1934-03-15

Mi. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Govenor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
n	. TT	Bessborough.
Government House,
Ottawa, March 15, 1934.



PETITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the house petitions from the municipal councils of Ste. Satine and St. Neree, in the county of Bellechasse, and from the municipal council of St. Jean Chrysostome, located in the county of Levis and the con-situency of Bellechasse, requesting the government not to levy a tax on leaf tobacco.
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the house resolutions from the municipal councils of St. Joachim, St. Henri de Mascouche and the parish of St. Lin, in the county of L'Assomption, strongly protesting against a tax of 20 cents per pound being levied on leaf tobacco.



BIRTHDAY OF MR. R. S. WHITE

[Stage Direction]
On the entry of Mr. R. S. White, this being his seventy-eighth birthday:
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speech.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very great privilege and, I fear, a very great departure from the rules of the house. None the less, if you will permit me, I should like, from the bottom of my heart, to thank my friends in this house who,
I am pleased to believe, are almost as numerous on one side as the other, for the compliment they have paid me to-day. While I am a strong party man, I hope I am broad enough in my views to realize that those who differ from me have precisely the same right to their opinions as I have to mine and when not engaged in an election contest, indeed I go so far as to say that when engaged in an election contest, I greet my friends of opposite opinions with the same cordiality as I do
74726-95J
when the battle has ceased. I thank you all most gratefully and sincerely.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	How many agricultural students were employed as students at the different experiment farms, experimental stations and experimental sub-stations of the dominion during the the year 1933?
2 What was the distribution of these students as regards the different provinces where they were employed?
3.	How many agricultural students received s , th.e cenbral experimental farm (Uttawa) during the summers of 1930-31-32-33?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	1930, 26; 1931, 39; 1932, 35; 1933, 30.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST-PERE:
Referring to the statement tabled by the Hon. Minister of Finance on February 26 containing the statement that 278 employees had been added to the staff of the bureau of 19331St'CS durillg tlle year ending March 31,
1. Were those employees appointed by the civil service commission?
c ^ , so\ ^as.	service commission
followed the list of eligibility according to rank of candidates?
Mr. CAIIAN:: Return tabled herewith.


&quot;CANADA, 1934&quot;
Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	How many copies of "Canada, 1934" were printed?
2.	What was the total distribution?
3.	Of this total, how much was in bulk sales aud how' much in individual distribution?
4.	Is the price for bulk sales the same as for individual copies; namely 25 cents each?
5.	What does it cost the Dominion Bureau of statistics to prepare and' publish this booklet, and how does this cost compare with receipts?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON BANKING-COST
Mr. BOTHWELL:: 1.	What was the total cost of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada ?
2.	What amount was paid as: (a) remuneration; (b) expenses, to the chairman, each commissioner, the secretary, the assistant secretary and the stenographic staff?
Marketing Act

3.	How many copies of the report were printed, and what was tile cost of printing?
4.	How many copies were sold and how much realized from the sale?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


SENIOR EGG INSPECTOR, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. FERLAND:: 1 Did the civil service commission advertise an examination under No. 22855, during the month of September last, for a promotion to the position of assistant senior egg inspector for the province of Quebec?
2. Should this position be filled by a bilingual
persorKfio	candidates who made application to take part in this examination?
4.	Where and when were the examinations
hi)d'Has the civil service commission appointed Mr. A. R. Hedgecoe to fill the position ot assistant senior egg inspector for the province of Quebec?
6.	If so, on what date?
7.	Who recommended Mr. A. R. Hedgecoe.
8i Is Mr. A. R. Hedgecoe bilingual?



MARKETING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to bring in a measure to improve the methods and practices of marketing of natural products m Canada and in export trade, and to provide for a dominion marketing board, the remuneration ot the members thereof and of assistants and employees, and to authorize payment to the board of such sums of money as may be necessary for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
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.
UNEMiPLOYMENT AND FARM RELIEF
Mr. Gordon moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting relief measures generally similar in terms to the Relief Act, 1933, but which also makes provision for payment of Federal proportion of delayed relief accounts, if any, which may be received subsequent to the date of the expiration of said act.
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.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Might I ask the Prime Minister if the government has given any consideration to the question of the Easter adjournment? I think some hon. members would like to make their plans at the earliest day possible.
May I also ask if it is the intention of the Minister of Finance to bring down the budget before the Easter recess, or after, if he is in a position to say?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I had intended to speak to the right
hon. gentleman this afternoon after the house went into committee concerning the Easter adjournment. If it meets with the general acceptance of the house it is proposed to adjourn either on the Wednesday or the Thursday night preceding Good Friday, and to reassemble on the succeeding Monday week. The budget will be delivered after the recess.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
desire to ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the action of the L nited States Senate in respect to the St. Lawrence waterway treaty he has any statement to make to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a short statement to make to the house with respect to the St. Lawrende Seaway treaty.
Yesterday the Senate of the United States voted against the ratification of the St. Lawrence Seaway treaty made between the United States and Canada and signed on the 18th day of July, 1932. Therefore, the treaty will not come before the parliament of Canada for consideration.
I regret the action of the Senate for many reasons, not the least being that I have looked upon the development of the St. Lawrence seaway as the manifestation of the will and the capacity of two sane and peace-loving countries to join fairly and freely in an enterprise of profit to them both. At this time in the world's affairs, when good' neighbourliness is so important a factor in the great international adjustments that are taking place throughout the world, I had felt that the example of mutual trust and confidence set by these two great countries might have proved an impulse and a guide to better international relations on other continents.

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Agreements
I have supported the development of the St. Lawrence seaway as my predecessors in office, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the right hon. leader of the opposition supported it, because I believe that it would be a constructive and forward step. I have supported it also because I believe that it would be a measure from which all classes of the community would profit. I have grown to think of this St. Lawrence seaway as in fact the people's seaway, devised and built to serve them, to bring the west nearer to the east, to make more profitable the work of our agriculturists, and to provide employment in a period of universal depression.
I have no desire to comment on the reasons why the treaty has been defeated in the United States, and there is no purpose now in attacking the interests in our own country who have seen fit to join with similar interests in the United States that have succeeded for the moment at least in defeating this seaway development.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 25, to ratify and confirm an agreement respecting the joint use by His Majesty and the commissioners of the transcontinental railway of certain tracks and premises of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Quebec-Mr. Manion-Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement and supplementary agreement ratified.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It is absolutely
impossible to hear a word in this corner.


Mr. POWER:: May I ask if the minister
has made inquiry from the officers of the railway regarding the matters that I brought to his attention last week when this bill was introduced?


Mr. MANION:: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I
inquired, and I find that there is nothing in the agreement that in any way conflicts with the statements I made previously. My hon. friend pointed out, I remember, that the trains now being, as he expressed it, Canadian Pacific trains, the Canadian National trains being taken off, there might be need for some modification in the provisions of the agreement. I overlooked pointing out at that time, as I should have done, that the pool trains
of course are not Canadian Pacific trains but pool trains, in other words as much Canadian National as Canadian Pacific, the equipment of both roads being used in them, and of course whatever profits or losses accrue on those trains are divided between the two railways.
My hon. friend also made some suggestion that for the same reason there might now need to be some modification in the terms; but I am informed, though I did not know at that time, that the original agreement was made on a wheelage basis, in other words they pay as they use, so to speak. In addition to that, the Canadian National will operate many trains out of that station; trains to Lake St. John, for example, and along the national transcontinental to Cochrane, besides the one to Charny. There are two or three sets of trains, I think there is another that I have not mentioned, but my hon. friend knows the railway geography of that section better than I do and can doubtless fill in the blank if there is one. At any rate they still utilize the station as they did in the past, and the pool trains are divided between the two railways.


Charles Gavan Power: I wonder if the minister could give us some further information regarding the trains it is proposed to run from the Canadian Pacific terminals over the Canadian National tracks to Charny in order, as I understood his statement some time ago, that there might be a connection between the passenger trains running down the south shore, the maritime express and the ocean limited, and the city of Quebec. The minister will recall that some time ago, in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), he stated that arrangements were being made or had been made to provide for a connection between the Canadian Pacific station in Quebec and the trains running along the south shore to the maritime provinces. Has the minister any further information to give?


Robert James Manion: No, I do not think I have anything further than I gave the house at that time. A connection is being arranged with the maritime express and the ocean limited, which run down the south shore. There is a connection being arranged from Charny station into the Palais station in Quebec so that those who wish to use those trains may make connection either in that way or by the Levis ferry. Other than this I do not think I can add anything to what I said the other day.
C .N .R-C .P .R.-Agreements


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I can give the information to my colleague from Quebec South; I have seen the connection. These three trains which ran between Quebec and Montreal on the Canadian National have been taken off, and the only two trains on the Canadian National which serve Quebec to some extent but do not go to Quebec are the ocean limited and the maritime express, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river. Of course in winter time no one in the city of Quebec would cross the river to take these trains in preference to the Canadian Pacific trains on the north shore. The minister said a connection was being arranged at the Quebec bridge, at Charny station, with one of those trains, the maritime express. That connection is made by a motor car with a Diesel engine; part of the car is occupied by the engine and the other part contains passenger seats. If my hon. friend thinks the travelling public of Quebec city are going to use that motor car to connect with the maritime express on Levis instead of using the Canadian Pacific trains he does not know the population of that city. In addition to that, the maritime express is a slow train which stops at every station and which does not give the service that was given by the trains which have been eliminated, and which is being given by the Canadian Pacific trains.
There is a further consideration. The fast Canadian National train in the afternoon took four hours and a half to go to Montreal, and I have been told by Canadian National railway officials that it could easily cover the distance in four hours. This train has been cut off, and the fastest Canadian Pacific train takes ten minutes more; its time is four hours and forty minutes, so the time is prolonged in comparison with the Canadian National trains.
I should like to direct my hon. friend's attention to one or two other features of this arrangement. How about people from Toronto or Ottawa who want to go to Quebec city? The trains between Quebec and Montreal may be pooled as far as the revenues are concerned, but do you think the people from Toronto will travel by Canadian National from Toronto to Montreal and then change to Canadian Pacific?


Robert James Manion: They cannot do that; they have to travel by pool trains.


Ernest Lapointe: All the trains are not pooled.


Robert James Manion: All the good trains are pooled.


Ernest Lapointe: They might be coming from other centres; I said Toronto, but we might take Windsor or any other place. They will not travel by Canadian National to Montreal and then change from Bonaventure station to Place Viger station when they can travel Canadian Pacific and spare themselves the necessity of changing at all. Then there is another feature, to which my attention has been directed by a railway official who knows something about railway matters. When people travel by one railway they also send their freight by that railway. When they become accustomed to travelling on one road you will not find them travelling on that road and sending their freight or express by the other road. I think the Canadian National are getting the worst of it and have made a very bad bargain with regard to Quebec city and the surrounding district. The situation is the same with regard to intermediate stations; the people on the south shore cannot travel by the Canadian Pacific on the north shore, and there are all sorts of objections to this arrangement. I must say that I frequently receive letters from the employees of these lines; they are not marked private and confidential, and the writers are quite outspoken, but I would hesitate to make those letters public. On behalf of the people in Quebec city whom I represent I protest against this arrangement.


Robert James Manion: In the first place my hon. friend uses the expression "Canadian Pacific trains" from Montreal to Quebec, but they are not Canadian Pacific trains at all; they are pool trains, and whatever profits or losses may be made on those trains are made by both companies mutually. The arrangement was made by the managements of the two companies without consulting me in any way, and I do not know that I could have been of any assistance if they had done so, because it is a railway matter. The figures I gave the other day in reply to a question dealing with this very matter showed that the Canadian National, far from losing by the deal, claimed that their condition had been improved, and I gave the figures of their earnings for the last two months. These figures showed that the traffic gain by the Canadian National in the past two months has been greater than the traffic gain by the Canadian Pacific. Unfortunately I do not happen to have it with me, but this morning I received from the railways a later report than the one I gave a few days ago showing that the increase in traffic up to a more recent date also showed



C.N.R -C.P.R .

[Stage Direction]
Agreements
that the percentage of gain by the Canadian National was greater than the percentage of gain by the Canadian Pacific.
I hope my hon. friend will not think I am attempting to lecture him or anyone else, but I should like to point out to the members of the committee that one of the great problems in our country to-day, as we all know, is the railway problem, which includes the Canadian Pacific as well as the Canadian National. Last year this house, in its wisdom, passed the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific bill, which instructed-and I think rightly so-the two railways to cooperate with the object of effecting economies. If every time something is done by the two railways in an attempt to carry out that instruction the section of the country affected protests, it seems to me it is going to make it very difficult for the railways to economize. My hon. friend is no exception; from every section of the country where an economy is effected by the pooling of trains protests pour in upon me, though I have nothing to do with the arrangements. As a matter of fact two-thirds of the very poolings to which reference has been made took place from six to eight months or a year ago. The only one that was new was the one that affects my hon. friend and his section of the country. The pooling between Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal and Toronto took place some months ago, in fact some months before the present trustees were appointed. That is, the poolings as a matter of fact took place before the legislation of last year. But in view of that legislation and in view of the general opinion expressed everywhere in Canada that there should be cooperation of one kind or another between the two railway companies, in order to avoid duplication, extra expense and losses which are obtaining, I repeat that it is not advisable for all of us, even although our sections may be somewhat affected, to protest against the changes in the trains. I believe everyone in Canada who has taken any interest in the railway situation has, for years, been pointing out these duplications. Ever since I came into this house there has been a succession of protests from hon. members who take an interest in the railway question about the number of trains running between Montreal and Ottawa, Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal and Toronto.
To-day the railways are attempting to correct that duplication, and so far as I am concerned, though their action may occasionally affect some of us unpleasantly, it seems to me that in view of the seriousness of the railway situation we should give some support to the railways in their efforts. My hon. friend
points out that under the changed system he cannot travel as rapidly. I understood him to say that by using the C.N.R. trains between Montreal and Quebec a faster trip could be made. I do not know whether he meant that the trip icould be made more quickly than it can now be made through the use of a pool train.
Ernest Lapointe: Yes it can.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend has stated that that is so. Perhaps it is, although if what the hon. member has stated is the fact I am a little surprised that the arrangement should have been so made. It was pointed out to me, as I explained in the house only a few days ago that the reason the C.P.R. was chosen was that 80 per cent of the passenger traffic between Montreal and Quebec had travelled by C.P.R. I believe that would be natural, because it would not be convenient for people to cross over from Levis on the ferry.
But, to get back to the question of speed. Are we not in this day and generation a little too anxious for speed? My impression is that had there been less speeding on the railways, in automobiles and in other ways the world might be as happy as it was a few years ago, or certainly not less than it is to-day. I believe the matter of getting between two stations in fifteen or twenty minutes less time is not of great importance to my hon. friend or to myself. I say that without any reflection upon him in anyway.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not my hon. friend think that, if three trains are eliminated at least one should run on the C.N.R. and the two others on the C.P.R., instead of leaving the three trains on the C.P.R. and taking them away from the C.N.R.?	Between
Ottawa and Montreal and Toronto and Montreal there has been a sharing in the pooling, but between Montreal and Quebec the service is all given to the C.P.R. The minister has said that the revenue would be divided, but does he not believe that it would be fair to leave at least one of the trains running on the C.N.R. and to take one away from the C.P.R.?


Robert James Manion: Quite possibly it would
be, but I was not consulted in this arrangement. The arrangement was made by the present trustees and management of the Canadian National railways and the present management of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Until the matter was brought to my attention by my hon. friend I did not know that it was to be put into effect on March 11. I am not a railway man; neither are any of
C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Agreements

the government members, and we are not consulted any more than was the late government consulted in connection with the running of trains. No government has been consulted in those matters. While my hon. friend may have some justification for the remarks he has just made, at the same time the arrangement was made by the managements of the two railways with the conviction that they were making the wisest arrangement for the two railway companies. They gave proof of their contention the other day in the statement which I gave to the house; they showed that they were going to make considerable economies, if the pooling between Montreal and Quebec were combined with the pooling between Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal and Toronto. They claim that on those three poolings, including the service to Quebec, which is the only recent one, they will make a saving of $500,000 a year, each. I would say that certainly those savings are badly needed. I am sorry if the railway managements have put into effect poolings which inconvenience some hon. members and other people affected, but such cannot help but be the result at least to a certain extent. I do not believe either management would agree to put into effect any pooling arrangement which would seriously affect anybody. That is my feeling about it, and I think the best this House of Commons can do is to accede to those schemes which the two managements consider to be wisest, and which will effect economies for both roads.


Charles Gavan Power: May I suggest to the minister that he request the management of the Canadian National Railways at least to reconsider this matter. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Quebec East all the so-called C.N.R. trains have been cancelled. I quite understand what the minister has said, and I know he is speaking in good faith when he states that when these trains are pooled the expenses, profits, losses and everything else go into one pot. Nevertheless in the minds of most Quebecers-and Quebec is a small town away down at the end of the line-these trains being operated are C.P.R. trains. They are running at the hours formerly used by C.P.R. trains, and those trains running on the former CN.R. schedule have been cancelled. The public impression is that there are no more C.N.R. trains, and my submission is that such a condition will prove detrimental to the freight traffic of the Canadian National railways. I suggest that perhaps the two managements did not take that factor into consideration. I understand, of course, that savings will be effected by the

pooling of trains, and that probably the managements were perfectly justified. I do not know whether they were or not, but in all seriousness I do submit that in as far as the city of Quebec and the surrounding district is concerned, namely the north shore district, if this pooling system continues, within a period of only two or three years there will be little or no freight traffic going over the Canadian National railways.


Robert James Manion: Of course, this bill has
nothing to do with the pooling of trains, but has to do with the terminal in Quebec. However, we are in committee and I have no objection to this discussion. I shall be very happy to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend and draw to the attention of the managements of both "roads for their consideration the statements made here this afternoon. That is the best I can do.


Mr. RINFRET:: This bill serves to illustrate the difficulties which both railway companies will always encounter so long as they desire to remain in competition and at the same time exert some kind of cooperation. Last year for an obvious reason I did not take part in the debate on the railway bill, but if I had I would have pointed out that it was -next to impossible for two large companies at the same time to be in competition and in cooperation. Only a few days ago I pointed out to the Minister of Railways and Canals the situation existing between Ottawa and Montreal. Although this matter is not covered by the legislation now under consideration, I think it might properly be stated. May I add that the railway companies have been very considerate. Both companies sent to my office in Montreal high standing representatives to discuss the matter with me, and the committee may be interested to know that as regards the service between Ottawa and Montreal both companies took exactly opposite views to those they had taken in connection with the service between Montreal and Quebec. They represented to me that both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. had to maintain trains not only to reach Montreal but to serve intermediate stations in the different districts. They pointed out also that it would not be fair to either company if it were asked to withdraw its trains from that service, and leave it altogether to the remaining company. Apparently they did otherwise in regard to Quebec. They took away all the C.N.R. trains, disregarding the intermediate stations, and they maintained two or three C.P.R. trains. I desire to accept the views expressed by the hon. member for Quebec East to the effect



C.N.R.-C.P.R

[Stage Direction]
that if a service is abandoned or taken off there is likely to be reaction against the other company, not only at that point but in Canada generally. I do not wish to press my views on this bill, but I want to take this occasion to say in a general way that so long as the companies maintain the spirit of competition and at the same time endeavour to arrive at a certain degree of cooperation, there are bound to be these difficulties, and I repeat that the stand of the companies as regards the service between Montreal and Ottawa is directly opposite to that taken in regard to the service between Quebec and Montreal.
Robert James Manion: In reply to that, may I offer this suggestion as it has been put to me? So far as both railway routes are concerned the territory between Ottawa and Montreal is much more densely populated than is the territory through which the Canadian National runs from Montreal to Quebec. It has also been put forward to me that the Canadian Pacific route from Montreal to Quebec does run through a thickly populated section while the Canadian National road does not. But between Ottawa and Montreal both railways run through fairly densely populated sections of the country. I point that out as it has been pointed out to me in explanation of the situation.


Ernest Lapointe: But that argument would not apply to fast passenger trains stopping at only a few points.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I admit that that was the stand taken by the companies, that there should be no pooling of services between Ottawa and Montreal unless a train in addition to the present service was run because they wanted to serve the intermediate stations. They also pointed out to me that it would not be fair to ask either company to pool either the whole or part of its service between the two cities because it would react against that particular company. That is the very situation that is being pointed out by the hon. member for Quebec East, that if the Canadian National is taken off the Quebec service it will react against that company.
I did not rise, Mr. Chairman, so much for the purpose of discussing this bill as of taking this opportunity to make known to the committee what had taken place between the companies and myself as regards the question I raised the other day. But I have no hesitation in stating now that in my humble opinion these efforts to pool and cooperate are bound to fail, and notwithstanding the action that was taken by the house last year
[DOT]-Agreements
I really believe that we shall come to a time when it will be necessary to have a very much stronger tendency to amalgamation than the house showed last year. I say that to-day there is not enough passenger traffic and there is not enough freight traffic in this country for two transcontinental railways. It is all right to arrange to cut off a train between Quebec and Montreal, or something like that, and I agree with the minister that there will be protests at once when a step of that kind is taken, but it is only postponing the day when the two companies will have to come much closer together than they are now and when we shall have to consider much more radical measures for remedying our present railway situation than these local arrangements which do not give satisfaction to anyone.	.


Mr. McGIRRON:: Mr. Chairman, if I might have a moment-


Mr. PRICE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There will have to be a pooling of speeches over there.


Mr. McGIBBON:: If that would do anything towards eliminating the burden of the railways upon the country it would be a good thing. I think, Mr. Chairman, that discussions of this kind are rather dangerous. It seems to me that we must do one of two things in connection with the railways. AVe must either leave the operation of these railways in the hands of the managements or we must make the minister responsible to the House of Commons and to the people for their operation, which would bring the subject of the railways into this house. That is the method that I prefer, and I said so last year, but the house took a different view. Nearly everyone who spoke at that time thought that the railways should be kept as far away as possible from politics. But this discussion, Mr. Chairman, brings the whole subject right back again into parliament.
I do not wish to speak of particular instances where complaint has arisen. There may be complaints. There are bound to be complaints. I agree with the last speaker that the day is coming when there must be a closer union between these two railways. I spoke last year in favour of cooperation under one company, not amalgamation, and I think I made myself quite clear on that point. It has been estimated by Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and we have also the authority for it of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. EulerL who, if he was
C.N.R -C.P.R.-Agreements

correctly reported, said in a speech a little while ago that the late Sir Henry Thornton told him that $75,000,000 a year could be saved by joint operation.


Mr. EULER:: Amalgamation.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think myself that they have to be amalgamated to get joint operation.


William Daum Euler: That is what they said.


Peter McGibbon: Very well. We shall this year have to vote out of the funds of this country probably $60,000,000 to carry on these railways, and that allows nothing for depreciation or future expansion. When you add a reasonable sum for that, I think I am safe in saying that these railways are costing this country from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 a year. Can we afford it? In the Duff report the statement is made that 42 per cent of the mileage of these roads is doing less than five per cent of the business of the country. How can the railways be anything else but a failure until that situation is corrected? It means that we have to have elimination of services; there is no question about that. There is not enough business in this country in my opinion ever to support three transcontinental systems within the lifetime of any man now living.
But we have appointed three trustees to administer the railways. I did not like that plan, and I said so in the house last year. I do not like to see such a tremendous organization put into the hands practically of one man, for that is what it really means because the other two trustees are half-time men and are far secondaiy in influence to the chairman. But having adopted that system, if we are now going to bring the whole subject back into the House of Commons for each one of us to get up and criticize the trustees for what they are doing and have done, then in my opinion our last hope of saving this enterprise is gone. I am not hopeful that we can save it at all. In the last eighteen years this country has been spending on an average over $130 for every $100 it took in, and if you confiscated all the revenues of this country outside of the incomes that were exempt by statute, namely $1,500 and $3,000, we would not have enough money to pay the expenses of governments in Canada. If we took all the field crops of Canada for the last five years and doubled their value we would then only have about sufficient to pay the cost of governments, federal, provincial and municipal in this country to-day. On top of that, we have this railway burden.

I cannot see any light ahead at all. I can see nothing but a deficit of from fifty to seventy-five million dollars a year at least so long as any of us is living. I agree with the last hon. member who spoke (Mr. Rinfret) and with the hon. member for North Waterloo. I think most people in this country who have given this subject any thought believe that these two roads must be brought together in some way, and we must eliminate this mileage of forty-two per cent which is doing less than five per cent of this country's business. We must cut our overhead and curtail expenses because this country cannot, in my opinion, carry the debt it is carrying to-day and expect a return to prosperity.
I rose, Mr. Chairman, to say that I think we are wrong in criticizing the trustees who have been appointed and made responsible for the conduct of this enterprise. If you put responsibility upon them you must give them liberty and freedom to exercise their judgment. Otherwise it is not right to hold them responsible. I regret that the minister has said he would interfere.


Robert James Manion: I did not say I would
interfere, I said I would direct the attention of the railway management to the discussion which has taken place to-day.


Peter McGibbon: That suits me much better. This problem is so serious that it deserves the earnest consideration of every man, both inside and outside this house, who is seeking a return of prosperity to this country when everyone can earn an honest and decent living and still have something left.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Mr. Chairman, the
men of the Canadian National Railways have made a greater sacrifice during this period of stress and strain than any other body of labour in the country. In justice to them I think we Should try to find out whether the national railways have stood up during the last three years as well as the Canadian Pacific Railway. These employees have accepted a reduction of over twenty per cent in order to help Canada during a time of need. Instead of listening to Mr. Beatty prating, prattling and foaming at the mouth with his suggestions that the Canadian Pacific should absorb the Canadian National, we should do just the opposite. We should have a real national,-well, a national government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: We have that.
There should be a policy whereby these men who have sacrificed themselves under public ownership should be given the right to take

C .N .R -C .P .R.-Agreements
over private ownership in certain cases. There is no one who has more sympathy for the worker, there is no one more ready to speak on his behalf than I but the fact remains that there is not a Canadian Pacific worker who has made greater sacrifices than those employed on the Canadian National Railways. I have the record of this system under my hand, and I challenge any man in Canada to contradict the statement that the Canadian National Railways, through the loyalty of its workers, has held up better than the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, in the constituency which I have the privilege of representing a large number of employees of the Canadian National Railways look upon as contrary to their interests, the changes carried out following the reorganization of the train service of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways between Quebec and Montreal.
I admit, sir, that the government has had no hand in this reorganization which was carried out by the higher officials of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways, however, on behalf of my constituents I wish to request the honourable Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to intervene, if necessaiy, in the interest of the employees of the Canadian National who reside in my constituency.


Otto Baird Price: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to say a few words with regard to the railway situation and the condemnation there has been of the operation of pool trains. While certain economies have been effected by the pooling of passenger trains, we should not lose sight of the fact that the general traffic on the Canadian National Railways, particularly on the lines in the Atlantic region, has greatly increased. The shipments of coal from Nova Scotia, particularly from Cape Breton, during last year and this year up to date have been greater than ever before. The largest bituminous coal mine in America is now being operated in Cape Breton. Canadian National Railways are short of cars with which to handle the traffic coming from Cape Breton. Train crews that have been out of work for the last five years are now back on duty. Every man who had been dropped temporarily from the service is now back at work. A large number of railway shop men who were laid off in Moncton have been taken back but the men employed in the running trades, such as drivers, firemen, conductors, trainmen and roundhouse men, are all back in the service. The traffic in coal, in lumber and in fruit from the Annapolis
valley has been enormous. The business of the Canadian National Railways in the maritime provinces is in a flourishing condition. Shipments from our excellent ports of Saint John and Halifax are greater at the present time than they were even during the war when large shipments of munitions and supplies were made to the old country. During the spring of 1933, the business in the northern region showed a great improvement. As a result of the trade treaties entered into by the present administration, large amounts of lumber have been brought up from Maine, as well as from New Brunswick, to be shipped from Campbellton. During that year the port of Campbellton enjoyed such business as it had never enjoyed before. During the fall of 1933, while these large shipments were passing through Campbellton, while twenty-nine large steamers were loading at that port, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) travelled up and down the country preaching depression. There were certain things they did not wish to bring out; they did not mention the flourishing condition of the railways and the port of Campbellton. We now find the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska asking for grants to be placed in the estimates for the dredging of the Restigouche river. I have every sympathy with him in that connection but the fact still remains that at a time when conditions were in a healthy state and when much additional business was being done by the port of Campbellton, the hon. member and his leader insisted on preaching depression.
I should like to give the committee some idea of the amount of business done in the Atlantic region. There was an increase of forty-four per cent in general exports from Saint John up to March 1 this year as compared with last year; actual shipments were up forty-nine per cent; exports to South Africa had increased by forty-two per cent, while exports to India increased by almost four hundred per cent.
With regard to shipments, what has taken place this very year? At the end of February revenue cars loaded and received from connections in the Atlantic region show an increase of 10,791 over the corresponding period of the previous year. Cars loaded and received from such connections prior to February 28 last year totalled 22,234 and this year the number was 33,025, or an increase of 48J per cent. I think, in all fairness to the Canadian National, it should be stated that with the subventions which are given on coal shipments from Cape Breton into Ontario
C.N.R -C.P.R.-Agreements

and Quebec and with the general increase in the lumber trade which has taken place as a result of trade treaties with Great Britain, there is very little to complain of at the present time.


Robert James Manion: Might I say just a word
on a point of order? I should like to suggest that perhaps it might he well, for the sake of the business of the house, for all of us to keep a little closer to the bill. In mentioning that, I am not referring to any particular individual.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I agree with what the
Minister of Railways and Canals has just said. Since, however, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Price) was allowed to stray from the straight and narrow path, I think I might be permitted for a minute to refute what that hon. member has just said, that the leader of the opposition and the present member for Restigouche-Madawaska were going through the district represented by that hon. gentleman and preaching depression. I think the house now understands the reason for the outcome of the election, namely, that the hon. gentleman travelled the same territory last fall and made statements just as accurate as those he has been making in this chamber to-day. Therein lies the explanation why the party he supports met such tremendous defeat. My hon. friend has been kind enough to tgive credit to the depression for my election. I shall be more generous; I shall give him instead of the depression 99 per cent of the credit for my success, because during that election he made statements just about as accurate as those he is making here to-day.
I never contended that there was no increase in business in that district, but to show how inaccurate are the statements that are made to-day, may I point out that my hon. friend mentions that lumber from Maine was carried over the Canadian National to be shipped at the port of Campbellton. It was only lumber from New Brunswick and that part of Quebec adjacent to New Brunswick that was shipped over that line.
I should like to say a word regarding the amalgamation of the two railways since this subject has been treated very elaborately this afternoon. I have no objection to any amalgamation or pooling to save expense and to try to make . a better showing, but the pooling should not be made always in favour of the Canadian Pacific. We have a glaring example of this in the fact that wherever there is danger of the Canadian Pacific losing out, the pooling is not looked upon very favour-

ably. In New Brunswick there is a section of road thirty-five miles long where the two railways run parallel within one hundred feet of each other and pooling should be done. If the Canadian National railway line were used, this would eliminate twenty overhead crossings over the trans-Canada highway. Yet the interests do not feel like pooling the running rights over that district because it is claimed it will injuriously affect the future of the Canadian Pacific in that section since, by running over the Canadian National railway, the traffic will eventually remain with that company. When it is in the general interest of the public to abandon one line or the other in a particular district, the whole matter should be viewed fairly and either one line or the other should give in.


Otto Baird Price: If the hon. member for
Restigouche-Madawaska is of opinion that my statements were inaccurate in connection with the shipment of lumber from Maine, I suggest that he consult the Canadian National management and find out the facts, as I believe he is ignorant of conditions respecting the movement of freight traffic. If he will consult the Canadian National management, he will find that my statements are correct. A very large quantity of lumber was brought from Maine and shipped over the Canadian National to the ports of Canada. I think also he will find that the statements I made during the election campaign are borne out by the facts.


Mr. HEENAN:: I should like to draw the
attention of the minister to a statement he made the other day, obviously thinking he was right, because he was quoting Mr. Justice Fullerton, chairman of the board of trustees. This was in answer to a question by the hon. member for Quebec East, who quoted to the minister the number of employees that were being left out or laid off. The minister quoted from a letter by Mr. Justice Fullerton pointing out that ninety-six engineers, conductors, trainmen and firemen were affected by the pooling of those trains, but that they were not laid off, they just went back into other service, freight service, by the exercise of their seniority rights. That is not the correct situation. While it is true that those ninety-six senior passenger men reverted to freight and so- on down the line, there were still ninety-six men laid off at the bottom of the list, and the statement made by the minister quoting the chairman of the board of trustees, left the impression, as I noticed in one paper from Winnipeg, that not one of the men lost his posi-

C.N.R.-C.P.R.-Agreements
tion. That is a wrong impression to get out, because ninety-six men were laid off from the bottom of the list.


Robert James Manion: I did not contradict what my hon. friend says now; I simply quoted Mr. Fullerton as saying that the ninety-six men who had been laid off from passenger trains would "bump," as the railway men say, the men below them and probably go on to freight trains. Mr. Fullerton followed that up by saying that, due to increased traffic which has been showing itself to a large extent in the last few months-in fact it began about the middle of last year-most of the men who would be "bumped" would automatically come back to work.


Peter Heenan: But there would still be
ninety-six men more who would not be employed.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to quarrel with that. I wish to say just two or three sentences in reply to some remarks that have been made. It would be a little unfortunate if the impression as implied in the speeches of some of my hon. friends, were sent out through the country that the Canadian National were getting the worst of these pooling deals, and that in some way the Canadian Pacific was improving its position and the Canadan National injuring its position.


Mr. GIROUARD:: The trains are all leaving from the Canadian Pacific station.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is just making a general statement; it is not so. These pooling arrangements will in some cases be as in the case of Montreal and Quebec. In this case it appeared wise to the managements to carry on the service from the Canadian Pacific station and over their lines, but in other parts of the country it will be and has been decided to carry on the service by Canadian National. Pooling must be judged by the general results, not by some individual case. I submit with all respect that without doubt in all these pooling arrangements the Canadian National management is getting a fair deal. I do not think the Canadian Pacific management desire to give the Canadian National an unfair deal nor do I think the Canadian National management desire to give the Canadian Pacific an unfair deal. The aim is to attain economics for both. Unless there is an economy for both one or the other will refuse to go into the pooling arrangement. When both expect to gain by the movement they agree to pool.
I wish to deal briefly with one or two other points. One hon. gentleman said, if I understood aright, that as far as he could see, for years to come there was going to be a deficit on the Canadian National of from fifty to seventy-five million dollars a year. I think those were the figures he used. I am not so pessimistic as that. The Canadian National deficit this year, it is true, has been over
852,000,000, that is including interest charges, and there are some additional payments that the government has to make which will bring the amount paid by the government altogether to something like $60,000,000, not $75,000,000. This is at the very bottom of the depression. Remember that in 1933 the Canadian National took in gross earnings much less than half of what was taken in the peak year, due to the world depression, which has affected every country and all lines of industry and commerce, cutting down international trade for example by sixty per cent of what it was in 1929. Due to that the Canadian National, and the Canadian Pacific as well, have had their earnings reduced to less than half what they were in 1928, the peak year. The gross earnings of the Canadian National for instance for 1933 were less than $150,000,000, whereas in the peak year they were over $300,000,000. In view of that and the fact that without doubt Canada and the rest of the world, or at least the parts with which we are associated closely, are on the upgrade and have been for some months,-certainly this country has, and nothing shows it better than the returns of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific; I say in view of that there is every hope for a much better showing, particularly considering that both railways have made very extensive economies. The Canadian National, as I said the other day, has made special economies amounting to something like $15,000,000 a year on a gross earnings of $200,000,000, so if earnings go back to anything like the peak of $300,000,000 the showing will be very much better. The Canadian Pacific also has made great economies, though I cannot speak of that with as much authority as of the Canadian National. So if the business of the country comes back in the next year or year and a half to anything like normal both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National will get into a vastly better position than they are in to-day. Therefore I submit that there will be no such deficit as fifty or seventy-five million dollars.
Technical Education Act

I do not wish to delay my bill, lion, members have had a very general discussion and I hope they will now permit the bill to proceed.
Bill reported.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, to amend the Technical Education Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) if he took into consideration the question whether there are any means whereby the provinces which have not used this money can have it made available for use in agricultural teaching and the advancement of agriculture in the colleges of these provinces?


Mr. GORDON:: I have given consideration to what the hon. member suggested when the bill was introduced. Personally I am inclined to the view that the unexpected balance can be devoted to agricultural education, but I propose to submit the question to the Justice department in order that I may get a clear interpretation of the terms used in the act. I am hopeful that the moneys can be applied to agriculture.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was there not provision made some years ago that the province of Prince Edward Island could use that money for agricultural teaching?


George Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I believe
there was an act of parliament passed making the moneys available for Prince Edward Island. However, as I said, I will go further into the matter in the hope that the unexpected balance can be devoted to the purposes suggested.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Militia services; cadet services, $150,000.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: I wonder if the minister
would give us an explanation of this reduction.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: As my hon. friend knows, when this item was under discussion last year I said it would be reduced this year, and it has been reduced. The largest reduction is in connection with the number of cadets for whom the allowance is paid; that is, allowances will be paid for only 55,000 cadets throughout Canada, and in addition the staffs have been reduced very generally.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister
say where these cadet corps are now located?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have them here
by provinces, if that will meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman. They are as follows:
Alberta	 34
British Columbia	 31
Manitoba	 25
New Brunswick	 75
Nova Scotia	 47
Ontario	 205
Prince Edward	Island	 9
Quebec		320
Saskatchewan	 43


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many of these corps are connected with public schools?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Practically all; there may be a few in private schools but I believe nearly all are in connection with public schools.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: The minister has
just stated that this year the training of cadets will include only 55,000.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, that is all that will be paid for.


Eugène Fiset: Does the minister
mean only 55 in each cadet company?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, we will only
pay for 55,000 cadets, at $1 each.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister could explain to the committee what allowances will be paid per unit out of this vote of $150,000.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is rather difficult to say at the present time; probably they would have to be put on a pro rata basis. A great many corps have been disbanded, and it is possible that the total number trained will not exceed 55,000.


Eugène Fiset: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
find myself in opposition to the last speaker; I should like to congratulate the minister on the reduction from 8300,000 to $150,000, and I could hope that the remaining $150,000 might be wiped out. As the last speaker said, this is the only grant made by the dominion government for education within the provinces. Several years ago, when some of us urged that a grant should be made by this parliament to the provinces for the purpose of promoting peace, we were told that it was impossible under the British North America Act, because this parliament could not possibly interfere in the matter of education within the provinces. To-day it is frankly conceded that this is a grant to educational institutions for educational work, and I believe it to be outside the powers of the dominion government. Let me warn my friends from Quebec that whatever temporary advantage they may gain in a financial way may be more than offset one of these days through the precedent that is thus being established.


Eugène Fiset: We are quite willing to risk it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, that is your business. Further than that, may I point out the inconsistency of the position of the government. If it is correct to make grants for what I regard as essentially military purposes surely it is quite correct for this dominion government to make grants for peace purposes. The government is taking an inconsistent position. More than that, we are told that it was extremely difficult to get the educational authorities in some of the provinces to agree to anything of this kind. Several years ago I pointed out that in my own province the military authorities had, themselves, taken the initiative and pressed this matter upon the central school authorities. They were practically turned down by the provincial authorities and then some of them approached the individual school boards and sought in this way to get in their work with the individual boards. That action is not conducive to the best relations between the dominion and the provinces. However I do not wish to stress jurisdictional matters of that kind, but rather to point out that there is a growing conviction to-day that we are not going to solve our problems by developing a military spirit. Throughout the world to-day we are in danger of having another war developed, and the only possible
Supply-National Defence

means by which such catastrophe could be averted is by developing a spirit of peace. In this country, I believe most of our people are in favour of peace. It has been the declared policy of the dominion government to adopt a policy of peace. It does not seem to me that a grant such as we are now discussing is consistent with the declared peace policy of the dominion government. It might conceivably be argued that we have to have some sort of defence force, but surely no one will say that these boys who are being trained in the cadet corps are receiving training which will make them immediately available for war. Further, that is not the professed object of such cadet training. It may be said that they are being given merely physical training, but if that contention is urged it should be brought to the attention of the house once again that if the boys are to be given physical training the girls should have that training too, and further that, as a rule, the men instructing the cadet corps are not the men best fitted to instruct in training in which physical development is the paramount consideration.
Again and again educational experts have pointed out that military training is not the best training for purely physical purposes. The only possible object in developing these cadet corps in our schools then, must be to encourage the boys to take an interest in military matters, and I think any one who has witnessed any of the parades or reviews must come to that conclusion. Once more I want to protest against our adopting or maintaining in Canada any policy which would tend to encourage a military spirit among our youth.


Mr. POULIOT:: Just before the vote is carried I should like to say this, that on a day such as this, the fifteenth of March, I should not like to contradict what has been said by my good friend from Rimouski. Last year the vote was for $300,000; this year it is reduced by 50 per cent. The hon. member for Rimouski has said that it should be increased, and, on the other hand, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said that not one cent should be spent. Well, I see that the minister is following the middle course, the Liberal policy, and is reducing the vote by 50 per cent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And pleasing no one.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not say that. When there is a step in the right direction I do not complain. I am ready to give the devil his dues, and on this occasion there is no

devil at all. On the other hand may I add that this vote is much more sensible than are some other expenditures-for instance, the large amount of money which is now being spent for the diplomatic training of the Postmaster General in the courts of Europe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies, $31,500.
Mr. REID:: I should like to ask a question regarding the camps in British Columbia.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Those camps do not come under the estimates for my department. The hon. member would have an opportunity to discuss camps under the bill of which the Minister of Labour gave notice to-day. In connection with those camps the Department of National Defence is really acting as the agent of the Department of Labour. There is no part of our vote for that purpose. Either the Minister of Labour or myself would be very glad to answer the hon. member's question when the bill is discussed.


Thomas Reid: It seems to me rather strange if there is no opportunity under the estimates for the Department of National Defence to discuss these camps.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is no item
under which the camps could be discussed.


Thomas Reid: But they are under the minister's jurisdiction, and I should like to know under what item we may ask those questions. I do not know how many camps there are in British Columbia, but I believe there are over twenty under the jurisdiction of the minister.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If the hon. member wishes to discuss the camps may I suggest that the only item even remotely connected would be that concerning the permanent force. I should be happy to answer any questions under that item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works, $297,500.
Eugène Fiset: Would the minister explain if there are any new buildings, or what repairs were made in pursuance of last year's vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: As the hon. member knows, in a general way this vote is for the ordinary repairs and upkeep charges in connection with military buildings, rifle ranges, camps and fortifications.


Eugène Fiset: Have any new
ranges been built?

Supply-Defence-General Stores


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, there have been no new ranges built, but some improvements have been made on the new range at Vancouver.


Eugène Fiset: Would aviation
fields come under this vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, that would come under the aviation vote.


Eugène Fiset: Do not repairs to
aviation fields carried on by the department come under this vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, that would come under the aviation vote.


Mr. VENIOT:: Is there not a new rifle
range established in New Brunswick?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, not under the
jurisdiction of this department. Of course a small civilian range might be formed in the community.


Peter John Veniot: I know a camp has been
established for the counties of York and Sun-bury in New Brunswick.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: So far as I am aware there is nothing in the project which has to do with a rifle range.


Peter John Veniot: The statement given out
by the provincial government of New Brunswick and reported in the press is that the camp established is for the purposes of reforestation and the opening up of a new rifle range in the centre of the province.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I think that is an
error. Ultimately, under the project going through, it will be a training camp, and is brought about as an unemployment relief project, but there is nothing ready at the present time with regard to it.


Peter John Veniot: Does the establishment
of airports come under item 74 for engineer services and works.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, there will be
nothing under that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores, $667,800.
_ Sir EUGENE FISET: May I ask the minister if under this item is included the purchase of general stores for the naval section of the department?
Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, Mr. Chairman.


Eugène Fiset: Under what item
does that come?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Under the naval service vote.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister
give. us a classification showing what these stores consist of?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They include telephone, signal and wireless stores, the inspection of stores, clothing and necessaries, medical stores, also the dominion arsenal at Quebec and the arsenal at Lindsay. It includes everything in the clothing line.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Cannot we have
a little more detail? How much for each classification? The item is nearly three-quarters of a million dollars.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Public clothing,
waterproof clothing, clothing of all kinds, cavalry stables' necessaries, tools of all sorts, oils, paints and chemicals used for cleaning, all kinds of camp equipment, the necessary lumber, furniture and kitchen equipment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Here is an item of $667,800, and I think we should have some idea how much is spent on clothing, how much on camp necessaries, munitions and so on.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The items are as
follows:
Clothing, $129,000.
Artillery stores, $48,000.
Telephone, signal and wireless stores, $19,000.
Medical stores, $9,000.
Dental stores, $1,000.
Veterinary stores, $1,500.
Inspection of stores and munitions, $52,000.
Dominion arsenal, Quebec, $318,300.
Dominion arsenal, Lindsay, $6,800.


Thomas Reid: Do the stores for the camps
come out of this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A very considerable amount is set down for inspection. Will that come under the head of salaries?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No. All the stores
we buy are inspected, and of course the ammunition has to be very carefully inspected.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is	there any
revenue in this department? It has been stated that considerable quantities of goods are disposed of from time to time and fall into the hands of secondhand dealers, and are sold by them. Is there any revenue to the department from the sale of clothing?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: None whatever. If we had anything that was beyond use to us it would be turned over to the dominion salvage officer. He would dispose of it, and the proceeds would go into consolidated revenue, not to the department at all.



Supply-Defence-General Stores


Mr. MacINNIB:: Are these items of stores purchased by tender?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: In the contracts for clothing and such like, is there a fair wage clause inserted by the department?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, there is a fair wage clause in all our contracts.


Angus MacInnis: Does the inspection go to the point of seeing that the fair wage clause is carried out in the filling of the contracts?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, I cannot say that we go beyond a declaration that the fair wage clause has been carried out.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid that the minister is mistaken because the duties of the director of contracts in the department include not only the letting of the contracts but seeing that every clause of the contracts is closely followed. I think he does follow the contract through. He did in the past.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course, he inspects the goods carefully, but I do not know that he would go beyond the declaration of the firm that they had lived up to the clause, and make a personal investigation.


Eugène Fiset: I think he does.


Angus MacInnis: My information is that some of these contracts are sublet, and possibly again sublet several times, and that eventually the wages paid certainly would not meet the requirements of a fair wage clause in any contract. The question I wish to ask is whether the department follows up the contract and sees that the fair wage clause is actually being carried out.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, we do the best we can to see that it is followed out.


Angus MacInnis: "The best we can" must mean that you are satisfied that the fair wage clause has been lived up to in every contract for the manufacturing of supplies for the department. If it does not mean that, it does not mean anything.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There has never been any assertion made to the contrary, and so far as I know the clause has been lived up to in every case. I have never heard of one case in which representations were made to the contrary.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, would the minister be so kind as to furnish me with certain details in connection with the item under discussion and which includes travelling expenses? I am putting the question in French to the hon. minister

because he speaks that language as well as I do English. The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) also understands French. They are the only two English-speaking ministers, who understand French; I must congratulate them. I wish to inquire as to what are the travelling expenses of officers of his department who visit certain military schools in this country.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Travelling expenses would come under civil government contingencies, not under this vote.


Mr. JEAN:: But on page 26 there is a paragraph explaining General Stores, and it includes the words, "Travelling expenses and other services generally."


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not the details separated to show the travelling expenses.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: It would be interesting to know the details of that expenditure as I am aware that some extravagant outlays are made in that department. What amazes me most is that the Department of National Defence is the only one whose estimates do not vary since 1930. I notice in the estimates of 1932-33, that over $14,000,000 were expended for national defence and only $8,000,000 for agriculture, namely $3,000,000 less than in the budget of 1930. There is much lamentation; various remedies are proposed, legislation is resorted to; inquiries are held, etc., so as to cut down expenditure. In the Departments of Public Works, Agriculture and many others, economy is practised, while the estimates of the Department of National Defence remain as they were in previous years. I have much esteem for the hon. Minister of National Defence; however, I should like to have some details which will permit me to make further inquiries when other items are considered. There seems to be quite a lot of favouritism in that department because friends are more looked after than economy. The hon. minister states that he has not those details. I have my doubts, however, I shall take his word. At all events, I shall have an opportunity of referring to this matter when other items are considered.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I regret I have not
the information desired in that particular form. The question has never come up before but I shall be glad to obtain the information for the hon. member.


Mr. ROSS:: I understand the minister has
received one or two requests f )r the turning over of discarded clothing to welfare associations to be used for returned men instead of it being handed over to the salvage corps.

Supply-Defence-Active Militia
I do not know whether this clothing would amount to very much but I think the suggestion is a good one. Returned men who are now on relief obtain rent, groceries, fuel and light but except in one or two places nothing is allowed for clothing. I should like to know if any action has been taken in this regard.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Nothing in the way of clothing is turned over to the salvage officer. Discarded vehicles and things of that kind are turned over, but in recent years he has received no clothing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was the point I was raising a moment ago.
Mr, SUTHERLAND: A great deal of this clothing was given to the Red Cross but the stocks were finally exhausted. This consisted of boots, underclothing and some overcoats. Anything that could be of any service has been turned over to that organization.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Non-permanent active militia, $1,994,000.
John Campbell Elliott: What was the amount
voted and the amount expended last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The vote last year
was exactly the same but as this year is not completed we have not the total expenditure.
Mr. ELLIOTT; Could the minister give an estimate as to how nearly the expenditures took up the vote of last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The expenditures to the end of December amounted to $1,342,000.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the latest report?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.
. Mr. DENIS (Translation): Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. minister would have given better proof of his disposition to practise economy in his department, had he reduced this item by the same ratio as he did that relating to cadet training. The whole country would have been grateful to him had he reduced this budget item under consideration. The financial situation of the country is not so flourishing as it is thought in certain quarters. Under these circumstances, I would welcome a reduction of 50 per cent on this item.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It was impossible to cut this item to the same extent as the cadet item was cut. In a sense, this is the most important item in our estimates as the nonpermanent militia is the backbone of the whole service. The vote has been cut considerably during the last few years. No member of this body of men makes a cent out of what he is doing for the country, in fact practically every-74726-96 i
one is out money. I believe the vote has been cut down as much as possible and still allow the organization to be kept intact.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What is the strength of the ranks in the non-permanent militia?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: About 52,000.


Humphrey Mitchell: And the number of officers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: About 7,000.


Joseph Jean: The details of this vote are given on page 26, and they include grants to associations. I should like to know what associations benefit from these grants.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are the provincial and dominion rifle associations and the cavalry, artillery, engineers, signallers infantry and machine gun service branches.


Humphrey Mitchell: The minister stated that the strength of the ranks was 52,000 and the number of officers 7,000. Would the officers be included in the first figure?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: On December 31 of last year there were 7,021 officers and 45,504 other ranks, or 52,525 altogether.


Humphrey Mitchell: That would be an officer for every 6J men.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, but I must elaborate that a little because the hon. gentleman knows well he might leave the wrong impression in that regard. It is much easier and takes a much shorter time to train a man than it does to train an officer. All through the last number of years we have had to fall back on training officers and key men as well as we can, so that should any necessity arise, they would take hold and train the others. That is the explanation.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The hon. minister referred to officers just now. I think that most of them are parade officers. Sometimes newspapers publish an item such as: lieutenant so and so, captain so and so, colonel so and so. I often wonder how they were promoted to those ranks. I know a few by name, and I really think that these captains, majors or colonels have never known any fire save that in their stove at home. It would be most interesting to find out how many of these parade officers, when the war broke out, in 1914, joined the C.E.F. I knew a number of them in various towns and believe that not one of them went overseas. Some of them, as soon as they heard of war, burned their uniforms.
The hon. minister is an officer, a military man by profession, and a qualified officer
1514	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Active Militia
at that. He is perhaps the ablest minister of the cabinet, one who knows best his business, because he has found it possible to maintain his budget intact ever since he has had charge of that department.
A military camp was stationed at St. Johns, last year. If I well remember, a number of military men arrived on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd September, stayed over Labour day, the 4th, and performed some training. I would be very curious to learn from the hon. minister, what this 4 days' camp at St. Johns cost, including travelling expenses, rations and other expenses.
These military men passed a day or two at the barracks, their transportation expenses had to be paid from Sherbrooke, Levis, Quebec, Joliette, Montreal or elsewhere. On Sunday they underwent some training and also had a church parade; on Monday, some more training. I wonder what such military men are worth as to their military efficiency, after costing the country $8, 810, $12 or $15, each. They do not even know how to shoulder a rifle when they break up camp.
I would also like to know how much each militia man cost the country, in these so called two weeks camp training. For a number of years past, we have had these camps at St. Johns, and I may state that there are young men who come to these camps that were never born to shoulder a rifle. Would the hon. minister inform the house how much each man costs the country for two weeks' training in such camps, simply for rations and salary, not including travelling expenses? A number of these men, after the camp has broken up do not even know how to handle a rifle.	.
In a crisis, when all departments retrench, especially Public Works and Agriculture, I do not see why the Department of National Defence should not do likewise. The hon. minister stated that he had reduced by 50 per cent the item relating to cadet training. If I thought I could persuade the minister to do so, I would request him to reduce by 75 per cent the militia budget for 1935.
Mr. iSUTHERLAND:	With reference to
what the hon. member has said about the camps held at St. Johns, those camps are not as they used to be prior to four or five years ago when a good many regiments from that military district would go there full strength and put in probably twelve days of training. We have not had the money to hold those camps and as a consequence a great deal of the training has been done at local headquarters. The various regiments about which the hon. gentleman has spoken

have done a lot of training at their own headquarters.. Then they would probably go to camp, as the case is there, for four days, one company from one town, another from another, and get together for combined exercises. A good deal of the money that was spent for that would be spent by the regiments themselves. In some cases we gave a grant of the food and paid the railway expenses, but in many cases they put up a great deal of the expense themselves.
As regards what the hon. gentleman said about the officers and the men, I am firmly convinced that the men whom we have in the militia at the present time are just as good a lot of men and officers as those whom we had before the war and who went to the war, and that if ever the necessity arose again, they would acquit themselves just as creditably. The fact that an officer or a man smokes a cigarette or carries a cane or does something of that kind is no sign that he is not a good man, because everyone has to have his moments of relaxation; we cannot all be keyed up to concert pitch all the time. A person who does not take a chance or a day or a night off once in a while would never make a soldier.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I do not disagree with
that, but there are too many what we call parade officers, because when the war started in 1914 I know some of those parade officers burned their uniforms.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That would be a
very rare occurrence. Some men who, one might think, were the least likely to be soldiers, when they got overseas and right up against it, were among the best that ever went to the war. You cannot tell from the looks of a man what kind of a soldier he will be when in action.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: But I know some soldiers who were for many years in St. Johns and when the war started, they quit. When it was time to go to fight, they would not go, although they had been in St. Johns perhaps five or ten years, drawing their pay every month. When they had a chance to make a good showing at fighting, they quit.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: A certain number of
officers and men stayed in Canada not from their own choice, but because there was a great deal of very important work that had to be done in this country in the way of recruiting the different contingents, training them and getting them ready to be sent overseas; that was a very important job. While I do not know of particular cases, and pos-

Supply-Defence-Active Militia
sibly in some cases something might not have been quite all right, in the majority of cases they were doing very important work at home.


Peter John Veniot: I see that in 1932-33 the
amount was $1,882,810 and for 1933-34 it is $1,994,000. How is it that it could be done for so much less in the former year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The reason was that we were cut down very greatly that year, and as a consequence had to do without any artillery training at all practically. Now artillery -and the same applies to machine guns-can only do a very limited amount of effective training at home, because they cannot fire their weapons. We find that if we were going to get results at all we had to take those men to camp.


Mr. LUCAS:: May I ask if there are any
training camps being held now similar to those held a few years ago, and if so at what points?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not the same as
there were several years ago but, as I have explained, there were last year and will be this year camps for machine guns and artillery and engineers. There will be a camp at Peta-wawa, one at Hughes and one at Sarcee along those lines.


Eugène Fiset: What proportion of this vote was spent last year on city units and what proportion on the rural militia?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not got that but I will be glad to get it for the hon. gentleman.


Eugène Fiset: Will the minister
simply tell me if the city units attained to full strength last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, they took their full strength and in many cases trained many more men than they were paid for.


Eugène Fiset: What kind of training did the rural units undergo last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The procedure is
this. The district officer commanding the district makes his plan of what he would like to do. He knows his various units and whether they can train to advantage at their local headquarters or get together it may be at the headquarters of the colonel, or possibly go to a central camp for a few days; he makes his recommendation and if it is approved he carries on that training.


Eugène Fiset: I am afraid the
minister did not quite get my question. For instance, I would like to know the proportion in numbers of each regiment in the Quebec
district that trained at Valcartier last year. Was it only the skeleton formation, of noncommissioned officers and officers, or were the men brought in?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Any particular unit?


Eugène Fiset: I would like to know about the 189th Rimousld regiment, if possible.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The training authorized for that regiment was total training strength, 58, and they were at Valcartier from the 15th until the 24th of August.


Eugène Fiset: Does that include officers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, that would be all ranks.


Eugène Fiset: I am anxious to ascertain whether if you carry on the same kind of skeleton training next year, the officers selected from each regiment to attend these camps will have the right to qualify from rank to rank instead of attending the ordinary school of instruction?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Oh, yes, we are keeping up the schools and they will have every opportunity to do that.


Eugène Fiset: The minister did not exactly get my question. I am asking whether instead of being compelled to attend the school of instruction for two or three months in order to qualify from rank to rank, opportunity will be given to officers attending these camps next summer to pass their qualifying examination there.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, in the junior ranks they would, but it is obvious that in the senior ranks they would have to have more.


Mr. PERRAS:: I do not know if my hearing is defective, but in his remarks a few minutes ago the minister mentioned some statistics, which I understood to be for September 31 last year. If I am wrong I want to be corrected.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The figures I gave to the hon. gentleman were that his regiment went to camp from the 15th to the 24th of August.


Fizalam-William Perras: Then I admit my hearing is defective. I remembered the rhyme about "thirty days hath September." I apologize.


Eugène Fiset: Is it the intention of the department to pay to regimental units -I speak especially of rural units-the full allowance they are entitled to under the law?
1516	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Active Militia


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes the allowances will be paid.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: The hon. Minister might inform me as to what is the salary paid to officers in camps lasting two or three days as we have had in St. Johns, last autumn? I put questions to that effect and the minister was kind enough to reply on Feb. 27, that there had been 215 officers and 1,113 men of other ranks, namely one officer for five privates. The pay of officers amounted to $5,561 while those of other ranks received $3,293. The transportation cost) amounted to $503 paid to the CF.Ry., and $844 to the C.N.Ry. The total expenditure amounted to $24,393. I find rather expensive the fact of spending $25,000 to allow a number of soldiers to pass a few days in St. Johns, doing military training. My case is perhaps similar to that of the hon. member who stated just now, that his ears must have been at fault, because I thought I heard the hon. minister state that some of these officers did not receive any pay. However, according to the report I have just mentioned these officers received $5,561 and other ranks $3,393. Could the hon. minister inform me what amount the officers and other ranks receive per day and whether the officers and men are paid from the day of their departure up to their return to their home?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The figures are as the hon. gentleman stated, but of course it is well known that the pay of an officer is more than the pay of other ranks.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Surely, because there are nearly 215 of them.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes; the pay for
regimental officers is as follows:
Per day
Lieutenant colonel	
$5	00Major	
4	00Captain	
3	00Lieutenant	
2	00


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: And expenses?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: And expenses.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: What are the soldiers
paid?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The pay is $1 per day.


Peter Heenan: Can the minister tell us
whether or not the supplies for these camps are obtained by tender and whether or not the contracts contain the fair wage clause?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The only separate
tenders there would be in connection with the camps would be for food. The men have their clothing, and so on before they go to the camps. In connection with the contracts for food there would be no clause of that kind.


Peter Heenan: When the department is
purchasing supplies for these men, such as boots, clothing and so on, is that done by tender?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Peter Heenan: I see that an order in
council was passed under the relief legislation entering into a contract for some 26,000 shirts for the unemployment relief camps. Could the minister give me any idea of the date of the last contract prior to this, which is dated February 9?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: What is the date
of the last order in council?


Peter Heenan: The last order in council
I can find passed under the relief legislation is dated February 9, 1934. I wondered if the minister could say when, prior to that, a similar purchase was last made by any branch of his department.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not exact
information as to that. Every year we make purchases of that kind, but I have not with me the dates of the different contracts.


Peter Heenan: Would the minister be
good enough to lay on the table the last two agreements prior to the order in council of February 9?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, I shall be glad to get them.


Peter Heenan: This order in council is
for the purchase of 26,000 shirts; the drill is to be supplied by the department and the contract is with a manufacturing concern in Quebec. The rate given is 61 cents per shirt, which is in consideration of the material being supplied by the department. This would leave about 21 cents per shirt to cover labour, overhead, sales tax, transportation and so on. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether his department or the Department of Labour have found out what portion of that 21 cents went to labour.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: When a contract of that kind is let by order in council we immediately refer it to the Department of Labour with regard to the fair wage clause and so on, so that would come under the Department of Labour, to whom we refer every contract of more than $1,000.

Supply-Defence-Active Militia


Peter Heenan: This seems quite a departure from the Dominion government's fair wage policy. The order in council goes on to say that the minister, on the advice of the deputy minister, recommends the acceptance of the tender of this company at 61 cents per shirt, which is the lowest tender, and which includes the estimated transportation charges for delivery at Winnipeg, provided that the company complies with the minimum and fair wage laws. That does not refer to the fair wage clause of the Dominion government and I do not see how this government can insist that the provincial governments enforce their own laws. When the government let a contract I think they should specify the wages and conditions of labour and should not leave those matters to some provincial law, whether it be in Ontario or in Quebec. In my estimation this is mass buying; there is no doubt about that. I should like to know whether the government are trying to evade their own laws with respect to fair wages; that is the point I want to make. I believe it will be found before long that some of the provinces do not carry out the minimum wage laws they have passed, so I think it is a dangerous procedure for the Dominion government to rely upon a corporation to obey a law upon which it is quite evident the province has not insisted. In other words I am satisfied that when we ferret it out we will find that these shirts have been manufactured under the worst sweatshop conditions.
I do not want to delay the minister's estimates, because he had been very patient, he says he take a night out once in a while and I should not like to keep him in. But I should like to ask the minister a question or two in connection with the work on the air-ports which are being constructed throughout Canada, and with especial reference to the work at Lac Seul. I wonder if the minister would not give instructions to headquarters at ithat point to purchase their supplies, such as hay, oats, meats and vegetables, in the district in which the work is being carried on. I understood that the principle in connection with these unemployment relief projects was to employ those living in the district in which the work was carried on and to distribute the money spent in that locality as far as possible. I think the minister will find that the supplies for many of these camps, and especially the camp at Lac Seul, have been obtained at centres far removed from the camps. In the case of Lac Seul a large portion of the supplies, as well as of the men working there, have come from
Winnipeg. I wish the minister would interest himself in that situation, because I arc satisfied that the hon. gentleman would like to see a fair distribution of the little money that is being spent in that way. In that connection I should like to ask another question: Is it the policy of the department to have these jobs filled by patronage, that is, through the defeated candidates in these particular ridings?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, that is not the policy of the government-nothing of the kind. May I say that I am in favour of the plan of purchasing locally which the hon. member has mentioned, and so far as possible we are carrying it out. We are purchasing around Lac Seul camp whatever can be purchased in the way of fodder and things of that nature. However, we must remember that in the smaller centres it is more difficult to purchase meat locally, because one cannot be assured of the regularity of supply. At one time a farmer may be in a position to send in a carcass of beef or pork and at another he may not. We have to be assured of a steady supply. However, when that supply is available we are only too delighted to accept it. I have given orders to buy locally, where possible, and they are being carried out.


Peter Heenan: I quite agree with the
minister that there are obstacles and difficulties in the way of buying locally, but I do suggest that vegetables and fodder could be purchased in the district concerned. During the three and a half years of construction along the trans-Canada highway we have been trying to get the Ontario legislature to insist upon their contractors giving a square deal to the people who have settled along the highway. Only now, on the eve of an election, have they made a public declaration. And through whom have they made it? Through the new Conservative candidate in the riding. Despite the fact that the minister had promised action on two or three occasions, this candidate insists that he has finally secured an arrangement with the contractors. I do not want to see the Minister of National Defence get into these five cent parochial politics; I should not like to see him follow the example of the Minister of Lands and Forests and his associates in Ontario. I have more respect for the Minister of National Defence than to believe he will follow their example.
While on this subject I should like to refer to the matter of filling positions, if they may be so called. I hope the minister does not refer to them as jobs, because the men are

Supply-Defence-Active Militia
being paid only S5 a month and their board, if they work. I could produce to the minister a letter showing that in Winnipeg, where a man applied for the job of timekeeper, he was referred to the defeated candidate. I am sure the minister does not wish that practice to continue. I can understand, in a general way, what is meant by patronage. In this country it is the defeated candidate, the man whom the people did not wish to represent them, who, in fact, does represent them. But surely when we are dealing with men who are going into the bush to earn a living-because that is all they are getting out of it- they ought not to be forced to go on their bended knees before a man whom the people defeated at the polls and whom, they said, they did not want as their representative. I do not wish to speak to the Minister of National Defence as I spoke to another minister not so long ago, because I feel satisfied all that I have to do is to draw to the attention of the minister the conditions existing and he will see to it that unfortunate people in Canada do not have to appear on bended knees before a defeated candidate or anybody else. They ought to be treated as human beings.


Mr. GOTT:: I have no desire to delay the committee, but I hope the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) has observed in the press of to-day that the Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario is quite capable of taking care of himself. The night before last he puit many hides on the fence, in the Ontario legislature, and had the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River been there his hide would have been on the fence too.


Peter Heenan: I would say in reply to
the hon. member, who seldom says anything unless an onion is squeezed in the chamber, that any time the Minister of Lands and Forests puts my hide on the-fence it will cost the province of Ontario a great many more millions of dollars than it cost at the last election. He spent a good many millions during the last election campaign in an effort to put the hide of the present member for Kenora-Rainy River on the fence, and I can say right now to the hon. member for South Essex-onion Essex-that the Minister of Lands and Forests will not be put on the fence, because Liberals do not act that way. They send them home to rest, where he ought to have been this last five or six years.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister is willing to permit the discussion about camps to proceed on this vote.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I would prefer to
have the discussion on the next vote.


Mr. HEAPS:: I should like to revert to
a question raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), namely the question of contracts which have been let and are being let by the Department of National Defence. It came to my attention yesterday, through a gentleman whom I met in this city, that there were bitter complaints about contracts being let for clothing for the permanent force. I believe this particular gentleman regards himself as a fair employer of labour. He tells me that the conditions under which uniforms are made are such as would not be tolerated by any government familiar with them. I do not know whether the minister himself is cognizant of the fact, but I may explain that the gentleman in question is a fairly large manufacturer of clothing, operating in the city of Montreal, and observes union rules. I believe he knows what he is talking about, because he helps to make the specifications for the department. He has stated that owing to the intolerable conditions under which clothing is being made it is almost impossible for any employer of labour who deals fairly with his employees to receive a contract. On a former occasion when I raised this question the minister stated that in this connection no individual had made a complaint to the department. I now make that complaint. 'I do not wish the minister to feel that my complaint is in any degree personal, because I understand the practice has continued for quite a number of years.
The other day I stated, as I have always maintained, that the government ought to be a model employer of labour, yet it lets contracts for uniforms, or clothing, under conditions which bring no credit to the government or to those responsible for letting the contracts. I understand that a great many difficulties stand in the way. One is that of the patronage list from which the government must choose; very often contracts are let to people who themselves do not manufacture the goods and the contracts are sublet. Of course the first party receiving the contract has to have a profit-you may call it a rake-off, if you wish-for taking the contract and subletting it. Once these contracts are let I should like to see some follow-up process adopted to see that the fair wage clauses are properly observed. I believe such action would help to mitigate some of the evils now existing in connection with the letting of contracts.

Supply-Defence-Active Militia
After all, there is a great deal of competition among manufacturers to obtain government contracts. Sometimes they are fairly large, and the pay is fairly sure. Very often the profits are taken out of the hides-and in this instance the term " hides " is being used in its proper sense-of their employees by paying them miserably low wages, and by undercutting an employer of labour who wishes to pay to his employees a decent wage in accordance with the laws of the particular province affected. If the minister wishes to have evidence about contracts for clothing for the army which have been let in past years, I am prepared to submit to him all the information he may require. All I am asking at the present time is that the minister sees that in future these abuses are eliminated and that provision is made for proper government supervision.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall be very glad indeed to give that assurance. I am very much in favour of the work that is being done by the committee in this regard, and I hope that its labours will be fruitful. Anything that I can do to assist it, I shall be very glad to do.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have been trying to estimate from the reports what is taking place, and to supplement my information I would ask the minister what is the number of infantry battalions, the number of regiments of cavalry, and the number of batteries of artillery that are on strength, and how many of these are active, how many non-active, and how many have had training. Only by figures of that kind can we get any idea of what is being done. If the minister has not the information available at the moment perhaps he would get it, as the discussion of his estimates will not be closed before six o'clock. I would also like to know how much has been spent during the past year in the purchase of rifles and machine guns.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall be very glad to get that information for the hon. gentleman.


Arthur Edward Ross: It would help me in a little estimate I have been trying to make on my own, and I should be very much obliged for those figures.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Will the minister inform me who had the contracts for supplying the camps and the military school at St. Johns, Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. gentleman can hardly expect me to have details of all the contracts here, but I shall be glad to get and send to him the information he requires.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: When does the minister think he will be able to give me that information?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Our contract branch is closed now, but I can give my hon. friend the information to-morrow.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Thank you. I should also like to ask why the present government is not calling for tenders from people who used to supply bread, butter, vegetables and fuels to the barracks at St. Johns. A farmer who used to supply the department came to see me last summer and asked me if I could find out when contracts were to be let for the supply of vegetables for the winter. I sent a telegram to the minister five or six days before the contracts were let, asking him to send down blank tenders for vegetables, but I did not receive any answer to it, and this farmer did not receive a tender blank.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not think that
telegram ever came to my notice. Occasionally I am out of town, and probably what happened was that the telegram was set aside awaiting my return, and inadvertently was never brought to my attention. I have no recollection of having received it, and certainly if I had received it I would have sent what was asked.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Can the minister say why the farmers and people who used to supply vegetables to the barracks at St. Johns no longer receive notice of the tenders? I would also ask if the minister has not received complaints against a man who had the contract for supplying vegetables to the barracks at St. Johns.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not remember any particular complaints. Of course from time to time we do get complaints and we endeavour to remedy the trouble. If a person has inadvertently made some error we try to adjust it, and if someone deliberately tries to furnish us with bad stuff, our relations with him are immediately terminated.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I am very much surprised that the minister has not received complaints against this contractor. In 1931 when I asked the minister about a contract that had been given by the department for the furnishing of supplies in St. Johns the minister told me that as he had been in office only a few months he was not familiar with all the details of his department. It is very strange, Mr. Chairman, that since 1930 the contract for supplying vegetables to the barracks at St. Johns has gone to a man in Montreal, who, if I am well-informed, is the uncle of

Supply-Defence-Active Militia
the defeated candidate for that district in 1930. I am also surprised that the farmers do not get the chance to submit tenders for the supply of vegetables. We have gardeners and farmers who used to supply the department with fresh vegetables, and they are better able to furnish them, I think, than this gentleman in Montreal. The minister is a very nice gentleman and he has always treated me very well; I wonder if he will be good enough to send me a list of the names of the people who have these contracts.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I have been on a committee elsewhere, Mr. Chairman, and I should like permission to ask of the minister under this item two questions in regard to the city of Vancouver. Is he able to give any encouragement in regard to the Seaforth armoury, and secondly in regard to the civilian air force.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I am not in a position to say anything definite about the Seaforth armoury. Of course that would come under the program that was announced in the speech from the throne with regard to dominion buildings. But that is not yet in shape to make any announcement. My views on that question, however, are exactly the same as I expressed to the house.
With regard to the non-permanent air squadron which has been authorized in Vancouver, it is coming along. Officers are being taken on and we hope to give them some training next year.


Mr. RALSTON:: I am sorry I have not been able to be present earlier, having been engaged on a committee. Perhaps the minister has already given the information, but I wanted to ask under this item how many men he expects to be able to train this year.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 29,000.


James Layton Ralston: Does he expect to have some field camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We will have some camps for the engineers and artillery and for the machine gunners, but not for other branches of the service.


James Layton Ralston: No field camps at all for the infantry?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


James Layton Ralston: Will the artillery camp be at Petawawa?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Petawawa, Hughes and Sarcee.


James Layton Ralston: And the engineers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At Petawawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force, $4,910,034.
James Layton Ralston: What strength is it intended to carry under this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Practically the same as last year. The strength at the end of January was 3,531.


James Layton Ralston: That is all ranks?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: All ranks.


James Layton Ralston: How many officers?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 418.


Humphrey Mitchell: How many men?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 3,114.


Eugène Fiset: I notice that by
P.C. 84-G the Department of National Defence is charged with the operation of the relief projects in the various camps. This order in council seems to indicate that the department must not only officer, command and administer these camps but shall purchase supplies and equipment as needed. I should like to know how payments are made in these cases. Is money transferred from the relief fund to the department, or are the bills sent direct to the Department of Labour?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Money is voted to
our department by order in council and we pay the bills.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In connection with
relief camps, I should like to refer again to a matter which came up under another item. Accidents sometimes occur in these camps and there is no provision for the men being brought under the provincial workmen's compensation acts. As much care as possible may be exercised but accidents occur. Simply because these camps are under the Department of National Defence is no reason why there should not be some arrangement with the provincial governments whereby men injured would receive compensation. I should like to know what action can be taken along these lines.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There have not
been very many serious accidents. There was one unfortunate accident at Petawawa a couple of weeks ago where a man was fatally burned. That is the only real serious accident of Which I have heard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope that it will
not be necessary to have a great many fatali-

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
ties before a policy is adopted. I have heard of a number of accidents in my part of the country. I assume that some were minor accidents but they were of a character which would be covered by the compensation act. These men are taken out of regular channels of trade and put to work under the direction of the Department of National Defence, and it seems only reasonable that some compensation should be provided for them or their dependents.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The great majority
of men in these camps have not been taken out of other vocations; they have not been working at all. If something does happen to them they are given the best of medical care, nursing and hospital treatment until they are ready to go back to work.


Ernest Lapointe: How many men are
at Valcartier at the present time? Is it the intention of the department to increase the number of men at this camp? I heard the minister state over the radio the other day that many men in these camps are being absorbed into industry and it was expected that the number located there would decrease. However, I was told in Quebec recently that it is the intention to increase the number of men at Valcartier, and I should like to know whether that statement is true.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are 1,569
men at Valcartier and we would be prepared to take on several hundred more if the need arises.


Eugène Fiset: I understand that
men making application to enter one of these camps have been told that there is a fixed establishment and no vacancies exist. I had the applications of two or three men last year who wanted to be taken on at the citadel but I was told there was no vacancy. I asked if any vacancy existed at Valcartier, and I was told there was none. A few days afterwards a vacancy did occur. I should like to know if there is a fixed establishment which cannot be exceeded, and also the procedure to be adopted to have a man received at one of these camps. Should he apply to the officer commanding the district, or to the camp commandant? Are the camp commandants permanent officers, or are they selected by the minister?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We can accommodate only 423 men at the citadel. On February 28 the strength was 420.


Eugène Fiset: Is that camp at
the citadel for men of Quebec only?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It was originally
started to take care of men from Quebec city; the men from outside the city would normally be sent to Valcartier. The hon. gentleman inquired as to the mode of procedure. The normal course is for a man to apply to a dominion or provincial labour bureau, or if there is no such bureau in his municipality, to the mayor or the reeve. His application would be sent on and he would be taken into a camp if a vacancy existed.


Eugène Fiset: Would a member
of parliament be considered the same as a mayor or reeve for this purpose?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: If any hon. gentleman has a case in mind, we would be quite prepared to rely upon his judgment that the case is a proper one, that is, a single, homeless and unemployed man. If any hon. member sends a name along we would not need any further vouching.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Stirling in the chair.
National Defence-Permanent force, $4,910,434.


Thomas Reid: The minister was good enough to indicate to the committee that under this item we might discuss some matters in connection with the camps. What I have to say is not so much by way of criticism as by way of suggestion to the minister. Before the camps in British Columbia-and I am speaking of the camps on the lower mainland-were taken over by the Department of National Defence and while they were under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, supplies for them were purchased locally. The purchasing agent would buy locally potatoes, carrots, beans, pork, mutton, in fact all the eatables, and it was of considerable benefit to the farmers in the vicinity of those camps to have the purchases made locally by the purchasing agents. But when the change took place, all that was cut out; supplies then began to come from the city of Vancouver and companies like Swift and Burns began to supply them. In these times the system of purchasing supplies from the local farmers ought to be continued.
I listened to the minister's statement that those supplies were bought locally wherever

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
it was possible, but that it was not always possible to purchase from the farmers. I can assure him that so far as the three camps in my constituency are concerned, the farmers in the vicinity are well able to supply them with all the eatables required, with the exception, of course, of flour and so forth, which has to come from milling companies. But I visited one of those camps last December and I think the minister should be made aware of the situation that while there were some three hundred men in the camps near Whiteroek, they were still purchasing from outsiders supplies of wood and having it hauled by a local contractor. It was a matter not just of having the wood hauled but of having it purchased from local contractors. As I say, there were three hundred men there and at times difficulty was experienced in finding work of a profitable or desirable nature, so I think those men should have been put to work at cutting the wood for the camps.
I was in another place near the boundary of Alberta and the supplies for the camp there were coming from Vancouver, but a large quantity of them had come from Edmonton and Calgary, gone right past the camp to the city of Vancouver and then were sent back over the railways to that camp. It is only my duty to draw these matters to the attention of the minister, but particularly I refer to the purchase of supplies from the farmers in the vicinity.
I feel assured-and I would like the minister, if he has the prices, to give them- that his department is paying much more for the supplies bought from the wholesale companies than they could be purchased at from the farmers locally. It would have been of great assistance to the farmers there had the government continued in force the system that prevailed before the minister's department took over the camps. I think some explanation should be given why the supplies are being purchased wholesale, because that angle of the situation should be taken into consideration and the farmers in the vicinity given an opportunity of supplying all the beef, pork, mutton, vegetables, butter and eggs required. As a matter of fact, they were able to supply and were supplying that produce to the camps during a period of at least two and a half years.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I realize fully the sound sense in what the hon. gentleman says and so far as possible we are quite willing to buy our supplies locally, but the committee must remember that we must have continuity of supplies when we have, as the hon. gentle-

man says, three hundred people m that camp. We must be assured of having the supplies come in regularly and that cannot be done if we deal with individual farmers. We have not, in charge of the camps, a man experienced in dealing with produce, neither is he supplied with transportation to go out and get into touch with the farmers. I have given this matter considerable thought and it seems to me that the way to get the full (benefit of local buying would be if the farmers had an organization, a farmers' club or a cooperative circle there, so that we could deal with one man. That would make it much easier to guarantee a regular service in the way of supplies and would use up the produce of the locality. We should be glad to do that and we are trying as much as possible to do it.


Thomas Reid: I am glad the minister mentioned that, because for his information I might say -that we have a fanners' organization such as he has described, comprising over one hundred farmers, growing vegetables of all kinds, and the local manager of that organization could not get a look-in at all, immediately the camps came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence. Prior to that time there was no trouble in the purchase of supplies. The manager of that corporation interviewed the officials, but they told him that they would not buy their supplies through it. I am meeting all the arguments of the minister, and I believe I am putting up a very good case.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not think the hon. gentleman, if I remember correctly, ever wrote me to that effect. If his organization is there and prepared to do business and if he will let me have the name, we shall be very glad to give the man an opportunity to tender.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not know whether the minister gave the information this afternoon-some of us were attending a committee meeting-in regard to the total number of camps in each province for single unemployed homeless men, and also the total number of men in each province in such camps.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The figures are as follows:
Number Number Province-	of camps of men
Nova Scotia	
1	308New Brunswick	
4	635Quebec	
5	2,165


Charles Gavan Power: Where are the camps located: in Quebec?

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Megantic, Bishopton, Quebec-that is the citadel-Valcartier and St. Johns at the barracks.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the number of men at each camp?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At Megantic, 64; at Bishopton, 67; at Quebec, the citadel, 420; at Valcartier, 1,569; at St. Johns, 55. In Ontario there are 34 camps with 6,335 men; in Manitoba, 6 camps with 572; in Saskatchewan, 3 camps with 1,152; in Alberta, 8 camps with 1,330 and in British Columbia, 62 camps with 7,390.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the total?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It was 19,887 on the 28th of February.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have the numbers in these camips been increasing or decreasing in the last three or four months?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They are increasing gradually.


Peter John Veniot: Where are the camps located in New Brunswick?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At Blissville, Upper Brockway, the municipal airport at Saint John, and Coulter's Siding.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Where are they located in Saskatchewan?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Dundurn, Ladder
Lake and White Fox. At Dundurn there are 1,052 men; at Ladder Lake, 54; and at White Fox, 46.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: And where in Manitoba?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At Lac du Bonnet, Winnipeg air station, Duck Mountain, the headquarters of military district No. 10, Caddy Lake, and Shilo.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Can the minister give the reason for the tremendous number of camps in British Columbia? Is it because unemployment is worse there?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I do not know that it is, but the provincial government had a great number of camps there and we took over all they had.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Could the minister give the cost of operation for the past year? I understand that the actual administration is done by the department, so that the cost would be exclusive of that.


Fizalam-William Perras: Could the minister give particulars as to what proportion would be in the province of Quebec?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Proportion of the money spent? I will try to find that. The expenditure from the inception of the scheme, about October, 1932, up to October 31, 1933, was $3,125,411.


Fizalam-William Perras: I would like some further particulars, if the minister would be kind enough to look into the matter and give a fuller statement.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I assume the hon. gentleman would like me to give a fuller statement on the whole system.
Towards the fall of 1932 it became apparent that there were many young men of a certain class who were not fitting in under the existing systems of relief, notably men moving around from one town to another and having no particular home ties. They were very difficult for the municipalities to deal with, so it was urged upon the government that it was their duty to look after these men because, in many cases, they were not really residents of the towns or cities in which they happened to be. The government accepted that responsibility and asked the Department of National Defence to propose some scheme, because we had a nationwide organization in practically every province, and were able to take it on. The department was very glad to do what it could. The scheme was restricted to single, homeless, unemployed men. As there was at that time a good deal of work that could profitably be done in connection with airports, we first started on that plan, because, as the committee knows, for several years there had been a plan for a transcontinental airway. It had to be dropped for the time being in 1930, but still the engineers were looking forward to its being reestablished, and they had the sites pretty well selected. So it was on the work of clearing those sites that the scheme was first brought into being.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How
many sites were cleared?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The	transcontinental airway was complete as far as the prairie section went. They were night flying there until 1931. The British Columbia section was well planned out although nothing had been done. The worst barrier to the trans-Canada airway was in northern Ontario; we started there putting in these camps about twenty-five miles apart, because while under
1524	COMMONS
Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
ordinary circumstances the mail planes will go four or five hundred miles at a jump, they have to have these intermediate landing places in case of trouble or bad weather. The airway follows from Winnipeg along the northern line of the Canadian National to Cochrane, then down to the vicinity of North Bay, thence eastward to Ottawa and Montreal, down through Bishopton and Megantic and across the state of Maine to Moncton and Halifax. The idea is that in the future it will link up with some transatlantic air project, either ship to shore, or, in the more distant future, with direct flights, say, from Ireland to Newfoundland.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Have
these all been completed?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, but a great deal of work has been done on them. The work these young men have been doing, while not one hundred per cent perfect-we did not expect that-has been very good indeed, and in most cases they have been much interested in their work.


Fizalam-William Perras: I wish to thank the hon.
minister for his explanation.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: According to the report which the hon. minister read to us just now, 55 men were stationed at the camp of St. Johns; out of that number how many reside in St. Johns?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There may be none from St. Johns, because the camps are not necessarily placed in localities where that work is done. For instance, the camp at Petawawa is very largely made up of men from Montreal; the camp at Lac Soul, which is in Ontario, was begun primarily to relieve conditions in the city of Winnipeg, and it is quite possible that there may be none in St. Johns.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I wish to inform the hon. minister that there are in St. Johns veterans who have no relatives, are unemployed and cannot obtain positions at that camp. The hon. minister stated, just now, that they were probably not in good health. Does the department intend to make military men of these young men who are in these camps or is it simply a matter of helping them out of poverty?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There is absolutely
no question of military training or anything of that kind in- connection with any of these camps.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Is a good health necessarily required to be admitted to these camps.
Some of them are in good health but it is said others are not fit to go to these camps.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: These projects are
primarily for the fit men; there must be some other way of dealing with people who are not fit. It would not do for a man who had heart trouble or some latent tuberculosis to go where undoubtedly there is a certain amount of roughing it. There must be some other scheme for dealing with people of that kind; these camps are for healthy, unemployed young men.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: On whose recommendation were these persons given positions in the camp at St. Johns?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: These men go to the camps on the recommendation of the dominion labour office, if there is one at the particular point; if there is not, they are recommended by the provincial labour office or, if there is no such office, by the mayor or the authorities of the municipalities.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I know of some young chaps who tried to get placed in these camps and their applications were refused because they had the reputation of being Liberals, and I know other young men who were placed in the camps because they were recommended by the defeated Conservative candidate at the last election. I am surprised at the way they are treating our people in St. Johns; they cannot get to the camps at all. My understanding was that these camps were established for young chaps from the cities who had no homes and were absolutely on the street, but that is not the rule that has been followed in St. Johns. Some young chaps went down and made application, and they were told to go and see Mr. Yvan Sabourin in order to get his recommendation. I know that in some cases they could not get a recommendation, the answer being that there was no place for them because they had the reputation of being Liberals. I do not think that is fair. I know many young chaps in St. Johns who would be glad to go to these camps. Could the minister say what work they did last winter in this particular camp? I do not believe they did very much.
Mr. .SUTHERLAND: I can assure my hon. friend that there is no politics whatever in the selection of these men. I can hardly conceive that Mr. Sabourin would refuse any such applications, as my hon. friend has said. Of

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
course I would take that gentleman's word if he said a young man had no home and had no work; I would take his word that the young man was a fit subject for one of these camps. Then that man would have to be examined by some doctor, and if he were found to be physically fit he would be eligible to go to a camp. If the hon. gentleman himself has any particular case in mind I am perfectly willing to take his word on those two points, as to the person having no home and being unemployed. Then he would have to undergo a medical examination, after which he could go to a camp.


Charles Gavan Power: It does seem a sad commentary on the state of the country that it should be a matter of patronage to get a 20 cents a day job, but that is a fact; it is a fact in the city from which I come, at all events. You cannot get into the Quebec citadel and get a job at 20 cents a day unless you go first to the Tory organization. Under this government people have been reduced to such a state that they have to beg for a job at 20 cents a day, and this is not the only case; patronage is rampant all the way through. I doubt very much if there is a loaf of bread, a pound of biscuits or a pound of tea purchased there except under the patronage system. This whole organization has been the playground of patronage mongers ever since it was started.
With reference to the city of Quebec I see there are 420 men employed in that camp, and I think at one time the number reached about 600. They have been remarkably well behaved, and apparently a large number of them' are happier in the citadel than they would be outside, but in spite of the assurances given by the minister and I think by the Solicitor General at the time this scheme was introduced, I very much fear that these men are being employed on work which could be performed by married men and others of the civilian population in the city of Quebec. I beileve they are undertaking the repairing of the walls of the city. For the idea of repairing the walls I am very grateful to the government; ever since I have been a member of this house I have been urging on all governments that the historic walls and fortifications of Quebec should be put in some sort of repair. But by employing these men on that work and doing it cheaply the government are depriving stone masons, carpenters and labourers of the city of Quebec of legitimate employment. I think this is wrong; I believe it is a mistake; and in my opinion the government have followed the
wrong course in taking this action. I do not believe these men are doing the work they should do. The other day I was going down the street and happened to run across a few of these men, with whom I had a little chat. One of them was sitting down, and I said, "Having a pretty good time?" to which he replied, " Yes." His pal said, " That fellow has not moved from that rock on which he is sitting since he came here at eight o'clock this morning," and the chap sitting down answered, "What the hell do you want me to do for ten cents?" This was before noon, so I do not suppose they did very much work for their ten cents that morning, or very much for their ten cents in the afternoon. I do believe the government are taking away employment from other people in the city.
Then at Valcartier I believe there are some 1,569 men, and if the newspapers were accurate, at one time there were something like 1,700 men there. I understand that at Valcartier they are building an arsenal, though I am subject to correction on that. I am told, however, that they are laying the foundations for an arsenal, and I suggest that an arsenal is not a very useful public work in these days, when the whole world is preaching disarmament. I can readily understand how work could be done in clearing up the camps, and in reforestation, which later might be found useful, but to build an arsenal in Canada at this particular time is, I think, quite unnecessary. I have serious doubts as to the homelessness of a great many of the men in the camps. I speak subject to correction when I say that there are a great many farmers' sons in some of the country camps, and that many of those young men have as good homes as any hon. member in this house. So far as the city of Quebec is concerned I know personally very few of the men in question, but I believe those at the citadel are nearly all citizens of Quebec city, and are men who, to a large extent, have homes. They may have been burdens on their homes, and I do not know that I can blame the government for taking them in and giving them good food. But to say that these men are homeless transients is not giving an accurate picture of the situation. They are not. We would be giving a more accurate picture if we were told that they are taking the work from other men.
I shall give the minister an example in his own department. For the past fifteen or twenty years, or more than that, a number of men were employed by the militia authorities on what were called engineering services and works. The number of men employed

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
ran from thirty to forty, and it was considered they had more or less a permanent 30b. For many years they were employed every day. Since the inauguration of the camp at the citadel, however, these men worked for something like three days a month. The great majority of them were married, and at least ninety per cent, if not the whole one hundred per cent, were returned soldiers. I know that, because during the time the Union government was in power in Canada I had a great deal to do with making appointments to those positions. And, during the time the Liberal government was in power, when I was not seriously interfered with by my colleague from Quebec East, I had a good deal to do with those appointments.


An hon. MEMBER:: Patronage.


Charles Gavan Power: This was straight patronage, absolutely; these were government jobs, and we do not make any bones about it. But we did not go whining about the country saying that we were relieving the unemployed when, in fact, we were just trying to relieve our own party. There was one stipulation, however, and it was that these men all had to be returned soldiers. Their work was reduced to something like three days a month, and, I understand that more recently, in October, as a result of representations made directly to the Prime Minister, they have been given about four days a week. The fact remains that they were deprived of their jobs which, in some cases, they had enjoyed for ten or fifteen years, and these unemployed were doing their work. That is a situation which should not be allowed to continue. These married men who have been in the habit of getting steady wages should not be deprived of them on account of these men.


Peter McGibbon: I would not intervene
in this discussion were it not for the unfair picture 'which the generally fair and good natured member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has presented. I would not like the impression to go out to the country that relief work is done through patronage. There is one camp in my riding and another one a short distance north, and in connection with neither has there ever been any thought of patronage. As a matter of fact the men come in there upon the recommendations of the reeves of the municipalities. I think even my hon. friend will agree with me that the Conservative party cannot monopolize the election of all the reeves in the country.


Charles Gavan Power: If it is under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend I know it will be done fairly and justly. I am not complaining about him; I am complaining about his colleagues in my district.


Peter McGibbon: I know that as a matter of fact such a thing has never occurred in the camp in my riding. So far as I know-and I believe I know a little about it-the contracts have all been let by tender. Many Liberals have secured them, in fact more than I would have given had I been in charge- I must be quite frank about that. The camp has done that which I believe it was intended to do; it has relieved the muncipalities of a relief burden which undoubtedly they would have had to carry. I have repeatedly told municipal authorities that if they have men in their municipalities whom they have to feed, they should if possible send them to these camps. Undoubtedly the action of the government in this connection has made it easier for the taxpayers in many municipalities. Moreover, the camp has been a sort of home for that class of people generally known as tramps, men who go wandering through the country and hammer at your door for something to do, or, at night, some place to sleep. When that occurs I direct them to the military camp.
The statement has been made that all are not taken in. That is quite true. I must say, however, that they are not taken in because there have not been sufficient facilities to house and feed them. These camps are generally built on specified bases to accommodate one hundred, one hundred and twenty-five or one hundred and fifty people. In my part of the country there might be three hundred applications, and as there are not sufficient facilities of course some applicants cannot get in. To my mind that is not the fault of the undertaking. Probably it was not expected that the facilities would have to be of such great magnitude as circumstances have shown they should have been. I should like to commend the minister on the fairness of the distribution he has made; I wish I could compliment him on paying the men a little more than twenty cents a day. As I said, however, even the twenty cents a day has been a godsend to many of these people, some of whom are young and have no homes, and nearly all of whom would otherwise be on relief. I say it has been a godsend to them, and has relieved the municipalities of a considerable burden which would have been added to the taxpayers' sheet.

Supply-
-Defence-Relief Camps
These people in my riding are happy. I have visited them, and know they are contented. They have a pretty good time, and they have a right to it. I do not think we should ask them to give one hundred cents' worth of work for twenty cents, but we must remember however that they get their clothes, food, housing and free medical attention, so that to say they receive only twenty cents a day is not a fair statement. They are told repeatedly, and personally I have tried to encourage them, to leave the camp if they can do better elsewhere, but in the last five or six months I have not heard of one who has left. They are not compelled to stay there; the door is open to them, and they can walk out at any hour of the day or night. The camps are fairly well equipped; there are rooms for sports during the winter; as a matter of fact I had the privilege of supplying some of the equipment. They have boxing and wrestling tournaments; they have an orchestra and a radio, and on the whole they are contented and happy. I am sorry that the hon. member for Quebec South, has tried to inject party politics into this discussion. He does not very often do that; as a rule he is fair in his statements, but to-night he seems to have fallen a little from grace.


Mr. DUFF:: Are there any of these camps for homeless, single, unemployed young men around Ottawa? I presume the government is entitled to some credit if these camps are taking care of homeless unemployed young men-


Eugène Fiset: Do you want to send members of parliament there?


William Duff: No, but members of parliament have to put their hands in their pockets every morning-


An hon. MEMBER:: And at night.


William Duff: And at night to help these unfortunate young men. It costs me every day of my life at least one dollar, from the time I leave my home on Daly avenue until I get to the House of Commons, to help these unemployed young men, and while I am attending to my duties here there will be four or five homeless unemployed young men at my apartment asking for help. If the government are taking credit for looking after these people, why should I and other members have to spend at least a dollar a day, perhaps more, to help them to get something to eat or drink?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course the department has no power to take anybody off the street and put him into one of these camps, but if a young man is physically fit and goes to the bureau here in Ottawa he would be perfectly eligible to go to a camp and would be received.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to ask the minister two or three questions with regard to a situation that is not clear in my mind. Would he be good enough to inform me who are the heads at the present time of the naval service, the air force service, and strictly the army service.
_ Mr. SUTHERLAND: General McNaughton is the chief of the general staff. Group Captain Croil is the head of the air force, and Captain Nelles is the head of the naval force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why was Commander Lindsay Gordon, who was in the air force, sent out west to command a military district at Regina, and why was Commodore Hose, who was recently head of the naval forces, retired from the service? Was it on account of age or long service?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Commodore Hose
resigned. At his own request he was relieved. I should like to take opportunity on this occasion to pay a tribute to him. He did excellent work for Canada for many years. I never saw a man more interested in his work than Commander Hose was in the navy. He did everything he could. He has the imperial viewpoint. As to Group Captain Gordon, while he was an air force officer, he had also taken a senior course at London in more advanced military work. He is the first air force officer who has been put in charge of a military district. He is a man of splendid administrative ability, and I think if my hon. friend will make inquiry he will find that he is giving every satisfaction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not questioning that at all.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: He is giving every satisfaction not only to ourselves but to the military men.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who are the two officers respectively who succeed him?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The two officers who are now there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I mean who succeeded Group Captain Lindsay Gordon.



Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Group Captain
Croil succeeded Group Captain Gordon here. Commodore Hose is still on leave pending retirement, and Captain Nelles in the meantime is acting director.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To whom do the heads of the air force and of the naval service report? Who is their immediate head? Is it the deputy minister of National Defence? What I want to get clear is the chain of responsibility. Is the chief of the general staff in control of or superior to the heads of the naval forces and of the air forces in Canada, or is the chain of responsibility here, as it is in most other countries, through the minister, the deputy minister and the respective heads of the various forces?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The naval forces would report in the ordinary course through the deputy minister to me. The air forces would report to the chief of the general staff. The chief of the general staff and any member of the defence council is at perfect liberty at any time to come to see me or the deputy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the minister quite satisfied that the chain of responsibility is being observed in the service at the present time?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have no reason to think anything else.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: In my constituency thei'e is located probably one of the largest camps in western Canada, sheltering at the present time over a thousand single unemployed homeless men. I was surprised tonight to hear the remarks of my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power). In regard to contracts and that sort of thing I can only say that I have had more trouble with my Conservative friends who have been disappointed than with anybody else, because they have not got contracts. By and large these, contracts have gone to Liberal supporters of my hon. friend from Quebec South and his friends on the other side of the house.
My hon. friend from Quebec South also made some remarks in regard to men not being able to get into these camps. I do not know how the camips are run in this part of the country, but probably you are so steeped in patronage matters down here that you expect that that is the only way to run these camps. But it is not the way it is done in western Canada at least. These men go to the government employment bureau or to the police, and from there are sent to the doctor for examination, and if found physically fit they are sent to the camps. There are over

a thousand men in the camp I speak of, and I can say from personal experience that they are entirely satisfied with their treatment. I have known of only four during this past winter who were turned out of the camp, and they came back to my city and went to the police and wanted to foe arrested as vagrants. They did not succeed in that method of getting a bed and breakfast. Then they went somewhere else. I have had delegations call on me regarding these men. They were men with a great social outlook, and I made it my business to try to get them jobs, which I succeeded in doing. They were thrown out of the camp because they were agitators. They belonged to one of the affiliated organizations of the C.C.F., headed by my right honourable friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)-the Workers' Unity League.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
trust the hon. gentleman will stick to the facts in his presentation. The Workers' Unity League has no connection whatever with the C.C.F.


Frank Roland MacMillan: I am very sorry if my memory did not serve me correctly, but there are so many of these organizations affiliated with the C.C.F. that it is difficult to remember them all. But I have no doubt that there is some semblance of justification for my hon. friend's statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I cannot permit the hon. gentleman to make a. false statement and then try to say that that statement had some foundation. There is absolutely no foundation for his statement, and any gentleman would not try to continue that kind of tactics.


Frank Roland MacMillan: It is a strange thing that each time I get upon my feet the hon. gentleman wants to interrupt me.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I interrupt only
when false statements are made concerning myself. The hon. gentleman I say cannot make false statements in this house in my presence without being checked up. He tries to get away with it but he cannot do it.


Eccles James Gott: Then why did you not object to the term "right honourable" which he applied to you?
Mr. .McINTOSH: That is a base hit.


Frank Roland MacMillan: If I made a mistake in putting this organization in the wrong pigeonhole I am sorry; I did not mean to do it. I was simply stating that these four men belonged to a certain organization.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
and I may have got the name of the crganiza-tion wrong. I shall look that up and advise the hon. gentleman whether I am right or wrong. If I am wrong, and the organization is associated with him, I hope he will admit, it.


William Duff: Why did you not get them
jobs?


Frank Roland MacMillan: I am coming to that. These four men were thrown out of this camp for being agitators and carrying on propaganda. As I said, they came to Saskatoon and I took it upon myself to try to get them jobs. Through a friend of mine I was able to obtain work for them in the northern part of the province. They were given work in the bush at reasonable wages, the same wages as other men up in that part of the country were receiving. After a week had passed I was informed that they were doing very well, but that state of affairs did not last very long. AVithin the next few days the mounted police were called in and these men were taken away. They had served terms in gaol at one time, and three of them werp sent back to gaol. There were 996 men left in that camp, and I submit that those who seemed to be perturbed about these four men being thrown out would have rendered greater sendee to the country if they had gone down and patted on the back the man who was running that camp for keeping the other 996 men satisfied. So far as my province is concerned, the department, is doing a very excellent work and I congratulate the minister upon the results which have been obtained in the camp in my constituency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister has given the committee an illuminating description of the airports which are being prepared across Canada. The committee will remember that two years ago several members of the air force were dismissed or let out by the present administration. These men all had wide experience, and I suggest to the minister thajt as a matter of policy certain senior officers could well be dispensed with and these men taken back into the force. I think we have far too many senior staff officers. Doubtless they have rendered splendid service to the nation, but I think their services could well be dispensed with. If it is necessary to carry out a real defence policy for Canada in the future,
I think the air force will play a most prominent part in that policy. The minister should be commended for the preparation of these airports, but I believe it would be a very popular and democratic move to take these men back into the service.
74726-97J
Mr. SI; THERLAND: I do not know when I have regretted anything as much as having to let these particular men out. As the hon. member has said, they had given good service, but when you cannot get the money there is nothing else to do. As far as senior officers are concerned, the air force is a little different from the infantry, the cavalry or the artillery. In those branches there are a few men coming in and a few going out every year, but in the air force, which really did not get started until after the war, the men have all come up together. Entirely different qualifications are required for a war time pilot and a commercial pilot. The only object of a commercial pilot is to get his passengers and plane safely down to the ground; if he runs into bad weather or anything of that kind he lands, but a war time pilot cannot help but be reckless. Only young men can be used in this service. They have to fly upside down, inside out and every way to fight in their planes. I realize the importance of what the hon. gentleman has said, and this matter will have to be dealt with at some time.


Humphrey Mitchell: I congratulate the
minister upon what he has just said, and I should like to quote from an article by Mr. Thomas Way ling entitled The Brass Hat Parade which appeared in the November issue of the Canadian Magazine. It reads:
Brass hats are on parade in Canada now iiom coast to coast. There are now permanently employed three major-generals, eleven brigadiers, twelve full colonels, thirty-two lieutenant colonels, sixty-nine majors ninety captains and seventy-four lieutenants' these figures include forty-eight officers who wmar the red tab and gold lace of the staff omcer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Scandalous.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some one says "scandalous," and I agree with him. This looks like a form of unemployment insurance for army officers who might well be retired. The minister is quite right in saying that this thing should be looked into. The minister told me this afternoon that there are 7.000 officers in the non-permanent forces. In 1913 there were only 4,452 officers, one officer to every six and one-half men. In the permanent forces there were 418 officers to 3,114 men, or one officer to each seven men. In France in 1916 there were 4,452 officers to 104,251 of other ranks. I realize the conditions which existed in those days in France, but I cannot understand why there should be so many officers in Canada at a time when

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
there is a world wide cry for disarmament. We have more officers to-day than there were in 1913. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). I think the department should endeavour to make a saving and apply it in the building up of an air force. Twentydive years from now I believe that most of the people who wilL have to travel long distances will do so by air. That is inevitable, whether or not we like it. The government should give serious consideration to the matter before deciding to wipe out the air service. If economies are to be effected, they should be effected by reducing the comparatively large number of officers in the militia department.


Eugène Fiset: I should like to
revert for a moment to .these famous camps. Either last year or the year before, the board of trade and the municipal council of Ri-mouski sent petitions to the department asking that one of these camps be established at the aviation field in that city. They called the attention of the department to the fact that a great deal of work needed to be done on the aviation field, and also that the nearest rest camp was 180 miles from Rimouski. They stated that there was not a rest camp on the lower St. Lawrence and that one was needed very badly. The answer received to this petition was that the matter was under consideration. That is over six months ago. I wonder whether due consideration has been given to the request and what answer they may expect.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: So far as its having a bearing in connection with the Trans-Canada route is concerned, the route will not run in that direction. I can understand that there might be a necessity for a camp down there in connection with a service that might at some time be coming up the St. Lawrence from the gulf. My impression was that the landing field there was in fairly good shape and that it has been in use almost constantly in the summer.


Eugène Fiset: I know that, but there is a great deal of levelling to be done. This is gradually being done by day labour during the summer, but what the board of trade and the municipal council of Rimouski and all the surrounding parishes desire is to have one of those rest camps to provide the young men who have no home, first of all with shelter and then with food in connection with the relief work. If we have to send our young men 180 miles to Quebec, that is

practically prohibitive. The base field at Rimouski will serve not only Rimouski but also all the surrounding counties. For that reason I think consideration should be given to the request.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I shall be glad to look into the matter. I do not know about it personally.


Mr. COTNAM:: I would like to say a word in connection with relief camps, as I happen to know something about the camp at Petawawa, project No. 40. That camp was inaugurated almost at the beginning and at the .present time we have in it in the neighbourhood of one thousand to twelve hundred men. I have been through the camp repeatedly and I have heard those camps alluded to in the house as slave camps. The only people who are complaining about those camps are politicians who are anxious to make a littile political capital out of the unemployment relief situation.
The camp at Petawawa is a credit to the minister, to General McNaughton and to the officer commanding who is at present in charge of that camp, Colonel Bogart. I have gone around among those young men and they are well dressed, well fed and well housed. I wish to corroborate every statement that has been made by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) and also by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) with regard to the camps in their respective constituencies. I have not heard any complaints from the lips of the young men who are employed in those camps and in most instances they are as fine a type of young Canadian manhood as one would care to look upon any place in this country.
With respect to the purchase of supplies for those camps, supplies have all been tendered for and contracts awarded to those submitting the lowest tenders. I am sorry that the hon. member for Quebec South has perhaps spoiled some of his young men in that he says they sit down and do not care very much to work.


Charles Gavan Power: Not my young men, the
Solicitor General's young men. I have not a thing to do with them.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Well, someone must have gone down there and set them a bad example.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, the Solicitor General.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The young men in camp at Petawawa are doing a fair day's work; in fact some of the farmers there have told me that those young men are doing as good an

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
average day's work as the ordinary labouring man. They have been doing excellent work in that camp; they have been clearing the landing field; they have put up many new buildings that under ordinary circumstances would perhaps not be constructed for years; they are providing artillery practice grounds and constructing roads, and I really think when the roads are a little better for auto-mobiling, hon. members could not spend a more profitable day than in visiting and looking over Camp Petawawa, project No. 40. If they do so and if they do not return to the house and say that those men are as fine a type of young Canadian manhood as one could find anywhere, I shall be very much disappointed.
With respect to the manner in which those men are engaged, there has not been in that locality at any time even the slightest tinge of patronage. As regards every single unemployed homeless young man, and I think 1 might say some of the unemployed young men who belong to families receiving relief in the town of Pembroke, all they had to do was to go down and make application at the employment bureau. If there was accommodation in the camp, those young chaps were then sent for medical examination and if they were physically fit, there never was any question about their getting into the camp.
With respect to the purchase of supplies, they have been in large measure purchased locally by tender. If I had any fault at all to find with the administration of that camp, it would be only on the one point that when meat supplies were being obtained, the supplies were bought not locally from the farmers in that section of the country but from the Canada Packers organization and shipped from Toronto.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are there farmers' sons in that camp?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Farmers' sons have not
been employed in that camp. Everything considered, I would think if the camp in that locality is a fair sample of the camps as they are carried on in other sections of the dominion, they constitute a great factor in creating under present conditions homes for our young men where their morale is maintained and from which, when this depression has passed, they will be ready and willing to take their place in the active occupational life of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In connection with this item we have covered a great deal of ground and I should like to add a few words
with regard to the relief camps. I can quite understand that life in those camps may be much superior to that in very cheap lodgings and around the soup kitchens that have been established in many of our cities, but it does not seem to me the proper thing that relief camps should be under the Department of National Defence. I can readily appreciate that the government might wish to make use of machinery which is lying ready to its hand. I can quite understand that those camps might be conducted with a certain degree of efficiency, but I do not like the idea that men who are out of work through no fault of their own should be forced to be under military supervision. It is against the very best traditions of British countries.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: They are not forced.
Mr. \\ OODSWORTH:	They are in practice forced. I do not mean to say that there is forced labour in the sense in which we have thought of it in some countries, but When a man is hungry and in a bad way, economic necessity forces him. There being no other provision for unmarried homeless men than this they are practically forced, if they want to get anything like a decent subsistence at all, to go into these camps. It is in that sense I used the word. I know the camps are preferable to the very insanitary and uncomfortable conditions prevailing in our cities. It may well be that twenty cents a day is better than nothing, but I cannot conceive that twenty cents a day is sufficient to satisfy anybody who has any ambition.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Would the hon. member permit me? The men in the camp at Petawawa are not complaining; who are the people complaining about these men? The men themselves are not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman has stated that the only men who are complaining are the politicians. I have talked with many scores of people, not at Petawawa, but located in camps adjacent to my own city, and I find that these young men who have any ambition are not satisfied to go along week after week and month after month getting a bare living at twenty cents a day. It is very generous for the hon. gentleman to suggest that these camps are homes for young men. Of course I can quite understand the accommodation offered is better than sleeping on the streets or in the cheap lodging houses. But I cannot consider that barrack life is in any sense home life.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I could take the hon.
gentleman, to the camp and let him see for himself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been
through one or two of the camps and seen for myself. Possibly the hon. gentleman might get it through his head that other men come to -conclusions different from his, and yet may be equally sincere and observant.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You might at least be fair.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying to be fair.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You are not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman made his speech and gave his observations and conclusions. My conclusions are that although conditions in the camps may be preferable to many that exist in the shelters in the cities, I do mot think we can say that this method of handling the relief problem is satisfactory. I would much rather discuss these problems when the estimates of the Department of Labour are before the committee, because that is naturally where such matters should come, but since this branch of the relief service has been taken over by the Department of National Defence the only place for me to criticize is on the estimates of that department.
It seems to me that any relief policy should provide what I might term real work for these men, work of a permanent a-nd abiding character. I know that shelters are being erected that may be of some permanent use; I know there will be a certain amount of clearing and that kind of thing, so that their labours are not altogether lost. But I should like to think of these tens of thousands of young men being given real work, the kind of work for which they are individually fitted, and which they may feel is of value to the country, and at real wages. We talk a good deal about individual initiative and the need of incentive and reward. Yesterday it was titles. We are told that we must have the incentive of high rewards to get the best work. Surely if these things are necessary for people a little higher up in the social scale or a little better fixed financially, they are also desirable for people who are thrown out of work. I should like to think that if skilled mechanics are giving their services, they should be paid somewhat in proportion to the value of the kind of work they are giving. Under a competitive system, if we do not do that it is only a question of time until this situation will be reflected in gen-

erally lowered standards of living among the skilled trades. It may be that the food is reasonably good, the clothing fairly suitable, but I suggest that these young men do not live by bread alone; none of us do, or even bread with a few gramophones and athletics thrown in.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: They are living by
agitation now, some of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman may think he is very smart in implying that I am an agitator. If he likes to call it such I suppose he is free to do so. I am within my rights in this house in pleading for another way of dealing with unemployment.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Would you commend
anything?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit that we should be planning how these hundreds of thousands of young people may at the earliest opportunity be given a chance to establish themselves, not in places of this kind but in their own homes.


Mr. YOUNG:: To get married!


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, get married, because without the opportunities of normal family life a great many are forming habits that they will not be able readily to shake off. I think an opportunity ought to be afforded them of getting steady employment and preparing themselves for their life work. I am not blaming the Department of National Defence for their policy in caring for the unemployed ; they may be doing their level best, but I urge that the government ought to be held responsible for dealing with unemployment in some different way.
I do not want to dwell further on that; I will come to the item itself we are considering under National Defence, which amounts to almost $5,000,000. It seems to me that the Department of National Defence differs from almost every other department whose affairs come before this house in that we have never yet been able to get from the officials a clear-cut statement of their policy. Against whom are we preparing to defend ourselves? What is this heavy expenditure of $5,000,000 intended -to accomplish? I do not think that is an unfair question to ask.
Mr. McGIBBOlN: That is what they said a few months before the war broke out.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may have been; I was not in the house at that time. The war did break out and was fought through. After the war was over we were told that we were

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
going to enter upon a period of peace. But the policy of the department did not vary a great deal. Gradually its estimates were cut down. We hardly know what the defence policy of this country is supposed to be. Now it would seem as if we are going to be called upon to join in a race in armaments. Again I am not speaking merely of our own government but I point out that our own government is apparently contemplating something of this kind, and unless some direction is given by the house I do not see how the department can very well avoid travelling in that direction. In a recent issue of the Montreal Gazette, January 31, 1934, I notice an account of an address given by Major-General McNaughton, in which he told of some of the newer and more efficient weapons, and he concluded thus:
In history, we are not long concerned with nations unable or unwilling to keep pace with armament developments. However notable their civilization, however brave their warriors, and however adept their statesmen in the art of treaty-drafting, they soon pass from the stage before the onward march of those well able to forge and wield the newer weapons.
So to-day apparently the chief of staff is preparing to provide us with more recent and more efficient weapons. I presume that that is his job as chief of staff, but I would say that it is the job of this parliament to say whether that is the way we propose to defend this country.
I noticed the other day a very interesting article in Canadian Business, which is published by the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, from which I will read a few sentences:
Canadian business men are no strangers to war in the past tense. Too many of those we knew fought and died. All glory to them and credit to those who have returned to carry on. So much for the past. The future is an entirely different matter. Canada, doesn't want another war, but if there should be one, Canadian business will have to foot the bills. As our friends "The Extremists" have told us, war is much too expensive, even though it is far from impossible. If you don't believe it, let's look at some costs-then think until it hurts before entering another.
In the good old days a true sword in the hands of an able man was an excellent and economical military investment. Then along came gunpowder, and with it the customary cost budget: two bullets equalled one fatality. However, as we entered the machine age, warfare became its apt pupil and best customer. Result: it now costs $25,000 to kill a soldier.
That is from the business standpoint. I think we are all beginning to realize the terrific cost of war. We cannot very well look over the world situation to-day, whether
in Europe or in Asia, without realizing that another war is quite a possibility. So it seems to me that we, as a nation, have to decide very definitely what action we should be prepared to take, and how we plan to defend ourselves. Are we simply going to enter upon this armament race, as the nations have done again and again in the past, or is it possible for us to devise some other means by which we can contribute alike to the safety of the world and to our own security? I think that is the question which ought to be faced by this house. It ought not to be sufficient for these estimates to be presented and for us to discuss whether or not we want another camp here or a militia unit established somewhere else; those are questions which undoubtedly will have to come before any advisory committee on defence. Rather it is for us to consider the main policies and what is necessary under those policies.
The other day I came across this statement, which very well opens up the whole question:
I appreciate the seriousness of the statement that I am about to make to this honourable house, but I am giving my considered, definite opinion when I say that I cannot conceive of any developments which would justify this country in sacrificing the blood of one single Canadian on the future battlefields of Europe. Let us look ahead! We must! We generally get into trouble by not taking the long view. Let us act in such a way that we can honourably decline to participate when the hour arrives.
That was said by a prominent Canadian military man in another place, and I believe that statement places the situation squarely before us. Whence are we to look for security? Are we in Canada to adopt an isolationist policy; are we to say that we must prepare to defend ourselves against all comers and that through our own unaided efforts, by means of our military equipment, our great navy and our air force, we are to protect our coasts? Is that to be our policy? In all seriousness I submit that if that is our policy the amounts we are voting in these days are altogether inadequate. I am not urging larger appropriations, but I do say that if we propose to depend upon our own unaided efforts to defend our coasts through military strength, then these sums are insignificant; they are wholly inadequate for such a purpose.
What other policy might we possibly adopt? We live alongside a very powerful neighbour, the United States. Are we to depend upon the United States for defence? I can understand that we may need to do so if trouble should break out between, we will say, the United States and Japan. Therp is quite a .
Supply-Defence[DOT]-Relief Camps

possibility that if the United States were attacked Canada would be attacked also, and what is to be our position in such a contingency? Are we to be prepared to withstand such an attack alone, or shall we have to fall back upon the military strength of the United States?
Again, it may be said that we are members of the British Empire, and that we will have to depend upon the British navy. I am not sure whether under certain circumstances the British navy would be an asset or a liability, or whether the British navy could be counted upon to come to our assistance. And I have enough independence to say that if we are going to take that position I could almost join with those who say we ought to make our contribution to the British navy, a policy in which I do not believe as I hold to another policy altogether. I do admit, however, that those who definitely depend upon the British navy to protect us have a great deal to support them when they advocate that Canada ought to make her contribution to the British navy.
Let me point out that our connection with Great Britain might easily lead us into troubles that we as Canadians otherwise might escape. Great Britain has a far-flung empire; trouble might break out in India, in Hongkong, in the islands of the sea, in the nearer east, in Egypt or in any one of a hundred places where Great Britain has interests. Under those circumstances what is to be our attitude as a Canadian people? Are we prepared to do our share in the defence of the empire, and to come to its defence as we did in 1014? I think those are questions that ought to be pretty clearly stated. If Great Britain should be depending upon Canada coming to her defence again, as she did in 1914, and if this statement which I have read expresses the views of many Canadians, then it seems to me we might be letting Great Britain down pretty badly at a crucial time. If Canada is not in the future to send a single soldier to die on the battlefields of Europe, we should be prepared to make the statement honestly and openly to the public, and let the world and the British Empire know where we stand in that regard. But we have not done that. Are we then, in planning for national defence, taking these matters into consideration? If we take the stand that we will not come to the help of Great Britain if she becomes involved in some European or Asiatic turmoil, now is the time in all honesty, to say so, and if we say so we cannot expect help from Great Britain.

There is one other relationship that I think ought to be recognized. We are a member of the League of Nations. Does that mean anything to us?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Somebody suggests that it does not mean anything; I am not sure whether or not that is an official pronouncement. If it is, I think that official pronouncement ought to be given very wide publicity. The League of Nations means nothing to us; then, I ask, what is the alternative? The League of Nations, at least in ideal, has stood for a collective system of maintaining peace. I have never been enthusiastic over the League of Nations, because at first it was very largely a league of victors, and throughout to a large extent it has been a league of great powers. None of us was willing to grant the league any very great measure of power; too often we have asserted that we would maintain our own sovereignty no matter what happened to the league. Well, the league has done some good pieces of work, but the league has shown itself very weak indeed because the member nations would not give the league support, and to-day the League of Nations is very much discredited. But having said all that I come back to this point: what, then, is the alternative? If we are going to give up the idea of an ordered world, of peace and of agreements as a means of attaining peace; if we are to go back to the bad old way of fighting it out as individual nations, where will the world be within a very short time? If that takes place, war, and a much more serious war than the last, is inevitable, and that in the not distant future. It seems to me that if we were serious about the League of Nations we would spend a great deal more of our energies in trying to work out, through the league, some of these world policies which might bring us peace. Apparently we are not very active in that. And so we are in this House of Commons and in this country flopping backwards and forwards without any definite policy.
I venture to raise this question to-night in the hope that it might stimulate us to do some thinking. Are we prepared to defend ourselves by our own efforts against all comers? Secondly, are we going to ally ourselves with the United States? Thirdly, are we going to maintain our connection with Great Britain, and under what conditions? What obligations are involved in the maintenance of that connection? Then, fourth, are we to emphasize our membership in the League of Nations and either make that league something worth

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
while, or try to develop something which will be worth while to take the place of the league? Roughly, as I see the situation, these are the alternatives which lie before us at the present time.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Which is your preference?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was not my purpose to-night to state which is my preference.


Mr. BO YES:: Why mention allying with
the United States?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am bringing forward certain definite alternatives which seem to me to be possibilities. If it is worth anything to the minister I will state my preference: I believe our hope lies in strengthening the league. That is where our hope lies-in strengthening the league or, if the present machinery of the league is inadequate, in substituting for it some machinery which will do the work better.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We cannot do that by ourselves.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Would you be in
favour of physical force to back up the league's decisions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope we will not go into details.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say this,
that often one has to choose between two alternatives. If there were an alternative between spending $150,000 for cadets and $300,000 for cadets I would vote for the S150,000, not because I believe in cadets but because I believe it is the lesser of two evils. I can conceive that under certain circumstances some sort of world international police force might be better than our present rival standing armies. It is not that I want to depend upon force, used even by an international police force. The nearest to a practical proposition which has come to my attention is that we should have some sort of international air force, because, undoubtedly, aviation is the latest and perhaps the most efficient arm of our defence service. If, instead of each nation maintaining its own force, and all armed to the teeth, we had some sort of international air police service, we might be taking a very decided step in advance. But, personally, I confess that I have very little confidence in physical force as a means of settling disputes. Within the bounds of the nation we have set up courts and most of us obey fairly well the decisions of the judges in those courts. I think we will not be on a safe basis until we come to
some such arrangement in our international affairs, set up our courts and all agree to abide loyally by their decisions. That would be civilization. I do not know whether we can attain that position at one jump, but in the meantime I believe in working as rapidly as possible in that direction.
I do not intend to detain the committee further, but I think I am justified in asking the minister to give to this committee some idea as to the underlying policies of our national defence. I think I have a right to ask that, and I hope we may have some statement from the minister.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. gentleman, as usual, and as in every speech I have heard him make in the house, has offered nothing of a constructive nature. In fact, I have never heard him satisfied with anything except the CiC.F., and that party is gradually drifting away,-part of it is thrown out and the other part leaving of its own accord. The hon. gentleman seems to think that we in Canada have been consistently building up more and more armed forces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I did not suggest that.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Let me give him some figures. In the year 1930-31 the appropriation for the Department of National Defence was $24,214,795, whereas this year it is $13,737,000, or, to put it another way, in four years the appropriation has been reduced by more than $10,000,000. Let me give him another figure with regard to the per capita expenditures by various countries of the world for purposes of national defence. For the year 1932-33 the per capita expenditure of Canada was $1.35; New Zealand, $2; South Africa, $2.03; Germany, $2.46; Australia, $2.47; and the figures go up until we come to France with the largest per capita expenditure of $11.15.
Let us approach the subject from another angle, namely that of the percentage of the budget appropriation used for purposes of, national defence. In Canada the figure is 3-9 per cent; Switzerland, 21-4 per cent; Japan, 34T per cent, and France 29-4 per cent. Surely with such figures as these it is most unreasonable and unjust for the hon. gentleman to say that we are building up in. this country, for some purpose, a tremendous force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said nothing of t'he kind, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. member inferred it, from beginning to end.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


James Shaver Woodsworth: I "inferred" nothing of the kind.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I repeat, the hon. member inferred it from beginning to end. If the hon. gentleman did not, his speech meant nothing. I suggest that the government should be commended for the stand it has taken in regard to national defence. Practically every nation in the world believes in defence. The great trouble which has occurred in the past, and has come down through the centuries is that some strong and powerful nation has. become so refined and over-civilized that it has refused to fight or to support itself and has deputized other people to do its work and fighting, with the result that some other, stronger and more virile race has come in and conquered. There is a great tendency for civilization and the desire nob to fight getting too far advanced in this country. I do not believe in a nation of nincompoops who will not stand up for themselves. It is only the, lowest and most depraved sort of man who will not under certain circumstances defend himself. I believe the same holds true as regards a nation. Canada has to be prepared to defend herself to take her place in a manly and proper way in any world affair which may develop.
The hon. member may pick up any newspaper and read of difficulties throughout the world. We find in practically every paper we read that in Europe, in Asia and in South America there are very serious difficulties. What can we do but be prepared to defend ourselves if the necessity arises, or to take a proper part in the solution of any difficulties?
The hon. member spoke about the League of Nations. During the difficulties which occurred a year ago in Manchuria the great difficulty with the League of Nations was that it did not have a force. If the League of Nations is going to do anything and gain anything I think finally there has to be behind it some measure of force. Canada is a member of the League of Nations, and we must be prepared to carry our share of the load. At the present time we have not a force which is at all out of the way. Our permanent force consists of about 3,500 men, which acts as the nucleus, and then there is the non-permanent militia, a very highly trained and efficient force. It is able to deal with anything that may happen inside the country. Some unpleasantness might arise at any time in any part of the country, and it is the duty of the provinces to keep peace within their borders so that the people may pursue their ordinary vocations unmolested. The first duty of any nation is to maintain law

and order, and we have not one man too many to support the provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when called upon. We were called upon once this year. Fortunately we did not have to do anything in particular when we got there, but the small force that was sent did have a restraining influence. Such an incident might occur at any time, and if we did not have an efficient force sufficient in numbers to support the provincial authorities when called upon to help maintain the civil power, this government would not be doing its duty.
The permanent force also is prepared to train the non-permanent force, which, if the necessity should arise, could be expanded as it was in 1914. I hope just as strongly as does the hon. gentleman that there will never be any occasion to use the force, but if there is I want to see the Canadian militia, permanent and non-permanent, prepared to do its part.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then am I correct in inferring from the minister's reply that our army exists very largely to maintain order within the country and that no provision is being made to defend Canada against external enemies?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: One of the main
duties of a government is to maintain order within its borders. At the present time, of course,, our permanent force is not large enough to go overseas; that is not its object, but nobody can foretell exactly what an army is going to be used for. The force is there to be used for some legitimate end should the occasion arise.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I should like to ask the minister on what 'occasion was the permanent force called out during the last year?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Stratford.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Might I ask the minister if he thinks it was necessary to call out the permanent force to prevent girls from going on strike when they were being paid only three cents for plucking a chicken? Does he think it was necessary to call out the permanent force to prevent men from striking who were working in furniture factories at eight to ten cents an hour, and who went on strike to get something like a living wage?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The hon. member is about as logical as she usually is. We were asked by the provincial government to turn out the force, and acoording to the law of the land it was our duty to do it in aid of the civil power.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The minister has not answered my question. I asked if he thought it was necessary to turn out the force.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Trouble might easily have occurred in Stratford, and I fully believe that the Royal Canadian Regiment exerted a restraining influence. Happily they did not have to be used.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The strikers won, anyway.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I do not wish to unduly delay the minister's estimates, but I wish to make a few observations arising out of the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with respect to camps in which unemployed are used in preparing landing fields for aircraft. With the position taken by the hon. member that the feeding, housing, clothing and payment of these men at twenty cents a day is not a satisfactory solution of unemployment conditions I think no hon. member will take issue, and certainly I shall not, but I do wish to refer to the inference to be drawn from or pointed to by his objection that these camps are being operated under the Department of National Defence. From that the hon. member went into a discussion of war and expenditures of money on war; and he asked if these men were put into the camps under the department for the purpose of having them handy for use-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to misinterpret my remarks. I said and implied nothing of the kind.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I accept the explanation of my hon. friend, but I did gather that he objected to these men being used for unemployment purposes under the Department of National Defence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought the camps ought to be under the Department of Labour.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I know that when these camps were first started it was stated, and published very widely, and the agitation gained considerable force in this country, that these men were in camps under the Department of National Defence and were being subjected to military discipline. I think my hon. friend made reference to that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said nothing whatever to-night about military discipline.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Military
supervision, perhaps my hon. friend said.
Mr.. WOODSWORTH:	Quite so.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My hon.
friend draws pretty fine distinctions. What is the difference between military supervision and military direction?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure that the hon. gentleman as a former soldier knows that there is a vast difference between the two.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Well, we
shall not go into that. So far as these camps being under the Department of National Defence is concerned1, and being under military supervision or military direction or military control, there was much propaganda throughout this country to the effect that that was the condition. I took occasion to investigate the matter. I am sure that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre had knowledge of that propaganda. I wonder whether he ever took the trouble to investigate how much military control or military supervision there was.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I tried to.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: And if my hon. friend found the facts to be as I learned them to be, would it not have been just as well, would it not have been fair since he raised the question, to state here to-night what were the facts he found as to these camps? It was commonly stated1 that these men first had to be attested; secondly, that they were under military direction or military control. It was further stated that it was done by the government, under the guise of giving unemployment relief, actually for the purpose of having at hand and readily available the young manhood of our country to meet any emergency that might arise. The facts are that these men were not attested. They were under no military discipline or control. There are always some facts that can be coloured and distorted to give an appearance of truth in propaganda. The papers that these men were required to sign, the form they filled out, was readily available. Thousands of men were being taken into these camps, and surely the first duty of any man in charge of a camp is to know who are the men in that camp. What are their names? Are they married or single? Whence do they come? All these details were taken, and that is all there was to that. There was no attestation.
As to being under military direction, it is true that the camps come under the Department of National Defence. But the men in charge of the camps were not men in uniform. There were no rifles, no bayonets, no machine guns-nothing of the sort. These camps are

Supply-Dejence-Reliej Camps
similar to the ordinary lumber camps. They are comfortable and modem. Discipline is left to the men themselves and to their foremen, and that is the best kind of discipline you can get. The men are as free to leave as they are to enter. When a men receives word of placement in civil life he is provided with his return railway fare. If he be there a short time and desires to leave without having been placed in civil life, he is free to go. The food conditions, the clothing conditions and the shelter conditions are of the best. These men work for their food, shelter and clothing and in addition receive twenty cents per day and some other articles. I agree that these camps do not offer a satisfactory solution for unemployment, but I do not think there is anything sinister in the fact that they are being operated by the Department of National Defence. The question may be asked: Why by the Department of National Defence and not by the Department of Labour? It happens that the Department of National Defence is the only department which has in its employ engineers who are trained in construction work. These camps are carrying out important public undertakings in the construction of landing fields for aeroplanes and it was necessary that these fields should be prepared in a proper way under the direction of engineers. The engineers of the department could see that the work was properly carried out and an economy was effected in not having to hire other personnel.
From the reference made from time to time to things military, some hon. members would indicate that we should apologize for the estimates of the Department of National Defence. What is behind it all? Is there any reason why Canada should apologize for having a department of national defence? We are not a warlike people. I am one of the most peaceful of persons, but I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that we can ensure peace to the people of Canada by emulating the ostrich, burying our heads in the sand and crying "peace, peace," when there is no peace. I am glad that we have the League of Nations. I believe it has accomplished much more than it is generally given credit for. But back of the League of Nations is the idea that force may be necessary to enforce the treaties of that league. I was a little surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) did not give a straight reply to the question asked by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). He was asked whether or not he was in favour of using force to back up the treaties of the I Mr. W. W. Kennedy.]
League of Nations. I think we must face the question. We do not want force, but we are not living in "the best of all possible worlds." We have to take things as they are; we must be practical. What purpose is served in this house or in the country by assuming that the estimates of the Department of National Defence should be apologized for? I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and to all those who cry "peace, peace," when there is no peace: Remember that the history of our race and of every race is that prosperity is only for the free and that freedom is the heritage of those alone who have the courage to defend it.
I wish now to deal briefly with the purpose of the work being carried on in these camps and upon which these young men are being employed. They are preparing aircraft landing fields across Canada. Are these being prepared for purposes of war? No. They are being prepared preeminently for the purposes of peace and the expansion of trade and commerce. We all know what an extra day means commercially in a journey by sea; we all know what a few hours mean in mail transportation and in the delivery of commercial papers such as contracts and that sort of thing. The future of trade and commerce lies in the development of air transportation. The greatest air route in the world lies across Canada. This is envisaged to-day; it will become more obvious as years go by. The path of commerce in the air from Europe to North America and across the Pacific lies across Canada. This path is not south but north of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. The most direct route westward from Europe to Asia is across Canada north of the St. Lawrence. This government is to be commended for the work which has been already done in laying a foundation for a transatlantic and trans-Canada route. Canada's future as one of the great trading nations of the world is bound up in aeronautics. The Americans have investigated this matter and have explored our north country. The recent northern flight of Colonel Lindbergh was not one of idle curiosity. I do not propose to go into that this evening but I should like to do so on some other occasion. Other nations have attempted to obtain vested rights to the air routes across Canada. My best information is that the work on these landing fields was started only after careful study and with the object of laying the foundation for a trans-Canada air service.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
These young men who have been taken from the ranks of the unemployed are performing a real national service. In my opinion there has been no work undertaken in Canada in the last decade as important as this establishing of an air route across Canada. I would like to see those men paid more than twenty cents a day and I hope the government, taking note of the better times coming that we hear so much about and which I firmly believe are indeed here, will at the earliest possible moment, which cannot be too soon, on works suoh as these employ men at a normal wage, because to my mind they are contributing to an undertaking that is transcendentally important in the development of Canada. I think Canada should be able to afford to pay and should pay men employed on work of such national importance a reasonable living wage.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: Recently
there has come to me from away out on the prairies, from a farming community far from any village or town or city, word that an active canvas^ is being carried on by people, whether they be C.C.F.'s, communists or socialists, I do not know, but they are all regarded as one and the same thing in that locality, to use the word "revolution" whenever possible in order that our people may become accustomed to the term. Imagine such a thing!
I judge from the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) to-night and from the many speeches which he has delivered in the house, that he has evidently come to the conclusion that the proper way for him to bring about war is to talk war, war, war, trouble, trouble, international trouble and every other kind of trouble. There is not a single trouble known to the human race, internationally or in any other way, that the hon. gentleman has not brought up in review in the house in the last three or four years. He is a constant trouble hunter; in fact he is running a trouble factory, and if he wants trouble, he will get it. We in Canada are a peaceable people: we do not want war; we do everything we can to prevent war. If you go to the Chateau Laurier amongst the war veterans in session there, you will not find a single man among them who is not opposed to war, and we on this side are actively opposed to war, but if the hon. gentleman stirs up trouble and is hunting for it, he will get it and he will be very sorry for it.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Macmillan) was talking about the camp in his
constituency. I have only one objection to that camp. It is not in my constituency and it is taking hundreds of men from the city of Regina, so that to that extent they are being taken away from us. I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to tell me this: If the young men are so dissatisfied ; if the camp is so badly run, so abominable as he desires to make out, why is it that dozens of young men, sons of mothers and fathers living in towns and not eligible, are coming to me and asking me to get them into that camp? Does he think they want to get into a dungeon or into filth or into poverty? I do not think so. They want to get into that camp because they know they will be well taken care of and well fed. I have been in those camps and I know something about military life. I do not know whether my hon. friend ever was in military life or not, but I was, and from my observations of those camps they are the best run institutions that can be found anywhere. Certainly there is discipline, but it is in order that the men may be well fed and well looked after. Some of them, as a matter of fact, are too well fed because it is apt to make them think 'the state is going to continue to keep them when it is not. We are simply carrying them through this condition of depression. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he become a league of nations unto himself and give us some peace in this House of Commons.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I be permitted to answer the question asked by the last speaker? He asks why these young men would go into the camps, why they were coming to him wanting to get in. It is because they had not enough to eat if they did not go in and because it is too cold for them to wander around. I think that is quite a good answer.
I would like to ask the minister whether out of the five dollars a month or twenty cents a day that the men get, they have to provide their own clothes, or are their working clothes provided by the government?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: When they go into a camp, the understanding, indeed the fact is, that they are clothed, fed, sheltered, and given an allowance of twenty cents a day. That is in no way a salary, and it is not, as some hon. members have said to-night, with the idea of keeping them there. We do not want to make it a wage. This is not a permanent affair at all; it is merely a transition stage until those young men can get back to work.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
Miss MACPHA1L: A few minutes ago the minister accused me of being illogical. I do not think he is illogical, but I think his government is, because if we have 19,000 men who are unemployed, who cannot get work and who are to be used by the government to do work, it is much more logical that this work should be done and the estimates should come up under the Department of Public Works or the Department of Labour or both and not under the Department of National Defence, even though the work that is to be done is in relation to aviation fields. Not that there is anything wrong with the Department of National Defence, but it is the worst, the most illogical place you could put 19,000 unemployed men. If we are going to have a permanent force, and it is permanent force we are voting under item No. 77 on page 25 of the estimates, let it be a permanent force. That is one thing. But camps for the unemployed who are supposed to be doing public work should come under Public Works or under Labour. An hon. member-I think it was the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam)-said to-night that everything that could be needed or greatly desired in the camps was there. If that is true, how is it that this fall in several of the Toronto papers there have appeared signed letters from men in camps, asking people to send literature, old magazines and so forth, and 'that so many letters appeared and so great was the public interest that a branch of a department of the government of Ontario offered to gather and to transport radios, gramophones, magazines and so forth to those camps? Many hon, members must have read the letters as they appeared in the daily press, and they certainly would not leave the impression that facilities were provided for passing in any sort of profitable way the long winter evenings. I suggest to the minister that there must be something of truth in the letters or a branch of a department of the provincial government would not have taken on the job of meeting the wishes of the men as expressed in their letters.


Peter McGibbon: I am telling the hon. member that they were different camps, provincial camps.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Possibly they were; at any rate they were run very much the same way-a great many men getting very small pay, five dollars a month or something like that. May I ask the minister how many men, soldiers and officers, come under this item?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are very few that are directing their whole work to it, though practically all our people here in

Ottawa and in the various district headquarters are doing a great deal of work along that line-organization, purchasing, and the like. There are a few in some of the camps devoting their whole time to it. At the Nakina group headquarters there are 6; at Valcartier, 5; at Petawawa and Dundurn, 2; at Lac Seul, 12, and at Coulter's Siding, 4. About thirty, therefore, are devoting their whole time to it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The minister did not understand my question. I mean how many officers and men are covered by this vote? How many are there in the permanent force?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are 3,527.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: To me $4,910,000 seems a lot of money to support 3,527 men. I am interested now in knowing how the $4,910,000 is divided. Would the minister mind telling me the pay of a private in the permanent force ?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The pay of a private is $438 a year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And there are how many
privates?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are 3,109 noncommissioned officers and men.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: What is done with the rest of the money? By far the larger part is still unaccounted for.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are a number of items:
Actual pay and allowances, $4,101,701.
Capitation allowances to clergymen, $7,000.
Civilian cooks at barracks and camps, $12,000.
Other civilian employees, $45,000.
Transport and travelling expenses, $48,750.
Stores, equipment and supplies (food), $132,000.
Forage, $45,000.
Fuel and gas, $160,000.
Printing and stationery, $43,000.
Light and power, $43,000.
Telephones, moving refuse, medical service, $46,000.
Courses of instruction in Canada and abroad for permanent force personnel, $74,000.
And a number of smaller items.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not sure of my arithmetic, but if it is sound the 3,100 privates at $438 a year would get about $1,357,000. What is the total amount of money paid to the officers in the permanent force?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 


Mr. HOWARD:: In regard to the camp nearest the city of Sherbrooke, how many men are in the camp at Bishopton?

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Donald Matheson Sutherland: At Megantic, 64 men; at Bishopton, 57 men.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Where are those men from?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I could not tell exactly. I mentioned this afternoon that there might be some from Montreal, some from Sherbrooke, and some from other towns round about.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How do they happen to get into these camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The qualification for a man to get into these camps is that he is single, homeless, unemployed and physically fit. Anyone in that category in the city of Sherbrooke would apply to an employment agency, either provincial, or dominion if there is one there; or to the mayor or the relief officer of the city. The district headquarters would be communicated with, and if there was a vacancy at the nearest camp he would be sent there. It is possible that the complement there might be filled, in which case he might be sent on to Yalcartier or Petawawa.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Has the department any plan for some day taking these men out of the camps? How do they intend to rehabilitate them in the ordinary life of the country?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: We endeavour in every way possible to encourage the men to get back into civilian work, and with a good deal of success. From the camps in Ontario already 2,069 have left the camps and gone to assured positions. In Quebec 1,366 have gone back to work; in New Brunswick, 211; in Nova Scotia, 337; in Manitoba, 54; in Saskatchewan, 172; in Alberta, 48; and in British Columbia 1,123 have left camps to go to positions.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will put the question
this way: A lady came to me the other day and asked me if I could intercede to get a certain young man whom I know, of good character, a splendid fellow, into the position of chauffeur to a certain person in one of our cities. He was in a camp, and I asked her: How do you expect to get that young man out of the camp and into the position you mention, having regard to the condition he will be in? Who is going to provide shoes and clothes and shirts and collars and the rest of the things necessary to rehabilitate a man after say two years in one of those camps? What provision or arrangement is being made in that regard?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The man would leave the camp with perfectly good clothes; if the man he was going to work for wanted to get him into a livery, he would have to buy it himself.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Are they in military
clothing?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Can the minister say if any of the men in the camps at Bishopton or Megantic came from the city of Sherbrooke?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I know there are
some at one of these camps. The hon. gentleman spoke to me last session, I think, and I took up the matter; I know some of these men went to one or the other of the camps, but I do not know which one.


Mr. MULLINS:: Well, Mr. Chairman, we
are hearing the annual criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the relief ;amps. In my constituency I have a camp composed of 1,200 men, and it is very hard to get them out of the camp; I do not know what we are going to do with them. They do not want to go back to farm life; they do not want to go back to work on the land. I have a resolution which was adopted by the United Farmers of Manitoba asking that these camps be abolished so that the farmers can get help. We need these men in the winter time, but they do not want to go back to the farms; they want to crowd back into the cities.
Last year the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) criticized the camp in Riding Mountain park, but evidently he has found the truth in connection with that camp, because I did not hear any such criticism this year. Now, however, he is at it from a military standpoint. I am sorry the hon. gentleman is not in his seat, but I should be glad if these camps were under military rule. I lived in Winnipeg in 1919, and after my experience there I should be glad to know that such men were handy, because we needed them in 1919. I stood in front of the hotel in which I was living at the time and a certain element in our city paraded past and told me they were going to take over the hotel for their headquarters. I tell you I felt very unsafe in that city, so I think it might be well if these men were under military rule. I want to say, however, that there is no sign of militarism in any of these camps, particularly in the one located in Riding Mountain park. They have their boxing matches twice a week, their hockey matches and a vaudeville show, and they are

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
living very well. How are you going to get them back to work? As I have said, the farmers are prepared to pay these men more than they are receiving at present if they will take employment on the farms, but they will not do so. I want to see these men go where they belong, on the land, and not crowd into the cities. I do not want them led by agitators. There are agitators going up and down Marquette at the present time trying to lead the people into another political. channel. We have ladies speaking in school houses and telling the men what a great mistake they have made in sending certain people to the House of Commons. Well, God forbid that I should sit in this seat one minute if 1 did not hope to be of service to the men on the land in western Canada, whom I certainly wish to help. I am not here to advocate a gospel in order to get in power.
I sat here in 1925 and remember what went on then. I do not want to see a similar condition again. I want to see the present condition continue, with everyone on this side looking to the best interests of the country as a whole.
I have a few good Liberal friends; I am looking at one or two of them now, and I wonder why they do not speak up. They know the situation. I think one of them came back from Toronto once; he was a little scared and said, "Look out for Woodsworth."
1 am not afraid of Woodsworth or of any other man so long as I do my duty here in this house towards the men on the land, the struggling farmers. I want to see these camps abolished and these men back on the farms where they belong. That is the only solution, and I cannot agree to the waste of money in maintaining them that is going on at the present time.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Before we disarm entirely I should like the minister to give me a little information with regard to the camps in New Brunswick. How many are there; when were they established; how many men are in each camp; what is the nature of the work being done and under whose management is each camp?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are four camps in New Brunswick. One is at Blissville. That is a landing field, and the camp has been closed for the winter. There is another landing field at Upper Brockway; there are only six people there at the present time. At the municipal airport at Saint John there are 147. There has been an airport at Saint John for several years, and aircraft have had difficulty in landing in certain winds, so advantage is being taken of this opportunity to improve
lMr. Mullins.]
the field. At Coulter's Siding, which is a forestry project and which will be used for a training area, there are 482 men. These four camps are under the control of the district officer commanding at Saint John.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if the minister could tell me just how much of this money is applicable to the relief camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Not a cent.


James Layton Ralston: But we have been talking about relief camps all evening.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I explained that
some of the officers paid under this vote were devoting their time to this work.


James Layton Ralston: About how much of this amount would be devoted to that work, $3,000 or $5,000?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: There are about
thirty people concerned, and they would receive a total of about $30 a day from the unemployment vote.


James Layton Ralston: Then I take it that none of this money is to be used for that purpose?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Some of the officers who are detailed for full time work at the camps are paid by the department.


James Layton Ralston: Then perhaps $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 would be the contribution of the department?


Mr. SUTTHERLAND:: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Would the minister tell me what has become of the item "manufacturing establishments" that we formerly had in this vote?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: That is now joined up with "general stores"; that was done last year.


James Layton Ralston: And the item "transport and freight"?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The deputy tells me that is now under "general stores". I do not remember that as a separate item since I have been in the department.


James Layton Ralston: I mention this because the minister put on record some comparison of the figures for 1930-31 and the present figures. I have just made an analysis of those figures and I should like the committee to see what the analysis shows. I think the minister will agree with me that between 1931 and now there has been practically no reduction in this item.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Quite so. In fact,
the two items, namely permanent force and non-permanent force, are only very slightly affected.


James Layton Ralston: The non-permanent is
reduced substantially, but the permanent vote is not reduced. Further, I do not think the minister needs to apologize for not having reduced that vote. It seems to me necessary that the permanent force vote should be kept up to the present amount. This is the point at which it has stood since 1930, anyway, and I think before that.
The minister spoke about a difference of $9,000,000. May I say that the real difference between the vote in 1931 and the present vote is that $5,000,000 was voted in 1931 for civil air operations, whereas at the present time there is a vote of only $187,000. In the fiscal year 1930-31, $1,600,000 additional was voted for naval services. Then there is a difference of about $2,000,000 in other items, the chief of which were transport and freight, and manufacturing services, which accounted for nearly $1,000,000, and the votes for nonpermanent militia services, cadet services and incidentals. So that the difference of $9,000,000 is made up of $5,000,000 in civil air operations, a vote which at the present time has been reduced to practically nothing. Then there was the extra vote of $1,600,000 for naval services, and $2,000,000 in connection with the non-permanent force particularly, and allied activities.
I shall have a word to say about aviation when the item proper is before the committee. I may add, however, that I am pleased indeed that the minister is undertaking the completion of these landing fields across Canada. I believe he will agree with me, however, when I say that his action is only the continuation of a policy which we have been endeavouring for a good many years to put into effect. It is providing the ground facilities for portions of the country which we could not cover before. As I understand it, these fields are being built, among other places, through Ontario and I presume, to the Manitoba boundary. That is a portion of the territory which before we were not able to cover on Canadian terrain with our aviation services. The service farther west was one which we had already completed and on which the air mail service was running. The lighting of landing fields had been carried out also.
I should like to add a word to what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) with which I think the minister thoroughly agrees, namely, that
our endeavour should be as fast as possible to get the personnel which is now out through the country back into active service so far as civil aviation is concerned. I understand the minister states that there may be a difference between military and civil aviation services, but so far in Canada we have been going farther in connection with civil aviation than we have in connection with military service. We have the personnel and we have the facilities; it is simply a matter of having the money. I am pleased to support any activity which looks forward to an increase in aviation services, because I believe hon. members realize that on the whole, in her *national development Canada has perhaps gone farther in aviation than any other country. It is a matter of pride to me that in past years we were able to vote something like $5,000,000 in connection with forestry patrol, geological surveys for mining work, fishery patrols and other services in order to develop our civil aviation. I believe the minister has that in mind, because I understand the other day he delivered an address in Toronto which showed he was familiar not only with the needs but with the possibilities of aviation in Canada.


Charles Benjamin Howard: How much work has been done at Bishopton and up to date how much money has been expended?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I regret to say I have not before me that information, but I can get it for the hon. member.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I put the question in this way: Is the work far enough advanced so that landing would be possible, or has only the preliminary work been done?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I cannot give an accurate answer to that question. About two months ago I saw some pictures of the field, and at that time it certainly did not look as if it could be used.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In addition to the clearing of sites for airports, what other general work has been carried out by the camps? Is it the intention of the government to keep those camps open during the summer months?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In addition to the airport work, the camps in British Columbia did a good deal of work on the roads. Then, there is the citadel in Quebec and also the one at Halifax which are badly in need of repairs. Those are two historic landmarks in Canada, in connection with which a good deal of work has been done. Then there is some



Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
forestry work; for instance, the Lac Seul project is very largely one of forestry. The one we have in New Brunswick ait Coulter's Siding is a forestry project, and finally will be used as a camp for that district.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the summer months?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: In the summer months, if necessary, we will keep them open. Last year we found that a large number of men went away, particularly in western Canada, and worked in the harvest, or at one thing and another. They will be kept open, but we encourage the men to go out and get other work if they can.


Charles Gavan Power: What was the cost per day of feeding the men at different camps?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The men are on regular army rations. It costs 29-2 cents per day.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the figure for the whole of Canada?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes, that is the average.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister the figure for the province of Quebec, with particular reference to Valcartier or Quebec citadel, as compared with the costs in British Columbia?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I have not that information before me, because my figures are the averages.


Charles Gavan Power: But the minister could furnish those figures?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister any idea of how much it costs to clothe a man in the winter season?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: It costs for clothing 18-7 cents per day.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Donald Matheson Sutherland: It would be difficult for me to answer that question, because I have not the figures in front of me.


Charles Gavan Power: I imagine there must be a schedule showing the clothing issued to the men.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Does it include underwear and that sort of thing?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes; they are very well provided with clothing, such as warm mackinaws, underwear, socks and rubber boots. At the present time lumbermen's boots are used.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I have
listened with a good deal of interest to the discussion which has taken place to-night, and being of a curious turn of mind I cannot help remembering 1930. It is most interesting to see the way in which hon. members opposite come to the rescue of the government in carrying out the policy which they promised in 1930 to put into effect if they were returned to power. I for one am greatly interested in seeing the development of that policy and the defence of it that hon. gentlemen opposite attempt to make. I am sorry the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) found it convenient to leave, also the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins), and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) as well as other hon. gentlemen opposite who rushed to the defence of this policy of the government to cure unemployment. How comforting it must be to the people of Canada to realize that now we have the real policy of the Conservative party on unemployment expounded to us by these gentlemen to-night, together with the statement by the minister who is administering the relief camps for the single, homeless unemployed men! How comforting it must be to the electors who voted for these gentlemen! I look at the promises that were made by the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) and by his followers in all parts of Canada not only to cure unemployment but to end it, and yet nineteen thousand young unmarried men are being taken care of by the government of Canada in the various camps to which reference has been made. I have no fault to find with the administration of these camps by the Department of National Defence or with the treatment of the men, but what must the men themselves think? A fair percentage of them voted to put this government in office to end unemployment, and what must they think when they find themselves employed in this manner? Surely the Conservative party ought to be proud of its record. And remember that in every town and village of any size in Canada married men are on direct relief, thirty per cent of which is contributed by this government. And yet hon. gentlemen opposite fly to the rescue of the minister because some criticism is offered by

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and by the lady member of this house (Miss Macphail) over this state of affairs. It is not good enough to say that these conditions are common to every country, because hon. gentlemen opposite said that if they were put into office they would cure unemployment and find work for all. But they did not say it would be at twenty cents a day. They never mentioned twenty cents a day, nor did they say they were going to put the single unemployed men into relief camps and give the dale to those who were married. The hon. member for Long Lake, for instance, tries to ridicule the hon. member for Winnipeg North' Centre for his attitude. It is a sorry spectacle to see hon. gentlemen opposite have to admit after four years of office that this is the best they can do for the unemployed in Canada. What a spectacle!


Mr. McINTOSH:: Deplorable!


Eccles James Gott: Let us be serious for a moment.


Charles A. Stewart: I am quite serious, just as serious as the hon. gentleman's leader was when he was making those promises to the electors in 1930.


Eccles James Gott: My hon. friend is not serious or he would not have said that the hon. member for Saskatoon ridiculed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when actually he paid him a compliment by addressing him as the right hon. gentleman.


Charles A. Stewart: I never said anything of the kind, and if my hon. friend would only sit and listen he would know what I am saying.


Eccles James Gott: You deliberately said that he ridiculed the hon. member for Winnipeg.


Charles A. Stewart: Will the
hon. gentleman kindly speak when he gets the opportunity? I do not wish to put on record again, as I had intended to do, the promises made by this government, not only by its leader but by his followers, to cure unemployment in this country. Had they said then that their method of curing it was to be the method that they are defending to-night, they would not be sitting where they are now, in the seats of the mighty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What would have happened the country then?


Ernest Lapointe: No titles.


Charles A. Stewart: What would have happened? If my right hon. friend can 74726-98J
suggest anything worse than the present condition I should like to know it. If the right hon. gentleman is proud of the record of his government he is welcome to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he certainly is.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I say to him that I am very glad he makes that statement because the people of Canada are anything but proud of him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would compare popular approval with the approval of the hon. gentleman.


Charles A. Stewart: No doubt you will have to give us the opportunity and we will let the public decide. When we have to take our medicine we take it, and you will take yours on the next occasion.


Eccles James Gott: That is your supposition.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it? All right. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that I did not rise to criticize the administration of the relief camps.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: He laughs best who laughs last. I did not rise to criticize the administration of the relief camps. I believe they are well administered, but I do say that it is a sorry spectacle for the government of Canada that the relief camps should have to be established at all, and it is not an answer to say, as has been said on former occasions, that it is the result of world conditions, because hon. gentlemen sitting opposite over there are the ones who promised the electors of Canada that if they were put into office they would cure unemployment-and this is the way you have cured it. Are you proud of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Charles A. Stewart: Proud of the situation that exists to-day? Proud of the number of unemployed? Proud of the steps you have taken to deal inadequately with the situation? Then if you are, you are much more case hardened than I thought you were.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Give us the promises that were made.


Charles A. Stewart: In Halifax, the right hon. gentleman who now leads this government made a speech on July 4, 1930, in which he said:
If the Conservative party comes into power on July 28th I propose at the earliest moment to call parliament together so that we may find speedy remedy for this situation and decide on means to provide work for Canadians. Work I said, not doles.

Supply-Dejence-Relief Camps
That is plain enough, isn't it? And yet we have in the neighbourhood of one million people-or that was the number-a very large proportion of whom are on doles and nothing else. And this government is not doing what it promised to do, to take care of the situation as a great national emergency, because it is paying only thirty per cent of the dole.
Then at Moncton the leader of the Conservative party said:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date after July 28, and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country as a whole. . . . Mr. King promises consideration of the problems of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
I have not heard anyone from Moncton or thereabouts get up to-night and speak of the wonderful way in which that promise has been carried out.
Again, speaking at Ottawa, the right hon. gentleman said:
Mr. King promises you conferences; I promise action.
Is there any government that has outdone this government in calling conferences during the past three years? And what have been the results of them all?


Robert James Manion: Your leader has been
complaining that we did not call enough conferences.


Charles A. Stewart: What has been the result of it all? Absolutely nothing. We have a wheat agreement by which we reduce our production by over one million bushels. That is the result of one of the conferences.
Then, speaking at Renfrew, the right hon. gentleman said-and I am sorry that the hon. member for Renfrew is not now in his seat, because he must have been present at this meeting, otherwise it could not have taken place:
I will enact such tariff measures to give Canadians an even chance, or perish in the attempt.
This was a real perishing government before they got into office. He went on:
At the same time we will protect labour as well as consumers. There will be no exploitation.
We now have the Stevens committee sitting day after day and discovering how labour has been exploited under the very nose of this government.

Mr. CAiSGRAIN: The higher the tariff, the lower the wage.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not know what steps may be taken to prevent labour from being exploited, but that is what is being found out in another room in this building. Such a thing should make every Canadian blush with shame, but all this was going to be prevented by this government. These are the promises by virtue of which hon. members opposite sit in the seats of the mighty.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give us some more
of them.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
too many, and I do not want to clutter up Hansard. Then they wonder why criticism is offered when we have before us estimates to provide relief camps. I marvel at the nerve of the government, and I wonder how they are able to face the people after making such spacious promises. I repeat that it is no use saying to hon. members on this side and to the public generally that it was world conditions that brought all this about. They knew about world conditions in 1030, but they stated that it was the fault of the government of that day that there were 117,000 unemployed in Canada.


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Chairman, what is the
number of this vote? I have lost my place.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. member will find his place some day. I do not wonder he has lost it, and I am afraid he will lose it a good many times if he attempts to follow the intricacies of this government. We are discussing unemployment and relief camps. Does my hon. friend realize that we are talking about relief and the cure of unemployment?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Twenty cents a day.


George Reginald Geary: I was just wondering.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
particular fault to find with the twenty cents a day, but I say without fear of contradiction that these conditions have been brought about by the policies of this government. If this government said in 1030 that world conditions had nothing to do with the situation then existing, how can they argue to-day that world conditions are causing the unpleasant situation we have in this country? They cannot swallow themselves; that is impossible, although they will try to do it.


Ernest Lapointe: They blow and swallow at the same time.

Supply-Defence-Relief Camps


Charles A. Stewart: They do not like this sort of thing. I know it does not go down with them. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) was very laudatory in his statement about these camps. He told us how splendidly they were 'being conducted. With all of that we agree, as we know that anything undertaken by the Department of National Defence will be well done. But I say again, is it not a sorry spectacle that Canada, having such great undeveloped natural resources, should have to operate unemployment camps in order that men may obtain sustenance and a reasonable amount of clothing? Is it not a sorry spectacle that this is what has to be done under the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite?


Mr. ROBINSON:: What will happen under the policies of the Liberal government?


Charles A. Stewart: When the
Liberal government come into office their policies will be enunciated. May I say to my hon. friend that he was in a very happy and comfortable position under Liberal policies. We did not have any relief camps and we had mighty little unemployment. ,


Eccles James Gott: You would not have given a nickel if you had.


Charles A. Stewart: We did not need to give nickels; the government provided employment for all. Even the tobacco growers down in Essex were able to get along without relief, the same men for whom the hon. member is pleading so hard to-day. This government was going to blast its way into the markets of the world, but my hon. friend is to-day asking for relief for those very men who were to benefit from the policies of the government. Are you proud and pleased with your record? Hon. gentlemen on the back benches opposite will rush to the defence of the government. They are ready to advocate relief camps and other forms of unemployment relief, notwithstanding the fact that they declared solemnly to the electors that they would not inaugurate such things. They are welcome to all the comfort they can get. That is all I have to say in connection with this matter.


Otto Baird Price: Would the hon. member
kindly tell the committee just what he would do? Has he any constructive suggestion to offer?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Change the government.


Otto Baird Price: Tell the committee so the
public will know just how you would deal with unemployment.


Charles A. Stewart: I would
deal with it in exactly the same way as the Liberal government dealt with it in 1922. I would bring about the same era of prosperity which was brought about in 1922 by the application of Liberal policies. That is the way I would deal with it, not by trying to blast my way into the markets of the world and shutting the gates to all whc wanted to get into Canada. The government's policies have been on trial for four years and each year the conditions have become worse than they were in the previous year. The one man of those who occupy the front benches opposite for whom I am sorry is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). He has to try to raise revenues while the policies inaugurated by the present government are being carried out. He has made a dismal failure of it and is bound to make a dismal failure so long as these policies are followed.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.	.
Friday, March 16, 1934