retirement of the permanent officials there must have been a reason for taking out the five permanent employees. I suppose I might as well make these general remarks now in order to clear the way for further investigation when we reach the other items. In answer to a question which I put to the minister on Monday, April 20, the minister said:
Because of the transfer of the natural resources to the prairie provinces many people have for the last eight or nine months found themselves to be without a position.
Then a little later on:
Owing to this transfer there is no work for those previously employed in many of the branches of the department.
That is, owing to this transfer of the natural resources. Then at page 717 the minister quotes a letter which he sent to his colleagues. In that letteT I find the following:
The transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces will render surplus to the future retirements of this department a large number of well trained and highly skilled officials of extensive departmental experience.
Up to the moment we are labouring under the impression that these retirements were made because of the transfer of the natural

Supply-Interior
resources. I go back and quote from page 717:
.... no provision to take care of any of these employees was made in the agreements transferring the natural resources to the western provinces ....
The minister was very astute; he endeavoured to lay that other baby on the doorstep of the previous administration. My right hon. leader answered that part of the question at page 719, so I will not traverse that ground again. However, all the time these retirements were said to be due to the transfer of the natural resources. Now let us continue with the minister's statement at plage 718:
I have given to the house the events as they have transpired until the present time. We have now entered a new fiscal year and the estimates of the department show that the appropriations are much less. Accordingly, we have to meet that situation.
Now the cat is coming out of the bag; it is no longer due to the transfer of the natural resources; now it is due to the fact that the estimates of the department show that the appropriations are much less. Then at page 719 the minister proceeded:
In effecting staff reductions to bring the salary list within the limits of the figure set by treasury board ....
There again is another answer from the minister; these retirements are not due at all to the transfer of the natural resources but rather to the fact that the estimates have been cut. That was not quite a straight answer; the facts were not presented as they should have been. But let us proceed and see how far that goes. I hold in my hand a copy of a letter, of which I have the original, retiring a man who had been in the service for forty-eight years, who was seventy years of age at the time and hale and hearty. On April 10 he received this notice:
I regret to advise you that under instructions contained in the memorandum, copy of which is herewith, after to-day ....
There is something ruthless; there is something no one would think would be done in a civilized country to an employee who had been forty-eight years in service, and whose faithfulness had never been challenged. I proceed:
.... after to-day your services will no longer be required.
What reason is given? It is not because of the transfer of the natural resources; it is not because the position has been abolished, because there is no work for him through the transfer of the secources. The memorandum accompanying the letter contains this statement:
Owing to a reduction in appropriation . . . .
That is the reason. Then what further confirmation is there? Take the estimates; when we come to the item we will find that salaries have been cut from $1,500,000 to $850,000. That is why these retirements took place. The minister accepted only $850,000 with which to pay the salaries of his department during the year. He accepted that in lieu of $1,500,000 and then, in order to excuse himself, he comes forward and declares that it is due to the transfer of the natural resources and that, the whole department having been affected, these positions must go.
I was careful in putting the questions to the minister. I quote from page 1300 of Hansard?
Mr. Chevrier:
1.	What are the names or designations of the various branches of the Department of the Interior that were directly affected by the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces?
2.	How many positions in each of said branches were abolished as a result of said transfer ?
3.	How many employees in consequence of the abolition of said positions were retired from the service in Ottawa: (a) on pension or superannuation; (b) without pension or superannuation?
The minister proceeded to give the answer. I have tabulated the figures he has given, and I find this. In the administrative branch there were retired 65 permanent and 9 temporary in Ottawa, 74 altogether. And there was one whose retirement was due to the transfer of the natural resources. In the accountant's branch there were 33 permanent retired and 7 temporaries, and due to the transfer of the natural resources there was one retirement. In other words, there were 40 retirements in this branch, not due to the transfer of the natural resources, while there was only one retirement due to that cause. I will not go right through the various departments, but we find that in Ottawa there were 442 permanent employees retired and 126 temporaries, while there were only 10 positions abolished in Ottawa as a result of the transfer of the natural resources. In other words, there are only 10 persons in Ottawa whose positions have been done away with by reason of the transfer of the natural resources. All the others let out, namely, 558, were let out for any other reason than the transfer o'f the natural resources. And, as I have suggested, the explanation is that the minister accepted the grant of $850,000 blindly and without any investigation. I challenge him to state that there was any investigation into the department to find out how far these various branches would be affected by the reduction of his estimate blindly by one-half. The total

Supply-Interior

number let out in Ottawa is 568; tbe total let out as a result of the transfer of resources is 10: in other words, 2 per cent of the total represents those let out because of the transfer. The total number let out in Canada is 1,295; the total number let out in Canada as a result of the transfer is 461; that is to say, 34 per cent have been let out as a result of the transfer.
Can the minister say that these dismissals have been due to the transfer of the natural resources? Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. But I say that these transfers were made ruthlessly and without any investigation by the Civil Service Commission. The minister accepted the $850,000 and was told to cut his coat according to his cloth. To what extent this will impair the service I do not know, but the minister will have to take the responsibility for it.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: He does.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I do know, however,
that in no other civilized country has such a thing been done. I believe the minister is quite concerned about public opinion, and perhaps he would like to know what the official organ of his party has to say about it. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of Monday, April 13:
The people who to-day are being dismissed from the service, trained and prepared themselves for it. They thought and they had a right to think, that the words "permanent service" meant something, that, if they performed their work in a satisfactory manner, they were guaranteed security. They now discover that, because of error in the government's administrative methods, the word "permanent" means something else.
This, indeed, the fact that a number of young Canadians who trained for the civil service find themselves suddenly thrown out of work, compelled to start life all over again, is the worst feature of these dismissals. It is a feature which, because of its possible general effect upon the service as a whole, calls for -wonder as to whether it is not possible for other government departments to absorb most of those who are being dismissed.
As to how these dismissals were made, the minister can correct me. I quote frbm the Journal of March 26:
So far as the Journal has been able to ascertain, these instructions are not based upon any inquiries, or upon any conclusions from inquiries, as to how these reductions will affect the efficient functioning of the departments concerned. In other words, the orders have been issued without regard for the problems and demands of administration. There is simply the order to cut. . . .
In any event, reductions of staff, if deemed necessary, and no matter where they are being made, should not be brought about in a haphazard, hit-and-miss way; and certainly they 
should not be made without regard for the human equation and for the effect upon administrative machinery.
There is something more. Mr. Bennett, after all, took office on a platform of providing Canadians with work. That, he said-the provision of work-was the first duty of a government. And since his taking of office parliament has voted $20,000,000 to provide work, and provinces and municipalities have voted millions more. In the light of these things, the seemi-ng policy of dismissing civil servants without much visible discrimination would be an extraordinary apostasy to the doctrines of last summer.
This is from the Journal.
Finally, the saving to be effected by all these dismissals will not be a large one. It cannot amount to as much as one day's revenue. That being so, is it worth while to run the danger of lowering the country's administrative machinery, of lowering the morale of the service, and of visiting hardship upon many old and faithful government employees? The government, after all, should be the model employer; and at a time when it is asking industry and municipalities to spend money to help their workers, the spectacle of it dismissing its own servants almost wholesale is hardly an inspiration.
A better advertisement for Canada, the Journal thinks, would be a declaration from the government, or by the Prime Minister, that this country is not compelled to dismiss its employees, that Canada is not so hard up or so near being bankrupt that its people are unwilling to tax themselves to keep their civil service intact. Such a declaration would be better for the national morale, would be more in keeping with Mr. Bennett's past record, and it is just possible that, in the long run, it would be most profitable for the country. No one wants a top-heavy, over-manned civil service. But neither should any sane person want a skeletonized and demoralized civil service, or a government which, in its dealings with the civil service, acts without regard for human values or for the effect of its actions upon efficiency.
Now we have some of the reasons why these dismissals took place in that way. I will amplify these remarks as we come to the other items.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has stated that he intends to discuss this matter at greater length when another item is under discussion, but I will make a short answer to some of his remarks. The hon. member being a member of the legal profession likes to play upon words, terms and phrases, possibly more than' the ordinary individual. It is true that the appropriations for the Department of the Interior are much less, but every hon. member should know that	the	appropriations	are	less	becausethe services being performed also are less;	the	appropriations	are	less	because
the natural resources have been transferred to the western provinces. Surely it is not necess-

Busitiess of the Home
ary to repeat that in every sentence. The hon. member frequently made use of the word "dismissal," but these employees were not dismissed.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I will change that to "retired."


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In fact they have not been retired, or at least but a very few of them. They have been notified of their retirement, which is yet to take place.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. minister is now playing on words.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No, the minister is not. They have been notified that they will be retired, but that retirement will not take place until after their retiring leave has expired, and an order in council is passed which is the instrument effecting that retirement. To say that they have been retired before that has been done is to play upon words. In the meantime other departments of the government are endeavouring to place these employees before that retirement is effected. As for any criticism which may have been made by a local paper in Ottawa, the hon. member may be better informed than I am that that paper is an organ of the Conservative party. I have no knowledge of that fact.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Evidently the minister has not been long in Ottawa.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Not as long as my hon. friend.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is what I pride myself on.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am glad the hon. member is proud of his city. That is very laudable; it is a city of which he can very well be proud and of which we all are proud.


Peter John Veniot: Did I understand the
minister to say that five of these employees were retired in order to make room for returned soldiers?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Five of them, yes.


Peter John Veniot: I wish the other ministers would adopt the same principle.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member does not agree with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier).


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that. I was not referring to the hon. member for Ottawa; I was referring to the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. I have knowledge of two cases, one in the Department of Public Works and one in the Post Office department, where returned soldiers, fathers of families- 22110-1851
one of six children and the other of seven- were retired in order to make room for civilians. The principle adopted by the Minister of the Interior is certainly not followed by the other ministers.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I cannot answer as to that.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When did this change
take place?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: To which change does the hon. member refer?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When were these men retired?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In the observatory?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, on what date?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: They were notified of their
retirement some time during the latter part of April.


John Vallance: How long had these five individuals been in the service, and how long had the returned men who took over the positions been in the service?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The terms of service varied from five to fifteen years.


John Vallance: Does that refer to the returned men as well?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am speaking of those who were retired. I have not the information before me in connection with those who took their places, but if the hon. member desires it I shall endeavour to secure it.


John Vallance: I wish the hon. minister would secure also the ages of the individuals.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In both cases?


John Vallance: In all cases of those who are appointed and of those who were retired.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Why were those five
men retired?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have answered the question, but the hon. member does not like my answer. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: What business is proposed for to-morrow?


Hugh Guthrie: We will take up items numbers 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 16 and 17. If we go into supply, as we hope to, it will ba

Pension Appeals
in connection with any of the departments already considered, and also Post Office, Secretary of State, Immigration, and Justice, in that order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a pretty good order. Would my hon. friend remind the Prime Minister of our anxiety to proceed in committee of ways and means with some of the resolutions?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the Prime Minister ' is endeavouring to start on Wednesday; in the meantime we are dealing with other matters.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 23, 1931.