1938-04-25

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 99, to incorporate The Maritime Provinces General Insurance Company.-Mr. Isnor.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Gerda Ellen Morrison.-Mr. MacLean (Prince).
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Hilda Elsa Naeke Schneider.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Margaret Robinson Mathieson Megee.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Rachel Tencer Silberberg.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 104, for the relief of George Brunet. -Mr. Jacobs.

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

Mr. WALSH:: 1.	How many immigrants were admitted to Canada during the month of March?
2.	At what port or ports of entry were these immigrants admitted?
3.	From what country or countries did they emigrate?
4.	What was the number admitted at each port or ports of entry?
5.	What was the number admitted from each country?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Immigration to Canada during the month of March, 1938, 1,222.
2.	See No. 4.
3.	See No. 5.
4.	Immigration to Canada, via port of entry for the month of March, 1938:
Halifax	 577
North Sydney	 20
St. John	 12
Montreal	 3
Quebec	 12
Boston	 1
New York	 133
Vancouver	 22
Victoria	 2
Louisburg	 8
Ocean port totals	 797

Questions
Via border ports from the United
States	'	 425
Total immigration
1,222
5. Immigration to Canada, by racial origins for the month of March, 1938:
Arabian	 1
Belgian	 42
British-
English	 99
Irish	 20
Scotch	 41
Welsh	 5
Bulgarian	 4
Croatian	 28
Czech	 25
Dutch	 26
East Indian	 2
Finnish	 4
French	 9
German	 40
Greek	 11
Hebrew	 24
Italian	 41
Japanese	 11
Jugo-Slav	 14
Lettish	 2
Lithuanian	 2
Magyar	 58
Negro	 1
Polish	 31
Roumanian	 5
Russian	 6
Ruthenian	 158
Scandinavian-
Danish	 3
Norwegian	 6
Swedish	 7
Serbian	 1
Slovak	 69
Swiss	  1
Ocean port totals	 797
Via border ports from the United States	 425
Total immigration	1,222


OLD AGE PENSIONS-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	What is the total number of persons in the province of British Columbia receiving the old age pension: (a) male; (b) female?
2.	What is the total amount paid annually in each case?
3.	How many persons are receiving: (a) $20 per month; (b) $15 per month; (c) less than $15 per month?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	As at December 31, 1937-11,560. It is not possible from the records on file with the [DOT]51952-140
dominion government to give the number by sex.
2.	On account of adjustments between provinces, it is not possible to ascertain accurately from the records of the dominion government the total amount paid during any particular period to residents of the province of British Columbia.
The dominion's contribution to the province of British Columbia during the calendar year 1937 amounted to $1,928,122.96, which constituted approximately 75 per cent of the total amount paid out in old age pensions by the province of British Columbia.
3.	As at December 31, 1937: (a) 9,677; (b) 212; (c) 547.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE-HAY AND OATS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Has a contract been let for hay and oats to be used at the Royal Military College, Kingston?
2.	Were tenders invited?
3.	What are the names of those who tendered?
4.	What was the amount of the tenders?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded?
6.	Was there any limit as to the persons or corporations who were given the privilege to tender ?
7.	If so, who recommended the names of those who were privileged to tender?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes-for straw and oats.
2 to 6. The following were invited to tender: C. G. Clarke, Battersea, Ont.; Edward Courneyea, Tamworth, Ont.; Norman Greenlees, Joyceville, Ont.; M. Huffman & Sons, Moscow, Ont.; Geo. Joyce, Kingston, Ont.; Kingston Milling Co. Ltd., Kingston, Ont.; Nelson McAdoo, Kingston, Ont.; Tweed Milling Co., Kingston, Ont.; Estate of John B. Shibley, Harrowsmith, Ont.
The following tenders were received:
Straw-at per ton of
2,000	lbs. price per ton
Norman Greenlees.. $9 00 Kingston Milling
Co. Ltd	 9 00
Tweed Milling
Co	 8 00
Oats, No. 2 white local at per 34 lbs. 72 cents
70 cents
60 cents
Contract awarded to Tweed Milling Co.
7. Names were taken from a selected list.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. BLANCHETTE:: For which government positions does the civil service commission find the greatest difficulty in obtaining qualified candidates?

Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: There is no dearth of candidates in the competitions held by the civil service commission. Occasionally, for some of the higher professional or technical positions, some difficulty is experienced in securing properly qualified candidates.


HULL, QUE. ARMOURY
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to erect an armoury at Hull, province of Quebec?
2.	Is this authorized under any item in the estimates, and, if so, what item?
3.	What is the estimated total cost of the construction of such armoury?
4.	What is the estimated annual cost of maintenance of such armoury?
5.	What military units will be given accommodation in such armoury, and what is the present actual strength of each unit?
6.	What function will such armoury serve in plans for coastal defence?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) Item 332 of special supplementary estimates of 1937-38.
3.	$276,500.
4.	$7,000 (caretaking, structural maintenance and grounds, fuel, light, etc.,).
5.	Le Regiment de Hull. Strength as at 31st December, 1937; officers-26; other ranks -200.
6.	It will provide the necessary accomodation for militia units which may be required for the defence of Canada and conceivably for service in the coastal area.


CENTRAL EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What hourly rate or wage is paid to seasonal labourers working at the experimental farm at Ottawa who are paid by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What hourly rate or wage is paid to such class who are yearly employees?
3.	How many hours per week are such labourers employed ?
4.	How many hours per week do teamsters and cattlemen employed at the experimental farm at Ottawa put in?
5.	Are there any labourers, employed by the Department of Public Works, engaged at the said farm?
6.	If so, what hourly rate or wage are they paid, and how many hours constitute a working day?
7.	Are all labourers at the experimental farm, Ottawa, allowed sick leave and holidays with pay?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	28 to 34 cents per hour.
2.	30 to 43 cents per hour.
3.	Summer-58 hours. Winter-53 hours.
4.	Teamsters-64 hours in summer; 59 hours in winter. Cattlemen-68 hours the year around.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) 45 cents per hour.
(b) 8 hours per day-44 hours per week.
7.	No (Agricultural employees)-No sick leave and two weeks' holidays with pay allowed (Public Works employees)


PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES-HOURS OF LABOUR
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How many hours constitute a working week for engineers and firemen employed by the Department of Public Works during what is termed the heating season from November 1, to May I?
2.	What hourly rate or wage are paid to these employees?
3.	What hourly rate or wage is paid to engineers and firemen employed at the Printing Bureau?
4.	How many hours per week do such employees work?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Forty-eight hours per week.
2.	Seasonal engineers and firemen are not
*paid an hourly rate of pay but at a yearly salary rate as follows:	Heating engineers:
grade 1, $1,260-81,380 per annum; grade 2, $1,440-SI ,560; grade 3, $1,680-81,920; firemen, $1,140-SI,260 per annum.
3.	Electrician-engineer: Compensation, $1,620 to $1,800 a year with annual increases of $120 and $60 to permanent employees. Fireman: Compensation, $1,140 to $1,260 a year with annual increase of $60 to permanent employees.
4.	Forty-four hours a week.


DOMINION HOUSING ACT LOANS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many loans have been made under the provisions of the Dominion Housing Act in each year by provinces since it first came into operation?
2.	How many of such loans in each year have been so made for construction purposes in the county of Peel?

Questions


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.
Provinces
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia.. ..
2.	1936, 1; 1937, 2.


LONG BRANCH, ONT., RIFLE RANGE
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	When was the Long Branch rifle range property, in the county of Peel, purchased by the dominion government?
2.	What was its original cost?
3.	What was its original area?
4.	What sums per year have been expended upon it for improvements since its acquisition?
5.	Have any parts of said property been sold or otherwise disposed of since it was originally acquired ?
6.	If so, on what dates, at what prices, and to whom were such parts of the said property sold or otherwise disposed of or conveyed?
7.	What is the present area of said property?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	The Long Branch property was purchased as a rifle range and barracks site in the years 1910 to 1912; also, a small area under lease to this department was purchased from the city of Toronto in the year 1931.
2.	$282,936.
3.	499-9 acres, including 45-9 acres of water lots.
4.	Expenditures by fiscal years: 1912-13,
$17,126; 1917-18, $195; 1918-19, $844; 1919-20, $7,301; 1920-21. $4,846; 1921-22, $2,021; 192223. $5,069; 1923-24, $1,350; 1924-25, $3,773.65; 1925-26, $4,880; 1926-27, $2,148; 1927-28, $2,998; 1929-29. $2,756.25; 1929-30, $3,101; 193031,	$10,271.40;	1931-32,	$762.69;	1932-33,
$940.58; 1933-34, $392.92; 1934-35, $1,460,50; 1935-36, $764.84; 1936-37, $4,286.53; 1937-38, $328.49.
5.	Yes-sold.
6.	In the year 1926. the western part of the area was subdivided into 100 building lots. A contract was entered into with the firm of Hubbs & Hubbs, whereby they disposed of 20 lots to private individuals, for which $17,548 was paid the Crown. The remaining lots reverted to this department. Of these, the undermentioned have been disposed of, but payments in some cases will not be *omrjleted until the year 1947:
51952-140}
3 mos. to			3 mos. to Total to	
Dec. 31, 1935	1936	1937	Mar. 31, 1938	Mar. 31, 1938. .	6	4	. ,	1094	186	34	31412	48	3	6338	193	304	32	56737	322	603	55	1,01712	36	3	51[DOT][DOT]	2	210	243	125 .	37875	649	1,426	252	2,402Date	Price	To whom sold1937	. $ 325 00	F. & C. Hobley1937	. 162 50	A. W. Boshier1937	. 425 00	E. Moore.1937	. 387 00	H. Lavine1937	, 2,075 00	R. D. Hogg
7. 488 acres, approximately, including 45-9 acres of water lots.


BARRIEFIELD CAMP-DESTRUCTION OF BUILDING BY FIRE
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Was the storehouse of Camp 37, at Barrie-field, near Kingston, destroyed by fire?
2.	If so, when?
3.	What was the property loss, if any?
4.	Were any records stored in the said building?
5.	If so, were such records destroyed, in whole or in part?
6.	Was any investigation held as to the cause of the said fire?
7.	If so, what was the result of such investigation?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: There is no record of a fire having occurred at project No. 37, Barriefield, but a fire did occur at project No. 42, Barriefield, in October, 1937. A temporary frame building used as a kitchen was destroyed, and there was a property loss amounting to $500. No records were destroyed. A court of inquiry was held and stated that the cause of the fire was unknown.


T. J. PERDUE
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	Was Mr. T. J. Perdue employed by the Mines and Resources department, or the Department of the Interior at any time between the years 1931 to 1938?
2. If so, in what capacity and for what period ?
3.	Is the said person at present in the employ of the department?
4.	If not, what are the reasons for his not being presently employed?
Questions


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As labourer (relieving), in the forest products laboratories at Ottawa, from the 4th of February, 1932, to the 31st March, 1933.
3.	No.
4.	Work that Mr. Perdue performed was taken over by the Department of Public Works on April 1, 1933.


HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many loans have been made in each year under the home improvement plan, in the county of Peel?
2.	How much has been so loaned in each year in the said county?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1 and 2. The following shows the number and amount of loans reported by approved lending institutions:
Number Amount
Nov. 1-Dec. 31, 1936..	6	$ 4,03145Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1938..	135	59.002 21Jan. 1-Mar. 31, 1938..	14	6,527 46155	$ 69,561 12


POSTAL EMPLOYEES-HOURS OP LABOUR
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many hours a day are postal employees required, by law, to work?
2.	How many postal employees: (a) at Montreal; (b) at Toronto, during 1937, worked more than 8 hours a day?
3.	How many hours and how many days did they work over the regulation 8 hours during the same period?
4.	How many employees have disposed of this unpaid extra time and at what price?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	The regulation time is 44 hours per week made up, as far as practicable, of five days of eight hours and one day of four hours.
2.	Practically every employee except those in administrative sections work more than 8 hours a day at some time of the year, according to the exigencies and fluctuations of the postal service.
3.	At the 1st January, 1938, the following number of hours were due employees for extra time worked:-

Montreal Toronto Hours Hours
(a)	Extra time worked during
Christmas period..	..	40,381	48,972(b)	Work performed on Statutory holidays	
41,826	38,184(c)	Extra time worked on ordinary days includingSundays	
4,529	24,850
86,736 112,006
4.	In so far as the department is aware, no employees have sold time due them. Such a practice is absolutely forbidden.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Were the automobiles supplied to the Montreal post office in any accident or accidents during the period from 1928 to 1933, both years inclusive?
2.	If so: (a) how many; (b) at what places; (c) at what hours?
3.	Who were the actual drivers of these automobiles when the accidents occurred?
4.	Were they actually on duty at the time?
5.	What has been the cost to the government of the repair work occasioned by these accidents?
6.	What were the names of the occupants of these automobiles when these accidents took place?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 8.
(b) and (c) 1. St. Hubert St., Montreal- 12.30 noon.
2.	General P. O., Montreal-No record of hour.
3.	Garage, Dowd St., Montreal-No record of hour.
4.	Between St. Andrews East and St. Placide-No record of hour.
5.	St. James and St. Frs. Xavier, Montreal-No record of hour.
6.	Sherbrooke St., W., Montreal 11 am.
7.	Head Office, St. James St., Montreal- No record of hour.
8.	Montreal City-During the evening.
3.	Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7-Chauffeur E. Quentin; Nos. 4, 6 and 8-Chauffeur L. J. A. Monette.
4.	Yes.
5.	$59.45.
6.	(1) Mr. Gaudet.
(2)	No one (car parked).
(3)	In postal garage.
(4)	Mr. Gaboury.

Questions
(5)	Chauffeur alone in car-on way to garage.
(6)	No one (car parked).
(7)	Mr. Taylor.
(8)	Chauffeur Monette.


BERTHIER, QUE. POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who is the present postmaster at Berthier, electoral district of Belleehasse?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	Who recommended him?
4.	What is his annual remuneration?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Alphonse Mercier.
2.	October 5, 1936.
3.	J. Oscar L. Boulanger, M.P.
4.	Fiscal year 1937-38, $557.61.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE-SARTO PICHE
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is Mr. Sarto Piche still on the staff of the Montreal post office?
2.	If so, what is his classification under the civil service commission ?
3.	How many times was he absent from duty during the year 1937?
4.	Has he any employment other than with the post office?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Postal Clerk.
3.	No absences except annual leave during the calendar year 1937
4.	As the department had no information, enquiry was made and, in a sworn declaration, Mr. Sarto Piche reports as follows: "Je desire vous informer que je suis I'adminis-trateur d'un commerce de pharmacie qui, dans l'annee ecoulee, m'a donne un revenu de $275".


WESLEY HENDERSON
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	On what date in 1937 did Mr. Wesley Henderson's contract for hauling grain supplies at the head of the lakes expire?
2.	Was this contract let in 1934 by tender?
3.	Were tenders asked for in 1937 at the expiration of the contract?
4.	Who holds the present contract, and what is the price of same?
5.	What was the price received by Mr. Henderson for the former contract?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	November 30.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Donald Anderson, 250 Ambrose St., Port Arthur, Ontario; $2,880 per annum.
5.	$2,880 per annum.


OLEOMARGARINE IN ENGLAND
Mr. MacRAE:: Is the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine permitted in Great Britain?


Mr. CRERAR:: The manufacture and sale of oleomargarine is permitted in Great Britain, subject to compliance with certain sections of the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.


POST OFFICES-MONTREAL AND TORONTO
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What was the weight of postal material handled by the employees of the post offices: (a) at Montreal; (b) at Toronto, during the years 1936 and 1937?
2.	How many individuals were employed in the post offices: (a) at Montreal, and (b) at Toronto, during the years 1936 and 1937?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	No record is kept of the weight of mail handled in the postal service. The following figures will give a comparison between the offices mentioned:
Revenue
Fiscal year 1935-36..
"	1936-37..
"	1937-38..
Volume of business Letters and circulars
1936		
1937		
Registration
1936		
1937		
Newspaper postage
1936		
1937		
Montreal	Toronto
$4,681,860 54	$7,085,300 85
4.918,172 39	7,626,322 58
Official figures not complete.
165,037,412
168,370,273
1,137,039
1,215,754

2202	COMMONS
Motions for Papers
Revenue-Concluded	Montreal	TorontoStaff as at March 31 1936 Full time	
1,552	1,661
66	SO
1,594	1,677 119
75	1938 Full time	
1,683	1,829Part time	
83	127


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Is one, W. J. Pennington, in the employ of the dominion government at the present time, or has he been employed at any time since December, 1935, in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how long was he employed, in what capacity, at what salary, and what expenses, if any, were paid to him?
3.	Has he an office and where is same located?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MacNEIL:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, requests, orders and other documents relating to the proposed construction of an armoury at Hull, province of Quebec.


TRANS-CANADA AIRLINES-TORONTO CONNECTION
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, agreements, orders in council and other documents, exchanged during the past year between the government of Canada or any officer thereof and the mayor and corporation of the city of Toronto or any officer thereof and the Toronto harbour commission or any officer thereof, in relation to the proposed airport at Toronto harbour and at Malton, dealing in any way with the placing of Toronto on a branch and not on the main line of trans-Canada airlines.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-INCREASE OF LICENCE FEE
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams ad other documents exchanged during the last year between the Minister of Transport and the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation relating to the increase in radio licence fees.


MATAPEDIA-MATANE, QUE., TELEPHONE LINES
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: For a copy of all letters, telgrams, resolutions and other documents in the possession of the government dated from January 1, 1934, to

date, relating to the construction of telephone lines in the county of Matapedia-Matane in 1935.


KENORA, ONT., DRILL HALL
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, specifications and other documents in the possession of the government, with respect to the construction of the drill hall at Kenora, Ontario.


TRAIT CARRE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: For a copy of all correspondence, requests and documents relating to the discontinuation of the post office at Trait Carre, Gaspe county, province of Quebec.


ARMY AND NAVY AND IRISH SWEEPSTAKES
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between the government or any officer thereof and any other persons with respect to Army and Navy and Irish sweepstakes during the years from 1933 to 1937 inclusive.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: As this motion is worded it is rather comprehensive. There may be some particular communications which would be desired by the mover, and they may be brought down if they can be discovered, but there is a good deal asked for which could never be traced. Subject to that reservation there is no objection to the motion.


Mr. BENNETT:: Doubtless there are thousands of letters which are of no value at all.


UNITED STATES GOODS IN TRANSIT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley). I am in receipt of resolutions passed by the municipal council of the town of Brampton, and the railway employees at that point, opposing any revision of the customs regulations which would permit the transport of United States

National Revenue-Exemption of $100
goods in bond through Canada by motor truck. Would the minister care to give assurances to the house at this time that no such change is in contemplation?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: Any change in the practice would have to be effected by amendment to the Customs Act, not merely by change in the regulations. No change in that regard is contemplated. However a large number of representations have been made to the Department of National Revenue on both sides of the question. If there is any change in the policy of the government in this regard that change will be announced in due course, if and when it is decided upon. In the meantime all I can say is that this question has received and is receiving some consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it can be effected only by legislation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I advised the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) that I desired to ask him whether he had any explanation to make concerning a report in the press indicating that importations of Canadian merchandise into the United States by tourists from that country to the value of $100 would be allowed to enter free only if such tourists had remained at least forty-eight hours in Canada; but that such regulation was subject to the proviso that if Canada waived the forty-eight hour provision with respect to her citizens visiting the United States and subsequently returning, a reciprocal arrangement would be made. It is a matter of such importance that I thought the minister might desire to make an explanation.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, a bill has passed the senate of the United States but has not reached any more advanced stage than that. Perhaps in view of the importance of the question I might read the part of the bill applicable to the matter in question:
That up to but not exceeding $100 in value of articles (including distilled spirits, wines and malt liquors aggregating not more than one wine gallon and including not more than one hundred cigars) acquired abroad by such residents of the United States as an incident of the foreign journey for personal or household
use or as souvenirs or curios, but not bought on commission or intended for sale, shall be free of duty:	Provided further, that the
secretary of the treasury may by special regulations or instruction, the application of which may be restricted to one or more individual ports of entry, provide that the exemption authorized by the preceding proviso shall be applied only to articles acquired abroad by a returning resident who has remained beyond the territorial limits of the United States for such period, not to exceed forty-eight hours, as the secretary may deem necessary at the specified port or ports to facilitate enforcement of the requirement that the exemption shall apply only to articles acquired as an incident of the foreign journey: Provided further, that the exemption authorized by the second preceding proviso shall apply only to articles declared in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the secretary of the treasury by a returning resident who has not taken advantage of the said exemption within the thirty-day period immediately preceding his return to the United States: Provided further, that no such special regulation or instruction shall take effect until the lapse of ninety days after the date of such special regulation or instruction: And provided further, that section 37 of this act shall not take effect until ninety days after the effective date of this act: And provided further, that all articles exempted by this paragraph from the payment of duty shall also be exempt from the payment of any internal revenue taxes.
It will be noted that the section does not enact a forty-eight hour requirement, but it authorizes the secretary of the treasury to stipulate a forty-eight hour absence as a test of the bona fides of the declaration that the purchase was incidental to the visit abroad. This bill was passed by the senate-


Richard Bedford Bennett: On April 2.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, and it goes to a conference between the senate and house of representatives. The house of representatives has appointed conferees, but up to the time of this statement, April 13, the senate had not taken similar action. That appears to be the stage the legislation has reached up to the present, and I think that gives the right hon. gentleman the information he requires. Apparently there is no provision to the effect that if another country eliminates the forty-eight hour provision it will be eliminated by the United States. That is not a feature of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was said to have been an amendment added in the senate. It passed the house of representatives, I think in somewhat different form; then passed the senate and stood for a conference. That was my understanding of it, but no conference has been held and there is no such legislation at this moment.


James Lorimer Ilsley: True.
2204	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is only fair to say that for at least two or three years that I can recall, somewhat similar legislation has been before congress, and there is nothing further in this except that it has reached a stage where it may be the subject matter of a conference.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 7, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance towards the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress, and for such payments out of moneys appropriated by parliament as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rogers thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Before the house resolves itself into committee of supply there are certain observations I want to make with regard to the attitude taken by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) at the time of the Victoria byelection. Before proceeding I should like to express my regret, and the regret of those from British Columbia who are associated with me, at the untimely illness of Mr. Robert Mayhew, the member-elect. I did not meet Mr. Mayhew on that occasion, but I was much struck by the warmth of the appreciation which was expressed on all sides with regard to Mr. Mayhew, and we earnestly hope that he may make a speedy and complete recovery.
The attitude of the minister, to which I want to refer, is that he made an appeal, for partisan purposes, on the expenditure of money for the defence of this country, and particularly the expenditure on the Pacific

coast, added to the expenditure which would be undertaken by the government through the carrying out of the program outlined. The inference clearly was that the elector would do well to think deeply before he decided to vote against the government. There have been five ministers of national defence during the time I have occupied a seat in this house. None of the other four, so far as my knowledge goes, have made use of expenditures for the purpose of defence as an appeal for votes, and I think it is a deplorable thing that on this occasion the minister should have set such a precedent. The minister most clearly appealed for votes by submitting the expenditures of this government. Defence above all other things should be kept entirely free from partisanship. I believe there is a growing desire on the part of a considerable section of the general public that partisanship should be kept separate from expenditures of money in various departments. I think that a very great majority of the people consider that when we are discussing the defences of Canada expenditures of money certainly should not then be used as a basis for appeal.
Moreover, from the contact I had the privilege of having with the three branches of the service during the year I was minister, nothing was more clearly borne in on me than the fact that members of the services, departmental officials, were also desirous that questions of partisanship should not intrude themselves into their public work.
On November 18 the minister spoke to a theatre full of people in Victoria. I arrived in Victoria on the afternoon of the following day, and found that both the daily papers of the city contained a report of the minister's speech. Indeed so many of the observations of the Minister of National Defence were in inverted commas that I believe it is entirely probable that a statement was submitted to the press on behalf of the minister-and I am not suggesting the minister would be inclined to doubt the veracity of what appeared in the press.
There was a broadcast of proceedings at the meeting, and I met a considerable number of people who had either heard the minister in person or listened to him over the radio. There is no doubt therefore that the statement appearing in the Victoria Colonist is substantially accurate. I read now from the issue of November 19:
"I have never sought to make the defence of Canada a political question and I do not intend to do so now," he declared. "But I must tell you that the first week I was in office, I obtained a report on the condition of the three branches of the service-the navy, the army and the air force.

Defence Expenditures and By-Election
I found Canada lacked adequate forces to guarantee the neutrality in a war in which she did not wish to become a belligerent. Barracks, dockyards and other shore facilities of the naval service were antiquated and inadequate. The Esquimau naval magazine had been condemned in 1905 and nothing had been done about it," Mr. Mackenzie continued.
"There were no anti-aircraft guns in Canada. The stock of field gun ammunition was only adequate for less than ninety minutes' firing. The existing field artillery was unsuitable for mechanical traction and was outranged from three to six thousand yards. Coast defences were obsolescent and defective. Firing from guns was restricted to prolong their lives.
There was no proper mechanization, no gas masks, no proper facilities for the manufacture of arms. The reorganization of the militia was recommended in 1932 and nothing had been done."
Mr. Mackenzie further claimed that the twenty-three planes of the air force were all obsolescent. There was no supply of air bombs. No survey had been made for national defence, he stated.
He charged that the Conservative regime had wrecked the air force and had crippled the training of the militia, whose appropriation had been cut from 11 million dollars to 8-8 million dollars, a reduction of 25 per cent, while the air force had been cut from 7-4 million dollars to 1-7 million dollars, a decrease of 75 per cent.
"Whatever the justification," he said, "I ask you to remember the record of the Conservatives when they come to you preaching about national defence."
Thereafter Mr. Mackenzie pointed out that the expenditure on Pacific coast defences under the regime of Mr. Bennett in 1935-36 totalled $1,916,116, while the appropriation for 1937-38 under the Liberal administration amounts to $8,163,188.
"This is an expenditure for defence," he declared, "which has not been equalled from the time of confederation. It must be borne in mind that the coast defence program cannot be completed until 1940. I ask you to remember what we are endeavouring to do, and I am taking this opportunity of requesting the electors of Victoria to approve the policy of defence of this coast when they go to the polls, November 29."
There can be no doubt whatever, I believe, that that was a flagrant instance of an appeal for political purposes. It is so very different from the attitude adopted by the minister when his estimates were before the committee last year. On that occasion he fully realized that the official opposition indulged in no carping criticism. He knew the assistance given by the official opposition was an assistance to him at a time when he was not particularly comfortable, as he was expounding views which were not acceptable to a very considerable number of government supporters.
It will be noted also that at least some of the criticism he used was just as applicable to the administration prior to 1930 as it was to the subsequent one. But the great unfairness of the arguments he used is found in the fact that he made no reference to the tremendous change which has taken place throughout the world, a change-over from disarmament to rearmament. As a member of the League of Nations Canada was committed to disarmament. Her defence estimates were prepared year by year under an atmosphere of disarmament. She did not wish to increase her defence expenditures. Indeed, had she done so, it would not require a very vivid imagination to imagine the speeches which would have been made by the minister and his right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). On account of the depression it was not possible during the disarmament period for the then government even to set aside the quantity of money required adequately to keep up the services as they then existed, and it was unfortunately necessary to cut the training of men. But to this fact the minister made no reference whatever.
There is nothing out of the common in the minister's argument; it is the typical Liberal argument: "Use the facts which are convenient; make no reference to the facts which are not convenient, even though those facts are predominant." I am reminded of another Liberal appeal for votes which was contained in the speech with which the right hon. leader of the Liberal party opened the campaign in 1935. He told of one of his famous soliloquies. He was standing on Wellington street. On his right front there rose a magnificent building, one erected by his administration and adapted to the peaceful purposes of labour and agriculture. On his left front there was rising the gaunt skeleton of another great structure built by the then administration at a cost of a million and a quarter dollars. For what purpose was it to be used? It was to be used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A great barracks was being erected in Calgary. Barracks for the use of the police and militia were going up from coast to coast, many of them being erected with money voted for relief. According to the Ottawa Citizen of the following day, the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
"There are drill halls and armouries all over the country built at heavy cost" he said. "Why?" "It is to build up a great military force because all dictatorships demand force and the last word in dictatorship is the cannon and what comes out of the cannon."
That was the view of the Prime Minister at the beginning of the 1935 campaign. Yet within eighteen months he and his Minister of National Defence were preparing estimates for submission to this house which were
2206	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
$10,000,000 more than those submitted previously. The Minister of National Defence goes to Victoria and uses a diametrically opposite argument. The Prime Minister wished to paint us as war-like people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Dictators.


Grote Stirling: As dictators. He claimed that we were making provision for cannons and for that which comes out of cannons, but when the increased estimates of 1937 were brought before this house it was found that they contained provision for cannons and that which comes out of cannons. On the one hand we have the leader of the Liberal party appealing for votes because we are making tremendous expenditures for military purposes. Then we have the Minister of National Defence, on the occasion of a by-election, trouncing us for not having made the necessary expenditures to keep up the defence of this country.
I should like to bring together the responsible facts of history which go to explain this tremendous change that has taken place. After the armistice the weary nations of the world met to lay down a platform of peace. They met to prepare a peace treaty and at the same time lay down the foundation of a noble structure for the preservation of peace. At the very first the idea of a league of nations suffered a heavy blow because of the withdrawal of a great nation which during the preparatory time had given its support but whose people were not ready to go any further.
The League of Nations came into being, and parallel with this fact, disarmament was imposed on Germany and her allies by our allies who themselves solemnly undertook to carry out voluntary disarmament. As time went on it became more and more difficult to bring a disarmament conference into being. There were wars and rumours of war. There was dissatisfaction because national boundaries had been drawn on the map with a pencil without sufficient notice being taken of racial distinctions and of the ideas which minorities have since shown that they believe in most strongly. Although the hope for a disarmament conference was dwindling, although such a conference was, shall we say, the first goal that the League of Nations attempted to reach, such a conference eventually did meet in February, 1932, when the delegates of sixty-one nations met in London to discuss disarmament. This conference was brought about because of the example set and the persuasion used by Great Britain. The conference had hardly met before it was realized that it was faced with the tremendous problem of

endeavouring to make agree two principles which were incompatible. The first principle was that the disarmament which had been imposed on Germany was necessary before voluntary disarmament could be undertaken by the other nations. The second principle, which was acceptable to many of the other nations, was that they could not agree to a basis of disarmament which would jeopardize their own conception of national security.
But the disarmament conference went on talking. Within a year Japan had withdrawn and eight months later Germany withdrew. Germany had come reluctantly to the conference and had taken the view all the way through that the one and only basis which could be accepted by her as the basis for disarmament on the part of those nations which agreed voluntarily to disarm was the basis which had been imposed on her and to which she had rigorously to conform because she was governed in her every act by disciplinary measures and inspections carried out by allied committees. Germany withdrew, but the disarmament conference went on talking. Indeed, it has not yet been officially terminated.
In March, 1935, Germany took another step; she threw over the military clauses of the Versailles treaty. Eight months later she repudiated Locarno. In October, 1935, Italy entered Abyssinia. In July, 1936, there was civil war in Spain. By the intrusion of European nations into this conflict, Europe was brought hazardously near to the brink of war. I cite these instances because I want to draw attention to the important fact that must be considered in connection with the armament of this or any other country. We must realize that we have passed from disarmament to rearmament. In making his political appeal the minister omitted any reference to that all-absorbing fact.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, that is not correct.


Grote Stirling: I have not found it in anything that I have read, but perhaps the minister will explain further.
In 1934 Great Britain could no longer keep her eyes closed to the fact that she had slipped to the position of a fifth rate power in the air. Germany was away to a flying start. Great Britain started feverishly to train pilots and mechanics, to build new factories and adapt old ones, to provide herself with the necessary materials and to make the tools and build the machinery necessary for the manufacture of engines and planes. She realized that she was away behind the race.

Dejcnce Expenditures and By-Election
Strive as she will, we still read from week to week in the press and hear it announced in the British house that she still realizes that she has not yet caught up.
It is not possible to name definitely the month in which disarmament gave place to rearmament. However, we can draw attention to the fact that the estimates for the Department of National Defence prepared prior to those of 1936 were prepared in an atmosphere of disarmament, whereas the subsequent estimates were prepared in an atmosphere of rearmament. It does not seem to me reasonable that a minister should go to a by-election and should preach the cause of political support citing as his reason for so doing the expenditure of money on national defence. Ever since the signing of the peace treaty, Great Britain had done all that she could to persuade and to lead the powers towards disarmament. She had made people in Great Britain, and indeed in the empire, extremely anxious as she reduced her navy in personnel and ships, as she reduced her little army, as she failed to replace her aeroplanes, and she did not even keep abreast of the tremendous scientific developments which were taking place with regard to the heavier-than-air machines. But she had pledged her word to disarm, and she was doing her best, whatever the spirit of the other nations might be, to carry out her undertaking.
Canada was in a similar position. She was a supporter of the League of Nations. The League of Nations had committed itself to disarmament. Great Britain had been preaching the word of disarmament and endeavouring to induce the nations to practise disarmament; she had hoped to lead the world to it. But she could not carry on further and see Germany overtake her in the air.
It is utterly improper in my opinion for a minister of the crown to use defence for the purposes of political appeal, and it is a reflection on public life for a minister to state a case with such unfairness as to omit reference to an overbearing and essential fact. Indeed, I do not think a public man will long enjoy the confidence of his public if he is known to be one who in stating an argument omits an essential fact On this occasion there can be no question that the minister made an appeal for votes by alluding to the expenditure of money for the defence of the Pacific coast, and not only the expenditure which was then going on, but the expenditure which would be carried on as the work proceeded which he had outlined. In my opinion this is such an unpleasant departure from the precedents of previous years that it is desirable to bring the matter before this house, and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts):
That all the words after "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house, moneys appropriated by parliament for the defence of Canada should not be used, directly or indirectly, for political partisan purposes.


Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: Mr. Speaker., in seconding this motion I should like to associate myself to the fullest possible extent with the remarks made by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) in connection with the by-election in Victoria, and I should like to draw the attention of the house to another occasion upon which the minister, or the department, or the government, or all of them, fell into the same deplorable state as they did in connection with the Victoria byelection, in that expenditures of public money in connection with a very important function of the government were made for partisan purposes. I refer to the method by which the Canadian contingent that was sent overseas to represent us at the coronation was selected.
As I have pointed out in this chamber before, Mr. Speaker, the coronation presented a golden opportunity for the Dominion of Canada to advertise its greatest product, its man power, at the greatest festival of empire that the world has ever seen. It was an occasion upon which the minister and the department and the government should have spared no pains to select from what I claim is the smartest body of men in uniform in the world to-day, the Canadian militia, a contingent that should be second to none. They should have been perfect in physique, perfect in drill, perfect in every respect in so far as what meets the eye may be concerned-because this was a parade, Mr Speaker. Our contingent, as did the other contingents, marched through the streets of London before a cloud of witnesses from all parts of the empire, and my complaint, and I am prepared to prove the facts on which it is based, is that in selecting the personnel of the Canadian contingent other considerations than those of merit entered into the mind of the minister. [DOT]
First of all I should like to refer to the King's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Militia, which, by virtue of the Militia Act, have the force of statute law. Paragraph 429 reads as follows:
An officer is forbidden to write private letters to officials at National Defence headquarters, on official personal matters.
Attempts to obtain favourable consideration of any application by the use of outside in-
2208	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
fluenee are forbidden, and, if resorted to, will be regarded as an admission on the part of the applicant that the case is not good on its merits, and it will be dealt with accordingly.
When an interview is asked for, or a letter written on behalf of an officer by any person other than himself, such application will be deemed to have been made at his suggestion, unless he can show to the satisfaction of the authorities that he has no knowledge, directly or indirectly, of such application.
Now I state as a fact, Mr. Speaker, that that paragraph was not adhered to in the selection of those who made up our Canadian contingent, and I submit, and I am prepared to prove it if given the opportunity, that political pressure was brought, and brought successfully, upon the department, with the result that the type of contingent that should have represented Canada did not go to London.
Just as one instance of what took place, let me say that I know of one entire corps which was. represented by only one officer. That is manifestly unfair on any basis of representation. The one officer who was chosen announced some four months before the selections of the contingent were made, shortly after it became known that a contingent was to go to the old country, that he had great pull with the government, and that he was going to London. And go he did. I can think of nothing that will operate more effectively to destroy the spirit which has always permeated the Canadian militia, the spirit which built up for Canadian troops a name that will live as long as history is written; and I challenge the minister to show that political influence was not brought to bear constantly in the selection of the Canadian contingent. As a result of that, because the smartest, the best drilled, the most perfect physical specimens that could be selected were not selected, many very unfortunate incidents followed.
There is, Mr. Speaker, a quaint old military custom, familiar to you, I have no doubt, familiar to all members of the house, certainly familiar to the minister, that when soldiers are on parade they march in step. I hold in my hand a photograph of the contingent taken on this side of the water as they approached the boat at Montreal. Let me make it quite clear at this point that I am aiming no criticism whatever at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, none whatever at the representatives of the Canadian navy, and none at the band of the Royal Canadian regiment. My remarks are confined strictly to the militia contingent, composd, I believe, of 256 persons, thirty-two of whom were colonels or lieutenant-colonels and five of whom were privates. If the minister will take the trouble to scrutinize this photograph-and remember,

this was a public occasion-he will find, on looking at these persons representing the Canadian militia, that one soldier in the front rank is not in step with his leader, who is about ten feet distant.
That is of course bad drill, but it is bad business too. Going a little further, we come to the selection from a very large and important garrison centre, in which the local military authorities recommended an extremely smart officer who would have done great credit to them' as their representative. But he was overlooked, for very obvious reasons, and in his place was sent one who could only be described as the ward heeler supreme of that part of the country. He has been the bearer of the Liberal banner in every election since time immemorial, and is now enjoying a well-earned rest in a cushy patronage job which he derived from the present Liberal government of the province. I have here his picture taken on shipboard- and let me say, I bear no malice towards him in making these remarks. I make these remarks because I am particularly keen as a former militia man that the Canadian militia should be properly represented on important occasions of this sort, and I feel it a duty to the militia of the country to bring to light the manner in which patronage overrode all other considerations in the selection of this contingent. I leave it to the minister to look at this photograph I have here, showing some of the officers of the contingent that crossed the ocean-I leave it to him to decide whether this officer of whom I speak, who was chosen over the head of the local authorities, is a smart soldierly figure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps he was seasick !


Frederick Cronyn Betts: It is evidently a formal picture, because all the officers are wearing gloves and swords. The officer of whom I speak could not, by any standard, be described as either a good physical specimen or a good figure of an officer on parade. His head is resting on a splendidly developed double chin. He holds the rank of lieutenant-colonel, and large rolls of lieutenant-colonel are protruding over his Sam Browne belt.
That is not the type of officer that marched for the other dominions at his majesty's coronation. Words fail to describe the effect as I cast my eyes down his figure. His voluptuous calves are protruding from ill-fittings leggings, and his breeches-what shall I say of his breeches 1 They are tight where they should be loose and loose where they should be tight. They bring irresistibly to my mind that ditty immortalized by the troops

Defence Expenditures and By-Election
in France about "those funny little pants that Maggie wore; they were baggy at the knees"-I won't continue, Mr. Speaker.
Let me make it clear, without any levity whatever, that that is not the type of officer who should have been selected to represent the Canadian militia at his majesty's coronation. And let me add that my criticisms have been echoed in every mess room, drill hall and canteen from Halifax to Vancouver.
Then, when we get to London, we find, in the picture I now hold in my hand, the guard moving to Buckingham palace, surely an important occasion. There they are moving along in fours and apparently the command "Eyes left!" has just been given; a compliment is being paid to somebody on the left of the parade. But one of the non-commissioned officers-a high-ranking one, you may be sure of that, because practically everybody in that contingent was high-ranking-is not thinking at all of the reason for the command; he is thinking of the girl he left behind him, or the big stoup of beer he will have at the barracks when he gets back. He is gazing straight ahead; he has missed out on his drill. Let me add that he is not one of the markers, and so his head and eyes should have been turned to the left. That is the sort of thing that happens when the canker of patronage eats into any department.
Taking up this souvenir book, which I imagine has had circulation 'all over the empire, we find a photograph of the Canadian contingent moving through Piccadilly circus, and at the head we see the band of the Royal Canadian regiment, moving as one man; properly covered off; all in step, just as smart as paint; and we cast our eyes to the left and find the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a credit to their corps, their commissioner, and their dominion. Then behind that, there is a serpentine effect of troops wobbling about, not covered off, a bulge in the centre of the column-bad drill, almost no drill at all.
This was not an occasion on which to sound the party tocsin and raise the party standard and summon old Colonel Dropsy and Major Spavin from the Liberal committee rooms and send them overseas on a joy ride. The minister was not administering Liberal campaign funds; he was spending public money. He overlooked that, but the country has not overlooked it. Why did not the minister in making his selections pick fine upstanding fellows like himself who would make the girls catch their breath and say: "Oh boy!" when the troops marched by? I protest on behalf of the Canadian militia
and on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers that patronage was allowed to ruin this golden opportunity to advertise the Canadian militia in the heart of the empire.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I was
astounded upon hearing the address to which we have just listened, not only conceived but expressed and delivered in the worst taste I have ever seen displayed in the House of Commons of Canada. I desire in the first place to inform the hon. member that the Canadian coronation contingent was selected by a committee of the permanent force of Canada, and the recommendations came from the commanding officers of the units themselves. I have here the nominal roll of the men. A great number of them earned high decorations on the field of battle, and the remarks made by the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) this afternoon are an insult to the reputation and military record of every single man of that contingent. Did hon. members notice the method of insinuation followed not only this afternoon but on a previous occasion? "Yes, the mounted police were splendid." So they were, but as the Canadian contingent, after receiving their decorations from the hand of His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen, swung in column of four past Buckingham palace, I heard one of the highest military officers of Great Britain say, "That was the finest marching by any part of the empire contingent."
My hon. friend speaks of patronage. He knows as well as I do that in many cases men who were actually presidents of the Conservative organization were members of the coronation contingent, and as far as I am concerned that would certainly be no bar to their being selected. Several were so selected from within twenty miles of Ottawa, and in Winnipeg. But the hon. member now wishes to convey the impression that members of the contingent were selected because they were adherents of the Liberal party and supporters of Liberal policy. The opposition are saying that now for the first time, and they have now thrown this issue of defence into politics; it was done very definitely this afternoon. It was done in a gentlemanly way, as one would expect, by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), and now it has been done in another way by the hon. member who followed him. Let me inform my hon. friend that if he had been in charge of the selection of the Canadian contingent we should have seen something diabolical in the extreme, not something done honourably and
2210	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
in good form as was the selection made last year. But it so happens that the party to which the hon. member belongs was never in power in this country at the time of a coronation, and never will be.
I shall deal next with the remarks of the hon. member for Yale. He asserted not only that I introduced the issue of national defence into the Victoria by-election contest but that I definitely did so in order to influence the decision of the voters. I am very much surprised that a gentleman of his fine personal qualities, who himself took part in that byelection, and who knows. I think, the actual truth as to what happened, should have found it necessary to raise this issue here this afternoon. I spoke in the Victoria by-election on two occasions, on November IS and November 26.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And at the military institute.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And at the military institute; I am glad my right hon. friend referred to that. The address delivered to the military institute was entirely non-political. Does my right hon. friend doubt that? Very well, we shall find out. The right hon. leader of the opposition said in the Victoria by-election campaign that men who were working on national defence contracts required a red ticket from the Liberal organization in Victoria before they were employed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have here one of the red tickets. I show it to the house. It is a military pass from military headquarters at Esquimalt entitling them to enter the premises. It has nothing whatever to do with any political organization. I also hold in my hand a membership ticket in the Victoria Liberal organization of last year. Is that a red ticket? No, it is white. But that is the way politics were introduced into that by-election, not by the Minister of National Defence, but by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite me this afternoon.
I have here several letters of thanks concerning the way these men were employed- letters not from political organizations, but from the legion and other ex-service bodies.
The leader of the opposition referred a few moments ago to an address I delivered during that campaign to the United Sendees Institute. Also the hon. member for Yale, speaking in Vancouver, I think on the day of the byelection or shortly aftenvards. made the statement that the Minister of National Defence had made a political speech to a military institute during the course of that by-election.

After it was announced that I was to speak in the Victoria by-election, and while I was crossing this continent en route to Victoria, a telegram was received by me from Major Crockett, secretary of the United Services Institute, as follows:
United Services Institute of Vancouver Island extend a cordial invitation to you to address them at time convenient to you during your visit to Victoria. If able to accept kindly let me know as soon as possible date and subject.
Major M. Kirkpatrick Crockett.
I demurred, as I thought such an address at that time might be misconstrued, as it has been this afternoon. I was assured by the officers of the institute that the meeting would be a private and confidential meeting, and so it was. I addressed that meeting, and there was not a single suggestion of political discussion during the whole course of my address. The other day I telegraphed to the officers of this institute, because I heard this question was coming up, and this is the reply I got. And let me say that the officers and members of that organization are not supporters of the party to which I belong. This is from a strong Conservative of Victoria who was present:
Have discussed matter of your wire with Major Kirkpatrick Crockett, secretary of the United Services Institution, and he is wiring you separately. Personally feel most indignant, and that all others of the one hundred present at meeting would feel likewise if they knew your courtesy and confidence had been abused. Your remarks were confined to facts of a confidential nature, without any possible political taint, and your audience was presented to you as being composed of officers and gentlemen. Would be ashamed to believe that anyone there present could state otherwise. General Austin, president, and Sir Percy Lake, mover of vote of thanks, agree with me.
The telegram received from Major Crockett, honorary secretary of the United Services Institution, was as follows:
Your address to United Services Institution of Vancouver Island was entirely military in character. Institution absolutely non-political and deals with service matters only. Your talk given at my invitation only after my assurance that meeting not open to press or non-members. Consensus of opinion is that you spoke as one officer to a group of brother officers and in confidence. President assured you that no publicity woidd be given meeting. Deeply resent any effort to misconstrue your kindness in addressing us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would read the telegrams to which these are the replies.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not them here in my papers, but I should be very glad to do so. The telegram asked this officer-

Dejence Expenditures and By-Election


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the language of it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to table the telegram. I think that is a complete repudiation of the suggestion that any political influence was brought to bear at that meeting.
May I say that at the first meeting, on November 18, I covered the record of this government; I covered the fourteen-point platform upon which this government appealed to the people in 1935. I took in the question of defence, but may I tell my hon. friend that the Conservative party was not even mentioned in that address. I may tell him further that at the meeting on November 26 I publicly corrected, from the platform in Victoria, the misquotation which appeared in the Victoria Daily Colonist dealing with the attitude of his party.


Grote Stirling: May I say that I was entirely unaware of that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quite sure of that. There was a misreport made by the Colonist which was not brought to the attention of my hon. friend; and I commended the Conservative party on both the first and second occasions on the support they gave the national defence estimates a year ago. I know where my hon. friend was misled; I have an idea who misinformed him both with reference to that meeting and the address delivered to the military institute. His allegations this afternoon are founded on misinformation that came from those in the city of Victoria who have been advising him; I could produce abundant evidence of that. I did criticize my hon. friends of the Canadian Commonwealth Federation party. I quoted what they said in this house last year, when they moved a vote of want of confidence on the estimates for national defence. Was it not fair for the Minister of National Defence, coming from the province of British Columbia, fighting a by-election in his own province, to explain to the people of Victoria what we were endeavouring to do last year when my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party moved a resolution of no confidence, which would have defeated this government, on the very issue I introduced into that by-election?
I make no apology for introducing the issue of national defence, and the people of Victoria to-day do not regret that defence was discussed. Then why all these post mortems and aftermaths, when the people of Victoria have decided this issue for all time? All the falsities and misstatements which have been brought to my hon. friends
opposite will not alter the decision and determination of the people of Victoria to see to it that the defences around that city are prosecuted with vigour, vision and firmness. We have had two addresses, one dealing with the by-election in Victoria and the other dealing with the Canadian coronation contingent. We have had one man insulting the uniforms of the Canadian army, with the other man relying on the tittle-tattle which has come to him possibly from citizens of Victoria in regard to declarations made by the Minister of National Defence. I have nothing to apologize for, nothing to retract and nothing to explain. At those meetings I commended the support of my hon. friends opposite and condemned the attitude of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and in regard to this question of defence I would pursue the same policy to-morrow. The Australian election not long ago was fought entirely on this issue of defence, and recent byelections in England and Scotland have been fought on the same issue. Sane defence should be one of the major policies of this country. Why should it be concealed from the people? Why this sinister assumption of secrecy at the present time in regard to general features of policy? Why? Because they lost a seat that had been theirs for thirty-one years; because the people of Victoria believed in the principles of this Liberal government. My hon. friends should take their defeat with patience and dignity. At this time they should not introduce a motion of no confidence in this government, in connection with a question already decided by the might and majesty of the public opinion of the good people of Victoria, British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had not intended to speak at any great length during this debate, but I think it must be abundantly clear to all that anyone who is a taxpayer in this country has some feeling of just resentment that his taxes thus paid can be utilized only to give employment to those who support the government. That is practically the proposition that was put forward in Victoria. I was rather surprised at the minister. He knew perfectly well that the red card to which he referred was the military card, but no one could get a red card who did not have the card of the Liberal association.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was correct at the
time. What is more, the witnesses can be produced; all you have to do is issue a royal commission and you can get them.
2212	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No;
they got them straight from the military organizations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They got them only
where they had to enter certain particular localities for the purpose of doing their work. The defences of Victoria were being proceeded with at the very time the by-election was being held, and those who were given employment were those who secured these tickets from the Liberal organization.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they got the red
tickets that enabled them to have access to the areas in question. I cannot help who gave the contrary information to the minister; that was the fact, because men came and showed me

Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	But I
have the direct information here from	a list
of ten ex-service men's organizations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may well be, but
the minister had ex-service men's organizations being given employment during Christmas in Vancouver, but all the men were passed by his representative.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	They
did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, practically.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	They
did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to accept
the hon. gentleman's word, but his representative was there and saw them, or the greater part of them; that was apparent also. I mention that because it is no good to say this is not being done. I am a moderate taxpayer in this country, and I do find it a little difficult to accommodate myself to the thought that my taxes go to supply work only for Liberals. That I find a little difficult to understand.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely incorrect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say the practice is limited to Victoria, because it is not; it extends to the other parts of the country as well, but this resolution puts it forward with respect to national defence and does not deal with other matters at all. It is a difficult thing to say that a man who pays large taxes can only thus provide employment for those who may be opposed to his political beliefs. It does not seem very just or right, with respect to matters of national defence at any rate.
[Mr. Bennett.1


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It does
not happen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it has happened. I am going to give the minister some information that will possibly enable him to go down to his department and find things which he has not heretofore found; or, shall I say, to discover some things which he does not want to discover. That is the better way to put it, to discover things that he does not want to discover. The real truth about it is this: There was a byelection in Victoria. The minister made the opening speech with the candidate. The former Minister of National Defence had not then arrived. Certainly I was not then in Victoria, but I read his speech, which has been quoted by the former minister and placed upon Hansard. In that speech the minister made a direct appeal to the citizenry of Victoria to support the government of the day because of what it had done for defence. At the same time he pointed out that the government's predecessors in office had not done what they should with respect to defence. The former minister has pointed out that the conditions to which we had committed ourselves had to deal with disarmament. Everyone knew what took place in that connection. We sent to Geneva a delegation headed by the late Sir George Perley.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I mentioned that also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, later.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, in that address.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not so reported.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do
not mind that; I have the complete text of what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it was like the address delivered in Toronto, the one where the copies were not quite the same as the address delivered. I am quite familiar with that kind of address.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You
should be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can say that with a good deal of satisfaction, for I never have a manuscript. You see, that is the difference. The manuscript handed out to the press and the speech delivered do not synchronize.
But certainly the truth is that this appeal was made. The minister to-day says what he had in mind was the attitude of the

Defence Expenditures and By-Election
Cooperative Commonwealth Federation supporters in this house, and a motion which they moved. I cannot say whether that was wholly in his mind or not, because I could not perform a surgical operation on his mind at that particular time. But certainly his language must have been used to disguise thought, and not to express it-I will put it as mildly as that; for certainly the speech he made indicated to me that his criticism was directed to the former administration, and to the fact that that administration did reduce expenditures.
They did it, it is true-under protest from their officials, because they felt that we should have spent more money for the purposes of defence. We had to point out that money was not available, so long as people were suffering from the effects of drought in western Canada and the lack of food and shelter in other parts of the country. But the primary reason was that we were committed to a policy of disarmament, through the League of Nations-a policy which we carried out, and which we were pressed in this house to carry out, a policy which was constantly being brought to our attention, and which we were being urged to make effective.
I can recall in this very chamber one of the members then sitting to the left of Mr. Speaker, rising in his place in the house and asking how much it cost per annum, per month and per day to keep the destroyers we had in operation, in commission, and how far these expenditures would have gone towards supplying food and shelter to people in Canada. And I remember the position taken by the now Prime Minister when he pointed out that these expenditures were expenditures which should not be properly made. I shall not repeat what has been said by the former minister as to what was said in the opening speech of the then Prime Minister at Kingston with reference to expenditures, looking at that building now occupied by the Department of Justice and other departments of the public service

that here was something erected by a dictator for the purpose of using cannon in the expression of his views. And the barracks being erected at Calgary, when there had been for years under consideration the erection in western Canada of some such unit. That unit was erected, and it was erected at Calgary. It contained provision for the air force as well as for other branches of the defence service, all these records of the past one recalls. But when the minister said, as he did in Victoria, that a week after he came into office he got a certain report, he knew, or must have known and did not 51952-141
say, that that was a report which was prepared for his predecessor in office.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not a report prepared for him. It was a report which existed, and had existed, and that he did not tell the people of Victoria. But he left the impression in their minds, in the minds of everybody, that everything had fallen into disuse through the action of the former administration; whereas the information given to him had been prepared for the former administration. With respect to the militia of this country the infantry association, a voluntary organization, had met in this city and made some recommendations. Some of them had been accepted and given effect to by the Department of National Defence. Then certain alterations and changes had been made. They came back, and it was not until 1935 that the final proposals and recommendations were made which have been accepted by the minister. To-day he has given effect to the very plans which were prepared for his predecessor-not for him at all. For not within one week, one month or several months could that information have been prepared. But he left the impression in the minds of the electors of Victoria, as he did this afternoon- no, not this afternoon-but as he did in days gone by, that this information was information which he had sought, and had set up machinery to deal with the matter. His was a committee which succeeded the committee presided over by the late Sir George Perley. It is something that had been done.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I said so in this house last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no. There is the article from Victoria, and it is not so reported.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not responsible for that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then, one step farther: All these subjects with respect to the militia and defence of this country should, if possible, be kept out of politics. They were dragged into politics in Victoria. The minister says it is unfortunate, and that what he had in mind was an attack against the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, that is not so. I was replying to a vote of lack of belief in the program we had undertaken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have quite fairly stated that the minister indicated that he feared the misapprehension had arisen by reason of the former minister attributing the attack which

2214	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
was made by the minister against that vote of want of confidence to the official opposition, rather than to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. That is a fair way to put it.
I only desire to point out that all of us have endeavoured to the best of our ability to support any proposal made by any government at any time for the defence of this country. It was not easy to remain silent last year, in view of the statements made by the Prime Minister at the opening of his campaign in Kingston, only a few short months before. It was not easy to do that. But we exercised that degree of self-restraint. Not one word of carping criticism was heard from anyone on this side of the house with respect to those expenditures. Why? Because we believed that on a question of defence we should not place personal and party considerations over a common purpose.
The minister says-and I am bound to accept his statement-that the administration of these moneys has not been made the subject of party or political considerations. I can only say to him-and I shall discuss it with him personally-that I have the names of many people who came to me in Victoria and told me the condition under which they would have to get employment would be to pay a dollar to join the Liberal association, and get the ticket which would enable them to work.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says that is not correct. All I can say is that the Liberal party paid for a broadcast by the Reverend Clement Davis. He is from Vancouver, but he appealed to the young men and women of Victoria to support the government, because they would get more out of the government, by way of public expenditures, if they did so. The Liberal party employed him-he so said. And the broadcasting corporation controlled by the Minister of Transport indicates that he was employed or engaged by the Liberal party. There was a man paid to make an appeal for a purpose, a man who makes his headquarters in Vancouver. He was speaking to the young people of Victoria, and exercised considerable influence over them. That was the appeal. He spoke upon matters of defence, and indicated that the necessity for defence was very great.
I do believe that so far as possible we should avoid the use of very strong terms in connection with matters of this kind. We should try to be as kindly as we can under the pro-

vocation which has been created. Certainly I do hope the Prime Minister will take the view that public money, expended for defence purposes, should not be utilized as purely partisan funds, and that those who pay the taxes after all should not be compelled to see that their taxes only go to provide employment for those who are the supporters of the government.
I can readily understand the many difficulties the government may have. I have been through them. I know that when the barracks were to be built at Calgary the same effort was made. I know that the names of prospective employees were placed in a hat, and the mayor drew out the names, regardless of political considerations, in order that employment might be given without discrimination, on the ground that it was public money. A large sum of public money was to be spent. The question as to political benefit could have arisen. There the difficulty was avoided when at the city hall the names were put into a hat and taken out by a disinterested party. That was the fair way to do it, it seems to me.
I do know this that I saw something of the work that was going on in Esqui-malt. I came in contact with many people, and they made the same complaint, that they could not find employment unless they had the approval of the Liberal party. I do not know that the Liberal government took the view that that was unsound.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will show my right hon. friend letters to the opposite effect-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says he will show me letters to the opposite effect, but this has nothing to do with those who might be considered strong supporters of the Liberal party. It has to do with those who w'ere considered nondescript, may I say, with respect to the party. They had to go through this form of procedure in order to get employment.
There is no doubt that the contingent that went from these shores in 1937 was a political contingent. There were five privates of the line! I was in London for a little while and this is what they said: "Here come the Canadian colonels." I wonder if the minister has examined into the number of colonels there were in that contingent? I wonder if he realizes that when the guard was to be changed at Buckingham palace there were not enough privates to do it? There were only five and they had to use sergeants and corporals and others to do the work. The photographs are nearly all destroyed now.

Defence Expenditures and By-Elcction


Mr. PINARD:: What is the objection to colonels?


Richard Bedford Bennett: None whatever, except that they make bad privates. Sometimes privates make good colonels, but colonels do not make good privates. At one time politics found their way into the Canadian militia with very disastrous effects. There is a view abroad that politics are again present in the Canadian militia. The minister says that the selection was made in a certain way, but I know how it was made. Will he say that there was not one man who had not a uniform in connection with which a specific order went out that he was to be included in the contingent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know there were four of them taken on in London, but I do not know whether they had uniforms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking about the ones who had left these shores before this specific order was issued.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not know of any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go down and ask the deputy minister, that is all. If the minister will be good enough not to evade the responsibility which I think attaches to this matter-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am accepting responsibility for everything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I recommend strongly that he becomes familiar with what that responsibility is. If the minister will do that, he and I will be at peace with one another. All he has to do is to go and ascertain the facts. All he has to do is to bring in the files and see the directions that were sent out as to that man there and this man here being a member of the contingent for purely political reasons because he had been a handy man. Do not let us have any misunderstanding. Will the minister do that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you. If the minister will do that we will be content. I have nothing more to say because I am satisfied that he will see that I have made an accurate statement. It may well be that he has no knowledge of what I am saying, but it was done. The result was that Canada lost a great opportunity as compared with Australia. I wonder if one realizes the steps that were taken in Australia to deal with the matter? I wonder if one realizes how the men were selected and the training they underwent? When they swung up the street everyone realized the type of men they were.
5X932-141J


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were no better than ours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were privates of the line.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They were allowed a three months' training period.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am coming to. They were allowed a three months' training period and they were a magnificent type of men. By reason of that training, the public of London needed only one look at those men to see the type of men they were.


Joseph Albert Pinard: We are not looking for any favours from London.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has an antipathy to London which he manifests on every occasion. I wonder what London has done to him outside of giving him the liberty and freedom of the city? I wonder what London ever did for him except give him the right to sit here?


Joseph Albert Pinard: The people give me that right, not London.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's antipathy to that great city always manifests itself. Apparently he dislikes the people who live there. If they knew him as well as I, they might have the same view with respect to himself.


Joseph Albert Pinard: On a question of privilege -I should like the right hon. gentleman to sit down-I have nothing against the people of London and I do not want the right hon. gentleman to state that I am opposed to them. I was there and I believe they are the best people in the world. My right hon. friend can go there, but he will be lucky if he is accepted.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: On a question of privilege, I should like it to be made clear that we are speaking of London, England, not London, Ontario.


Joseph Albert Pinard: I would not refer to London, Ontario, when I know that my hon. friend represents that city.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we can dispense with further discussion of this kind. The Prime Minister should make a statement to this country at this time that in connection with the expenditure of moneys voted for the public defence of Canada there shall be no political and partisan administration. That is all we can reasonably ask for in order that we may be able to secure a measure of unanimity under the very difficult conditions
2216	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
that now prevail in the world. We have not changed our policy of disarmament to one of rearmament merely because we are an isolated community; we did it because all the world has made that change. Those who are familiar with the history of the early days of our confederation will remember that at that time the nations of the world were arming. Germany in particular was arming, for the war of 1870 was not far off and France and the other countries of Europe were doing likewise. With a coast line both east and west and with trade to protect we are endeavouring by some united action to attain a given end.
I do hope the Prime Minister will find it possible to make a statement that will not induce the people to conclude that when their taxes are paid they can be made available only to providing work for those who support the government of the day. I do hope that that difficulty, which is a very real one in many communities, will disappear and that moneys voted by parliament for the defence of Canada will not be utilized for purely political partisan purposes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the right
hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just expressed the hope that I would make a statement to the effect that moneys appropriated by parliament for the defence of Canada shall not be used, directly or indirectly, for political partisan purposes. I am prepared to go much further than my right hon. friend desires. My right hon. friend's hope had reference to moneys voted for the defence of Canada. I would say that the government would deplore moneys appropriated by parliament being used, directly or indirectly, for political partisan purposes, no matter for what service they have been appropriated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Splendid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume my right hon. friend will say that in those circumstances we should be prepared to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). I would be prepared to support the amendment if it were not an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply and therefore in the nature of a want of confidence motion in the administration. I know that the view is held by the authorities that there may be occasions on which the government need not accept as a want of confidence motion, a motion moved as an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was done by my
right hon. friend's own government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, on one
occasion, but it gave rise to so much misunderstanding thereafter that I have thought it would be desirable at the moment to make perfectly clear just when that course might be followed without the possibility of its purpose being misconstrued; in other words when it would be appropriate.
Bourinot in his Parliamentary Procedure has the following at page 424:
An amendment moved to the motion to go into committee of supply (or ways and means) does not necessarily involve want of confidence in the administration. When such an amendment simply affirms a general principle, or sets forth a public grievance, and does not directly or impliedly challenge the conduct or policy of the government, it is not, in a parliamentary sense, a motion of want of confidence, and consequently cases often occur of the government agreeing to the passage of such motions.
I would say that we can only judge as to whether this amendment does impliedly attack the government by the speech made by the hon. member who moved it. I think hon. members will agree that the hon. gentleman's speech was in the nature of a direct attack upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), an attack upon his attitude in discussing defence estimates at a by-election in Victoria; and if the government were to accept this amendment to the motion to go into supply, having regard to the speech which the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) has just made, it would be regarded as an expression of want of confidence in the government and in the minister in particular. In those circumstances I do not think the government can accept the amendment of my hon. friend moved as it is an amendment to the motion for the house to go into committee of supply. On the other hand, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that apart from the implication referred to, the government is wholly in accord with the substance of the amendment and the principle as set forth in the amendment, namely, that moneys appropriated by parliament for any purpose whatsoever should not directly or indirectly be made to serve political partisan ends.
My right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) says that the taxpayers will resent very strongly the idea that public moneys should be used for the purpose of serving political partisan ends. Well, he has good reason to know that that is true because in the last campaign, as I recall it, he did not confine his urging of public expenditures to one particular coast but started at one coast and went clear across the country from coast to coast advocating all along the way the expenditures of public moneys for purposes that would serve political

Defence Expenditures and By-Election
partisan ends. And he got his answer direct from the electorate. They made it very plain that they strongly resented the leader of a political party seeking -to win power by promising large expenditures of public moneys in the several constituencies in which he was seeking to elect his candidates.
What has been the position in Victoria? Holding the view that the electorate does resent the use of public moneys for political partisan ends, the electors of Victoria quite evidently did not regard the Minister of National Defence in what he was saying as seeking in any way to bribe the electorate. They understood perfectly well that he was defending one of the policies of the government, a policy which, in view of the attitude taken by the supporters of one of the candidates in that election, required to be defended at the instance of the minister. It must not be forgotten that in the by-election at Victoria there were three candidates. There was not Only the Liberal candidate, but there was the candidate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the candidate of the Conservative party, and it appeared from the results, as we assumed at the time, that the candidate of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was a much stronger candidate than that of the Conservative party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not get more votes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh yes, he did. My right hon. friend does not like to admit it, but he did. .


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes; that is right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And that lends point to what I am saying at the moment. The government realized in fighting the byelection at Victoria that it had to make perfectly clear what its position was in regard to expenditures on defence. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members in this house had moved a want of confidence motion against the administration on the score of its defence expenditures. This apart from all else made it necessary for the minister to make the explanation in detail which he did.
May I say that I agree very largely with what the hon. member for Yale has said, and also with what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, when they urged that matters of defence and, I would add, matters that relate to foreign policy should not become unnecessarily controversial if that can be avoided, or be made too much an occasion for discussion in political campaigns. I wish we could make it a general rule that that view
would be observed. Unfortunately it is only too true that there has scarcely been a byelection or a general election in some of the provinces of this dominion in which the question of defence has not been made a very live issue in the campaign, and the government has had to put forward in the clearest terms its policy and the reasons underlying it.
The hon. member (Mr. Stirling) has spoken about the difference between disarmament and rearmament. I agree with him that there was a period of disarmament which unquestionably had its influence upon the policies of the government. He says that it influenced the conduct of his government, and I am prepared to accept that statement; but I am not prepared to accept the view that the government of which he was a member was influenced by both policies. He cannot have it both ways, and say that they were actuated by a policy of disarmament, and then also say that they were actuated by a policy of rearmament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, when disarmament was abandoned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The leader of the opposition comes to the rescue and says when the policy of disarmament was abandoned, and I suppose in so doing he has in mind the building to which he has referred, the large public service building which he had intended should be used for the purposes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The large departmental building which is now occupied by the justice department as well as by some of the officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was to have been the headquarters of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is true I took exception to that building being used for any such purpose, and when we came into office the house will have recognized that the government, instead of having that large departmental building used in part as a barracks, because police were to be housed there as well as the building being used for offices for officials of the department-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were not to be
housed there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; the plans so indicate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a few of them, for the purpose of safeguarding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They had their drill rooms; the whole place was planned within as a Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters, and it was emphasizing the strength of the police. Now may I point this out
2218	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
to my hon. friend? He is quite right when he says that when I was talking about his policy in that connection I described it as one of the symptoms of dictatorship, and I d.id so for this reason: The police have to do with the maintenance of law and order within the confines of the country. They are not part of the defence forces of the nation, as we understand 'the militia and the air and navaJ services to be. They are part of the police maintaining law and order within the confines of the country itself, and I had the feeling-I may have been wrong but I still think I was right-that if my right hon. friend were to get into power we would see the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in this country magnified out of all proportion to the service which it could be expected to render within Canada itself.
As to what he might have done as regards the defence forces generally, that is not for me to say, but I do not think he had primarily in mind the matter of defence when he used a large proportion of the moneys appropriated for unemployment relief to construct barracks at different places, and particularly the large and elaborate barracks which was put up in the city of Calgary. However, that belongs to the past, and I have no desire to revive that question at the present time.
I wish to say in conclusion-


Grote Stirling: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Grote Stirling: I do not understand the right hon. gentleman's allusion to my having advocated a policy both of disarmament and rearmament. I was most clear, I think, in pointing out that all the estimates prepared prior to those of 1936, and consequently those of our administration, were prepared in an atmosphere of disarmament, and all the subsequent ones in an atmosphere of rearmament. How then does he prove that I argued both ways?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He does not. I am drawing attention to this fact: I have said that my hon. friend said that the policy of the government while he was a member of it was actuated by disarmament, and I contend that if that was the case, he cannot say that this building which is now being used for the justice department was put up for the purposes of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in consequence of some rearming policy that had subsequently succeeded that of disarmament. Nor can he say that the barracks in Calgary, or the other expenditures for military purposes made by his government

were for rearmament purposes because he has just said that it was 1936 before the policies based on an atmosphere of rearmament came in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no. It was before that, when Germany withdrew, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain made it apparent that disarmament had failed, and Sir George Perley and the Hon. Mr. Maurice Dupre returned. That was in 1935, or at the end of 1934, and the appropriation was made for the barracks at Calgary on the rearmament basis.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not go further into the controversy, but I would direct the attention of my right hon. friend to this fact that neither he nor his Minister of National Defence said anything in the general campaign to indicate that these expenditures were for rearmament purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did, with reference to Calgary, because it had been planned for many years that there should be one in the west.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, we will leave the matter at that point. However, unless my hon. friend who has moved the motion feels that his purpose has been served by the discussion which has taken place, and is prepared to withdraw the motion, I would ask the members on this side and others who are prepared to support the government to vote the amendment down because of it being in the nature of a want of confidence motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of privilege, I felt I was right, but the Prime Minister spoke with such certainty that I sent for the record. Mr. Mayhew had 9,493 votes; Mr. McKelvie had 7,654 and Mr. Gordon had 6,550. He was the third candidate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Second in the previous by-election.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the previous election Mr. Gordon was second, but the Conservative was first. The Prime Minister said that I was mistaken as to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept the correction at once, but my right hon. friend's memory was as treacherous as mine, because when I said the last election he agreed with me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was a question, because I felt so certain.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I was at Victoria during the by-election and consequently I know of the type of campaign
APRIL 25, 193S	2219
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
which was conducted there by the supporters of the government. The minister has denied that he was in any way implicated in the promises and insinuations made and I accept his statement, but I would nevertheless point out that the canvassers on the government side invariably endeavoured to persuade the electors that it would be very much better to have a Liberal member returned to this parliament because he could speak for Victoria when these large expenditures were about to be made. That, it seems to me, is on all fours with the type of campaigning which was carried on in Montreal where responsible ministers of the crown made the statement that the hole on Dorchester street would be filled by a railway, which though owned by the government is managed by an independent board. That kind of campaigning reflects not only upon the government, but upon the entire institution of parliament.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to the fact that it was necessary to defend the government's position owing to the attacks that were made last year upon the estimates by the group with which I am associated. Last year our attack was centred largely around the point of view that the government, which could not find money for public works to alleviate unemployment, could find money for large military expenditures; and at Victoria, last autumn, our attack upon the defence proposals was centred very largely around the point that the Dominion of Canada was at that time permitting the export in vast quantities of scrap iron, nickel, copper, and other basic war materials to the nation which was clearly indicated by the government speakers as being the potential enemy of Canada in the future, or the country from which we might some time expect an attack. The nation was never named; but it was clear to anyone who heard, for example, the Reverend Clem. Davis, to whom reference has been made, speaking over the air, that that was the inference the electors should take from the statements of Liberal speakers. And it was very largely, as the records will show, on the grounds I have indicated that we attacked the defence proposals which were being advocated by the minister and the Liberal party.
In that by-election, as in previous general elections and by-elections, certain specific promises were made on behalf of the government. In Victoria the people were told to vote for the Liberal candidate, not only for the defence of the Pacific coast, but for the institution of unemployment insurance. " Vote for Mayhew and unemployment insurance"
was the slogan of speakers throughout the city during the by-election. To-day we seem to be a long way from the enactment of an unemployment insurance measure.
While I am speaking of the Victoria by-election, may I refer to some others also? I have referred to the one in Montreal. Out in East Edmonton the same kind of campaigning was carried on. National control of currency and credit, old age pensions at fifty-eight, I think it was, or was it sixty?


An hon. MEMBER:: Fifty-eight.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, at fifty-eight, and so on. These promises were made at election time, and a similar type of campaign carried on in connection with defence expenditures, not perhaps by the minister, or by prominent and responsible Liberals, if they deny it, but at any rate by the canvassers who went from door to door endeavouring to persuade those who were not in possession of the facts to vote for the Liberal party.
I am therefore going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), because I believe a good purpose is being served in bringing this matter to the attention of parliament and the people of Canada. It seems to me that we should endeavour to conduct our election campaigns on a rather higher plane than they have been conducted during recent months. I was at Victoria. The group with which I am connected lost there, but we are nevertheless proud of the type of campaign which our candidate, Professor King Gordon, conducted in the by-election.


Mr. G. G. McGEER (Vancouver-Burrard):: The amendment before the house involves, first, the question whether or not the defence works being carried on in and around the city of Victoria at the time of the recent byelections were used for the purpose of securing Liberal preferment in that election. The charge is clear-cut and well defined, namely, that the man who got employment in that work had first to secure a Liberal ticket. It has now been changed a little bit from the charge that was made in the by-election itself. It is now said that you had to get a membership ticket from the Liberal party before you could get the red ticket which permitted entry into the various areas where defence works were being developed.
The investigation which was carried on during the by-election disclosed that every man working in Victoria and vicinity had to obtain that red ticket before the contractor was permitted to employ him. It was not
2220	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
a membership ticket in the Liberal association, but a military pass issued by the assistant adjutant-general and quartermaster-general of military district No. 11 at Work Point. This matter was clearly laid before the electorate during that by-election, as everyone knows who participated in it. And the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) fully explained to the electors in Victoria that work of the nature of that carried on at Albert Head was necessarily surrounded with a certain measure of secrecy. It was therefore decided that as far as possible only men who had taken the oath of allegiance to serve his majesty in the armed forces of the country should be permitted on the premises. Employment was actually restricted to exservice men and members of the non-permanent militia. Word to this effect was circulated among the militia units and the exservice men's clubs.
A surprising thing about this charge is found in the proportion of the number of men employed to the number of electors in Victoria. I want to congratulate my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on the fact that notwithstanding the pitiful rout which that party suffered during the general election they returned to the fight in Victoria, and increased the vote of their candidate by something like 390. I venture to think that was due to the splendid platform ability of the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Coldwell). I also want to congratulate the Conservative party, because with a very bad candidate and after a very hard trip all the way from Halifax the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) took up what was recognized as almost a forlorn hope and succeeded in increasing the vote of the Conservative candidate over the vote secured by the very much beloved and lamented late Doctor Tolmie in Victoria by some 1,700 votes. With such success coming to both Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Conservative party it would seem that the Liberals were in a desperate plight and might in their weakness feel it necessary to resort to some such tactics as have been charged. But for some reason or another the Liberal party, after taking third place in the previous election, was successful in changing that to first place with an increase of, not 390 votes or 1,700, but three thousand and some odd hundreds. What part could the red ticket or the Liberal association membership ticket have played in that, the total number of men employed on the defence works at that time being 291? And with the exception of fifteen key men every one of 
those was a returned man or a member of the militia and recommended by branches of the Canadian Legion, the Army and Navy Veterans, the Imperial Veterans, or the officers commanding the Canadian Scottish, the fifth C.G.A., the Army Service Corps, the Seventeenth Fortress Company and the Royal Canadian Naval Veterans Reserve.
The best test of the virtue of the charge made here to-day is found in the vote of the electors, because they voted upon these very facts; for all the issues raised in the charges made in supporting this resolution were raised in the Victoria by-election. If there is one group of men who more than any other, would resent the type of thing charged here it would be the returned men in the city of Victoria. But on November 11 the Imperial Veterans' Association, Victoria and district branch, wrote to the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, M.P., Minister of National Defence, Ottawa, as follows:
Dear Sir:
At an executive meeting of above association the following resolution was passed, and I am hereby authorized to send a copy on to you.
"Whereas the Department of National Defence in respect to the Albert Head project have laid down definite policy of allocation of employment re ex-service men, we the executive of the Imperial Veterans' Association of Victoria and district desire to go on record that we endorse the same and consider it of unquestioned fairness."
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
T. Miller,
Secretary.
That was before the election. After the election the minister received from the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League district council, Victoria, B.C., the following:
Dear Mr. Mackenzie:
At a meeting of the Victoria and district council, Canadian legion, British Empire Service League, held a few nights ago, I was instructed to convey to you the council's heartiest congratulations and best thanks on the arrangements made between your department, the Northern Construction Company and the Employment Service of Canada in so far as the employment of ex-service men on the Albert Head project is concerned.
Warm appreciation was voiced by the delegates present, and the hope expressed that the same arrangements will be as amicably arranged in any future contracts that may be entered into between your department and other companies.
From the first battalion, Canadian Scottish regiment, Victoria, came this letter, addressed to the Minister of National Defence:
I wish to take this opportunity, on behalf of my battalion and myself, of expressing

Defence Expenditures and By-Election
appreciation of the manner in which employment of labour has been carried out in the defence works at Albert Head. The giving preference to employment of returned soldiers and serving members of the non-permanent active militia is eminently fair, and will do much towards the building up of the necessary defence forces.
May I express the hope that this policy will be continued in the further works that are now under consideration.
Respectfully yours,
J. R. Kingham, Lt.-Col.,
Officer commanding.
In the face of these letters one can hardly wonder at the splendid success that the Liberal party achieved with a candidate of the type of Mr. Mayhew.
The leader of the opposition charges that the defence issue should never have been raised in the by-election. But he raised it very definitely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I must
direct your attention to the fact that he did not raise it; it was raised when I was not on the island, by the minister in his opening speech to which reference was made. Let there be no misunderstanding about that.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, it may be more correct to say that the leader of the opposition took advantage of remarks made by the Minister of National Defence to raise that issue in his own particular way. I do not think he is prepared to deny that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am prepared at once to deny that I raised the issue. I met the statement raised by the minister.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Let me call as a witness the Conservative press of the city of Victoria. This is from the Victoria Colonist of November 26:
Mr. Bennett stated the people of Victoria should ask the government representative to state publicly what contracts were out for defence works and who had them; what airplanes have been bought and from whom, and what guns are being placed in Esquimalt and how old they were. "They are bringing old worn-out guns from Halifax to plant in Victoria."
That was the manner in which the leader of the opposition raised the issue of defence. And let me inform the house that he was, as I think they say in Quebec, hoist with his own petard, because the Minister of National Defence in a reply pointed out that the only worn-out, obsolete gun that had arrived in Victoria from Halifax was the leader of the opposition himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is on the high
plane of which my hon. friend spoke this afternoon.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: One can hardly blame the Minister of National Defence for taking advantage of an opportunity that was so obvious. Of course the right hon. leader of the opposition came to Victoria to win that by-election, and in his own mind he had no doubt but that in doing so he was going to launch a new national program in Canada based upon the worn-out cry of 1911 "No truck or trade with the Yankees."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I shall have to
give that an unquestioned denial, though it does not make very much difference in offering a denial to the hon. gentleman.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, it never does make
much difference if a denial does not change the fact.
I want to come now to the other issue that was raised by the leader of the opposition in his own particular way, and I ask hon. members to remember that according to the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) this amendment is based upon the assumption that men seeking votes from the electors for themselves or their party candidates should stand upon the highest ethical grounds of truth in stating facts to the public. As we saw that issue in Victoria, a world situation developed in which there was a possibility not merely of increased friendship between the British and United States governments but also of increased friendship and understanding between the people of Great Britain and the nations of the British Empire and the people of the great republic to our south. Some discussions had taken place between Great Britain and the United States indicating a desire on the part of both governments to formulate and consummate a new trade agreement between those two great countries. As soon as that information was made public, it was assumed by the leader of the opposition and his party that no such agreement could be formulated or consummated without sacrificing the empire trade agreements or some portion of them, and that no possible compensation could be secured by Canada that would permit her to authorize any variation or change in those agreements. The right hon. gentleman had a direct appeal to make to the fears of the lumbering interests, the fruit interests and the fishing interests of that great province on the Pacific coast. He not only charged this government with bringing obsolete guns from Halifax to defend the Pacific coast; he deliberately charged this government with a ready willingness to sacrifice not only the interests of the empire but the interests of the Do-
2222	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
minion of Canada in a futile attempt to appease the people of the United States. Listen to how far he went. He said:
I would ask you people of this city to have the government of Canada say, before Saturday night-
That was the night of the election.
-whether or not the preferences on lumber are to go. That is the issue in this by-election. I know your government has agreed-
Now, notice the way in which the reporter of his own press carried that message to the people who did not hear it on the radio or who were not at the meeting. He said:
"I know your government has agreed," and there Mr. Bennett halted, leaving the inference the government has already committed itself to certain things concerning the lumber exports of Canada.
" I know your government has agreed,'' and then an inferential pause; but the reporter of the Conservative press did not take any chances on any unintelligent individual interpreting the meaning of that pause. He supplied what he at least thought the right hon. gentleman intended to convey.
Continuing, he declared: "Let this country know that this matter has been settled in a corner; that it has been discussed in cabinet. Never in my life have I been so concerned over public matters as this and it needs no prophet to see where it is all going to meet. It is an hypocrisy to say that this thing is being done in the sacred name of peace."
Well, Mr. Speaker, on the same day that this extraordinary statement was reported in the press of Vancouver and Victoria messages came through from Australia in quite a different tone. The Vancouver Province carried the following report from Sydney:
Grim warning of Australia's dangers in the event of war, and a strong plea for British empire understanding with the United States were made by Prime Minister Lyons in a recent speech on the Pacific situation.
Mr. Lyons stressed the dangers to Australian trade routes to-day and envisaged the possibilities of a blockade of Australia.
"We must foster the friendship and cooperation of other nations desirous of following the path of peace," said Mr. Lyons, "and in this regard the Australian government will cooperate in seeking a cordial political and economic understanding betwen the British Empire and the United States.
"We believe that the British Empire working in close cooperation with the United States can be an irresistible force of reason and conciliation.
"In the face of realities which every day grow more ghastly this great nation has been obliged to jettison a noble experiment and throw in the lot of her people with others who seek not for aggression but for peace.
[Mr. McGeer.l
"Any policy designed to guarantee the security of Australia must be one of cooperation in trade and defence with other members of the British Empire, and a political and economic understanding with the United States."
That was the very program, both in the matter of defence and in the matter of trade agreements which were to be considered between Great Britain and the United States, as we placed them in the issues of the byelection, to be voted upon by the electors in one of the most conservative and British cities in the whole of Canada. It was not a red ticket, a Liberal ticket, the misuse of public funds, the abuse of privilege by the Minister of National Defence, or a wrong act by any of the supporters of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew) and the government which won so magnificent a majority. It was a clear presentation of the real issues involved. What I, and other persons engaged in the election, asked the electors to decide in casting their ballots was, first: Are you in favour of the defence program and its extension by the government, so far as the Pacific coast is concerned and, second, are you in favour of the government of Canada cooperating with Great Britain and other nations of the British Empire in helping to bring about a reasonable understanding between the people of the British Empire and those of the United States? Upon those issues they voted.
Some little word has been said that it was unfair to criticize the policy of the late government in matters of defence, because they were acting in league with a world program designed to create disarmament. No league of nations conference ever considered there was any necessity for disarmament in Canada, became Canada had never armed. The remarks of the right hon. the leader of the opposition quoted recently in Liberty magazine make that more than clear. The editor states that two years ago Liberty had the privilege of publishing the editorial, which I shall quote, by "the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, former Prime Minister of Canada." So that he was writing this, not when he was in power, but when he sat in the cool, quiet shades of opposition, with all the time required for reflection. Here is his statement as to a national defence policy for the protection of the dominion;
We have subscribed lightly to international covenants because others were doing so. If we had so much as hesitated to sign on the dotted line we would have gravely charged ourselves with delaying the millenium. We know now that these international emotional cloudbursts have little meaning. We cannot act alone; but we can, in association with others having similar aspirations and ideals,

Defence Expenditures and By-Election
endeavour to give international contracts of the future some basis of reality. The problem of protection from external aggression is one that Canada has never seriously faced.
The issue we raised in that by-election was whether or not we should now face the issue as Canadian people, and whether or not we would secure from a national government a real program of Pacific defence which would recognize this dominion as a Pacific ocean nation. That was the issue involved in the by-election. I cannot see that that is anything but right and proper. Surely the people of Victoria and Vancouver, and of British Columbia generally, have the right to say whether, after full and open discussion, they approve the new policy inaugurated by this government of facing squarely within the means: of the country the development of a defence system on the Pacific coast which will give at least some measure of security from sporadic raiding, should conflict break out among the larger powers.
This charge is just as silly and absurd as was the plea made by the leader of the opposition. If this same charge, supported by the meagre facts upon which it rests, were submitted to the electors of Victoria tomorrow, the majority secured by the Liberal party in the by-election would be overwhelmingly increased. I doubt whether this would do any great good to the Minister of National Defence. It can hardly add to his popularity on the Pacific coast, because that popularity is just about at the highest point it can reach.


Mr. H. S. HAMILTON (Algoma West):: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to refrain from speaking for a few moments in answer to the observations of the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts). He has assumed the liberty of criticizing severely the manner in which the contingent representing Canada at the coronation was chosen. I believe he has used language which reflects unfairly not only upon the government but upon the stamp and type of many of the splendid men who composed that contingent. I know nothing about how that contingent was chosen, generally, but I do know something about the choice made in my constituency. I know that there the military people chose a man who had a splendid record overseas, one who was a smart and able soldier and who was not at that time or never has been an officer.
It has been my privilege to serve overseas in the ranks of the Canadian expeditionary force, and I believe I can speak with some authority with respect to an able and smart
non-commissioned officer. He was a representative officer and he honoured us by being in that contingent. He was well thought of and a highly esteemed and capable noncommissioned officer. I want to make this clear for his sake so that the people of my town will know that the choice of this man was made entirely by his comrades and officers in his own regiment. The selection was made utterly free of any influence of any kind. I had nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with that selection.
This man went over there as a representative of his regiment. He glories in the fact that he was so chosen and he considers it an honour. Those who are dear to him also consider it an honour that he was so chosen to represent the regiment of which he was a member. I think it is unfortunate that it should be intimated that this choice was political. I realize that the hon. member does not single out this or that regiment, and I do not profess to speak in connection with the general selection. The minister and those responsible are well able to answer for themselves. However, in honour of the type of man I have referred to, in honour of the officers and men of his regiment who selected him, I think I should say these words. If they disagree in any way they will let it be known. In justice to them, I think the words I have said should be said.
May I add just one more word before I sit down? I am learning things from day to day and from week to week by listening to the debates in this chamber and observing the methods resorted to in connection with what might be termed parliamentary tactics or strategy. If there was anything censorable done in Victoria-as far as I know there was not-if national defence has been used for political purposes, then I think it is fair to say that because of the form of the motion that has been made an attempt is being made to force me to take a stand which indicates that I am approving of our defence policies being injected into political warfare. As has been pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), with the present wording of the motion I must choose between censoring the government-this amendment is equivalent to a motion of want of confidence-and appearing to support something that I naturally do not wish to support. Practically all hon. members agree that we do not want our national defence policies to be degraded to the extent that politics are played in connection therewith.
2224	COMMONS
Defence Expenditures and By-Election
I wish merely to record my attitude on this matter. I think hon. members of the opposition generally and the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), who moved the amendment, would have been more fair to the public and would have put this issue more clearly before the house if they had stated that this motion was intended to censor the present government for playing politics in connection with the national defence policies of Canada. I do not believe that has been done. I believe they have subtly and cunningly injected this in the amendment they have put before us. Naturally I am voting against it because I believe the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and their colleagues have scrupulously tried to avoid mixing up our national defence policies with politics.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from my constituency. Since the ninth day of this month I have been interviewing people at almost ten minute intervals until a couple of days ago. At this point in the debate I should like to say I feel sure that no one in my constituency cared whether the contingent sent to the coronation was made up of the militia or the marines. I do not think anyone in that constituency cares whether there were four or forty privates in that contingent. I have had military experience myself, and I realize that most of the duties which would devolve upon the gentlemen who went to the coronation would be social. If the contingent was mainly made up of colonels, they would be better able to handle these duties. My belief is that the time of this house could be better employed than in setting up straw men and burning them down with fiery rhetoric. I had hoped that for the rest of the session wr would be through with fiddling and would perhaps devote more time to the fire protection of our Canadian Rome, which many of us think is burning.
When responsible members of this or other legislative bodies waste their time in this sort of thing, irreparable damage is done to the institutions of democracy. To-day's Hansard may cause a few chuckles in the odd militia mess, a few grins in party gatherings, but it will surely disgust the majority of ordinary people. I do not want to say anything more lest I condemn myself by my own remarks, but I do want to draw attention to what to my mind, and to the minds of the people of my constituency, has been a wasted afternoon.


Grote Stirling: The discussion has produced so clear a statement from the right hon.
[Mr. Hamilton.J
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to his attitude, and, I assume, the attitude of his colleagues, in this matter, that with the permission of the house, I am quite prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawm.
Motion (Mr. Dunning) agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $184,575.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I intimated at the time of adjournment that if we reached supply to-day, I should like to call an item in external affairs so that I might be in position, should it appear desirable, to take up some matters concerning this department at a later time in the week. I have not my papers with me at the moment, and possibly the committee would allow me to consider this department as being in committee for any future occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All that is necessary is to call an item.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
An act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal-administration. $600.
Mr. STEWART:: What is this item?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The $600 item is to pay for the administration of the act in connection with subsidies on Canadian coal reduced to coke and used for the production of steel. It is to pay the advance costs, which are later repaid by the coal company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems a small sum.


William Daum Euler: It is merely for the preliminary expenses. The actual subsidy is in the next item amounting to $200,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
International Labour Conference, $15,000.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): This is an item passed annually to provide for the expenses of the delegation attending the annual meetings of the International Labour Conference at Geneva.

Supply-Transport-Marine Service
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is 85,000 less than last
year.


Mr. ROGERS:: Yes. Last year we had to make provision for a special preparatory conference on textiles which was held at Washington, and 85,000 additional was voted for that purpose in the supplementary estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much of that 85,000 was expended in connection with the textile conference at Washington?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Washington conference is not listed separately. Perhaps it would be preferable to allow the item to stand, and I shall be glad to get the information for my non. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All right.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $112,655.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriilture):: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that
-his be treated exactly the same as the Prime Minister's item, and be allowed to stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This department was
not mentioned as one that would be gone into to-day, but I suppose we might as well get along.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was
cot. Thank you.
Item stands.


[Stage Direction]
Marine service-Nautical services-Marine service steamers, including ice-breakers-maintenance, operation and repairs, $1,326,700.
Mr. PELLETIER:: Inasmuch as the discussion of the sale of equipment by the government to the amount of 81,750,000 will probably take place on this item, and the minister will likely be making a statement upon it, perhaps we might call it six o'clock, to give him an opportunity to make his statement after dinner.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: The proper place, Mr. Chairman, to discuss that, would be on item No. 417-river St. Lawrence ship channel-capital. It does not matter particularly, but I think we shall come to that item presently.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The reason I raise the point now is that the minister advised me that the sale would be discussed under item
No. 405, but if it is to be discussed under another item, I am willing that the item should stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice there is a decrease of 880,747.75 in this item. Are some services being discontinued, or how is he able to carry on with this smaller amount? It is encouraging to find the expenditure decreasing, but sometimes there is a reason.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no discontinuance
of any service. As I said last year on this item, an attempt is being made to reduce the number of ships by keeping ships in commission twelve months in the year instead of having one type of ship for ice-breaking, another for laying buoys, and another for some other service. As a result of that policy, four ships were retired from service last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What were they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are the ones we discussed on another item-the Newington, the Loos, the Gulnare and the Mikula.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where were they operating?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Newington was operating from the Prince Rupert agency, and the Loos, Gulnare and Mikula on the St. Lawrence river, out of Quebec agency. They were retired from service and sold.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Retired and sold? So
there will be no expenditure upon them. Does that account for the entire decrease?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to give my
hon. friend the particulars. The chief reduction is in the item, repairs to steamers, a reduction of 8104,680; a reduction in supplies of 83,230; increase due to restoration of salary deduction, 810,507; increase in crews' wages, $10,254; increased fuel cost, $3,550; sundry increases, 82,850. The decreases total 8107,000, and the increases 827,000, making a net decrease of 880,000 odd.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In view of the fact that the shipyards at Sorel have been sold, the minister might tell us where from now on ice-breakers will be repaired, where maintenance will be carried out, and how much of this money is to be used for the purpose of maintaining these ships. He might also
2226	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Marine Service
separate the cost of ice-breakers and other steamers which he has retained from the Sorel shipyards.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly not in my time, and I am sure not for many years have steamers in this list been maintained at the Sorel shipyards. The Sorel shipyards have been used mainly for the repair and maintenance of the dredging fleet. The other work has been done in private yards and will continue to be so done. The ships attached to the Montreal agency are usually repaired at one of the Montreal shipyards, the work being done by the lowest tenderer. Ships attached to the Quebec agency are repaired at one of the three Quebec shipyards, also by the lowest tenderer; those on the Atlantic are repaired either at Saint John or Halifax, and those on the Pacific are repaired at either of the shipyards at Vancouver and Victoria, or at Prince Rupert.


René-Antoine Pelletier: So that at no time at all have ice-breakers been maintained at the Sorel shipyards?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Occasionally they call for incidental repairs, but no major overhauling or repairing is undertaken there. As a matter of fact there is no dry dock at that point and no possible way of making major repairs to ships of the size of which my hon. friend speaks.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Whenever such ships have called at Sorel for repairs, have they been repaired at the government shipyards or by the private concern at that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not understand the question.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I understand that there were two shipyards at Sorel, one owned by the government and the other by a private company. I was wondering whether such repairs as may have been made at Sorel have been carried out by the government shipyards or by the private company. The minister says that occasionally such ships call for minor repairs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No ice-breaker has ever been repaired at Sorel except at the government shipyards, and only minor repairs can be carried out there. If it is necessary to put any ship into dry dock, it must be taken to the Vickers yard at Montreal or to one of the three yards at Quebec capable of undertaking that class of work.
Mr. CHURCH; I can see no reason why Ontario should not be given equal treatment with the rest of Canada in this matter. Why

is this province not entitled to ice-breakers? In some of the municipalities bordering on the chain of inland lakes there are many public utilities that cannot operate in winter except under favourable conditions. There is a large vote for work of this kind in connection with Hudson bay, work that is scarcely necessary, whereas last winter the people of Ontario were faced with a serious state of affairs on the Niagara river where public utilities might in one half hour have been closed down, disrupting transportation and water services. I say that Ontario, in the matter of ice-breakers, is entitled to the same consideration which has been shown to other parts of Canada that have been favoured in this respect since confederation. Niagara river is navigable in part and there is an investment there of some $60,000,000, but when an ice-breaker is needed it is not available. I understand that an application was made to Toronto for assistance but without success, and had it not been for a favourable wind coming along at the right time a r umber of power companies would have been swept away and various utilities ruined for want of an ice-breaker. Under this item I can see no reason whatever why Ontario should not be given equal treatment with other parts of Canada. The province does not get very much money for harbours, and I submit that the department should give it some consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote covers services on the great lakes of the type my hon. friend mentions. For instance, we have two large boats with headquarters at the Parry Sound agency, and we contract for ice-breaking at the head of the lakes, using private boats for the purpose. The duty of this department, however, is to maintain navigation, and Niagara river is not navigable. The department has spent some $130,000,000 in providing navigation facilities for the Niagara escarpment by means of the Welland canal. We maintain a boat at Kingston and boats on the Trent canal, and in a general way we have attempted to give Ontario just as good service in the maintenance of navigation as we provide in the province of Quebec and the maritimes. I think we have succeeded reasonably well in that endeavour, for we have always been able to open the lakes at the same time as the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Langton Church: Did the department receive any application from the government of Ontario or from municipalities for the loan of an ice-breaker? It is all very well to say what the policy of the department has been, but I would point out to the minister that

Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous
there are other bridges which might have been destroyed in the same way as the "Honeymoon" bridge; there are steamer landings at Queen-ston, Lewiston and Niagara that have been carried away, and had there been an icebreaker in the river below these points this might not have happened. In my opinion the government should not regard the supplying of ice-breakers as pertaining entirely to navigation. It is an exploded argument that only the maritimes, the St. Lawrence and certain other sections are entitled to this service. The government should do its duty by providing in the winter adequate ice-breaking equipment wherever necessary, and Ontario is unquestionably entitled to this service. Did the minister receive any applications for assistance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had two or three applications to help in an abnormal situation at Niagara, and we sent Captain Balcolm, one of the most expert men in the department in the handling of ice conditions. He went in an advisory capacity and informed us that there was nothing we could do; there was no equipment that we could send under any circumstances which would be of the slightest benefit. I repeat, we do provide exactly the same type of service throughout the waterway system in Ontario that we provide in the province of Quebec and the maritimes. Anyone familiar with ice conditions knows that in the occasional year conditions arise with which no one can cope. A dock, especially of timber construction, is liable to be upset or displaced by an ice push, and there is nothing the government can do to prevent it from occurring. They occur at all points.


René-Antoine Pelletier: This item is for "marine service steamers, including ice-breakers." That conveys the implication that there are other steamers than ice-breakers. Since the government has sold the St. Lawrence dredging fleet, has it retained any ships which were formerly attached to that work in the St. Lawrence ship channel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are twenty-four dominion steamers altogether; five are icebreakers, the others are lighthouse supply ships, buoy boats and service boats generally, but chiefly those three classifications. In some instances the boats are equipped for combined services; we are gradually equipping our icebreakers to serve as buoy boats as well. We did keep certain equipment which was formerly on the St. Lawrence, but that does not come under this vote. We kept the stone lifters, the sounding equipment and staff boats of the department for the engineering and
inspection work. We kept all the equipment that was useful to the department, having in mind that it is the policy in future to have the dredging done by contract.


Mr. LENNARD:: What type of fuel is used in these boats?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are all coal burners except four. The Citadelle, the McLean, the St. Heliers and the Saurel burn oil.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is it more economical for them to burn oil?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The chief advantage of oil fuel is the much longer cruising range it allows. It would be impossible to carry out the patrol of Hudson strait with a coal burner, as there are no coal supplies there. By filling the tanks and taking a deckload of oil she is able to carry on most of the season. As to the difference in cost, it depends upon the relative prices of coal and oil, but generally speaking oil burners are more economical for our work than coal.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is the coal used Canadian coal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, entirely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping including grants of $600 towards school of navigation at Lunenburg, N.S. and $500 towards school of navigation at Queen's university, $48,060.
Frederick Cronyn Betts: What are the particulars of the grant of $4,000 for relief of distressed seamen? What form does that take?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Provision is necessary for the relief of distressed Canadian seamen abroad, according to the provisions of sections 295 and 303 of the Canadian Shipping Act; also to pay any legal expenses which may be incurred in that connection, and for shipping books and forms. Liability is incurred all over the world wherever distressed Canadian seamen may be found. In Great Britain they are looked after by the British Board of Trade, in foreign countries by the consuls, etc., and at home by shipping masters and customs officers. Accounts for expenses incurred are forwarded to the department for settlement. As far as possible refunds are obtained by the department from the shipowners concerned.


Mr. NEILL:: I understand this item includes a vote of $5,000 for removal of obstructions. However, it is quite impossible that that should cover the matter I have in mind. Has the minister considered the removal this
2228	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous
year of Ripple Rock in the channel between Vancouver island and the mainland? I know this question has been before him in past years. It is not an increased danger, but it is a danger to an increasing number of ships. Steamers running north from the United States and those of our own country have to lie up to catch the tide. If that rock were removed, this would not only expedite traffic but perhaps some day prevent a very heavy loss of life.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount of 85,000 in this vote applies only to removal of wrecks which are a menace to navigation. If a ship is wrecked in a navigable channel, this covers the removal of the wreck. Of course $5,000 is only an estimate; sometimes very little of it is spent, and sometimes more than that amount is required; but on the whole it has proved sufficient in the past.
As for the removal of Ripple Rock, that is a matter for the Department of Public Works; it is not the type of work undertaken by the Department of Transport. We have recommended to the Department of Public Works the removal of Ripple Rock when sufficient funds are available. I think the Department of Public Works has it under consideration.


Alan Webster Neill: This item covers grants to schools of navigation at two points on the Atlantic. Does not the growing importance of the port of Vancouver justify a grant for a school of navigation on the Pacific also?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are actively considering at the moment the establishment of a school of navigation, or rather a government-aided school in Vancouver. We are in negotiation with the Department of Education at Victoria, and it is probable that the supplementary estimates will include a small grant for that purpose.


Alan Webster Neill: Would it be connected with the university?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; with the department of technical education of the province. An extremely efficient school has been conducted privately at Vancouver for some years, but the man conducting it finds that he needs help. We suggested to the province that a school be established, and we are prepared in conjunction with the province to give a rather more extended course than has been given there in the past.


Thomas Langton Church: Under this item an important principle is involved; that is the principle of what Canada is doing at the present time

to create employment. This empire came into being by the sea. Canada has a large number of men out of work, many of them on the dole. Why does the minister not say to these young men-it may be in conjunction with the Minister of National Defence

Do you want to join in a volunteer navy with pay? Canada excels in all kinds of aquatic sports. At the time of the Gordon expedition up the Nile they had to appeal to Canadians to man the boats. There are now two schools of navigation, one at Lunenburg and one at Queen's university. There are thousands of young Canadians who would go to such a school, take up shipping and navigation if they could, and qualify for the merchant marine, which is the back-bone of the British navy. But this government sold a lot of merchant marine ships for a song, and the empire has 2,000 fewer merchant ships to-day than it had in 1914.
The minister, in association with those of other departments, should come along with a forward educational training policy for the great lakes and the seaboard, establish these schools throughout Canada where needed, and give free tuition for the navy. At present there is one in Lunenburg and another meets for a short time at Queen's. Why are not these schools established in connection with the other universities of the dominion, and on the same scale as the militia for the army? There are hundreds of young men in the canoe clubs, rowing clubs and yacht clubs of the country. This empire came into being by the sea and without it the empire would not last. We should train men for the British fleet and merchant marine. The government feels that adequate armaments are necessary, but armaments without adequate man power are useless. The minister could do a great deal to aid unemployment among the youth of our dominion, many of whom go down to the waterfront in the spring of the year in order to look for something to do on the ships. A survey and recruiting volunteer system should be established. As hon. members know, conditions in the merchant marine to-day in Canada.are not what they should be, from the standpoint of health as well as in other ways, and as a result the young people do not go in for that branch of the service. To-day our navy depends upon foreign petrol and not coal for its motive power. If we are to continue in the British Empire the time has come for us to do something in regard to our naval strength, not only in connection with merchant shipping but in relation to other

Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous
branches of marine work, and give active aid to the British navy and merchant marine. Where are the navy leaguers?
The Department of Marine has been in existence since confederation, largely for the benefit of the maritime provinces. It has not done very much for the great lakes or for the development of the youth of Canada for sailors or for that fine arm of the British forces. I know of no country that can produce better seamen, not only for the merchant marine but for other ships, and also cadets for officers than Canada, but our young men have no opportunity to become trained for that work. It is true that there are a couple of schools each receiving a grant of $600, but I think the time has come for the government to consider a proper, adequate, national policy. We are a maritime, nautical people, or should be. We have our great coast lines and this magnificent chain of lakes, and $250,000,000 invested in canals. Look at what they are doing in Detroit in the war marine department and all down the great lakes on the other side! We are asleep on this side of the border. Such a policy would provide employment for thousands of young people and give them a calling, but instead we simply vote the same amount year after year. Hundreds of 3'ouths leaving our high schools cannot find work. They belong to these aquatic clubs from Vancouver to Halifax. If they had someone to give them a lead; if there was a forward policy provided by the government, it would mean a great deal not only in the way of employment but also in the defence of Canada and the British Empire. Look at what New Zealand and Australia are doing! W7e had some merchant marine ships owned by the government which were sold for a mere pittance; ten ships sold for about $500,000, and now ships are badly needed to carry food to the old country in time of emergency. We have only a couple of schools of this kind, which are attended by very few people. I do not know how many days the schools last; I understand they are only seasonal, and I think this whole matter should be considered in a bigger, broader spirit by the government if we are to have any sort of defence on our sea coasts and great lakes. We should take a leaf out of the book of our sister dominions and aid the freedom of the seas by providing men and cadets.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government supports
these schools directly, and in addition we make a grant to Queen's university, which gives a free course to any man wishing to qualify for a master's certificate. In addition the province of Ontario maintains in
Toronto, through its technical education branch, a school not unlike those we maintain on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We are working now with the province of British Columbia, cooperating in the establishment of a free school in Vancouver, and we shall be delighted to cooperate with the educational authorities of any province desiring to set up a school of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the grant to
Queen's university?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is S500 a year.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Has the minister anything to say about the anomaly in the shipping act which provides that sendee certificates shall be given to masters and mates under easier conditions of qualification than apply to actually qualified masters and mates sailing out their time in apprenticeship? I might add in explanation that in British Columbia there is intense feeling because service certificates are given to so many people on the coast while qualified masters and mates who have served in deep sea ships are unable to obtain employment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The service certificate arose
under the new shipping act that was put into force some eighteen months or two years ago. Under the new act certificates are required on boats that did not formerly require these certificates; that is, there are new classes of masters' and mates' certificates. It was impossible to qualify men to take over the work for which certificates were required under the new shipping act, and the service certificate was devised as a practical way of bridging the gap between the requirements under the old act and the requirements under the new one. The certificate of service wii. gradually disappear. It simply meant that men who were not qualified but who were actually doing the work were examined, and if they could pass a fairly simple test on the rules of the road and elementary seamanship they were granted a service certificate allowing them to operate in the home trade. .


Richard Bedford Bennett: For how long?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Indefinitely.
Mr. TAY'LOR (Nanaimo):	But what I
wish to point out is that apparently, from the layman's point of view, the particular clause in the act which permits these service certificates is badly drawn. If I had the act before me I could show the minister clearly that in that clause there is an implication which does not belong in the act.



Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous


Clarence Decatur Howe: The clause in question was
drawn up by the law officers of the crown. The officer of my department who is responsible for the examination of masters and mates says that in practice this has proved to be the most workable clause that could have been devised, and he could not suggest any changes in it at the present time. I may say that a strong difference of opinion exists on the two coasts with regard to these certificates of service. On the Atlantic coast we are told that the requirements are much too strict, that they prevent a number of people from serving who should be permitted to serve on boats in the home trade. On the Pacific coast we are told that the requirements are too lax. But taking Canada as a whole, as we must in administering a department such as this, we believe that in its present form the clause is just about as workable as any that could be devised.


Alan Webster Neill: Are these service certificates
not restricted to the handling of fishing boats?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there are other boats
in the home trade that have these service certificates. Fish packing boats require them as well.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I notice two
items in reference to printing and stationery. In the first place S900 was provided for both 1937-38 and 1938-39. Further down there is a second item for printing and stationery, amounting to $6,000 for 1938-39 and $5,000 for 1937-38. Why is this extra $1,000 provided for printing and stationery in the one item, and also why are there two items? Why are they separated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the new shipping act new forms are required for practically everything the department does. This is a widespread service, and connected with it are large numbers of forms. Although some of them are used only occasionally, the change in forms requires a great deal of printing. The second item is an emergency one which will not recur, and arises this year because there has been extra printing in the revision of forms and bringing the stock up to date.


James Samuel Taylor: I have sent for a copy of the shipping act, and as soon as I receive it I shall direct a part of it to the attention of the minister. Despite his observations I am not satisfied that the section in question has been well drafted.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister has not given a complete answer to the question I asked him with respect to the miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping. Are we
fMr. Taylor.]
to admit that, so far as aids to navigation and shipping are concerned, the government will depend upon another power to keep open its trade routes? They might as well admit now that if this is all we are voting, we are simply sponging on the hard earnings of the British taxpayer, in our effort to obtain navigation and shipping protection. Cannot we, the country standing fifth in shipping, keep open these wonderful trade routes? This is a humiliating position for the people of Canada to be in, especially when we hear the minister who operates this trust for them admit that we have no protection at all, except that provided by the mother country. He admits that we have no protection on the great lakes, in the gulf, in the rivers or on the oceans where these routes exist. I am glad we know about it, anyway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have sufficient seamen in Canada to operate all Canadian ships, and we have ample training facilities for any man who requires training. If any man wishes to come to us and ask to be trained for seamen's examinations, we shall have no difficulty in providing him with educational facilities. As I said, we are quite willing to extend these facilities to wherever the need may arise. We are endeavouring to do so at the present time in British Columbia, and have arranged to do so at the southern end of Nova Scotia, and we are prepared to continue this work if required. Obviously it is not wise to provide educational facilities in advance of the demand for the use of them.


Mr. THOMPSON:: What qualifications have the men who apply for positions as sailors? What are their ages?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any boy with an ordinary high school education may enter one of these schools. Of course, he cannot obtain a certificate until he is twenty-one years of age, and has served two years at sea.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite; it is the sea service which counts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the sea service counts on the certificate, but he may enter the school if he has an ordinary high school education.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A large number of the boys in orphanage institutions are trained in this way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Why has the expenditure in connection with telegraph and telephonic communications increased by over 100 per cent. There has been an increase from $500 to $1,180, and I should like to know the reason?

Supply-Transport-Miscellaneous
Mr. HOWE; 1 am told that again the increase arises out of the new shipping act. There are a great many new regulations, and the inspectors at outlying points have to telephone or telegraph to headquarters for an interpretation. Because of that there has been a considerable increase in communications with respect to the new act, various sections of which have not yet come to the attention of all the inspectors.


James Samuel Taylor: May I refer to section 118 of the Canada Shipping Act, which has been amended as to time, and which forms the basis of my complaint. The section reads:
Every British subject who-
(1) served as a master or mate of a foreign-going or home-trade sailing ship of over 75 tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one-
And since altered to "one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six.
-for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately preceding the date of his application for a certificate of service-
And so bn. It is quite obvious from this section that the only qualification, so far as time of service is concerned, is that he should have served as a master or mate for a full period of twelve months. It does not indicate what length of time the man should have served at sea before that. That is the weakness in the drafting of the section. Deep-sea men have to serve a certain apprenticeship; they have to serve so long before the mast, so long as second mate, and so on, before they can actually qualify for captains' certificates. Why should this weakness be present in the drafting of the act? I tried to draw this matter to the attention of the senate, before the recess, but it was voted down because it had not been dealt with in connection with the issue then before that body. Manifestly the clause is badly drawn, and I would sincerely draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in British Columbia there are approximately six hundred vacancies for seamen. Since the act became effective about 220 certificates have been granted, a number of them to foreign nationals who have become Canadian citizens.
The situation is serious, because masters and mates who otherwise would be enjoying positions on ships are compelled to work as deckhands or to go on relief, when opportunities might be given them to obtain decent employment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say a word, before the minister speaks?
51952-142}


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We had the act before us, as it came from England, and as it had been adopted by the imperial parliament and by the parliaments of the several dominions. There arose in every country, as there does in this, the question of those who have served in a capacity seeking recognition of that service in terms of their then employment. For instance, when the lawyers of the country first set up their organizations it was sometimes provided that if a man had been practising law for a period of years he might be entered on the register. That was so in the Northwest Territories, when we first organized the law society. Provisions were made in the same way with respect to certain types of dentists.
With respect to masters and mates, to which this is limited, there had to be evidence that during a period of ten years preceding the date of the application, which could not be made after 1931-and subsequently extended to 1936-they had actually served-and the word that governs is "served"-either as masters or mates. If they had served as masters for a period of years, it was assumed that they were qualified to serve as such in a ship of seventy-five tons and therefore they got a certificate of service. If they had served as mates, it was assumed that they had gone through the various grades that qualified them to serve as mates; otherwise they would not be employed as such. They also got certificates of service.
I must say that when the act was under consideration by the former government, this was one of the clauses which gave me great concern. The minister by his amending legislation extended the time from 1931 to 1936. It is true the act was not in force until it was proclaimed and it was not proclaimed during the whole of those five years. Nevertheless, the time was extended. The minister has pointed out that no great hardship could possibly arise, although I have always had grave doubts about this type of legislation.
It cannot affect the evil the hon. member for Nanaimo has referred to; for the simple and obvious reason that if a man had served as a master for twelve months he must have been qualified to act as such. If he was not qualified, he had no right to be a master. It is idle to think that he got a certificate of service without having had a seaman's experience. He had risen to the rank of master or mate, and having risen to that rank he received a certificate saying that he had served and as such was recognized. I may say to the hon. member for Nanaimo that it

-Miscellaneous
Supply-Transport
is a recognition of having attained a position, the duties of which he is fulfilling. A man should be entitled to a certificate of service indicating that he had satisfactorily discharged his duties either as mate or master. On that basis he should get a certificate, and not otherwise.


James Samuel Taylor: I am quite prepared to agree with what my right hon. friend has said as to the desirability of enabling masters and mates who had served for long periods before the shipping act was brought into full effect to obtain certificates. This practice has been carried on since 1906, and surely the time has long expired when the service certificate should be regarded as a necessary part of the act. Under the earlier acts the situation was different from what it is under the recent act and its amendment, in that a reduction has been made to a period of ten years. Certificates are granted in this period; otherwise they are granted only after a service of so many years for each qualifica-;ion. Manifestly it should be the same in the ret. The act should state definitely that during the course of ten years an applicant intending to apply for a master's or mate's certificate should show so many years of sea service. That is a reasonable stipulation which should be in the act. To assume something that is not in the act indicates poor draughtsmanship.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He must have served his time prior to 1936. That is, he must have had his year's service at that time as master or mate to qualify him at any time subsequently for a service certificate based on that experience. As my right hon. friend has told the committee very clearly, it must be assumed that he was qualified to serve as master or mate when no certificate at all was required for that position. It must be assumed that to attain the position of master or mate a man must have served many years at sea. I do not think any one steps directly into a master's or mate's berth.
Applications for service certificates are dropping very rapidly. In other words, those who were qualified by service prior to 1936 have already obtained their certificates of service. The problem is a disappearing one. As these men drop out of the service, the certificates of service will also disappear. I do not know what would have happened to these men had we not included what is often called a grandfather's clause. This is a clause which stipulates that when new requirements are put in, the men already occupying the
fMr Bennett.)
positions concerned are automatically granted certificates in the new service. I think this is typical of all new legislation of this type.


James Samuel Taylor: You have
carried that on for thirty years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Samuel Taylor: In 1906 there was such a provision.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the new act the service must be prior to 1936 and the application must be made within ten years of that date. There is no possibility of a man qualifying after ten years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $47,000.
Thomas Langton Church: Ever since I have been a member of parliament I have been directing the attention of this committee to the discrimination that exists in connection with the life-saving service of this country. If there is one item that should not be reduced, it is this one. The vote was $48,000 last year and it has been reduced to $47,000. Only a small amount of this vote is used in connection with life-saving. As will be seen from the details, an amount of $30,080 is provided for temporary assistance; an amount of $9,925 is provided for board-no life-saving there- an amount of $5,845 is provided for supplies and repairs, and an amount of $550 is provided for sundries. There is not much lifesaving in all this.
Toronto is spending twice the amount of this vote on life-saving services. That city has to do practically all the life-saving work needed in central Ontario. I acted for the city as chairman of the harbour board when we took over the life-saving service from the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Hazen. On lake Ontario from Toronto and Hamilton to Cobourg there are only two lifeboats built in 1915, and I doubt if you could get them out of their sheds if anyone was in danger of being drowned. The city of Toronto spent about $35,000,000 on its harbour and the life-saving station at Toronto has to do federal government work. Some $47,000 is provided for this work in the maritime provinces and I doubt if it is half enough. Toronto spends $52,340 for maintenance and equipment, and $20,795 for materials and supplies. I am not objecting to other places getting lifesaving services, my argument is that there should be an equality of service and treatment all along this magnificent stretch of navigable waters from the gulf of St. Lawrence, through the St. Lawrence river and our great lakes.

Supply-Transport-Life Saving Service
What are the facts? Many calls come in from Muskoka, Georgian bay, lake Simcoe, to the Toronto life-saving crew for assistance. We also receive calls from Georgian bay and many points on lake Huron, and on lake Ontario and its rivers. Many members from maritime constituencies in Ontario know of the conditions that exist on our great lakes during the fall of the year. A situation exists that is not at all creditable to this country which calls itself a nation. Many of the men who serve on the ships that ply the great lakes are equal to those who fought at St. Julien, and yet these men on Canadian ships are forced to sound their sirens to call United States life-saving crews to come to their assistance when they are in danger in the late fall-a fine toast to Canadian nationhood. It is not fair to these men who are advancing our grain crop to' the seaboard by water to be without proper aids to navigation, and as one of the representatives of the city of Toronto I protest. I am sent here to find out something about this vote. The city of Toronto pays $96,000 a year to give a lifesaving service to the province. Calls come in from as far away as North Bay for this service; the city has sometimes to transport by flat car not only a life-saving boat but skilled men to handle it, and the service is maintained all the year around.
The minister is in charge of all the navigation laws of the country. You have a large number of steamers on the great lakes. There was a boat attached to Amherstburg near Windsor, which the captain had to run into a bank or twelve hundred people would have been drowned two years ago. At the entrance of the Niagara river, for instance, there is a large sand bar five or six miles long. I was on board the boat going to the Niagara camp with the 74th or the 75th battalion, and in a wind storm the ship ran right on this sand bar and was there for the best part of a day. If an accident happens, all you can do is to sound your whistle to get the Toronto life-saving station. The city of Toronto is providing this whole service for the province, and at a time when the government is taking revenues away from the municipalities. The sum of $100,000-that is what it is with summer beach extra protection-of the taxpayers' money of the city of Toronto has to be spent to maintain this service and train these men to act as a life-saving crew. That is something which the federal government should do of its own volition, because by the British North America Act navigation is a federal responsibility. We heard in a debate in this house the other day that human life is not
held sacred on the land; and on the water there is no chance at all. We have absolutely no life-saving station maintained by the federal government for the protection of the steamers or the merchant marine on the great lakes, and in case of accident all they have to depend upon is some life-preservers and a few old rowboats, and investigations that were conducted showed that the rowboats could not be got out in time, and that some crews received no proper drills. The time is coming, Mr. Chairman, when the municipalities cannot stand this any longer. Toronto has had to spend $51,000,000 on relief, and we should have relief from this item of $96,000 which the city of Toronto is spending on its life-saving service for the benefit of the province. I think this government should give Toronto $50,000 towards the work it is doing. The life-saving crew of the Toronto station has been called to many different places. In front of the summer cottage of one of my colleagues from Toronto who is not present at the moment there was an accident not long ago in which five or six people were in peril, and they had to send to the Toronto lifesaving station for dragging irons to get these poor people out.
Members of parliament have been criticized by a section of the press for being decadent, but I say that the House of Commons is no more decadent than the public press has been of recent years, and if there is no public press to bring this and other matters to the attention of the government, it is the duty of a private member of parliament to do it. That is why I am bringing it to the attention of the responsible minister who is administering this trust, and a very sacred trust it is. I would not want to travel on some of the boats that are under the control of the minister. There are two boats going to Port Dalhousie at the present time. I was on one of them once, and I would not say it is safe; I have not been on it again.
I did not know this item was coming up to-night or I could have read in detail what the Toronto life-saving station is doing. It is doing federal work. Navigation is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada by the British North America Act. I do not object to the maritimes getting votes for navigation because they are entitled to them, and they have been getting only pin-money in many ways for a maritime province, but I do urge the minister to do something for the only modem life-saving station on the lakes at Toronto, and in Ontario and for aids to life-saving and navigation in the late
2234	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Life Saving Service
fall. They are called all over the province. Look what is being done around the Detroit river! They call on the war department of the United States, which maintains large stations and fast boats on the lakes winter and summer, and I venture to say that the insurance on our Canadian ships in the fall of the year would be much greater if the insurance companies did not depend on the United States life-saving stations to do the duty which Canada should have done. It is a fine commentary on Canada being a nation and on the talk and chatter at banquets of such a claim while brave sailors are drowned!


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is very fond of saying what Toronto does in life-saving. It is true that in Toronto harbour there are several fast motor boats that have to do with the safety of life in Toronto harbour, but their work is chiefly that of life-saving crews at beaches and attendants at swimming pools. Incidentally that is conducted not by the city of Toronto but by the Toronto harbour commission, which is responsible in a measure to the department we are now discussing.
I hold no great brief for the service provided by the Department of Transport, but I am tired of hearing so much about our great dependence upon the United States service, and how great a service it is. As a matter of fact, the worst marine disaster on the great lakes within two years occurred at the entrance to Cleveland harbour, when the Sand Merchant went down, and I did not hear of any great rescue there.
The fact of the matter is-and we recognize it in the department-that the service we are discussing was designed for the days of wooden ships, and to-day, with all the aids to navigation, with wireless and wireless telephone on the boats, the service is not the type of service that is of any particular merit as an aid in the protection of life on the great lakes. During the past year we have had an extensive study made of the whole situation, and the report, I am told, is about ready for us. It will mean in my opinion either that we abandon the service altogether or that we put in modern mechanized equipment which will be able to cope with the type of disaster which we have at the present time. But in the meantime the service we are maintaining is actually the same service that has been maintained for at least fifty years, and longer, I assume, in this dominion. All I can say is that when these estimates come up next year we shall have new recommendations to make concerning this item.


Thomas Langton Church: I am surprised that the minister knows so little about the case of the city of Toronto. I was chairman of the board of control and one of the harbour commission when we took over this work in 1916, and I can tell the minister that the city of Toronto gives $96,000 to the harbour board for this particular work instead of the city doing the work itself. This $96,000 is the taxpayers' money of the city of Toronto, earmarked for this purpose. The harbour board have no revenue as such. The amount is $73,136 for 1938, but with extra work done it is $96,000. All the revenue they get comes from the city of Toronto, and this whole amount of $96,000 is paid by the taxpayers of the city of Toronto to its trustee board, the harbour board. That is the fact, and it cannot be disputed.
The minister need not.be sick and tired of hearing about Toronto. The city is also sick of the unjust treatment it receives. Toronto is entitled to a fair show from this house and from the minister. The minister need not be sick of Toronto. Toronto, I can tell the minister, is the largest tax-paying city in Canada, and this government is collecting $40,000,000 in income tax from that city, and in all $90,000,000 of revenue, while we get nothing. I am sick and tired of hearing the minister make statements like he did a moment ago when he said that it was not the city of Toronto but the harbour board that was paying the $96,000. What the minister said is not a fact. And he need not be sick of Toronto. The city of Toronto is sick of the kind of treatment it is getting from this department. Facilities are provided all over the country at the expense of the government; there are airports throughout the country so established. But in the case of Toronto the same treatment is not given. I do not like to bring these matters up; but when Toronto, the city I represent, is attacked by the minister, I am bound to reply. I want justice and fair dealing. I was sent here to represent that city, and I can tell the minister that Toronto is the only city which gave a grant in connection with a viaduct that cost $30,000,000. We have three or four mills of our tax rate for purely federal burdens.
The minister need not be sick of Toronto; he may be sick of me, but he will be far more sick later on if he continues along the line he is now going. I repeat, we are entitled to some consideration. The minister is a gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I tell him that the city of Toronto is not being fairly treated. The morgue in Toronto is full of outsiders; for whenever there is any drowning fatality life-saving crews are

Supply-Transport-Life Saving Service
sent out by the city all over central Ontario. They are sent to North Bay, Nipissing, lake Simcoe, Georgian bay, lake Huron, all over lake Ontario and to the lake Simcoe district ports. Why should the city pay for these federal services? Navigation and shipping and aids to navigation including life-saving are all, under the British North America Act, part of the duties and functions of the dominion government. I see my young friend the hon. member for Trinity here to-night. He goes out yachting sometimes and he knows something of the work of these life-saving crews. As a yachtsman he will agree with everything I say.
I do not wish to delay this vote; far from it; but I do want to see some protection provided for those using the ferry boat and the Niagara and other lake boats. One serious accident happened to a boat at Broekville the year before last. I want to see these people on the lakes given some protection, but under our present laws they have none. What is the 847,000 for? It is for temporary service, but I doubt whether one man will be saved as a result of it. Did the coastal trade get any of it? Did Hamilton, Cobourg and other cities and towns benefit? I do not see the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario here, but I know that up in Muskoka there are no life-saving stations. When anyone is drowned they have to telephone to Toronto for a crew with grappling irons and life-saving equipment. Well, if that is all the life-saving the department is doing, I can tell the minister that however sick he may be of Toronto he will be very much more sick at the next election, and will need all the life-savers he can get.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there not already in our law a provision by which all sea-going ships carrying passengers are inspected, (a) as to the boilers, and, (b) as to equipment, including life-saving apparatus, life-boats, life-rafts, and life-belts? That part of it, I understand, is in another vote and is cared for by the branch of the department formerly known as the Department of Marine and Fisheries. What the hon. member (Mr. Church) is dealing with is rather more important than the minister would indicate. He is dealing with the question of loss of life on the great lakes in ships that are not always subject to investigation and control by our own people, that is, ships which are cast up against the shores of our own country, sometimes with consequent loss of life. He has been suggesting that we should make provision for a fund to do the work which, unfortunately, he finds that the city of Toronto has to do at expense it can
ill afford. There is something in that argument. We should justly and fairly be required to make some financial provision for the safety of people and for the care of those who may be wrecked. But there has been at times, in all countries and under all circumstances, laxity in connection with inspection. The minister will recall the terrible disaster, with tremendous loss of life, that befell a certain ship which went out from New York. That tragedy occurred between New York and Cuba. There are other ships which I shall not mention by name, inasmuch as it might reflect upon the lines owning them. The same thing has happened on the great lakes. The minister referred to a ship that was not on the Canadian register.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Sand Merchant was on the Canadian register.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought she was on our register. She was wrecked in United States waters?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought she was on their register as well. I am in error as to that. As far as I could read, that ship had apparently been inspected. Was there any laxity in the matter of inspection, or was the accident one of the inevitable consequences of a storm or, shall I say, of an ill-directed course? Was there laxity in the inspection of her boilers and equipment and matters of that kind? That is the question to which the hon. member is directing attention, and properly so. The investigations into the accident that happened to the ship which was lost off the Atlantic coast between New York and Cuba, and the accident that overtook the United States vessel lost near Asbury Park, New Jersey, disclosed lack of discipline in one case, and in both cases some laxity in inspection. In connection with the Sand Merchant, was anything disclosed that indicated that we had failed in the discharge of our duty in the testing of boilers, equipment, lights and all the other factors that go to make up the safety of a ship? Was she certificated when she should not have been? Was she given a certificate of fitness which she should not have had? Those are proper questions, and I think the minister will agree that there is a duty cast upon the nation rather than upon municipal institutions to bear the cost that may be involved in connection with matters of this kind.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not understand that the hon. member for Broadview was referring to the inspection of ships.
2236	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Life Saving Service


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was discussing the whole question of safety.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our inspection service is equal to the British service, which is supposed to be the best in the world, and it is quite rigid. As a matter of fact, in the case of the Sand Merchant the inspection was made about three months before the disaster. Nearly everyone in the ship was lost; it is therefore hard to know what happened, but it must have been some unusual disaster of the sea. I have the finding of the court here if my right hon. friend wants to have it.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just the sense of it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The court found that the loss of the Sand Merchant was due to the shifting of the cargo of sand, and that the loss of life must be laid to the first, and, to a lesser degree, the second officers, who were overconfident and not sufficiently alert in obeying the master's orders to get the life-boats out and the crew aboard. The court exonerates the master from blame but considers that he should be warned, and that he is open to censure for failing to have fife-boat drill aboard his vessel, and for permitting an unauthorized person to be on board. The operators of the vessel were held to be without blame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It comes down perhaps to a question of proper stevedoring of the sand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; apparently they were too confident; they did not realize the roughness of the sea, and did not stow their sand properly. Of course the municipal bathing beaches are the responsibility of the municipalities. The Toronto harbour commission's expenses are paid in part by shipping. The commission looks after the safety of shipping, and the city contributes to the cost of lifeguards on the beaches and purely municipal services. However, as I said, this particular vote is to maintain life-boats and life-saving stations at certain points on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the great lakes. The type of equipment used, the service generally, is in our opinion not in tune with modern requirements. We have been studying the situation for some months, we hope to arrive at a conclusion which we can present to the committee when the estimates come up next year. It will mean either a largely increased vote or the abolition of the vote altogether. In other words we believe that the present service is very little better than no service at all, and unless we can find a way of putting on a first class service we may ask to abolish it.


Frank Exton Lennard: I feel that I should rise in defence of the Toronto life-saving station. The minister stated that their principal occupation was to look after swimming pools and harbour patrol work-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Pardon me; I have been misquoted so often as to what I said about Toronto that I should like to correct that statement. I said the city paid for that portion.


Frank Exton Lennard: Well, I myself on one occasion with a companion was rescued by a patrol boat some three miles out in lake Ontario, and I was glad to see them come along. Someone might say it is too bad they came; however I am here and I appreciated it.


Alan Webster Neill: I hope the minister does not indicate that he proposes to abolish the lifesaving service entirely on the Pacific coast. Reorganization might be necessary, but to do away with it would be a retrograde step. At present service is given on the west coast of Vancouver island by two life-saving stations operating small gasoline life-boats. It might be that some improvement could be made in the service. I have heard it suggested that it might be advantageous to put on a larger boat which would patrol the whole coast and be always on the water, with wireless equipment so as to be readily available at any point. To compensate to some extent for the increased cost it might be equipped so that, especially in summer time when the life-saving work would not be excessive, it could handle some minor duties, such as serving the lighthouses; because that work is always increasing. Hardly a month goes by that there is not a demand for another light somewhere, which all means additional work for the already overdriven tenders, the Estevan, and I think the Alberni, to serve these lighthouses. And there is the yearly replacement of the acetylene in the fixed lights, where there is no guardian at all, which might be done by a smaller boat as a sort of auxiliary. In that way it might be possible to relieve the pressure on the lighthouse service and still maintain the life-saving phase. It would be unfortunate if the minister undertook to abandon that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows,
that very matter is under consideration. As a matter of fact, the present small life-boats do some of the services to the lighthouses, and we are examining into the possibility of putting on a modem high speed lifeboat,

Supply-Transport-M arine
which at the same time could do a certain amount of the work the hon. member has suggested.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not mention that these present small boats, while they are all right for going out to small fishing 'boats, would be of no use for a larger boat, whereas a bigger boat might do the service I have indicated and perhaps be the means of saving a big ship some day with quite a number of people on board*


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine signal service, $90,000.
René-Antoine Pelletier: I fancy this item would include the buoys we see in the ship channels. At present the department's ships are busy setting out the buoys in the St. Lawrence; in fact, I believe the job is now finished. Anchors or sinkers are used to hold these buoys in place. Would the minister tell us what happens to those sinkers, where they are manufactured, the number he gets from year to year, the use they are put to, if any, after they are taken out of the St. Lawrence, how many are lost, and matters of that kind? They are made of cast-iron, weighing two, four, six or eight tons, and it seems incredible that they would wear out in a short time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry to discourage my hon. friend, but we have not come to his item yet. The signal service under this item is an observation and telegraphic service extending from Cape Race and the straits of Belle Isle up the St. Lawrence and through the great lakes as far as Sault Ste. Marie. The purpose of the service is to report ships, give their position, and the position of ice, and to report any undue disturbance. It is more or less used by the services along the river, such as dredging, and receiving and sending out weather reports. It is the news service of the shipping lanes from Newfoundland to the head of the lakes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am not disappointed; I am extremely patient. I naturally concluded that "marine signal service" would have something to do with the markers or buoys in the St. Lawrence, to guide ships in the river channel. However, I shall ask the question again when the proper item comes.


Mr. TUSTIN:: In connection with this item I notice an amount for telegrams and telephones, some $5,500 increase. What is this huge item for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The telegraph is part of the service, extending it to the branches of the
signal service stations, and wireless to ships. The increase this year is due to the increase in shipping. We have the operators' salaries, $48,000, and then the telegraph and telephone lines we lease from existing companies; that is, the service is sent over their wires.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $125,904.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What happened to the
litigation that was pending in Quebec, an action over the dismissal of pilots?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that it is on appeal to the exchequer court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the case been tried?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that it was tried
last week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was judgment given?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $45,000.
Charles Edward Johnston: What are these wrecking plants? What work do they do?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two items, one
of $15,000 for the west coast and one of $30,000 for the gulf of St. Lawrence. The company on the east coast is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific railway. The company maintains two wrecking tugs with all equipment and keeps them available exclusively for assistance to ships in distress.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have nothing to do with salvaging ships; or when a boat becomes obsolete do they take it apart and save the good material and throw away the rest?


Mr.   HOAVE@: No; the service is simply for boats in distress. If a boat runs aground, the salvage tugs go and take the boat off the sand. H a boat is sunk, the salvage tugs will raise it and tow it to the nearest dry dock?


Alan Webster Neill: AVhy not call it a salvage
plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is exactly what it is.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is not
really a wrecking plant?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; more of a salvage plant.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is the government
recompensed by the insurance companies at times for that work?
Supply-Transport-M arine


Clarence Decatur Howe: We simply subsidize the
service; there is no recompense to it. The service of course costs several hundred thousand dollars to maintain. The boats are insured, and if there is plenty of work of course the salvage company is well paid by the insurance companies for the work they do,, but the river receives a lower insurance rate by virtue of having this salvage equipment available. In some years there are very few wrecks, and the companies are out of pocket. This service is provided, however, and the government has found it desirable to subsidize it in these two cases.
Item agreed to
Aids to navigation-construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $1,897,785.


George James Tustin: I notice there are a great
many lightkeepers under this item. In the class of lightkeepers, grade 3, I find one at $2,090 and another at $977.50. Why is there such a difference in the salaries of these two men when they are both in the same class?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend say
what station he refers to? I find it a little hard to follow him.


George James Tustin: Under this item there are sixty-three lightkeepers, class 3; one at $2,090; forty-three at $2,040; one at $1,995; eight at $1,935; three at $1,920; five at $1,860; one at $1,062.50 and one at $977.50. That is on page 222 of the estimates.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is that at some stations the lightkeeper is required to pay his own assistants, and in some cases he has two. The lower salary is for an assistant lightkeeper paid by the department.


George James Tustin: And this man who received S2,090 pays the assistant who helps him. Is that it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; he pays his assistant out of his own money.
Mr. PELLETIER; I suppose the question I asked a moment ago would come under this item. I notice that on materials and supplies there was an expenditure of $390,500, and $48,000 for contracts. How much is spent by the department each year for sinkers to hold the buoys in place in the St. Lawrence ship channel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe about $10,000 to $15,000 a year is spent in replacing the anchors for the buoys. The anchors are chiefly lost in the stretch of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, where a winter buoy

service is required. The ice movement occasionally shears away the buoy from the anchor. We try to recover such anchors, and do recover a number of them, but each year we find ourselves short a number of anchors, which we have to purchase.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Undoubtedly there is some loss from year to year through causes beyond the control of the department, but it seems to me that some care should be exercised to see that these costly items of equipment should be looked after as well as possible. As I mentioned to the minister, they are things that could not possibly wear out within a short space of time. They are immense cast-iron blocks weighing from two to eight tons each, and that they might wear out is something beyond belief. Where are these articles purchased; how much do they cost each and is this work let by contract? I should like to know also whether the government at one time possessed the equipment necessary to produce these articles.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There orders are always placed by tender. These articles are made chiefly at Quebec and Sorel, where there are three firms who make a business of this sort of thing. They cost within a fraction either way of three cents a pound, and the contracts are always let to the lowest tenderer. They were never made at Sorel shipyard. The government shipyard has no foundry for casting articles of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are they not wrought iron rather than cast-iron? Good anchors are always wrought iron, I understand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My officers say they are just cast-iron, with only few exceptions.


George James Tustin: One of the greatest increases is in connection with temporary assistance. There is an increase from $466,324.25 to $581,546.27. Why should there be such a heavy increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because there is a large amount of repair work carried on, and that work is increasing. We have about 2,000 lighthouses, many of which include a dwelling, and it is inevitable that repair work must be done as the lighthouses get older. For this work we use temporary crews during the summer months.


James Samuel Taylor: What increased lighting facilities have been granted on the Pacific coast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member refer to lighthouses or lights on wharves?

Supply-Transport-Marine


James Samuel Taylor: I am speaking generally, and include the lighting of beacons, buoys along ship channels, and so on. Has anything been done to render more perfect the marking of ship channels?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The lighthouse board met three months ago and a number of recommendations were made, the larger portion of which were for the Pacific coast. There is a provision in the item for those beacons. I have not the details as to just what lights have been provided, but I know there are a number for the west coast.


James Samuel Taylor: I drew the attention of the minister and his department to the necessity of a light at Sidney wharf, but apparently the lighthouse board considered it was not necessary. I then drew the attention of the director of marine services to subsection 2 of section 471 of the Canada Shipping Act, which reads as follows:
The owner or occupier of every dock, wharf or landing place at which passengers are put on shore or taken on board, shall also, at night, cause to be shown conspicuously on such dock, wharf or landing place, at every angle or turn thereof, during the whole of the time that any such ship is approaching, or alongside, good and sufficient lights.
That appeared to me to be a direct charge on the lighthouse board to recognize the fact that Sidney wharf required a light. Is there provision in the estimates for such lighting? I ask the question, because when I made inquiries about two months ago I received the reply that it had been referred to the legal department. I know that delays may be serious, but surely it should not take two months to find out whether or not the section applies to Sidney wharf. Has provision been made for lighting that wharf?


Clarence Decatur Howe: When a legal point is placed before the department we like to know whether or not it is well taken. The hon. member approached the department with the suggestion that the clause was mandatory, and that a light must be placed at the point he indicated. The opinion of the Department of Justice is that the clause is not mandatory.
Of course, the point the hon. member has *aised has no relation to the vote we are discussing. I suggest it comes under the item dealing with government wharves, and has nothing to do with the lighthouse board. Whether or not we light a wharf depends entirely upon the revenue derived therefrom. If in our opinion the revenue is sufficient to justify a light, we make provision therefor. In the case of Sidney wharf may I say we
have made arrangements whereby the two companies using the wharf shall pay part of the cost and we shall pay the balance. The wharf will be lighted.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the minister say the lighthouse board met three weeks ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In January, I think.


Alan Webster Neill: I was under the impression it met only in January.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Alan Webster Neill: It meets once a year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Does not the minister think it might meet twice a year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It creates quite enough expense at one meeting.


Alan Webster Neill: It is a long time between drinks, from January to January.


Frank Exton Lennard: I notice there is mention of a shop superintendent; where would he be located?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Each agency has its own shop.


Frank Exton Lennard: How many shops are there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are a good many of them. There are nine agencies, and each has its own shop.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is there only one superintendent? Does he travel from shop tc shop?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there is one superintend put of lights for each agency.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is only one mentioned in the estimate, and the provision is for SI,800.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that is at Quebec. We have a large shop at that point, and this is a new position which has recently been created. As a rule the superintendent of lights has charge of the shops.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I notice in the item a considerable reduction in the number of men. I thought the service along the waterways would be more or less permanent, and I am wondering why the reduction in numbers should take place-a condition which is tragic at this time, when unemployment is a big question. What is the explanation for the reduction?
Supply-Transport-Marine


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should be surprised if there is any reduction in the personnel. Where does the hon. member find it?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: There is a reduction in the total from 711 to 690, and in connection with lightkeepers, class 15, I find a reduction from 60 to 49.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those are lightkeepers drawing small salaries, and we have changed a number to unwatched or automatic lights.


René-Antoine Pelletier: How many sinkers were contracted for in 1935, 1936 and 1937, and to whom were the contracts awarded?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot carry all the information with me, but I shall be pleased to supply it to the hon. member. There are thousands of contracts in the department.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am trying to obtain some idea of how many sinkers are lost each year in the St. Lawrence. I believe the average cost is about S250 or S300 each; they are quite costly: There seems to be a serious
loss,	from year to year, necessitating new contracts for the replacement of articles which in the usual course of affairs never wear out. Would the department be in a position to make a check-up and to prevent the losses which occur. These are costly pieces of equipment, and I am wondering if the minister or his department could arrive at some figure indicating how many are used from year to year. I am sure he would find that great numbers of them have been lost, and possibly he may find an explanation for the losses.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are 700 buoys in the Montreal agency alone, on the St. Lawrence river and I suppose approximately the same number in the Quebec agency. We lose about forty a year, and the expense runs about an average of $10,000 a year. We do not deliberately try to lose them. Generally the buoys are sheered away by the ice. We have winter buoys all the way from Montreal harbour to below Quebec, which are required for the use of the ice-breakers. With the shifting ice, occasionally a buoy will be ripped away from its mooring chain.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Undoubtedly the minister has a report in connection with this costly equipment, showing when these buoys were
lost.	I know the minister is always careful with the equipment under his care, which after all is the property of the Canadian taxpayer, and he should be in a position to tell us exactly how these things occur. Who makes
[Mr. Lockhart.)
the report? Who takes care of these things? They are worth money, and they should be considered by the department in exactly the same light as the Minister of Finance would consider the dollars under the control of his department. I believe the minister must have at his disposal a ready reckoner to show exactly how, when and where each of these things were lost. If the minister cares to go over the figures and give them to us later on, I am sure an opportunity will develop to tell the people exactly how these things are done. It may result in saving the Canadian taxpayer a vast amount of money now being spent for sinkers which in the ordinary course of events could not possibly wear out.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend cares to visit the department he will find a record of every sinker, as he calls them, that has been lost for many years past. I shall be glad to get an accurate record for several years back if he desires it. When a buoy breaks loose, a record is made. If the anchor is later salvaged, that is also reported. This information is available.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I notice there is a considerable increase in the vote for stationery and printing. Last year the vote was $3,000, while this year it has been increased to $5,500. What is the explanation for this increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the former estimates there was a general departmental vote for stationery, but now each separate item has to carry its own stationery cost. The increase in this vote is due partly to the reorganization of the service with an accompanying change in the forms. An expert was brought in to revise all our forms, and the number of forms has been cut down to about one-quarter of what it was. By making each item cany its own stationery, a closer check is kept.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection and the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, $185,310.
George James Tustin: How much revenue is
obtained under this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1937-38 the revenue was
8120,000,	and we estimate it will be about the same this year.


George James Tustin: What is the fee charged? I have in mind a small ferry boat which plies across the river in my constituency and of

Supply-Transport-Marine
which an inspection is made occasionally. I know a fee is charged, and I should like to know how that charge is arrived at.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There	is a long order in coun-	
cil from which I could quote.		The annual
inspection is covered by statute,		and the fees
charged are as follows:	Passenger	Non- passengerUnder 50 tons.. ..	. . $ 20	$ 1550 to 100 tons.. ..	. . 30	25100 to 150 tons.. . .	. . 35	30150 to 200 tons.. ..	. . 40	35200 to 300 tons.. . .	.. 50	45300 to 500 tons....	55500 to 700 tons.. ..	. . 90	75700 to 1,000 tons. ..	. . 130	1101,000 to 2,000 tons. .	.. 100	135
Over and above 2,000 tons and up to 10,000 tons a charge of $50 is made for each additional 1,000 tons.
Over and above 10,000 tons, a charge of $10 is made for each additional 1,000 tons.


Frank Exton Lennard: How often are these
boats inspected?
Mr, HOWE: Annually.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are all foreign passenger mats coming into our ports inspected?
Mr. HOW'E:	Only boats under Canadian
registry are inspected.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is there no supervision
over foreign boats entering our ports as to whether they have been inspected?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If they are passenger boats
they carry the inspection certificate of their own country.


Mr. ISNOR:: I wonder if I would be in
order in asking the minister to revert to item No. 410? This item went through without any questions being asked, and I missed it when I went to my office to procure a memorandum. It appears to me that there is discrimination against the Atlantic coast in connection with these subsidies. A subsidy is paid to a company operating out of Quebec and to another company operating on the Pacific coast. Last year I suggested that in order to provide greater protection on the Atlantic coast a subsidy should be paid in connection with this particular work. There is a large salvage company operating out of Halifax, and I feel that they are under a handicap due to the fact that a subsidy of $30,000 is paid in one case and SI5.000 in another to salvage companies operating out of other ports. I should like the minister :o give to the committee the conditions under which these two companies operate and explain why these subsidies are paid.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the subsidy
is to provide salvage sendee. Nova Scotia has a salvage service. I think there are six companies there altogether, and one of them does more salvage work perhaps than any other company in the dominion. If the service is there already, there is no purpose in a subsidy. If you had no service and came to us and asked for a subsidy, we would lend an ear. But these are very old subsidies. I think probably in the St. Lawrence there is not enough work because it is open only seven months in the year.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the minister give the
committee a little information about the service that is given by the company operating out of Quebec? What territory do they cover? Do they go right to the coast of Newfoundland? Have they any particular area to cover?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the subsidy they are
required to furnish a service in the river and the gulf of St. Lawrence. They are not restricted at all as to how far they can go.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Their service extends how far in the gulf?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Down to Newfoundland and the strait of Belle Isle.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It appears to me from the
very reason advanced by the minister that a handicap is placed on the company which is operating successfully out of Halifax. I am not advocating that the government should give the company in Halifax a subsidy; but if they can operate successfully, why cannot the company from Quebec stand on its own feet and operate on the same basis? I have known cases where the company from Quebec was obliged to steam 550 odd miles into territory covered by the company operating out of Halifax, and it would take the Quebec boat two and a half days to reach a certain point whereas the boat from Halifax could reach it in one and a half or two days at the most. I think this is also bound to affect the insurance rate and make it work against our coast. I really cannot see why the subsidy should be paid to the Quebec company as against no subsidy on the Atlantic coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no handicap through lack of service on the Atlantic coast, because your service is as good as any in Canada- perhaps better.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I think it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At one time a subsidy of
$70,000 per annum was paid in the gulf of St. Lawrence, but that has been reduced now
Supply-Transport-Marine

to $30,000. Each year we are shown a statement of the operating company and told that the company is losing money, and great pressure is brought to bear for an increase in the subsidy. However, it is the belief of the government that this work should be done without subsidy, and the tendency is therefore downward rather than upward.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I would ask-


The CHAIRMAN:: I must draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is out of order. Item No. 410 was carried fifteen minutes ago, and I would therefore ask him to make his remarks as brief as possible.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I knew the item had been
passed, Mr. Chairman, and I mentioned that myself and asked permission to bring up this subject.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I notice that the travelling expenses in connection with the last two or three votes have gone up from 25 to 33 per cent. Is there any particular reason why the travelling expenses should have soared on these boats and remained about the same in the case of the others?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canada Shipping Act placed a vast number of boats in the class requiring inspection over what was there before. All the small motor boats have now to be inspected. There has consequently been an increase in the number of the staff and in their work, and they have had to travel to ports where they were never required to go before. It is a very small port that does not require a visit now from an inspector.


Alan Webster Neill: I notice on page 224 of the estimates there are three tackle inspectors. Where are they located?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver, and there is also one at Alberni, one at Charlottetown and one at Saint John.


George James Tustin: I notice that the total salaries have gone up $10,000 or more. I understood the minister to say that there was a larger staff, but I notice there are fifty-nine this year and there were fifty-nine last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think my hon. friend will find that when the department was set up provision was made for salaries but the appointments were not made. We have appointed several men this year. I think my hon. friend will find that the amount provided last year was not spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Agencies, salaries and office expenses, $243,010.
Frank Exton Lennard: What is the reason for the increase in this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is an increase of $8,868 for restoration of salary deduction; $3,750. statutory and promotional increases; $800. additional amount required for casual help; various small appointments, mostly clerical help, $5,580; sundries, $2,080, or a total of $21,078. Then I am pleased to say there is a decrease of $4,000 for printing and stationery, and a reduction of $2,755 in the salary rate due to the newcomers being appointed at the minimum of the class. That makes a total reduction of $6,755, and a net increase of $14,323.


Frank Exton Lennard: What are these agencies0


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are the headquarters of the lighthouse and buoy services. There are nine of them, and they are used as the headquarters of the boats.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship channel-contract dredging in the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, and the extension of existing weirs, including cost of administration-capital, $2,933,400.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Mr. Chairman, a year
ago I asked the minister if he was satisfied as an engineer that the method which had been followed by the department for several years, perhaps many years, of keeping the channel open was the correct way of doing this work. Every year we have an item in the estimates like this, or for double or treble the amount, or a similar item may appear in public works. So that over the years the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel has cost the country a vast sum of money.
Last summer when returning up the St. Lawrence I got up early in the morning "o have a look at the channel as the ship went up the river. I went on the bridge, having first discussed the matter with the captain and having discussed with him the possibility of the methods that are being followed not being the very best to keep the channel as it should be. It appears that one year the harbour is deepened, and another year the outlets to the harbour are. Apparently what is done is to increase the flow of water out of lake St. Louis into the river. Is that the right way? The harbour continually recedes lower and lower, and as the harbour continues to recede naturally the following year the river has to be dredged again. The question is, where will it end? Are we following the right engineering methods? I am not prepared to say. Are

Supply

Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
we following the same engineering methods that are followed in all large rivers such as the Elbe in Germany, the Rhine flowing into the North Sea and the Thames?
I have read of, as I am sure the minister has, and last summer I saw, the plans of a proposed dam across the Thames at London to eliminate this sort of thing, thereby maintaining the level of the water. Has any survey been made of any possible plans to eliminate every year the expenditure of four, five, or six million dollars, more or less in dredging Montreal harbour and east? Certainly anything that can be done to improve the harbour should be done. Anything that can be done to improve that great waterway, one of the greatest in the world, over which there floats more commerce than over a great many of the large rivers of the world, should be done, and I will support anything along that line to provide shipping facilities for the improvement of that harbour. As a Canadian, and like all other Canadians, I am proud of what has been done by this country to increase shipping facilities in that harbour. On the other hand, I am not so sure that we are following the best methods in our attempt to reduce the cost of maintaining those facilities. I asked the same question a year ago. I wonder whether in the meantime the minister has had an opportunity to make a survey in order to find out whether we are following the right methods in constantly dredging and digging the outlet of Montreal harbour, reducing the water level, instead of doing something to maintain it, and eliminating the constant necessity for spending millions in dredging.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In January, 1934, the former government set up an interdepartmental Montreal ship channel water levels board to study this very question that my hon. friend has now brought up. The board spent over three years in making a thorough study of the requirements of the river. The desired result is of course a minimum depth of thirty-five feet at low tide, low water, and a width adequate for the largest type of boats to traverse safely from the ocean to Montreal. The board made a report some months ago. I have that report here and shall be glad to furnish my hon. friend with a copy of it. The decision was that a procedure more or less like that which had been followed is required to complete that work. The report goes into considerable detail with regard to the work required to complete the channel, and it is estimated that a cost of $11,500,000 will be required to obtain an adequate channel of the dimensions that I have just indicated.
Maintenance work on the St. Lawrence is in itself very light. There are only two or three points where silting occurs and where constant maintenance work is required. For a channel of that length, however, the maintenance work in itself is a fairly simple problem. In the actual construction of the channel the work has been going on for a great many years, and if the interdepartmental board is correct we are now approaching the end, so that in the next four or five years we can say to the world that we have a thirty-five foot channel of adequate width from the sea to Montreal; and this capital vote, if not dispensed with entirely, should be reduced to a very small amount.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister satisfied as an engineer that the plans being pursued are the best?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe so. As an engineer, I have studied the report thoroughly. I have followed the conclusions of the board. The board was unanimous except for two differing opinions. One expressed the view that not as much work was required as was suggested by the majority, but he did not differ as regards the methods to be followed; with him it is only a question of timing. The view of the other was that the result could be obtained by weirs. He was one out of nine. Personally, I agree with the majority report. I believe that the majority report is sounder in the conclusions it draws from the data available.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the minister will
not support the use of weirs.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The majority report
does not recommend weirs. We have weirs in the river, but doubt is expressed as to whether they were placed there wisely. We have studied them and have decided to maintain them, but they do increase the current considerably, causing a good deal of scour, and it is a question whether they are justified. There are two opinions as to whether they should not be dredged out and the result accomplished in some other way, but after two years of study we have decided to maintain the weirs we have now in the vicinity of Sorel.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the channel itself confined so as to increase the speed of the water in order that the speed itself will clean out the channel, somewhat after the method pursued at New Orleans in the Mississippi, or does the St. Lawrence river bed permit of anything of that kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Mississippi flows through alluvial country and acquires a great deal of
2244	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
silt; the St. Lawrence flows through limestone country and carries very little silt. It is not a case of the river silting. We have nearly completed the thirty-five foot channel. After a thorough study, however, we believe that we know exactly what to do to arrive at the desired result and we are proceeding in that direction. Anything excavated from the bed is being so placed as to compensate the flow; in other words, we try to keep the area of the river constant by placing dredging material in other parts of the stream in order to cut down the area by an equivalent amount.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Having finally reached a thirty-five foot channel, which everyone hopes will be as beneficial as the department expects, following that should not some method be adopted, such as conservation of water, say on the Ottawa river, where there are so many excellent places to hold water, so that in the latter part of the season, when the water level in Montreal harbour is generally too low, more water could be poured into the St. Lawrence from the Ottawa to maintain the level in Montreal harbour; so that ocean ships would be able at all times to come up to Montreal instead of having to stop at Quebec or Three Rivers, as they often have to do now? After all, Montreal is our great national port, and anything that can be done should be done to keep it in condition so that ocean going ships of any draft up to whatever it is at present and whatever it is hoped to be-I am not sure whether it is thirty-five feet now all the way to Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is about thirty-two feet now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have often thought that if some method were adopted to hold water in the Ottawa river particularly, it might be beneficial to Montreal harbour and shipping in the St. Lawrence.


Grote Stirling: Where does the thirty-five foot channel extend to now? At the time of that inquiry, if I remember aright, it was within about 4,000 feet of the bridge.


Clarence Decatur Howe: AVe have been dredging in Montreal harbour steadily for two years. We have the channel now up to the foot of the canal, and we have deepened the main portion of the harbour, that is between Queen Alexandra pier and the King Edward pier adjoining, to thirty-five feet. There is an area lower down included in this year's program. We are gradually developing ample space at the thirty-five foot depth in Momtreal harbour.


Grote Stirling: Have the piers just
referred to been deepened to accord with the thirty-five foot channel?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; both the King Edward and the Queen Alexandra. We have driven cylinders down into the rock beside the piers to the lower depth and cut away the rock beyond. AAre are just finishing this winter the last phase of the work at the Queen Alexandra pier.


Grote Stirling: Where will the contracts in connection with this amount of a couple of million dollars be let? Where will the money be spent this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In Montreal harbour, area A. which is down at the lower end of the harbour near the oil tanks, an expenditure of $805,000; in area B, $236,000; in area C, $140,000; in lake St. Peter, the big program, $1,227,432; and the St. Augustine pier, $303,000.


Grote Stirling: How is the work
measured? Is it measured by results, the depth obtained, or is there some check on the yardage taken out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The contract work is entirely by place measurement; in other words, the surface is measured and the finished work is measured up.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: This item includes $805,000 for area A; $236,000 for area B, and $140,000 for area C; a total of $1,181,000. In view of the fact that Montreal harbour, like Halifax harbour, now comes under the national harbours board, would the minister tell us whether this amount is chargeable to the operations of the national harbours board, or is it a direct capital charge to the Department of Transport?


Mr.   HOAVE@: This is a capital charge to the Department of Transport. Formerly the dredging in Montreal harbour was, and the maintenance dredging is still, charged as a capital vote against the harbour: but in course of the deepening program from thirty to thirty-five feet the dredging was carried out for a time under the Public Works Construction Act, and is now being carried out as part of the ship channel program. That, however, does not apply to the work in the slips; it applies simply to the main area of the harbour.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was anxious to draw this to the attention of the minister, as of course I understand that the harbour dues in the various ports are expected to take care in a measure of the dredging operations in these harbours. I wondered whether there are any

Supply-Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
expenditures to amount to anything in connection with the Halifax harbour which would come under an item such as this.
Mr. HOWE; There is neither very much expense in the harbour nor very much contribution to the capital vote. It is short both ways.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That should be taken intq consideration in connection with the harbour tolls. It is hardly fair to a port that requires no expenditure for dredging to be charged the same rates as a harbour which costs one and a half or two millions every year for dredging.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In connection with this item it might serve some public interest to review the question of dredging the St. Lawrence channel for some time past. The dredging of the St. Lawrence is not anything new; it began about ninety-one years ago and has been carried on almost continuously since then. As a result of the policy of successive governments to deepen the St. Lawrence channel there grew up a shipyard at Sorel equipped to take care of this kind of work. Now a different policy has been adopted by the government, namely, that in future all dredging will be done by contract. That was a great change in policy. Although I realize that the minister may not be altogther familiar with all that has gone on, because this work has only recently come under his administration, yet he may be in a position to give us complete information as to what prompted the government to adopt this new policy. I remember the minister making a statement in Montreal immediately after the sale of the Sorel shipyard to the effect that this was done because there was not going to be very much more dredging done in the St. Lawrence; but now we discover that there is going to be dredging to the extent of $11,-
500,000	more before the thirty-five foot channel is completed. So the item is sufficiently large for the minister to make a statement as to the reasons for the change of policy.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The dredging of the St. Lawrence river began in 1844; it has been going on for over ninety years. I could give all the early history-the hon. member says I do not know about that, but just to prove that I do I shall give it if he likes. But if we can skip to more recent times we can get on faster. Up to date there has been spent on the St. Lawrence-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Below Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, below Montreal. Down to 1929 there had been spent $37,000,000, of
.11952-143
which $13,000,000 was spent on the shipyard and plant. The balance was for dredging. In 1929 it was decided to build a thirty-five foot channel, and it was found that the rate of progress in the past required to be speeded up considerably if that thirty-five foot channel was to be provided within a reasonable time. In 1929 a considerable contract was let for dredging.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the amount of that contract in 1929?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Adding it up roughly it appears to be for about six million yards. That was contracted for. In 1934 the contract was extended for an additional four and a half million yards and again in 1935 for another ten and a half million yards, all at the unit prices mentioned in the first contract.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just a moment; the hon. gentleman wanted the story of this transaction and I am giving it to him. As I say, part of the work of dredging the St. Lawrence consisted of maintaining a shipyard at Sorel for the repair of the government fleet, and the government fleet was an expensive unit. I believe there were some sixteen dredges, six tugs, several coal barges, a quantity of dump scows and the various auxiliary equipment that goes with dredging operations.
I think the Sorel shipyard has been a source of concern to every Minister of Marine who has anything to- do with it. The difficulty, of course, was that the shipyard was primarily built to repair one particular fleet of boats. The boats required overhaul in the winter months, and when they were operating they required only casual repairs. The shipyard's main work was to look after this dredging fleet. The result, of course, was that in order to maintain steady employment at the shipyard a number of men had to be maintained in idleness while the dredges were in operation. It is impossible to maintain an efficient operation under those circumstances. As a result of the idleness at the shipyard in the summer months it became a convenient depository for men for whom it was desirable to find employment. It has been estimated by my officers that an efficient crew at the shipyard would consist of about 250 men. The number actually employed fluctuated. I think it was never less than about four hundred even in my time; I never was able to get it below that, and it went as high as nine hundred and at times a thousand men. As a result we were appropriating something over S200,000 each year for the shipyard

2246	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
generally, and in addition repairs to the dredges were charged against the dredging appropriation. My officers estimated that the repairs to the dredges could have been made at outside points for at least one-third less than the charges at the Sorel shipyard, and it must be remembered that the charges for the work done were in addition to the amount of over $200,000 appropriated each year for the shipyard itself.
So much for the Sorel shipyard. When I came into office the dredging fleet was only twenty-five per cent efficient; in other words, seventy-five per cent of the fleet was tied up or anchored in the stream, entirely useless except for scrap. The twenty-five per cent that we called efficient consisted of dredges of a type no longer efficient for working in a thirty-five foot channel. We had ladder dredges; one of them sank shortly after we sold them. I was afraid it would happen before we got rid of the fleet, but it was not our loss. It was the loss of the buyer; a case of caveat emptor, I think. At any rate we had equipment that was far from efficient for the purpose for which it was to be used. Analysis of the dredging costs indicated that forgetting all about the repair bill the cost of a yard of contract dredging was considerably less than the cost of a yard of dredging with our own crews and equipment. It was necessary for me to examine the situation to see what was to be done. Should we buy new equipment; should we repair the existing equipment.; should we attempt to modernize some of the dredges that we had, or should we dispose of the outfit and carry on by contract dredging? In arriving at a conclusion I had to keep in mind the report of the departmental board that about another eleven and a half million dollars of expenditure would complete the thirty-five foot channel for all time, except for small maintenance expenditures.
It seemed to me that the course was clear. If we carried on with the fleet we had, at the end of the eleven and a half million dollar program we would have a fleet and a shipyard with no work to be done. The capital cost of modernizing the equipment seemed out of proportion to the amount of work that equipment would have to do, for eleven and a half million dollars is not a very big program as dredging programs go. It seemed to me that we should dispose of that shipyard and dredging plant while we had a little leverage in the way of contract work to help the sale along. I took the responsibility as to procedure, and I might say that I had the advantage of some little background that I

thought entitled me to handle a transaction of that kind. All my life has been spent in the construction business, and the last twenty-five years have been spent in negotiating and awarding contracts having to do with the construction industry. I have considerable knowledge of dredging work, because from time to time during the period of my professional practice I have been associated with projects requiring a good deal of dredging. For that reason I took on the work of handling this transaction.
My first step was to obtain the valuation of the assets, and for that purpose I retained the Canadian Appraisal Company, the largest and, I believe, one of the most reliable appraisal companies in Canada, to make an appraisal of the property, comprising the dredging fleet and the shipyard, with the exception of such parts of the property as we decided to retain for maintenance purposes. An appraisal was made, and a valuation placed on each item.
I then considered where we could find a buyer. There were a good many problems in that connection, the chief one being the maintenance of labour. Naturally we had a large number of men employed at the Sorel shipyards, and a considerable number employed on the St. Lawrence fleet, and when seeking a buyer it was necessary to keep in mind the continuity of the employment of those men. The main contractor for dredging work on the St. Lawrence, since its inception, has been General Dredging Contractors Limited, with headquarters at Sorel. However, the work has been too large for any one firm, and this company has associated with it the Canadian Dredging and Dock Company and
J.	P. Porter and Sons, Limited, the three companies I believe owning about two-thirds of all dredging equipment in Canada, and having the greater part of that dredging equipment engaged in the deepening work in the St. Lawrence river.
It appeared to me that these were the only firms capable of undertaking a project of this size, or having equipment suitable to carry out the work. The fact that the General Dredging Contractors Limited had headquarters at Sorel, where the shipyard was located, and also operated a shipyard at that point which could merge with operation of the government plan, and work out a program for maintaining the level of employment in Sorel, indicated to me that General Dredging Contractors Limited were the people who should buy this property. I approached them on the subject and found them at first extremely reluctant to enter into the trans-

Supply-Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
action. However, I was determined that this was the time to sell the property, and I urged them to consider the matter.
The negotiations extended over two or three months. Of course the appraisal made by the Canadian Appraisal Company was the basis for negotiations. Finally we arrived at a price which was about seventy-nine per cent of the value the Canadian Appraisal Company had put on the property. The leverage I used on the contractor to work out the contract was the fact that if this could be worked out we were in a position to award the balance of the dredging.
The method of awarding the dredging contract may be questioned. I believe that there again we used every safeguard and exercised the best business judgment. The first contract for dredging the St. Lawrence was awarded in 1930 to the lowest tenderers, tenders having been called for in 1929. The lowest tenderer had associated with him his two greatest competitors. So that the three principal dredging companies in Canada were working on the dredging of the St. Lawrence at prices which represented the lowest tender in 1929.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the prices?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a long range of
prices, which I shall give.


Charles Edward Johnston: Were they all put out by tender?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; all by tender in 1929.


Charles Edward Johnston: And the
lowest one taken?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The tender was for the whole work; you cannot split a job of that kind. Loose rock and shale were put in. The prices have relation to location, as well as to the nature of the material. Reading from the 1929 contract I find the following information:
Approximate quantities in cubic	Name of	Solid rock rate per	Looseyards place	location i	each cubic	rockmeasurement	yard	rate549,518	Longueuil shoal	$8.80	$0.90209,524	Montreal east	8.00	.50190,199	Batture Perron	8.00	.60304,446	Batiscan curve	8.00	.50
The table continues to give further information for the different projects. The work covered by the 1930 contract had been completed in 1934, and the then government extended the contract at the same unit price for a further six million yards. In 1935 the contract was again extended at the same unit price, and that contract is in effect up to the present time. We have not yet started work on the new contract.
51952-H3J
Meantime the interdepartmental board of engineers had studied the new program and had analysed costs. The costs they recommended in many cases were lower and in no case greater than the unit price of the existing contract. The contract for the balance was made at or below the figures recommended in the engineers' report. In a few cases we were able to get a price somewhat below that indicated in the report of the interdepartmental engineers for each particular section. In no cases were the prices higher than those recommended in the report.
The result was that we sold our shipyard for seventy-nine per cent of the appraised value. We awarded the contract for the balance of the material either at prices recommended by the interdepartmental board or at prices lower than those mentioned in the report of that board.


Charles Edward Johnston: Those
contracts were let out by tender, too, were they?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there have been no
tenders for work on the St. Lawrence since 1929, for the very good reason that there is no one to tender. The only firm with sufficient equipment of the necesary type is today, and has been since 1930, working on the St. Lawrence.


Charles Edward Johnston: What was the leverage used in connection with the sale?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The leverage was that I
was not prepared to negotiate on the new work unless I could get a sale for my own equipment. The sale was put through at the highest prices for scrap material that have prevailed in this country for many a decade. A great deal of the material was sold as scrap because in effect it was scrap. I believe the prices received were good prices for the assets of which we had to dispose. Let me give an indication of what we might have expected had we tried to sell this equipment piecemeal. I might mention that there were some pieces of equipment belonging to the Montreal harbour commission that had not been used for a number of years. Some of these pieces were in a workable condition, but others were no better than scrap. Some months before we started these negotiations we sent a letter to contractors and dealers in Canada whom we thought might be interested and we received an offer of S500 for six scows. That was the only offer received in connection with the equipment which subsequently brought 82,250.000 at the sale. At the sale we received from the General Dredging Contractors Limited $2,000 each for three scows and $3,000 each for the other three. If anyone suggests
2248	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
that we could have done better by advertising this equipment unit by unit, I refer to him the experience we had in trying to sell the Montreal harbour equipment. I suggest this was a fair indication that such a disposal was not possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the appraised
valuation of the whole property?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian Appraisal
Company Limited appraised the value of the property as of May 5, 1937, at $2,249,931.97. That amount should be reduced by 840,000, the value of one derrick scow at Montreal which was withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the basis of
the valuation, cost less depreciation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. If the unit was in
effect scrap, it was valued at the going value of scrap which at that time was the highest in many years. The sale price was SI .704,544, which is seventy-nine per cent of the appraised value.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: What was the original cost?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This goes back to the turn
of the century, but I can give the cost if the hon. member is interested. Dredge No. 3 was constructed in 1900 at a cost of $94,000; dredge No. 4 was constructed in 1900 at a cost of $94,000, and dredge No. 5 was constructed in 1927 at a cost of 8388,000.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I do not know that it
is necessary to give that information as it was given in a return brought down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the details were contained in a return.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister said that the reason why the department decided in 1929 to do this work by contract was to save time and to expedite the dredging of the St. Lawrence river; but I would point out to him that I have information from his own office to the effect that during that particular time when dredging was being done by contract, his own fleet was lying idle in the Sorel shipyards. The minister has developed a picture of the Sorel shipyards in an effort to show that the only thing that could be done in that shipyard was repair work. I submit that is not the case. The Sorel shipyard was equipped to do all kinds of work, to construct all types of vessels and even to build marine boilers. To say that the Sorel shipyard was only equipped to repair vessels is to give a wrong impression of the actual value of that shipyard.
We then come to the valuation of the dredging fleet which was sold to General

Dredging Contractors Limited. The minister appeal's to be glad that he was able to realize such a price. He figures it was a good sale, but if he will go back and find the true valuation of these dredges I think he will realize that this equipment was practically given away. The minister refers to certain steel dump scows. I realize that if he tried to sell them as useful vessels he would not have been able to get very much. Everyone knows that there is a dredging monopoly in this country enjoyed by the people to whom he has referred. No one else was in a position to buy any of this equipment which was capable of giving any service. Let me point this out to the minister. Is he sure that his department always gives the auditor general correct figures?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I ask that that be withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no. I have heard the minister say worse than that about honest men.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member asked me if my department gives correct figures to the auditor general.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Quite so, and I repeat
the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a proper question.


Charles Avery Dunning: I submit it is not a proper question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the matter with it?


Charles Avery Dunning: No department gives
figures to the auditor general. The auditor general has access to the books and records of all departments, but there is no question of giving anything to the auditor general.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I submit that I can prove what I am saying at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the hon. member saying?


René-Antoine Pelletier: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: I think there is a simple explanation. The Department of Transport, my hon. friend will recall, is made up of two full departments and some offshoots from a third. As far as the inventory filed by the auditor general is concerned, it represents the cost of various properties. No depreciation is charged in the government books. If a dredge was bought in 1900-


René-Antoine Pelletier: Just one second-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not sure of the explanation, but I think it is this, that the auditor general in earlier years had an appraisal of one branch of the department. Of course, the department of railways had almost as much floating equipment as the department of marine, and the civil aviation branch of the Department of National Defence also has a considerable inventory of equipment. I assume the explanation is that the revised inventory of the Department of Transport was furnished to the auditor general in time for the statement. It could not have been filed much earlier because the department was put together not much over a year ago.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister says that he does not know or that possibly he cannot give a satisfactory explanation. Perhaps I can help him-. The explanation is that there never was any inventory made of this particular equipment on hand prior to 1936. That is why I say that the taxpayers' money is permitted to lie about in property and equipment at the Sorel shipyards without a proper inventory being supplied to the auditor general, who is responsible for accounting to parliament for all of the goods on hand which belong to the Canadian people.
The minister also said that it was a question of making an inventory based on the original cost, and then deducting the depreciation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said the government did not depreciate its equipment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am glad of the correction.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not a correction. That is what he said.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am glad the minister repeated his statement because it makes my point all the stronger. If that is the case, the
2250	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-St. Lawrence Dredging
true valuation was placed on the equipment at the Sorel shipyards in 1936 because, as the minister says, it was the first inventory that had ever been reported to the auditor general. He accounted for $7,872,007.01 of this increase in the inventory I am talking about. The same thing happened in the Quebec agency, with the result that altogther there has been a vast increase in the amount of money represented in the holdings at the Sorel shipyards, the Quebec agency and the St. Lawrence ship channel.
But the question of valuation is only one part of the item under discussion this evening. The minister maintains that the true valuation is the one given to him by the Canadian Appraisal Company, and I say that just five months prior to that his own officers in his department for the first time made a valuation of certain properties which exceeded the valuation placed upon them by the Canadian Appraisal Company by something like ten million dollars. Inasmuch as this was the first time an inventory was taken, I would like the minister to explain just how that difference occurred. Surely it cannot be said that that amount of depreciation took place over a period of four months. Certainly that is hard to believe.
In order to show quite clearly that the Canadian Appraisal Company's valuation is not a true one, let me take simply the industrial site covered by the Sorel shipyards. I have under my hand a copy of the valuation placed on that particular property by the Canadian Appraisal Company, and I find that they appraise the land, including wharves, railway sidings, paving, fences and drainage at $60,000, and buildings and other structures at $125,789. In the town of Sorel we find that that property, though it does not produce any revenue, is carried on the assessment rolls at 81,000,000. Yet the Canadian Appraisal Company submitted an appraisal of something like $215,000 for property assessed approximately at $1,000,000.
Furthermore, let us consider the cost to the government of this land, in order to try to ascertain its true value. The Canadian government has purchased this land from various individuals and the records show how much has been paid for this land per square foot. It is almost eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I have a good deal more to say.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


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

Tuesday, April 26, 1938