1937-02-03

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Canadian Red Cross Society Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: This is a minor amendment to the Canadian Red Cross Society Act asked for unanimously by the council of the society. The effect of one amendment will be to reduce the council from sixty to forty members. The other amendments are purely consequential.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	Was an agreement made during the month of December, 1935, by the present wheat board with the members of the Winnipeg Gra;" Ex-
Questions

change as to the delivering of wheat by the board to the members of the grain exchange or exporters to fill overnight sales of wheat?
2.	If so, was the agreement made with the knowledge and on the advice of the wheat committee of the cabinet?
3.	If such agreement was made, how long did it remain in force, and if cancelled, when and why, and was it cancelled with the knowledge and advice of the wheat committee of the cabinet?


Mr. ROGERS:: The subject to which this question relates, namely, the marketing of Canadian grains abroad, is now being investigated by the royal grain inquiry commission, which has not yet reported to the government.


NATIONAL WAR MEMORIAL
Mr. PINARD:: 1.	What are the dimensions of the national war memorial to be erected in Ottawa, as follows: (a) height from ground level; (b) length along ground level; (c) depth at greatest part?
2.	What will be the depth of the foundations below ground level?
3.	Before finally proceeding with the erection of the memorial will the government cause to be constructed a rough wooden model of space and height, so that the government, members of parliament and all others interested may judge as to the suitability of the site?
Question dropped.


CONFISCATION OF IMPORTED RADIOS
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Did officers of the Department of National Revenue since January, 1936, seize or confiscate radios illegally imported into Canada?
2.	If so, what number in each ease?
3.	Did the customs commissioner order the confiscation of a radio purchased in good faith by D. Christin in the county of L'Assomption?
4.	Did Mr. Christin offer to pay the customs duty after the seizure but before the confiscation of his radio?
5.	Upon what date did the commissioner order the confiscation of Mr. Christin's radio?
6.	Was such radio sold or destroyed?
7.	If sold, (a) to whom; (b) by whom; (c) when; (d) at what price?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Seized, 94; confiscated, 65.
3.	The assistant commissioner of customs under the authority given him by the minister under the provisions of section 174 of the Customs Act rendered decision in this case forfeiting the radio. This is the regular procedure established for dealing with such cases.
4.	Yes.
5.	Decision was rendered on January 21,1937.
6 and 7. By statute the owner is allowed
thirty days within which he may give notice of non-acceptance of such decision. If notice is not given decision then becomes final. The radio will not be sold as it has been condemned
[Mr. E. E. Perley.J
by an electrical inspector operating under the provincial laws of Quebec.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-CONTRACT FOR HAY
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Has a contract been made with one Greenlees for a supply of hay for use at the Royal Military College, Kingston?
2.	If so, were tenders invited before such contract was made?
3.	What is the duration of such contract?
4.	What are the quantities and dates of delivery?
0.	Wihat grade of hay is stipulated in the contract?
6. What is the price per ton on delivery?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Contract awarded October 7, 1936 for the period ending March 31, 1937.
4.	Approximately 40 tons. Deliveries to be made as required.
5.	Number 2 Timothy.
6.	Twenty dollars per ton which includes delivery into the Royal Military College forage loft or other building as directed.


CANADIAN MILITIA-HONORARY COLONELS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many regiments are there in the Canadian militia?
2.	In such regiments, (a) how many colonels are there; (b) how many honorary colonels are there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: NonPermanent Permanent
1. Arm of	Active	ActiveService	Militia	Militia TotalCavalry	
2	20	22Infantry	,	3	89	92Total	114
2. (a) Regiments comprising two active battalions have a colonel provided for in their establishment. At present, the total number of colonels so appointed is two (2).
(b) Each regiment may, under the regulations, have appointed thereto one honorary colonel. The total number at present appointed is forty-eight.


MEADOWVILLE STATION, N.S., MAIL SERVCE
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	When were tenders last received for mail courier service R.R. No. 1, Meadowville Station, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the name of each person who tendered, and the amount of each person's tender ?

Motions for Papers
3.	Is the contract awarded? If so, to what person, and for what amount?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	10th July, 1936.
2.	John Robert Holt, West Branch River John, $600; James Blaekie, Meadowville $649; Edward Charles Hansford, Pictou No. 3 R.R., $675; Daniel R. Sutherland, Meadowville Stn., No. 1 R.R., $749; Leod Murray, Meadowville Stn., $775.
3.	Yes. John Robert Holt at $600 per annum.


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	When were tenders last received for mail courier service R.R. No. 2. Meadowville Station, Pictou county, Nova Scotia?
2.	What is the name of each person who tendered, and the amount of each person's tender ?
3.	Is the contract awarded? If so, to what person, and for what amount?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	18th December, 1936.
2.	and 3. The contract has been awarded to the lowest tenderer. Information respecting tenderers and amounts will be furnished as soon as contract is executed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Was a duty placed on corn coming into Canada?
2.	If so, at what date, and (a) what was the rate of duty; (b) to what country did it apply?
3.	Was this duty removed during years 1935 or 1936?
4.	If so, (a) on what date did free entry become effective; (b) what amount of corn was imported since the suspension of the duty; (c) what quantities from each country shipping corn into Canada?
5.	Is there a duty on corn imports now in force?
6.	If so, when did it become effective?


CANADIAN MILITIA-HONORARY COLONELS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the honorary colonels of the Canadian militia?
2.	(a) On what date was each of them appointed; (b) for what record of military services, and (c) upon whose recommendation?
3.	What are their functions?
4.	What formalities are required for the appointment of an honorary colonel?
5.	Are they supplied with uniforms and arms by the state?
6.	If so, with what uniforms and what arms, and what is the annual cost for each individual?
7.	Are the honorary colonels required to pay a tax, or any contribution or hororarium to the state in such capacity?
8.	If so, is same paid before or after their appointment has been published in the Canada Gazette, and how much?
9.	What do the honorary colonels cost the country?
10.	In their capacity as such, how much do they pay to the state?
11.	What services have the honorary colonels, as such, rendered to the state to date?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. QUELCH (for Mr. Johnston, Bow River):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, charges, evidence and other documents, dated from June 1, 1936, to date, regarding the dismissal of the postmistress of Newcastle, Alberta.
Also a statement showing the reasons assigned for dismissal and the name or names of the person or persons who assumed responsibility for or furnished such information.



FOUNDERING OF THE &quot;SAND MERCHANT&quot;

Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the government, relative to the foundering of the ship Sand Merchant, in Lake Erie, October 17, 1936.
Also a copy of evidence taken by Mr. Justice Errol MacDougall relative to the matter, along with a copy of his report.
Also a list of the owners of the said vessel.


Mr. HOWE:: May I say to the hon. member that the department has only one copy of the evidence and one of the report. The evidence runs into 567 pages, and the report comprises 22 pages. If the hon. member . would permit us to lend him the report and evidence it would save a great deal of time in the department.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall be satisfied with the judge's report. It is nothing but a -whitewash, anyway.



PACIFIC COAST SHIPPING


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved:: Whereas a resolution was introduced into parliament and debated the 26th February, 1936, asking that "in the opinion of this house the government take such steps as will provide for employment of greater numbers of -white Canadian citizens, on all ships and vessels of Canadian ownership and registration, the owners of which receive sums of money from the public treasury of Canada";
And whereas, the resolution after debate was referred to the standing committee on industrial and international relations;

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Reid
And whereas, the committee held numerous sittings and likewise heard numerous witnesses on the subject matter of the resolution;
And whereas, after hearing all evidence presented to it, the committee recommended,-
1.	That, in view of the substantial subsidy granted yearly to the Canadian-Australian line by Canada, the small number of Canadians employed in its service be brought to the attention of the company, and that they be requested to afford Canadian seamen a reasonable degree of employment at the earliest possible convenience.
2.	That, as up to the year 1913, the decks of the Empress boats were manned by white seamen, and in as much as the deck service is an important and responsible branch of the work of these boats, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be requested to replace with Canadian seamen, the orientals now so employed, rnd that this change be made at the company's earliest opportunity.
And whereas, the recommendation presented by the committee passed the House of Commons unanimously, and thereby became an order of parliament;
And whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has ignored the instructions and has not complied with the order given by parliament, whereby Canadian seamen were to be given employment as deck hands in preference to orientals,
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, no further moneys from the treasury of Canada by way of subsidy be given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company towards the operations of the Empress ships operating betw'een Vancouver and the orient, until such times as they do obey the order of parliament, by replacing the Chinese seamen now employed and engaging Canadian seamen on the deck service of the subsidized ships operating between Vancouver and the orient.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, hon. members will
perhaps recall that last year I introduced a resolution stating that great numbers of Canadian seamen on the Pacific coast were out of employment; that owners of ships and vessels of Canadian registry on the Pacific coast of British Columbia were giving employment in large measure to great numbers of orientals; that other countries give greater consideration to the employment of their own nationals on ships and vessels belonging to their own country; that the Canadian government grant large sums of money to the owners of ships and vessels by way of subsidies, and that it was desirable that every encouragement be given for the employment of our own nationals. My motion ended with these words;
Therefore, be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government take such steps as will provide for employment of greater numbers of white Canadian citizens on all ships and vessels of Canadian ownership and registry, the owners of which receive sums of money from the public treasury of Canada.

An amendment to my motion was offered, and finally the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) moved that the matter be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for discussion and investigation.
Many meetings of the committee were held; witnesses were brought from the Pacific coast. The steamship company most interested brought its chief witness from the city of Vancouver, and was also ably represented before the committee by Mr. Flintoft, general counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway-Company. It is safe to say that every aspect of the matter was considered carefully and fully. After due deliberation the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) presented a final report, which was adopted on June 17.
May I draw the attention of hon. members to what was agreed to last year. I shall be as brief as possible, realizing that I have discussed the question for at least three or four years, but I should like to take time to place before hon. members part of the report accepted by the house. Dealing first with coastwise shipping, the report states:
1.	As regards coastwise shipping, the work is done by Canadians mainly, and their is no issue.
2.	Shipping to Australia and the antipodes is carried on by the Canadian-Australian line. This company, which receives an annual subsidy of $300,000 from the Canadian government, employs but eight Canadians in the crews of five hundred and ten men.
The committee went into the question of oriental shipping, pointing out the great numbers of orientals engaged on ships plying between the port of Vancouver and Chinese ports. As a result of their investigations they recommended:
1.	That, in view of the substantial subsidy granted yearly to the Canadian-Australian line by Canada, the small number of Canadians employed in its service be brought to the attention of the company, and that they be requested to afford Canadian seamen a reasonable degree of employment at the earliest possible convenience.
I believe that in large measure this request was met by the company in question. Then, clause 2 is as follows;
2.	That, as up to the year 1913, the decks of the Empress boats were manned by white seamen. and in as much as the deck service is an important and responsible branch of the work of these boats, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be requested to replace with Canadian seamen the orientals now so employed, and that this change be made at the company's earliest opportunity.
One could say possibly that I have not crossed every "t" and dotted every "i,"

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Reid
because I state in my resolution that this company has defied the order of parliament. It was pointed out to me that an order of parliament means an order of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and that this was merely a request by the House of Commons. But surely, Mr. Speaker, a request by the House of Commons is tantamount to an order, or at least should be.
I shall attempt to point out to hon. members the seriousness of the matter. This is not the first time the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has defied orders. I might refer hon. members to an instance not so long ago where orders were given by the board of railway commissioners, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company refused to obey them. If there is anything in these days of unrest likely to create more disorder, it is the fact that we have in Canada an institution which, it would seem, is above the law of the land and which replies, irrespective of what it may be asked, "We are not going to carry out your wishes."
If the request had been made without first having a full inquiry and without taking time to go into every aspect of the matter, and if we had not tried to find out the numbers who could work on the boats in preference to orientals, and all facts in connection with every matter affecting the granting of large sums of money, I would say that perhaps there might be some excuse for allowing the company consideration. But the matter was considered fully by the committee. Every argument that could be advanced by the company's representatives was brought forward on that occasion. But as has already been pointed out, after due deliberation the committee appointed by the house brought in a report which was unanimously adopted and which has not been carried out by the railway company.
Although I have discussed the matter on many occasions, there are some salient points that I should like to bring before the members of this house. I am going first to touch briefly on the history of the subsidies. That history started away back in 18S9, when the imperial government made a grant of $300,000 for the operation of a route from Halifax across Canada and from Vancouver to the orient; it was known as the all-red route. I wish the originators of that project could see what has happened now, because that red route has now taken on a yellow tinge, for the majority of employees of the ships are from oriental countries and we designate them, not in a derogatory sense, as the "yellow" race. The Canadian government of that time was asked to contribute $75,000, and that
grant was continued for ten years. In 1914 the agreement was suspended, but in 1916 the company made an appeal for assistance and it was granted. But this fact should now be noted,- that from 1921 to 1930 the company did not receive one five-cent piece by way of subsidy from the treasury of this country, and when asked in committee how they could carry on without obtaining large sums of money, well, they thought perhaps trade was a little better, et cetera, but no satisfactory answer to that question was given. In 1931 they appealed to the government and obtained in that year almost a million dollars by way of subsidy. Later the amoimt was reduced, and last year they obtained a total of $749,000 for twenty-three round trips.
I suppose it is only natural that notice is not taken of many statements, wise and otherwise, made in committee, but I should like members of this house to give serious attention to certain statements made by the company's chief expert who appeared and gave evidence under oath before that committee, a man named Captain Aikman, R.N., who at one time was in the Royal Naval Reserve and is still attached, I believe, to the naval forces of Great Britain. He was asked in that committee, if he were compelled to pay the same wages to Chinamen and to Canadians or Britishers whom would he employ, and without hesitation he stated "Chinamen." He stated also that they were better sailors. He, a British Royal Naval Reserve officer with seemingly no great pride of nationality, admitted under oath that if he had to employ men of one of these races and pay them the same wages he would employ orientals. It is no wonder that I said to him, "Well, you had better advise the British admiralty that there are better seamen in China than in the British navy," when that was the argument he made before the committee. He was asked, would he hire Canadians if they were available, and he made no answer to that question. He was also asked, if he were given lists of Canadians would he employ them? There was no answer to that. The reason those questions were asked was that the company's representatives had stated under oath that there were no seamen available in any of the Pacific ports and therefore they must of necessity hire orientals or Chinamen from Hong Kong. Evidence was produced that there were at least 1,100 men of all classes, whose names and addresses were given, available for this employment, but apparently, to judge from Captain Aikman's evidence, it was the settled or avowed policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company not to employ Canadians.
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Reid

To me this is extremely serious, as also is the witness's statement that he preferred Chinamen to our own people.
During the parliamentary recess I went into the question of the numbers of men who are or could be available if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were disposed to employ our own nationals. I have before me the latest figures supplied by the provincial relief department of British Columbia. There are actually registered at the moment close to 300 men who class their occupation as "seaman" in one capacity or another, and on the Pacific coast there are also some four to five hundred men who are employed for the summer season but who are not listed, I believe, in the relief figures I have given. I mention this to disprove the statement made on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that there are no men available.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the figure of 300 for British Columbia or for Vancouver?


Thomas Reid: For Vancouver. The figures would have been larger had they included the province of British Columbia. This does not take into account the number who are not registered as being on relief or the numbers in homes or out on small ranches or elsewhere who would be glad to accept employment were they given the opportunity. While I do not like to picture a wintery aspect of the city of Vancouver, which is something unusual as we have had this year unprecedented winter weather, I have a paper which reached me here the other day-and I should like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to take note of this-a picture of 400 men many of whom had stood in line all through the night waiting for a job next morning to shovel snow.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Did the mayor of Vancouver when he was in England not urge emigration to Canada?


Thomas Reid: The former mayor of Vancouver can very well answer for his own statements. I would never presume to speak for him. But, Mr. Speaker, I again call to the attention of the minister-and it is something I think he believes-that while there may be the odd man here and there in the country who is not willing to work, the fact that men will stand in line all night long in the hope of being given employment the following morning in shovelling snow is ample evidence that we still have in this dominion hundreds of men, young and otherwise, who are willing to work if only they are given an opportunity. Nevertheless we find here a company receiving an annual subsidy of over $700,000, which tells this House of Commons, irrespective of what request is made, "We are

not going to hire Canadians; we are going to hire men from Hong Kong because we believe that they are better sailors." If they were telling the truth they would say, "Chinamen are more docile; they are more easily handled; they will not kick up a fuss over bad treatment and they work for low wages."
The company was ordered to take the deck crews off. The matter, I understand, was taken up by the Department of Trade and Commerce through its officials, and the other day I received a return in connection with this. One point that particularly struck me was that they were negotiating through the Department of Trade and Commerce, and when they made the statement that there were no men available they suddenly switched the correspondence to the deputy minister of marine. Surely a corporation with high officials such as theirs did not do that just out of ignorance. They had been dealing right along with the Department of Trade and Commerce; yet the statement they made to the government that there were no Canadians available is suddenly switched to the attention of an. official in another department who has nothing whatever to do with the matter under discussion and is not conversant with the details. I take strong exception to the statement that there are no men available. I have in my hand official particulars-and I repeat them-of the numbers of men in Vancouver alone who are available for these ships, but they will never be acceptable to this company so long as it can hire cheap labour from the orient. I for one do not propose to allow them to get away with that kind of policy.
It is strange that every country in the world with the exception of Canada looks after its own nationals. I would point out the possible seriousness of what could take place with 486 orientals on one of these ships, carrying only a nucleus or handful of white men. It is well known, to those in British Columbia at least, that there is no love lost between the Japanese and the Chinese, and were any trouble to arise I wonder how long the Japanese would allow ships carrying 486 Chinamen on board to sail between the two ports. In my resolution I was not advocating that the ships be manned one hundred per cent by Canadians, for I quite realize that a certain percentage of passengers are returning Japanese or Chinese. I was, however, asking that a greater number of white men or men of Canadian or British birth be employed on these ships. When one takes into consideration the statement made under oath that the average passenger list is from sixty to sixty-five per cent oriental,

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Reid
it is not too much to ask that the Canadians employed shall represent say thirty or thirty-five per cent of the crew. At the present time the percentage of officers, Canadian or British, is roughly fifteen per cent and in some instances it is below fifteen per cent of the crew. The great majority of thooj employed on these ships are orientals; 486 is the figure in one instance, and I have figures for all the others, the total on four ships being approximately 1,900.
I have in my hand a statement made by the president of the company, Sir Edward Beatty, and he advises the business men of the country to speak up-"speak your mind," he says. Of course, I do not believe he really intended that I should speak my mind in this connection and say what I think about the Canadian Pacific railway doing anything like this. If he goes to the old country and advocates emigration to Canada, or when he advocates immigration when speaking in Canada, I should like him to tell the facts as they are. Let him say. "Yes; we want immigration; we want people to come to Canada, but remember when you come here we are no.t going to hire you because we prefer Chinamen." I wonder what the people of the old country would think if he told them the truth-because that is the truth. We want population; oh, yes, we want people to come here. But when it comes to giving them employment, oh no; they are not good enough; Chinamen are better seamen; they work for lower wages and so on. Would he tell the people of the old country all the facts? Would he tell them that? If he did, I venture to say that he would need a strong bodyguard to escort him back to his ship or hotel.
I shall make this suggestion to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and I think it is a matter that should be discussed in this house. We have perhaps only the nucleus of a navy, but young men entering that navy, such as it is, go in as cadets. After taking their course of training what do they find? They find themselves on the street, or at any rate looking for employment.' Would it not be a fine gesture to find openings for these cadets on these ships? In the event of trouble there would be trained men to meet the situation. But what hope is there for us in training seamen with any national spirit at all if, after they have received their training as naval cadets, they find themselves confronted with a situation where there are 486 Chinamen on board each of these ships, there being no room for any one of these cadets, and a company such
3U11-33
as the Canadian Pacific railway declaring its preference for orientals.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know the hon. member
wishes to be fair, and I am bound to say that I shall shortly have occasion to agree with much that he has said, but it would be well to make it clear that he is referring solely to the Pacific service of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Thomas Reid: I thought that was understood, because I have confined my remarks to the service on the Pacific. The principle, of course, is the same right through. I do not know the conditions on the Atlantic. Evidence was given before the committee, and perhaps there are members of the committee who can speak with more authority than I can with regard to the service on the Atlantic. At any rate a greater number of Canadians or men of British birth are employed on the Atlantic than on the Pacific. I am speaking, however, of those cadets who come out after receiving their training, only to find themselves without employment, with nothing facing them but relief. I suggest to the Minister of National Defence that this angle of the question should be studied. The serious part of the matter is that this company came back with the old argument that there were no men available on the Pacific coast. They said, "We have investigated the situation and have found this and that." Well, they were not looking very keenly for men. They did inquire of the shipping master in the port of Vancouver, but as is well known, few seamen ever go near the shipping master in their search for employment. But even if they did, what does the shipping master say? I interviewed him a month prior to leaving for the house and he said that there were at least eighty-five men registered and available. I believe that was the figure quoted from the provincial government as to the number idle in Vancouver, and it is ample proof that large numbers of men could be available were this company willing to take them on. But suppose there were no seamen available; does anyone say that at least some of those 400 men who fought for jobs and stayed up all night would not be glad to be taken on as deck-hands on these ships? And how can anyone learn to be a deck-hand unless he is given a chance? The only way to become an able-bodied seaman is to be given an opportunity to work on a ship.
I am going to close my remarks by urging upon the government and the house the seriousness of this matter. I know it is being viewed seriously in British Columbia, not only because of the lack of employment for our

514	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Maclnnis
own people but in view of the fact that this company has declared, "We are not going to heed the request made by parliament." I urge the house to accept this resolution and to enforce its provisions until such time as this company accedes to the request that has been made by parliament.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: As one of those who served last year on the committee on industrial and international relations, which dealt with the subject matter of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid); in view of the fact that the recommendation of the committee was unanimous, and as I have been trying for the past five or six years, whenever this subsidy item has been before the house, to elicit some assurance that before the subsidy was paid some check would be made in connection with wages and. working conditions of the crews employed on the Canadian Pacific ships, I unhesitatingly support the motion.
The hon. member for New Westminster made his remarks brief. I know there is much more he could have said had he thought it necessary. I also will speak briefly. I should like, however, to bring to the attention of the house a comparison of wages now paid to the Chinese crews on these ships and the wages that would be paid to Canadian seamen replacing them. This comparison was placed before the committee by a representative of the Canadian Pacific steamships last year.
The comparisons are for the four Empress boats on the Pacific. These ships have Chinese crews numbering in all 1,768. If Canadian seamen were employed to take their places it is assumed that a smaller number would be required, namely, 1,475. The number of Chinese employed on the decks is 277, and the monthly wages total 82,925, or an average of S10.55 each per month. If Canadian citizens were doing the same work, the number required would be 186, and the total monthly pay-roll would be $9,040 or an average per person of $48.60. It is not difficult to see why the Canadian Pacific steamships prefer Chinese to Canadian seamen on their ships, when the additional wage would amount to $38.05 per person per month.
Coming to the other ratings you find a similar situation. In the engine rooms they employ 558 Chinese. The number of Canadians which would be necessary is nearly the same, 537. The monthly wage for 558 Chinese totals $6,045, or an average of $10.83 per person. If Canadians were employed in the engine room the total monthly wages would be $25,345, and the average per person, $57.99.


Mr. WALSH:: If the hon. gentleman will
permit a question, in making these comparisons is he comparing equal grades of work in all instances, engine work with engine work, and so on?


Angus MacInnis: Yes, in all instances.
These figures are embodied in a statement, included in the records of the committee, given by Mr. Flintoft, representing the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
It is not necessary to go over all the figures. The yearly total of present wages for a Chinese crew is $203,880. The total if the company had to employ Canadian seamen would be $929,808. It is largely, therefore, a matter of dollars and cents, but not altogether that; it is that and something more. We were told by the same representatives that, employing Chinese, they can shift them from one service to another, which could not be done with white sailors. I asked whether these men had an organization which could take up grievances with the proper officials of the company. I was told that they had no such organization, that the company dealt with each man individually. Now my understanding is that the crews for these boats are supplied by an agency in Hong Kong, and that these agencies control almost the very lives of the men so supplied. This house would be doing something worth while if it stipulated that before any further subsidies be paid to the Canadian Pacific steamships for this service the government or the department would have to be satisfied that the wages and working conditions on the boats were comparable to those prevailing on similar boats either in this country or in other countries.
At some other time I may bring up the matter more specifically, but this year at the international labour conference I believe six conventions were passed relating to wages and working conditions of men who follow the sea for their living. Ours is a maritime country and sooner or later this government will have to consider ratifying these agreements. I am quite satisfied that the conditions at present prevailing on Canadian Pacific boats will not fit in with the conventions adopted at the international labour conference. Therefore we might as well take the matter in hand now so that in this respect we may be on what more nearly approaches an even basis with other maritime countries.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): I was a member of the committee which dealt with this question, and although I am from the extreme east I am in hearty accord with the

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Isnor
resolution of the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Reid). He approached the question in a very reasonable manner. On the committee last year all the groups in this house were represented. The case was presented and the evidence submitted in the same reasonable manner. The recommendation submitted to the committee by the subcommittee was accepted unanimously and presented to this house, where it was approved, so that it seems to me the two companies involved, the Canadian Pacific steamships and the Canadian National steamships, should be compelled to abide by the decision.
The question is one of principle, and it was definitely shown by the evidence that it has a direct bearing on the unemployment problem. The necessary seamen are available among Canadians on the British Columbia coast, therefore the Canadian Pacific steamships should make use of their services in preference to those of men of other nationalities. The same condition exists on the Atlantic coast, and it is with that in view that I approach the subject, having regard to the non-compliance of the Canadian National steamships with the very reasonable recommendation or request of parliament.
As will be seen at page 211 of Hansard for January 25, 1937, I asked several questions dealing with the number of people employed by the Canadian National Steamships, with particular regard to masters, pursers, doctors, engineers, plumbers and electricians, firemen and oilers and stewards. In nearly every case, Mr. Speaker-and I say this advisedly- the answers submitted to the Minister of Transport and in turn tabled by him were camouflage. They evaded the question by referring to British bom subjects. The question we were dealing with in our committee and in this house was the employment of a greater number of Canadians. I feel that if we are to have resolutions carried out after they have been adopted by this house we must have the support of the minister in charge of the department, and he must see that the officials under his jurisdiction do not send to him answers such as were tabled in reply to the questions I asked. I say that in a kindly way, but' nevertheless I urge that the answers submitted to the minister certainly were not in keeping with his position as head of a large railway and steamship system. I am not satisfied with the answers I received, and I intend to pursue the matter further.
I am glad this resolution has been brought up, because it gives me an opportunity of definitely supporting the stand that has been
taken by the hon. member for New Westminster. I need not go over this whole question; the ground has been very thoroughly covered by the mover of the resolution. I believe that the principle should be supported by every member of the house. Why should we appoint a committee to spend hours, days, weeks and months listening to evidence under oath and to make a finding- and I say it was a very reasonable finding, not calculated to disturb the existing set-up -if we do not see that the finding is carried into effect? The report only asked, in regard to the Pacific coast, that of some 2,033 employees some 277 in one particular department should be replaced. That was in the department comprising the deck-hands, which was efficiently operated up to 1913 by white seamen. It would mean a few dollars extra as far as the company is concerned, but in very large measure it would relieve unemployment among seamen on the Pacific coast. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) should take that point into very serious consideration, and from that angle I should think he is more or less duty bound to support this resolution. I know he is sincere in his desire to bring about a greater measure of employment among Canadian citizens. That being so, he should support a move which has for its object the greater employment of Canadian seamen on the Pacific coast.
What applies to the Pacific coast applies equally to the Atlantic coast. The request made in that connection was very fair. A complete replacement as far as the West Indies service was concerned was not asked; a fifty per cent replacement was recommended'. I should like to read that recommendation. After giving a large number of sound reasons the committee said1:
In view of the above and other reasons presented, it is respectfully recommended that, m so far as the Atlantic coast is concerned, the Canadian National Steamships Limited be advised that it is not suggested nor desirable to change the general set-up of the officers and engineers in so far as Canadians are concerned, but that this company be requested to employ a greater number of Canadian citizens, par-tmuiarly as applying to positions in connection with the steward's and firemen's departments, and your committee recommends that at least fifty per cent of those employed in these two departments be Canadian citizens, domiciled in Canada.
I say that was a very reasonable request, but what has happened ? They have practically ignored that recommendation. On December 6 I drew attention to the fact that at the end of another nine days, on December 15, six months would have elapsed since the recommendation was made by this house.

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. McIntosh
Up to that time I think something like thirteen or fifteen men were employed. Quite recently they advised me that I would be pleased to learn that they had employed fifty-nine men throughout the maritime provinces. I say that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Transport would be well advised to bear in mind that a recommendation approved by this house should be placed before the Canadian National Steamships in such a way that the spirit of the resolution will be fully carried out.
I do not think I need add anything further. As I have already said, I am supporting the resolution because I believe the general principle is sound, and I believe it is a step that will bring about greater employment among our Canadian citizens and to that extent relieve the unemployment that exists to-day.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question.
I was a memher of this committee; I listened to the evidence given before it, but I would like to have my memory refreshed. In the evidence given before the committee was it not brought out that one Canadian would do as much work as two or three Chinese?
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Since I was chairman of the committee on industrial and international relations, Mr. Speaker, and thus had something to do with the investigation into this question and the report that is now before the house, it might be well for me to make a brief statement in connection with that committee, its investigation and its report.
I think hon. members are well aware of the fact that the committee on industrial and international relations was established about 1924 or 1925. There has been some discussion as to whether or not this committee should be divided. The suggestion has been made that there should be one committee to deal with industrial questions and another to deal with international questions. Up to the present this suggestion has not been followed out and we still have one committee which deals sometimes with purely industrial questions and sometimes with purely international questions, or the both combined.
The question before the committee last year was both industrial and international in scope. This committee, like all standing committees, was representative of the membership of the house. I believe there were thirty members making up the committee and its membership was fairly representative of the house as a whole. The committee gave the matter every consideration, and its report

was unanimous. Further than that, the decision of the house with reference to this report was also unanimous. Here we have a picture of what took place. A committee of the house investigated this industrial and international matter; the report of the committee was adopted unanimously in the committee and accepted unanimously in the house. The report had reference to two of the great shipping companies of the dominion, the Canadian National (West Indies Steamships) Limited, and the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited. Reference has been made in the house to the fact that the Canadian National has taken some action in connection with the report. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) has just stated that this company has taken partial action in this connection. I think that hon. members who keep in touch with committee reports have a feeling that Canadian National Steamships Limited have accepted this report in the right spirit. We look for further action in this regard. The action taken up to the present would lead members of the committee to believe that all that is necessary to be done is for the responsible minister to direct the attention of the Canadian National Steamships Limited to the limited action they have taken on the report or have same repeated if it has already been done. I think we can look for a total acceptance of the report by that company in the near future.
But what about Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited? What has that company done with regard to the report? The feeling seems to be that up to the present nothing has been done. I would not want to see the matter referred again to the committee for further investigation. I believe that when a committee investigates a matter referred to it by the house and brings in a unanimous report, that should settle it. Any further action should be taken by the government. I believe the committee on industrial and international relations did its work successfully in this regard and any further reference to it would be a mistake. In explanation, may I say I took -the same stand last year when the matter of pensions for the blind came before the house. This matter had been investigated by a committee and reported upon, but no action had been taken. The question was raised in the house as to whether or not there should be a further reference to a committee, and I took the stand that there should not be. I think that stand has been supported by the fact that the govern-

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. MacNicol
ment has taken action this year in this regard, and that pensions for the blind are a reality without any further investigation.
There is still hope that the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited will reconsider this report and do its best to follow out the recommendations made therein. That is my candid conviction. Perhaps the next move therefore ought to be an investigation by the Department of Trade and Commerce to see whether the men desired by the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited for deck service are available. If we have well trained Canadians available for this shipping service, they should be employed even though it is necessary to pay them more. This means we should know exactly where we stand as a House of Commons on the question and have all the facts at our disposal. The Canadian Pacific should foe given a square deal in this matter, and its fullest explanation sought. I believe the Department of Trade and Commerce should get in touch with the company and investigate the availability of Canadian seamen for the work required. If the investigation were started as soon as possible and the facts disclosed, we would then know just exactly where we stand.
I am not placing any blame upon any department of the government, but as chairman of that committee I should like to see the matter cleared up for good. I am confident that if the problem were tackled in the right way that is cooperatively by the Canadian Pacific, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Labour department as well, if it is thought necessary, a solution no doubt could be obtained in the very near future.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I was also a member of the committee which met last year and listened carefully to all the evidence submitted to it. As a member of the house I voted in favour of the report of the committee, and I believe I ought to make a brief statement with reference to the resolution now under consideration.
Before going into detail may I say that I observed a good deal of applause from the government benches when the hon. member (Mr. Reid) introduced the vitally important resolution now before us. The applause would seem to indicate that if it goes to a vote those who applauded so vigorously will not do as they did yesterday, after they had applauded the motion of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling) in connection with an amendment to the Copyright Amendment Act of 1931. Yesterday hon. members opposite who were in the house applauded the motion most vigorously.


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: There is no objection to applauding.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: We applauded a good speech.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) cannot get away with that. When the vote was called quite a number of hon. members left the chamber, and those who came in for the vote like good children stepped up to the front and did as they were told. They voted against that which had been applauded by hon. members who were in their seats. I hope there will be a little more stamina in their backbones to-day. Although at the moment I am not stating whether or not I should support the resolution, may I say it is of such tremendous importance that I do not believe we should be hasty in coming to a decision. I notice the Postmaster General is looking at me earnestly.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: I am not
applauding.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Upon looking at the
minister's estimates I notice a subsidy of
S600.000,	which must have been endorsed by the government, to be given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to carry mail to the orient.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: In what department?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under the Postmaster
General, at page 38 of the estimates.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: Look again.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister should have the information without asking me for it. I refer to page 38 of the estimates, under the heading "Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions." However, this is a small item so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, and probably the minister has forgotten it.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: It is under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As the vote to which I have referred must have been discussed and endorsed by the government, in what position will the government be when it deals with the resolution now before us? That is why I said at the outset that if the government is opposed to the resolution, all hon. members opposite who have spoken in favour of it will have to step up to the front and vote against that which they applauded and which, by their speeches, they have favoured.
518	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. MacNicol
In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) I suggest we should have a statement from the acting minister indicating the government's position. No doubt a resolution of such importance has been discussed by the government. The chairman of the committee which sat last session, the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), proved to be an excellent one. He went to no end of trouble to see that the committee obtained all the information which could assist it in arriving at a decision. The suggestion he made a few moments ago appeals to me; as a matter of fact before he made it I had the same idea in mind. He has recommended that the government appoint someone to go to Vancouver to ascertain whether the statement made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-and I have questioned them in the matter-to the effect that there are not men available to replace the present crews, or the contention of the hon. member for New Westminster that men are available, is the true one. In what position are hon. members when they must judge as to the accuracy of either contention. The government ought to be in a position to tell us whether or not they have made an investigation. Had I been minister of trade and commerce I would have had someone go to Vancouver to make a thorough inquiry into the submissions of the hon. member for New Westminster and of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
I am in earnest when I say it was obvious that the hon. member was sincere in his observations. I believe he was conscientious, that he made an exhaustive inquiry, and that his presentation was in the interests of the working men of Vancouver. On the other hand I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the position taken by the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company who appeared before the committee. Contradictory statements were made, and I repeat the suggestion of the chairman of the committee that someone should be sent to Vancouver to ascertain which of the two statements is one hundred per cent true, and whether or not anything can be done.
We are now faced with the necessity of voting either for or against the resolution. If we vote for it we are agreeing that no further moneys from the treasury of Canada by way of subsidy be given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company towards the operation of the Empress ships operating between Vancouver and the orient. Certainly there is no give or take in the wording I have quoted; we must vote either for or against

it. If we vote for it, what will happen? There would be no use in the Postmaster General granting $600,000 to carry the mail to the orient. If we vote for the resolution now before the house we immediately shut out the necessity for the money asked by the Postmaster General. The minister shakes his head,-well, I tell him that if the house accepts the resolution and if every hon. member who votes for it intends to stick to the value of his vote, then those hon. members would have to vote against the minister's estimate.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: I hope not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They cannot vote for
it. Hon. members cannot vote for a resolution which states we must not give a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and then later vote the very subsidy we say we must not give. I am fully in accord with the recommendations the committee made at the last session. They were read, but I think they are worth reading again, leaving out the preamble in each case.
1. . . . and that they be requested-
That is the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
-to afford Canadian seamen a reasonable degree of employment at the earliest possible convenience.
I am strongly in accord with that. I believe the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should employ workmen who are citizens in the fullest sense of the term. How otherwise are we to have a completely Canadian marine service? Someone-I believe it was the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor)-speaking a short time ago, strongly advocated the employment of Canadians, and so do I. I would go as far as the suggestion referred to by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh), and if the further employment of Canadians should necessitate an increase in the subsidy I would be in favour of it. I recall that a year ago when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's representatives appeared before the committee, they intimated that they would be in accord with such a proposal, and that if a larger subsidy were given they would go further than they have done in employing Canadians. The second recommendation was:
That ... the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be requested to replace the orientals now so employed by Canadian seamen, and that this change be made at the company's earliest opportunity.

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Howden
I am not sure whether the company has yet had sufficient opportunity to select and try out the number of seamen sufficient to carry out all the recommendations made by the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have had seven months.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am in favour of the recommendations we made, but I should like the responsible minister of the crown to tell us just exactly what will be involved if this resolution is carried. It states in emphatic language that no subsidy should be given,* and that means immediately. My mind is not definitely made up as to what I should do. Will the minister representing the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell us what is the import of this resolution? If it will cripple the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, this house should think carefully before passing any resolution of this kind. I am not here to speak for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. During my whole life I have been associated with thousands of workmen, and their interests are paramount with me; but having had that experience I realize that one cannot help labour by crippling a great organization like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I know what industry is. I am talking from twenty-five years of experience of the practical end of it, not book knowledge or the knowledge of a man who looks at industry from the outside. If you cripple industry you reduce employment. I think the government should be in a position to tell us, before we vote on this resolution, what will be the actual effect if it is passed. When all is said, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have done a very great deal for Canada. If my memory serves me aright, last year it was stated before the committee by one of the company's representatives that they had 53,000 men employed in their business in Canada.


Thomas Reid: Railways and all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Of course, railways and all. You cannot hurt one part of an organization without hurting the whole of it. In addition they purchased in Canada $53,000,000 worth of goods, a large proportion of which would represent labour. I remember that I asked a Canadian Pacific railway witness where they carried on their repairs. Some repairs, if not most, it was stated, were made in Hong Kong. Then I asked him where they got the material that was used in making repairs to their ships, and he said, in Canada and in Great Britain.
It is not up to me to say just what should be done to this resolution, but it is the duty of the government to tell this house, before we go any further, what their position is in reference to a refusal, in accordance with this resolution, to give a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company unless they immediately employ Canadians and displace the orientals now engaged. I am in favour of the Canadian, but I do not approve the crippling of any great industry without knowing the effects upon trade and employment in Canada.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Before the hon. member takes his seat, might I ask him if, as representing an industrial constituency, he considers it in the interests of Canadian workmen to have work done in Hong Kong.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I asked the witness that question, from the point of view that personally I favoured having the work done in Canada. But the reply was that in Hong Kong the docks, including machine shops and the necessary equipment to make major repairs on their ships and engines, were more suitable, and I understood- that if the work was not done in Hong Kong they would have to send the ships to Great Britain or the United States as we did not have that equipment in Canada. I am sorry we have not; I would much rather that we had, but as we have not I would rather that the work be done in Hong Kong, a British territory, than in the United States.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I have but a very few words to say on this matter. I notice that most of the hon. members who have spoken to the motion were members of the committee which investigated this matter and brought in a report. It is nearly a year since the report was presented, and the substance of it may be a little hazy in the minds of many members. It is not my desire or intention to read the whole report, but it seems to me that the intent and wording of the report were very clear and that there should not be much difficulty about making up one's mind as to what should be done with this resolution. If, therefore, I might claim the indulgence of the house for a few moments, I should like to read the explanatory paragraph dealing with the Canadian Pacific railway oriental ships on the Pacific coast. May I explain that there are, apparently, three types of Pacific coast shipping dealt with: coastwise shipping, shipping to Australia and New Zealand, that is the antipodes, and
520	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Kinley
shipping to the orient, which is carried on by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's Empress boats. In the report the explanatory paragraph states:
Oriental shipping: the third type is chiefly carried on by the Empress boats of the Canadian Pacific railway transpacific service. These ships receive a substantial subsidy from the government. The total number of men employed to man them is 2,033, of whom 265 are white British, engaged as officers and engineers. The remaining 1.768 are Chinese, comprising 277 deck-hands, 558 in the engine room, and 933 victuallers. It is claimed by the company that, as much of their passenger trade, namely 67 per cent, through and local, is oriental, this type of labour is not only cheaper, but infinitely more satisfactory than white labour, since the latter could not be gotten to cater to oriental passengers on the one hand or mix with oriental labour on the other. It is moreover claimed by the company that the service is norv supplied at a serious yearly loss and that the extra cost involved in the substitution of Canadians for orientals would make the service practically impossible of operation.
That paragraph practically covers the testimony which was submitted to the committee on this matter, and it is explanatory; it leaves nothing very much to be guessed at. The committee has taken it for granted that the testimony contained in that paragraph was bona fide and was the real substance of the investigation so far as orientals on Canadian Pacific ships are concerned. And we have taken it for granted that the statements made are true; we give them full credit for their truth. Our recommendation on the occasion was:
That, as up to the year 1913, the decks of the Empress boats were manned by white seamen, and inasmuch as the deck service is an important and responsible branch of the work of these boats, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be requested to replace with Canadian seamen, the orientals now so employed, and that this change be made at the company's earliest opportunity.
I do not believe there is anything very arbitrary in that report. The report seems to me to be a very reasonable and fair-minded view of the whole matter, and the request embodied in it, submitted to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to replace Chinamen on deck with white seamen, as had been the practice prior to 1913, is a very reasonable one. It does not involve such a very great change, because 277 deck-hands out of a total of 2,033 is not a very large number.
I am going to vote for this resolution, naturally. I believe it is reasonable and fair. In my opinion the request made of the Cana-.dian Pacific is altogether fair and, besides that, it is in the interests of the travelling public that the decks of these boats should
fMr. Howden.]
be manned by white seamen. This is not an inconsiderate request to make. Altogether the resolution is eminently reasonable and I cannot see how any member of the committee can do anything but vote for the report which was submitted. I am voting for it.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: 1 desire to say a word in support, of the resolution inasmuch as it is of interest to the seafaring people of Nova Scotia, where unemployment is a problem. Nova Scotia being a maritime province, it is, of course, natural that Jffie people should wish to make a living on the sea. With the passing of sailing ships in our province we had many splendid sailors and many officers who, being advanced in years, and not having started with the big companies as apprentices and worked their way up, found that there was no place for them in the seafaring commerce of the world. This has been a problem in Nova Scotia for some years. There was a time when our men could go to the United States and get berths on American vessels, and by that means a good many Nova Scotians maintained their families in the province. But the United States has tightened up its laws in the interests of its own nationals. Its immigration and shipping laws are more restrictive to-day, so that Nova Scotians are not able to find the employment which was available to them in that country a few years ago.
This problem that faces us now is not new; it is the outcome of selfishness-the common selfishness of large corporations which act in their own interests. Shipping has become highly centralized and perhaps necessarily so, and enterprises that become so centralized use their influence with the government of the country to obtain subventions and subsidies. They get what protection they need, and after they have obtained that protection for themselves they want to hire sailors in the world market. That is unfair, and it is not even in sympathy with the policy they represent to the government. If there is one class of people who need protection to-day it is those of our nationals who try to make their living on the sea.
We have no colour problem on the eastern coast; the yellow peril does not exist to the same extent there. I should regret, therefore, to see the colour line drawn, because we have many coloured sailors and citizens in our province.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was not drawn; the resolution was amended last year.

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Rogers


John James Kinley: I am glad to hear that. The Dominion Coal Company asked for a subvention; it also asked for protection on coal in order that it might sell to the people of central Canada coal mined in Nova Scotia. I subscribed to that request. At the same time, however, they will hire foreigners to man their ships in the coastal trade of Canada to carry our coal to the markets in which it is sold, and I as a representative of Nova Scotia am expected to support that policy, while they are operating against the interests of the people I represent. That is not good enough. Those who think they can advance their own interests in Canada by means of such a selfish policy will find in time that they are working only against themselves.
In my opinion, we surrendered the privileges and the rights we enjoyed when we entered into the merchant shipping agreement with the British Empire. There may be some reason why in inter-ocean trade there should be some latitude in the hiring of sailors, but why we should give up our rights in the coastal trade and hire anyone but Canadian citizens is something which I cannot understand. This country cannot hope to compete with the sailors of Europe, and if we are ever to have a merchant marine we must see to it that we go through the educational and missionary period, so to speak, and produce and sustain sailors who will be a credit to Canada. Most of the ships on the Atlantic coast are manned by aliens, while there are many Canadians who would like the job. This year the merchant shipping agreement is due to be revised. There is to be an imperial conference after the coronation, and I submit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and the government that in making any future arrangements they should take into consideration the interests of Canadian seamen.
We .hear a great deal about the balance of trade between Canada and Great Britain. We sell them natural products. Do not forget that they have the carrying of all these goods, and that there is sometimes more profit in carrying the goods than in selling them. You must set off against the trade balance of this country the money that goes out for insurance and carrying charges. We sold our Canadian merchant marine ships that were running to Australia. I think that was a short-sighted policy for this country. We performed the missionary work; for years these ships did not pay, and immediately they began to show a balance on the right side we sold them for practically nothing and allowed other people to do our carrying trade. It is most important with regard to foreign trade
that we control the transportation, because the moment others get control they can raise the freight rates. Also if it is in the hands of outside interests, if they see that we are doing too much competition business with another country, they can control it through freight rates.
No country becomes great that does not pioneer upon the sea. All the great countries of history were great upon the sea. In Canada, if we hope to build up the merchant marine and build up a good export trade, we must see to it that our trade routes are properly sustained, that we have men able to man our ships, and that we have the proper trade treaties with foreign countries. So this resolution is of more importance than we may at first think; it is important not only for the present but for the future; our merchant marine is an important factor in building for the future. Also we should do like other countries, look after our own nationals and give them preference in our own country.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):	I hope
the mover of the resolution (Mr. Reid) will feel that its purpose has been largely served by the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. Most, if not all, of those who have spoken were members last year of the industrial and international relations committee. Without .exception I think they have expressed disappointment that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have not seen fit to comply with the request of that committee, which was concurred in by this house. I say without any hesitation that I share that disappointment.
At the same time this resolution goes far beyond an expression of disappointment. I should like to consider first its form, and then its substance, both very briefly. I think it is correct to say, as indeed the hon. member for New Westminster acknowledged, that it is not proper to speak of a request concurred in by this house as an order of parliament imposed upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Obviously the concurrence of this house in that report was in the terms of that report. In other words, it is a request that was communicated to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. For that reason I do not think it. will be possible for this house to accept the resolution in respect of its final paragraph, because the suggestion there is that a penalty should be imposed upon the company for non-compliance with an ordeT of this parliament. As I said a moment ago, I share fully the disappointment of other members of the committee in *he failure of
522	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Rogers
the company to comply with the request, but I do not 'believe that we can go to the length of assuming that an order was communicated to the company and that we are entitled to impose a penalty upon the company for refusing to obey an order.
I should like to say a word regarding the communications between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. There was no negligence and no delay on the part of the department in communicating the request of the committee as concurred in by this house to the company. The report was concurred in on June 17. On June 29 a letter from the department was sent to the company clearly setting forth the resolution, and the attention of the company was directed to it. On July 8 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company replied to that letter and in their reply they indicated that they doubted their ability to comply with the request upon three grounds: first, that the company could not afford to carry out the request for the employment of Canadian seamen as deck-hands on the transpacific service without additional subsidy-


Mr. CAHAN:: Has that been communicated to the house?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe these papers were placed upon the table of the house as a parliamentary return.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Recently? I tried to find them but I could not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Within a few days.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They should not be gone into unless they are at the disposal of the house in considering an important matter like this.	'


Norman McLeod Rogers: My impression is that they were placed upon the table of the house on Friday last.
The second objection by the company was to the effect that they anticipated difficulty from labour troubles if Chinese deck-hands were replaced by Canadians. And the third objection, which to my mind is the one material objection, is based upon a doubt as to whether there were enough white seamen available to make the required replacements.


Mr. McINTOSH:: All those matters were discussed fully in the committee.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is quite true. We have this difference of opinion, however. The hon. member for New Westminster pointed out this afternoon that evidence was submitted to the committee last year that some eleven hundred seamen of all classes were

available for employment-I believe that was in British Columbia. He also stated this afternoon that he had discovered by inquiry of the relief department of British Columbia that there are 300 men now on relief in Vancouver who give their occupation as seamen. We have also had it stated that the shipping master of Vancouver reported eighty-five seamen as available. In other words, there is a marked discrepancy in the figures as to seamen who conceivably would be available to replace Chinese deck-hands in the service in question. It has been suggested by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) -and I believe his suggestion was approved by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol)-that where such a difference of opinion exists there should be a most thorough investigation to ascertain the facts. It does appear to me that before we are entitled to go further with this matter v^e should make such an investigation in regard to the availability of a sufficient number of suitable seamen in Vancouver as might be conducted, for example, by a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce and a representative of the Department of Labour acting with the shipping master of Vancouver. I am bound to say that at first glance it does not seem reasonable that you could not find two or three hundred suitable seamen in Vancouver or along the coast of British Columbia. On the other hand it should be said in fairness to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that they have indicated that it would not be wise or in the interests of safety at sea to take on inexperienced seamen. They also draw a distinction between seamen engaged in the coastwise trade and seamen accustomed to deep sea navigation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If Canadian seamen are not available, according to the Canadian Pacific, might they not find some British seamen whom we could bring over as immigrants?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are British seamen employed now. There is no doubt that they are British.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe as a matter of fact that the Atlantic services of the Canadian Pacific are now staffed almost exclusively in that way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I mean for the Pacific services.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The seamen employed on the oriental service to Hong Kong and Manila are British subjects.

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Cahan


Norman McLeod Rogers: These seamen are British subjects; that has been put forward as part of the contention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
I should say one further word in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and supported by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor). It does seem unsatisfactory that this country, with a Pacific and an Atlantic coast line, should have done so little to develop employment in shipping services. I agree entirely that an effort in that direction is overdue. I have never been able to understand clearly why shipping companies operating Canadian services do not seem able to take on Canadians as apprentices. There was a time in Nova Scotia when Joseph Howe made the prediction that this little province one day would maintain half a million men upon the sea. Even in that day it seemed perhaps an extravagant prediction, but that was in the days of sailing vessels, and the sails of Nova Scotian vessels could be found in the far harbours of the world. To-day that prediction seems fantastic. I have not the figures before me, but I doubt very much whether more than a very few thousand inhabitants of Nova Scotia follow permanently the calling of the sea.
In many fishing ports of the maritime provinces undoubtedly there are young men who, if given the opportunity, I am sure would be willing to follow that calling, and I have no doubt that the same is true on the Pacific coast. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, through its officials, has informed me that it now employs Canadian cadets on the Pacific ships. That, I think, is decidedly a move in the right direction, but I feel that much more could be done in order to train some of our Canadian young men for the mercantile marine. Just how we might proceed in that direction is perhaps not a matter which we need discuss at the present time, but I am inclined to think that corporations which receive substantial assistance through subsidies from the Canadian government have an obligation, in addition to that which they would have without subsidies, to do what can reasonably be done in order to provide such training and such opportunities as might assist us in this country in going further in developing a mercantile marine and in affording maritime employment, particularly to some of our younger men.
I need say no more on this question. At the beginning of my remarks I said I hoped the mover of the resolution would feel that his object had been served very largely by this
discussion. I do not think we can go the length of adopting the resolution in its present form, so I would ask the mover if he would withdraw it, on the distinct understanding that the Department of Trade and Commerce, I think I may say acting in conjunction with the Department of Labour, will look into this question of the availability of Canadian seamen for oriental service in Vancouver and in British Columbia generally, and will continue efforts already undertaken to induce the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do what reasonably may be done to afford a larger degree of employment to Canadian seamen on these vessels.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few
words to say. In the first place, the ships that are employed by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company in the oriental trade are not Canadian, ships; that is, they are not registered in Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Are they not of Canadian registry?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I believe they are registered in London; at least that was so a short time ago, and they are really owned in London. They come under the Merchant Shipping Act of England and are controlled not only by that statute but by the regulations drawn up under it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I speak subject to correction, but I always understood that the Pacific ships were of Canadian registry and the others were of British registry.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Subsidized by Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, Canada gets full
value for what she pays for the transmission of mails over those lines. I have been over the Canadian Pacific line through to Yokohama, to Kobe, down to Shanghai and Hong Kong, on to Manila and return, and I have seen the operation of those ships. From my observations I would have been surprised at the statement contained in the report of the special committee which has been quoted by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. How-den) and which no doubt, as he states, gives a fair synopsis of the evidence presented before that committee, that sixty-seven per 'cent of the through and local passenger traffic is oriental. I notice that in the evidence presented and summarized by the consul general of China and attached to the report as an exhibit it is stated that from September 7, 1935, to November 16, 1935, an accurate computation showed that 61-57 per cent of the through passengers of all classes were orientals
524	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Cahan
and 72-53 per cent of the inter-port passengers of all classes were oriental. I should have thought, from my observation, that the percentage would be larger than that, but probably that is an accurate computation, which is better evidence than my observations.
But, Mr. Speaker, those ships are operated under peculiar circumstances. For instance, from the time the ships enter the port of Shanghai until they return and leave the port of Shanghai-that is, during the voyage from Shanghai to Hong Kong and on to Manila and back, touching at intermediate ports- those ships are veritable ships of war, and carry a contingent of sepoys of the Indian army for protection. That is absolutely necessary. They are the only safe ships for Chinese passengers operating on that Chinese coast which are adequately protected against raids of pirates. From my observation I doubt very much whether you will find Canadian seamen prepared to accept even the rates of wages suggested by my hon. friend from New Westminster for service as deck-hands on those ships. From memory it seems to me that the officers and cadets were largely Canadians. The commander of the Empress of Japan was a Canadian, and I think the cadets on that ship included a number of Canadians also.
I doubt very much whether the ordinary Canadian sailor is prepared to mingle with and be part of a crew of Chinese seamen. I doubt if he would be willing to submit to supervision for weeks at a time on a ship sailing south and north by a contingent of Indian sepoys. It may well be that there are sixty or more unemployed seamen registered with the shipping officials of the government at Vancouver, but I doubt whether that number are available for this particular service.
So far as the other services on board ship are concerned, three-fourths of these stewards would be employed in the preparation and serving of food for Japanese and Chinese passengers. Chinese are required for the preparation and service of this food, because most of them understand sufficient Japanese to communicate with passengers of that race. Therefore a great deal is to be said in favour of the employment of so-called oriental seamen and oriental servitors.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think the question of stewards has arisen; it is solely a question of the deck hands.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Some complaint is made as to the number employed in the other services. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. How-den) quoted the report of the committee

in this connection. I understood that emphasis was placed on the fact that Chinese were employed in the engine room and as victuallers. These ships purchase a large part of their supplies at Hong Kong. This is natural, in that the necessary supplies can be obtained more readily at that port. I noticed that some supplies were taken on at Vancouver, and also some fruit at Honolulu, but that was all. When seventy-five per cent of those on board are accustomed to Chinese or Japanese food as prepared by orientals, it is useless to talk of employing Canadians to perform this service. I doubt very much whether Canadian boys could be found who would be prepared to undertake such menial service as attending upon these oriental passengers.
A good deal has been said about shipping in Nova Scotia. The young men in Nova Scotia, who are prepared to start at the bottom to learn the marine engineering trade or the work of manning and operating a steamship, are now able to secure employment, but the fact is that the great body of young men who come out of school to-day believe they are fitted for some higher occupation in the educational and social scale. Very few of them are offering for this sort of marine service.
I had not looked into this resolution before, as no one had ever called it to my attention. However, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) told me the other day that he was bringing up this matter again. I am sure that the resolution cannot pass in its present form. The committee made a request; in their report they recited certain facts and then recommended that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be requested to replace orientals now so employed with Canadian seamen, and that this change be made at the company's earliest opportunity. I think it would be improper to regard those words as an order from this house. I do not know whether the house would be competent to make an order under the circumstances. We would be ordering a British ship registered under the Merchant Shipping Act of England to replace British subjects who are orientals with Canadian seamen simply because, first, the ship touches at the ports of Vancouver and Victoria, and, second, because it receives a certain amount under a contract for carrying mails. This is not a subsidy; it is a mail contract under which the company receives $50,000 per month, if I remember correctly. There is a contract outstanding. The question may arise as to the

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Cahan
renewal of the contract when it is terminated. The present contract was made on June 26, 1936, and upon its termination a new contract must be drawn up and executed. [DOT]
What is the government prepared to do? Is it prepared to do what is suggested, namely, to refuse to pay for the carriage of their mails to oriental ports by British shipping when the only competitors for this service, which is important to Canada and important to the whole empire, is American shipping sailing out of the port of San Francisco? That shipping is most heavily subsidized by the post office department of the United States.


John James Kinley: And employing American
citizens.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The subsidy is so heavy
that they can afford to hire A.merican citizens and pay them twice the wages paid to British subjects. They are not British ships and are not operating under the Merchant Shipping Act of England. True, they are employing American citizens, but it must be remembered that the sailors on these ships, who are hired at Hong Kong, are British subjects. Furthermore, if we sever that contract, refuse to extend it or attempt to make a new contract at the end of the current year, where will Canada obtain the service? I recall that when I served as a member of the privy council the question of this service came up for consideration. We went into it thoroughly and were convinced that it could not be maintained except through the payment of a proper compensation for the carrying of mails. I have not discussed the matter with the Canadian Pacific Railway officials, but I have read, and from statements made in public and the financial statements put out by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company I have reason to believe, that this service is now being operated at a loss. That fact has been recognized by officials of the British Board of Trade in England. Only recently in the press I read a statement to the effect that the British Board of Trade is recommending that subsidies, in addition to those paid by Canada, be paid by the British government for the purpose of securing the maintenance of this service.
Therefore I believe the government would be wise indeed, as the Minister of Labour suggests, to take some further time to consider the whole matter. I went into the matter pretty thoroughly with my colleagues in the late government, when the question of subsidy was before us in 1933 and 1934. I acquired information which, although it may
not be quite accurate at this time, leads me to the belief'that it would be a gross neglect of national duty if at this date the government were to attempt to sever the contract or to refuse to extend it without first ascertaining all the real, basic, underlying facts- and those facts cannot be obtained in shipping offices in New Westminster or Vancouver. Grave international considerations would have to be discussed and weighed by the government. Therefore I trust the house will not adopt the resolution and that the hon. member for New Westminster, whose pertinacity and assiduity we all admire, will realize that there are graver interests concerned, especially in view of the relations among competing countries on the Pacific and other grave issues which may arise in that quarter. I believe he will admit that full and complete inquiry is required, and that that inquiry should be made before any decision is taken to cancel the present contract, or before the government decides it will not rene-w the contract except upon conditions mentioned in the resolution.


John Power Howden: In the hon. member's
opinion is it reasonable to expect the railway company to consider the replacement by white labour of the 277 oriental labourers who man the decks?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the circumstances I
doubt whether it is reasonable to state that a ship operating under the British Merchant Shipping Act should in all cases employ Canadian rather than British seamen. I believe the committee are to be commended in setting forth in their report the case as they understood it, and as indicated in the passage read by the hon. member for St. Boniface. They were acting within their legitimate jurisdiction in making the recommendations they did make. It is another matter, however, to decide whether their recommendations could be carried out without serious loss to the company and without grave repercussions in quarters other than New Westminster and Vancouver.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I regret exceedingly I was not in the house when my colleague from Halifax (Mr. Isnor) addressed the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Robert Emmett Finn: This is the first time I have ever been asked to talk louder. I was pleased, too, to hear the statements of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan),

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Finn
who also comes from Nova Scotia. I do not wish to misinterpret his observations, but I believe the effect of his statement was that the company was receiving $2,000 per month for carrying the mail.


Norman McLeod Rogers: 


Robert Emmett Finn: I have before me an estimate which shows that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the Canada-China and Japan service is receiving $600,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, for the year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: $50,000 per month.


Robert Emmett Finn: This reminds me of arguing a case in court. Fifty thousand dollars per month, if one does not consider the total for the year, looks small; but when it is $600,000 a year, over half a million, it looks large. The same company, for its service on the Atlantic, receives $250,000 from the treasury of Canada.
Hon. members have spoken about oriental deck crews and the reluctance of white people to mingle with the orientals in filling positions on board ship. There is a condition in connection with the West Indies service which I believe has been carried a little too far. I refer to the exclusion of the white man to the advantage of the coloured man. I want to be fair to Sir Edward Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and to the shareholders of the company, when I repeat my observations of last year to the effect that for its service on the Atlantic the company in question receives a subsidy of $250,000 per year for carrying the mail. Their port is the port of Saint John. I have no objection whatever to that. It is a sister eastern port that was developed largely under the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) when he was prime minister of this country; I refer to Courtenay bay. But I would say in reference to the port of Halifax, upon which millions of dollars have been spent, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should consider turning at least one or two of their boats at that port each year and not turning them all at Saint John. They now turn there all their Mont boats, all their Duchess boats, and all their Beaver boats of 10,000 tons deadweight capacity which are freight carriers. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has correctly stated that they come under the British Merchant Shipping Act; they are under the British flag; they are not registered in Canada but in the old land. They are receiving three-quarters of a million dollars a year in Canada and are paying no attention to the desire for development of all ports in connection with their service.

There is no doubt that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are giving a splendid service. They have excellent ships, and their new boat, the Empress of Britain, is, if not the largest, one of the finest in the world. But I would say, as I said last September to Sir Edward Beatty in conversation with him at Montreal, that the officials of the company should consider this question, because under the former administration, and in the days of the late president of the Canadian National railways and steamships, Halifax being the eastern terminus of the Canadian National system, an agreement was entered into with the Cunard line and the White Star line by which they were provided with something in the nature of a subsidy on condition that a certain amount of freight should be provided, and the subsidy was to be reduced in proportion to the volume of freight over and above that amount. The result was that the White Star line and the Cunard line increased their business in freight tonnage at the port of Halifax by over fifty per cent. To-day they are calling at the port of Halifax and getting as much as they can, but not as much as we would like to go through the port in order that our stevedores, the men who work on the waterfront, and those who are employed at the terminal in casual and temporary labour during the winter season when the St. Lawrence is closed, may receive more adequate returns. If we are to continue to make grants to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in respect of their Atlantic service, those two ports should be served by their boats; they should not land passengers and mail and run their own trains over the Canadian National, in competition with that system, to Montreal and through to the west, with the result, as was stated in the committee last winter, that most of the mail to Vancouver was carried on Canadian Pacific trains, because it was said, the Canadian National did not have mail cars, though it was shown when the matter was investigated that the Canadian National had plenty of cars. But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were carrying practically all the mails to the more important points between Montreal and Vancouver.
We hear a great deal about deficits on the Canadian National Railways. Last year the deficit was $41,000,000 on the Canadian National lines, and on what they call the eastern lines it was $5,400,000. That was made up of two lines in the province of Quebec, the line from Halifax to Riviere du Loup, the roads they have taken over in the maritimes, and the road from Riviere du Loup to Diamond

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Finn
junction outside Montreal. If that is held up to the people of Canada as a bugbear, as a reason for the unification of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National lines, I would submit this consideration, I am not a mathematician, but if reference is had to the number of years that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have not been paying dividends to their shareholders, it will be found that the annual amount is almost equal to the deficit on the Canadian National system. That is a complete answer to the many public utterances of outstanding mien who to-day are favourable to the unification of these two roads, or at least to the handing over of the best paying sections of the national system. Our late lamented leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, placed upon the statute books of Canada the Transcontinental Railway Act. That act was a statutory agreement between the Grand Trunk and the government of the day.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I
would point out to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) that he should confine his remarks to the resolution before the house.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, sir, as I have once before said in this house, I have never taken exception to your ruling, though it seems to me that I am in the unfortunate position that any point of order which is taken by the chair is taken by the hon. gentleman who now occupies it. I will limit my remarks as closely as I can within the four corners of the resolution. The facts therein contained are food for thought for every hon. member.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) made the statement that Canadians do not desire to accept menial positions and therefore it would not be fair to employ them as deck-hands and in similar occupations on these Canadian Pacific boats running out to China and Japan. He also intimated that conditions in respect of weather were such that orientals were more suitable, that they understood the coast better than Canadians. I take issue with him on that point, because it will be found that when we were operating the Canadian merchant marine, running ten ships to Australia and New Zealand, only once was there an accident in typhoons or any other kind of weather that is encountered south of the equator, and that was due to the fact that the third officer of the ship did not carry out the instructions of the captain, who had gone into the chart room in order to refer to the chart, ascertain his true position and take his bearings in reference to cape Moreton light
as he was going in and up the lovely Brisbane river, to the city of Brisbane in Australia. If our Nova Scotia captains, officers and crew can successfully navigate these ships on the Pacific, surely they can navigate them to China and Japan. Does my hon. friend mean, and is he serious when he says, that they are not capable, that these Chinese or Japanese are more capable? If so, I would ask him this question: How can he justify that statement in view of the fact that the Empress of Britain is to-day on a trip around the world, and that on that ship is the same crew that operated her between the port of Quebec and the port of Southampton? On this trip around the world she will encounter all sorts of weather, and the tour will take six months. The crew is British, but I am sorry to say there are very few Canadians on board. The captain is a Nova Scotian, as I have said.
As the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said, we maritimers take an interest in the development of our young men. To-day, however, we find that young men of twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-seven, holding masters' foreign-going certificates, cannot set foot on board a ship because there is not a ship for them to go on board, although, as I have said before, it took us so long to establish a great trade route for which we acquired a number of ships. That fleet was a paying concern when it was sold, ten ships for $450000, or $45,000 each. Some of these ships were afterwards sold for $115,000 and there is some explanation due the people of this country in that regard. The people must have that explanation. Why were these ships sold in such haste? In the contract there was a clause providing that the ships were to be operated for two years and that, if the officers and crews were competent, they should be retained. But when these ships got into Montreal and were sold at $45,000 each, the captains and officers simply had to walk ashore without a job. The ships were sold to the Japanese and Chinese and to-day the steamship companies that are operating the line to Australia and New Zealand have not on their ships one Canadian; they have not one maritimer, not one man from British Columbia, nor any Canadian from the inland waters.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George comes from Halifax, having lived there a great many years, and he knows the calibre of men there-and the same is true of the men of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. And yet these men are to-day landlubbers, with nothing to do but to look out and see the waves washing on the shores of Nova Scotia. When things have come to such
52S	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Bennett
a pass I submit that before we vote these vast sums of money for any steamship company, whether it be a British or a Canadian, an Australian or a New Zealand company, we should see to it that Canadians are taken care of. Our first duty is to Canada and Canadians, and I hold that the responsibility is with the government and not with hon. gentlemen opposite who relinquished that responsibility in 1935. The responsibility is to see to it, without disrupting any of the great services either on the Atlantic or the Pacific, that our Canadian sailor lads-and I speak more particularly for those of Nova Scotia and especially those lads in the county I have the honour to represent along with my colleague (Mr. Isnor)-shall be fairly represented among those who are engaged on ships operated by companies that receive subsidies. To my knowledge there are on the Canadian Pacific boats two cadets who are Nova Scotians, but apart from these most of the men are from the old land. In order to get a place our men must go to England and serve for a time on some training ship, then enter as cadets and work their way up to the rank of fourth officer, and so on. This was not the way with the hardy men on the coast of Nova Scotia; it was not the training that the commander of the Empress of Britain received, the commodore of his fleet. He was never a cadet; the ships on which he served were schooners, brigantines, barques, full-rigged ships, and he worked his way up to the very high position he now occupies as commodore of the Canadian Pacific fleet, a great honour to Canada and especially to the province from which I come.
Before these subsidies are paid, I submit that there should be taken up seriously with the executive of the various companies who are operating these ships to Australia and New Zealand, under a holding company in Montreal, with the executive of the Canadian Pacific, and with the management of other lines, the question which we have been discussing to-dav affecting our Canadian seamen. Let me say that I am not singling out the Canadian Pacific, because they give splendid service and many millions of dollars are involved. I do submit, however, that there should be at least what might be called a happy compromise to the advantage of those in Canada who make their living on the sea, who have taken up seamanship as a profession, and whose ultimate goal is that which has been attained by the captain of the Empress of Britain. I regret to say, however, that the opportunity for such men is passing rapidly, as rapidly as we are passing generally

from the old school into the new, not only in politics but in every other walk of life. One does not realize that more than when he is at the grave of someone who has passed to the great beyond and hears those words pronounced-"He is no more." The Canadian sailor lad might say, the Nova Scotia sailor lad might say, as the Spanish champion said:
No more, there is no more to lift the sword for now,
My king is false, my hope betrayed, my father; 0! the worth,
The glory and the loveliness are pass'd away from earth.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of [DOT] the Opposition):: At a convenient time when
the estimates are under discussion I propose to discuss the question of shipping as it affects this country. It is not my purpose to do so now. I rise to direct the attention of the minister responsible for the administration of the department to the language of the resolution. Surely the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will agree that this house cannot adopt a resolution in that language-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I sought to point that
out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the minister
intended to. We cannot adopt this resolution-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I entirely agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -in view of the effect it would have upon the whole system of government provided for by the British North America Act. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who is so happy in expressing his opinions and so tenacious in holding them, should not have spoken to someone before he placed in his resolution these words:
And whereas the recommendation presented by the committee passed the House of Commons unanimously, and thereby became an order of parliament.
Parliament consists of three estates: the crown, the senate and the commons. Until such time as parliament has acted in, the manner provided for by the British North America Act, any action of this house cannot be said to be an order of parliament.
In the next recital the hon. member unfortunately repeats it:
And whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has ignored the instructions and has not complied with the order given by parliament.
And in the closing paragraph of the resolution he says that they should not receive subsidy-
-until such times as they do obey the order of parliament.

Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Mclvor
I have no observations to make about the resolution except that surely the government cannot permit such a resolution to be placed upon the journals of this house without doing such violence to our constitutional practice as will run contra not only to the declared foundation of our constitution, but also to the judgment in the referendum and initiative case, in which the court of last resort expressed the view that there could be no valid legislation of that kind because it was essential that the three estates-in that case two, the lieutenant governor as well as the legislature-should operate together to produce a valid law. It would be beyond my conception of the eternal fitness of things if the Minister of Justice permitted such a resolution as this to be placed upon the journals of the house.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: One reason why- I am very much interested in this resolution is its bearing upon our greatest national problem, namely unemployment. If there are not enough efficient white sailors on the Pacific coast, we have at the head of the lakes a large number of unemployed sailors, any one of whom would be as good as any three Chinamen. I do not blame Sir Edward Beatty for what he has done, because I think he is doing just what every hon. member is trying to do, serving his constituency in the best possible way at the least possible cost. The opinion of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is contained in the report; I wonder whether any further investigation would result in their changing their opinion. If one company has taken notice of the findings of our committee, why not another? To my mind they have shown discourtesy to our committee. Whether the committee was intelligent or not, we sat under a very intelligent chairman; the committee did its best; we had all the facts before us; we arrived at our conclusions and the house honoured them.


Thomas Reid: I am sorry that the time remaining this afternoon is too short to reply in detail to many of the statements and opinions expressed by hon, members on this resolution. But there are some that I should like to touch upon briefly before six o'clock. One is the statement made by the acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Rogers) regarding the numbers of unemployed seamen. It is true that when the matter was debated in the committee before, there were figures given of some eleven hundred unemployed designated as seamen on the Pacific coast, 31111-34
and that this afternoon I quoted official figures from the Vancouver relief office, showing some three hundred plus eighty-five, given by the shipping master in Vancouver. But that, I claim, is aside from the point. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company did admit under oath that one Canadian employed would replace two if not three Chinamen. There are employed on the decks of these four steamers a total of 330 Chinamen. If the ratio of two to one is taken, it would mean that there would be employed 165 Canadians in place of the Chinamen. I think no one will seriously dispute the statement that there could be found among the present unemployed on the provincial government's register 165 men who could be placed on the decks of these steamers, and who would have been, I maintain, if the request of this house had been carried out. I am well aware that the statement of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is correct; it was not exactly an order of parliament. At the outset of my remarks I made it very clear that the wording of the resolution is not quite correct. However, it was a request of the house, and as stated by the minister, that request was conveyed by the department to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Personally I am not against the granting of subsidies to steamship lines; I realize that in these days of subsidized shipping subsidies must be granted to enable these steamship companies to carry on. But I was surprised to hear the statement of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that all these ships are registered in London. I was under the impression that they were registered in Canada, although of course they are British ships.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. member will
allow me, I have looked into the matter and I am assured by the department that the Empress of Japan, on which I journeyed, is registered in England, and the same is true of the Empress of Canada. The other two ships are registered in Canada.


Thomas Reid: Be that as it may, the fact is that they are receiving large sums from the treasury of Canada; they operate as British ships, and we as Canadians are British subjects. I was also interested in his statement that he was of opinion that Canadians would not fulfil properly the duties which the Chinamen are now pei'forming on these vessels in the far east.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not suggest that.


Thomas Reid: Well, I took the words down as the hon. member was speaking.

530	COMMONS
Pacific Coast Shipping-Mr. Reid


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not suggest that they were incapable of doing the duties. I suggested that under the conditions they would not be willing to be employed to do them.


Thomas Reid: I doubt that very much. Of course I have heard the statement made that on ships travelling to the far east oriental or Lascar crews must be employed. It may interest the house to know that British passenger ships sailing to the far east have only some 11 per cent of Lascars in the crews, that the crews as a whole are practically British, and even the deck crews fifty-fifty. I have the figures from the British Board of Trade Journal, and if I had time I should like to place them on Hansard. The figures are given for passenger ships of the same size operating over the same routes to the far east from Great Britain, and their crews are 11 per cent Lascars and 89 per cent British.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I travelled on an East Indian ship on which the only white people were the chief officers and the steward. Every other person I saw was a Lascar or East Indian.


Thomas Reid: The reason the committee recommended that Canadian deck-hands be employed was this: It was felt that perhaps it would be unfair at the start to ask Canadians to work among Chinamen, but it was felt that one particular part of the crew might be replaced by Canadians.
In my opening remarks I pointed out that practically every country employed its own nationals. It may interest the house to learn what was done just the other week by France. France has passed an order providing that all salmon going to that country from Canada must be carried in French bottoms. They are looking after not only their seamen but their shipping; they are now demanding that goods imported from Canada shall be carried in French ships. If you investigate every country, with the single exception of Canada you will find that some provision or another has been made for the employment of its own nationals. On the Australian line operating from Vancouver to the orient, which is in keen competition with the United States lines, practically all the employees are British subjects.	\
I should like to point out to the house that it is not only the wages which are paid that determine whether or not the service shall succeed. At the British shipping conference last fall it was stated that the Matson line, which is in competition with the Canada-Australian line, is superior to the Australian line for two reasons; first, the speed of their vessels and, second, the courtesy of their

employees. For these reasons that line is taking trade away from Canadian ships; yet when the committee was in session we were told by the Canadian Pacific that Chinamen were so courteous that Americans and others were very glad to travel in our vessels in preference to others. This shipping report, which was laid on the table just the other day, states that the United States line is taking a great deal of trade away from the Canadian ships because of the speed of their vessels and the courtesy of their employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask who asserts it is the courtesy of the employees of the Matson line that is responsible for getting trade away from the Canada-Australian line?


Thomas Reid: I have the 1935 report of the shipping committee with regard to the possibilities of a British passenger and cargo service between western Canada and Australia and New Zealand. On page 19 of that report I read:
The important fact to be borne in mind is that the Matson line has won its present position not by cutting rates but by superiority of amenities and speed.
I take that "superiority of amenities" to mean superior courtesy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I just wanted to know if the hon. gentleman was putting his own construction on it, because if there is one thing that is not so, it is that the courtesy shown on those ships is greater than that shown on ships of the Canadian-Australian line. The word "amenities" is not open to the construction the hon. gentleman has placed upon it. I do not desire to discuss the point now; I shall do so later.


Thomas Reid: I am sorry I have not time to develop that a little more. Neither my right hon. friend nor I was at the conference, so while my opinion may not carry quite as much weight as his, I suppose I am still entitled to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but "amenities" in that case has nothing to do with courtesy.


Thomas Reid: I see it is getting near six o'clock. As I have said, I am not against the granting of some subsidies, and I realize that subsidy agreements have been signed. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has made the suggestion that I withdraw this resolution, and he has said that the matter will be taken up by a committee consisting of one representative from the Department of Labour and perhaps one from the Department of Trade and Commerce, who will investigate at first hand the situation in pacific coast

Business oj the House-Precedence
ports. I think I would be inclined to accept that suggestion, on the distinct understanding that the matter will be fully investigated and that the bald statement of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that there are no men available, together with their statement that they prefer Chinamen to Canadians, will be seriously looked into. And I hope that committee will not overlook the strong stand taken by that company against the employment of our own people. Surely it is a laudable thing to attempt to secure employment for our own Canadian people, and I make no apology to anyone for my stand on behalf of our Canadian nationals in preference to orientals from Hong Kong or from other countries.
I wish I had time to develop further the argument introduced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that these orientals are British subjects. When I previously introduced this question it was held by the then government of which he was a member that those orientals from Hong Kong were British subjects. I seriously dispute that view; I claim they are orientals and Chinamen. However, I am prepared to accept the statement of the Minister of Labour with the understanding that this matter will be gone into fully and seriously and a report made as to the real reasons why the request of parliament can not be carried out.


Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):: May I suggest that in considering
this problem the minister take full cognizance of the competition of United States and Japanese subsidized lines, and secure complete information as to the position of Canada in transpacific shipping and the desirability of maintaining transpacific routes with subsidized ships, as referred to by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid).'
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 4, 1937