1938-03-25

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved;
That the name of Mr. Heon be substituted for that of Mr. Wermenlinger on the standing committee on radio broadcasting.
That the name of Mr. Spence be substituted for that of Mr. Lawson on the special committee to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act.
That the name of Mr. Tustin be substituted for that of Mr. Barber on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister); In further reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) as to the date on which the interdepartmental

committee studying the question of oriental immigration was appointed, I may say that for the past year officials of the immigration branch, the Department of External Affairs and the mounted police, have been holding conferences concerning orientals in British Columbia, with occasional consultations with officials of other departments. This interdepartmental committee on February 28 was enlarged by the definite addition of national revenue, national defence, fisheries, statistics and labour. Members of the board of review were appointed on March 11. The board held its first meeting in Vancouver on March 21.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, few measures better illustrate the value of parliamentary discussion than the one now before us for third reading. We have, I believe in a not unfriendly spirit, discussed the proposals submitted by the government, and I think the adoption of suggestions by the government in the form of amendments has improved greatly the legislation. Yet I feel it would be most unfair, not only to myself but to many others who are associated with me, if I did not indicate that it is a little difficult even yet to understand how a private act of parliament should determine an issue so fully national and so very important in the largest and truest sense as that concerning the exportation of power.
I have only this further observation to make. While the executive may or may not be the best body to determine whether licences for the export of power should be issued, there can be no doubt about one thing, that they are as competent to determine that matter as they are to determine whether a statute of this parliament should be repealed. Inasmuch as the executive is now being vested with the power to repeal a statute, which repeal would from necessity arise from knowledge possessed by the executive as to the wisdom or unwisdom of the continuance of the statute, it should follow that the same executive is quite capable of fulfilling the obligation placed upon it by the original statute, namely, of determining whether or not licences should issue. If the power to repeal the statute is not as great as the

Inspection and Sale Act
power to determine whether licences should issue, it is hard to understand what is the true measure of responsibility.
That is all I have to say. I do not intend either to discuss anew the merits or demerits of the measure, or to move an amendment to refer it back to the committee. I content myself with saying that for the reasons indicated I shall have to say "nay" to the motion for third reading.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in
the same spirit as that which has inspired my right hon. friend, I desire to thank him and the hon. members on his side for their suggestions, some of which have been embodied in the bill. I think this serves to show that this government is open minded when it comes to dealing with public business. I can assure my right hon. friend that when any private bill is introduced under the provisions of this measure, it will be dealt with with the same broad mindedness and spirit of justice.
With regard to the closing remarks of my right hon. friend, may I say that possibly if this matter had been dealt with and settled under the provisions of the existing law, when the application was made the governor in council would not have had as guidance the recent events which have occurred in and the statements which have come from the United States with regard to this question. On the whole I think all is well that ends well, and the house will do well to vote for the third reading of this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed on division.



INSPECTION AND SALE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 30, to regulate the inspection and sale of binder twine and salt, and to establish weight of bushel for certain commodities commonly sold by the bushel.
He said: It will be recalled that when this bill was in committee part II was deleted and third reading was delayed in order that it might be reprinted with that part omitted and any consequent!! .1 amendments made on the motion for third reading.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence) moved:: In section two, for the words and figures "Parts I, II, and III" substitute "Parts 1 and II," and strike out the word "salt" in the second line.
In section three, strike out paragraph (e), being the definition of " packer."
In the title of the bill, strike out the words "and salt."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole house.


Mr. STIRLING:: Has it been reprinted?


Mr. GARDINER:: Yes. I have before me a ruling which dates back to 1920 to the effect that where an amendment is consequential it is not necessary to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought they were more than that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The amendments are made necessary by part II having been struck out. I am informed that the third reading would be moved in these terms:
That the bill with the amendments do pass and the title be, "An Act to Regulate the Inspection and Sale of Binder Twine, and to Establish Weight of Bushel for Certain Commodities Commonly Sold by the Bushel."
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the guarantee by the government of Canada of principal and interest of loans made by chartered banks and guaranteed by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively, for the purchase of seed grain and for providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations during the spring of 1938; the liability of the government of Canada in respect of such guarantees not to exceed in the aggregate the sum of $1,900,000 in respect of Alberta and $14,500,000 in respect of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Chairman, the bill to be based on this resolution represents the national aspect of an effort to ensure that those portions of the prairie provinces which

Seed Grain

were ravaged by drought in 1937 will once more be sown. The principle of the measure is identical with that of the one passed at the last session of parliament under which guarantees were given for the seeding operations of 1937.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would give the results of that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I will a little later.
The amounts involved differ because of the different area affected as compared with the area in 1936. In 1937 severe drought conditions affected Manitoba less than previously, with the result that Manitoba is not this year included within the bill to be based upon this resolution. In Saskatchewan the intensity and area affected was greater than ever before, and the problem consequently in that province is much more serious. The government of Alberta asks for a somewhat larger provision than a year ago, but not materially so. Last year the limit of our guarantee in the case of Alberta was $1,600,000. By the resolution now under consideration for this year the amount is $1,900,000. In the case of Saskatchewan last year the limit of our guarantee was $6,600,000, and this year the amount asked for in that province is $14,500,000.
I have spoken of the much wider area affected this year. Another factor which affects the figures is the higher prices which must be paid for seed grain, feed grain and fodder for use during the seeding period. In asking us to guarantee loans up to $1,900,000, the province of Alberta states that the number of farmers applying for assistance in this respect will be about 15.000. The amount required in this area in Alberta will be about $1,800,000, while the further sum of $100,000 will be required in that province to provide similar assistance in what may be called marginal districts.
The actual loans made in Alberta last year totalled $1,339,328; that is to say, the amount authorized by this parliament in respect of that province was not fully required. As at December 31, 1937, reflecting the somewhat better crop conditions in some parts of Alberta and as a result of repayments made out of last year's crop, the amount outstanding under the Alberta guarantee for last year has been reduced to $919,000.
In the case of Saskatchewan the number of farmer applicants has greatly increased because of the condition I mentioned a few moments ago. The government of that province estimates that the number of farmers who will need some kind of seeding assistance

because of the lack of production last year will exceed 81,000, as compared with 25,000 who received assistance last year. These are just round figures.
The amounts required for the various forms of assistance in each province have been carefully considered by the federal Department of Agriculture together with representatives of the department of agriculture in each of the provinces concerned, and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will be able to answer all questions with respect to thr provincial method of determining how seed shall be supplied in detail and the terms upon which it is made available to the individual farmer.
Subject to further questions-of course the members of the committee are free to ask questions, and I have here all the information with respect to the whole history of seed grain advances during the last seven or eight unfortunate years-I would say that this represents what appears to this government and to the governments of the two provinces concerned as the most effective means of ensuring that this great area shall be sown this coming spring.
I said a year ago in discussing this matter that all Canada had recognized and appreciated the fact that the drought problem had assumed the proportions of a national emergency, and it is in that spirit that all those concerned approach the problem we have before us this afternoon. This measure represents cooperation, starting with the individual farmer, his municipality, his province, the federal government, and the chartered banks. The amounts here represented by the guarantee figures do not represent all of the advances which will be made by the chartered banks. For instance, in the case of Saskatchewan it is estimated that the advances by the banks will run to over $18,000,000 for these purposes. The mortgage companies, having the interest of a mortgagee in lands, are by provincial legislation enabled to advance seed grain to their mortgagors, arid it is anticipated that they will do so to the extent of between $1,000,000 and $1,250,000. I think therefore it can be said that this measure does represent definite cooperation between all those interested to give another chance, and a chance I think under better moisture conditions than have been apparent at this time of year in that area for a number of years past, to the people in this great area to produce a crop once more. 1 am positive in stating that without a measure of this kind it would be quite impossible for millions of acres of our most fertile land to be sown to wheat this spring.

Seed Grain


Mr. GLEN:: I should like to know what, if any, application has been made by the province of Manitoba for like assistance, and why it is not sharing in this vote.


Charles Avery Dunning: No application has been made by the province of Manitoba for the guarantee this year, and it is quite evident that the province believes that it can itself handle its own problem. I trust the hon. member understands that this loan is to the farmer from his municipality. The municipality in turn is guaranteed by the province, and the province by the dominion. I should have said in that connection that the bill will contain the same provision as the bill of a year ago, namely, that the guarantee of the dominion will not be enforceable until three succeeding crops have been grown following the distribution of the seed this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You might want to pay the losses in advance, as in the case of the wheat board.


Charles Avery Dunning: I sincerely trust the country may be in such a position as to be able to pay ascertained losses in advance, and I sincerely hope that my judgment in that regard may be as much at fault on a future occasion as it proved to be on the occasion to which my right hon. friend referred. I have no quarrel as Minister of Finance with the kind of mistake that involves over-estimation in taking care of a liability. That is the kind of mistake which is excusable.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for the reasons it was made.


Charles Avery Dunning: The kind of mistake which is inexcusable is the unwillingness to make adequate provision in such a case. "All's well that ends well," the Minister of Justice suggests.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: As regards the $1,900,000 for expenditure in Alberta, is the money actually paid to the provincial government, or is it merely guaranteed?


Charles Avery Dunning: This whole measure
involves not the payment of money to any other government but the guaranteeing by this government of the credit of the Alberta government, which in turn guarantees the credit of its own municipalities.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Upon the request of Alberta?


John Charles Landeryou: Will the government not have to meet any losses for three years?


Charles Avery Dunning: The provision in that regard, which of course it will be more convenient to discuss on the bill, is the same as that of a year ago, that the claim against
51952-107J
the crown shall not be called upon before the expiration of	three	years. In	effect	theintention is, as was the case last year, that there should be three	years during	which themunicipalities	and	the banks	and	theprovincial government should endeavour to collect from the proceeds of three succeeding crops, before	any	liability is	on	this
government.


John Charles Landeryou: An article appeared in the Alberta papers on March 15 from which I quote:
Expenditure of $1,900,000 by the federal government on seed and seeding operations in Alberta this year was announced Monday by Hon. J. G. Gardiner, federal minister of agriculture, after a conference with Hon. D. B. Mullen, Alberta minister of agriculture.
According to the press report the minister was going to have the federal government spend $1,900,000 in the province of Alberta-before the election, an hon. member suggests.
Mr. Gardiner said the resolution on which the legislation will be based providing for the $1,900,000 for seed and seeding operations in Alberta was now before parliament.
After reading such reports in the press, I am not surprised that the cabinet of a Liberal government should disallow legislation designed to give the citizens of Alberta accurate news and information.


Mr. PERLEY:: As the minister has stated, this is a very important measure, the purpose of which is to provide seed for a very large area in the province of Saskatchewan; and it will affect very much the returns that the farmers of that province will have next fall. That means also that it will affect the whole business of this dominion. It is important because, as has been stated, it provides for the distribution of seed, of feed for horses, and of power, by means of gasoline and repairs, for seeding the crop.
I regret however that the minister did not see fit to bring in thfe measure earlier. When one considers the importance of it, the present date, March 25, is quite late to introduce it. It is only right to expect that the minister will find it necessary to give details with respect to the whole question of conditions in western Canada. He has already mentioned the number of farmers that are affected this year, namely 81,000, but we shall also require details with respect to the area involved and the accumulation and distribution of the seed. However the proper time to obtain such details will be when the bill is in committee.
May I remind the committee that on a former occasion, in 1933, when Saskatchewan and other western provinces needed seed for their spring requirements-the area not quite
Seed Grain

so large as the present one, but being very considerable-a measure for the distribution of seed was introduced as early as February 1.
I might add that it was held up for nearly two months; in fact on April 1 the government of the day had to employ the closure to get the measure through. Under all the circumstances I believe members of the government and all other hon. members will agree that we shall be acting in a kindly spirit if we facilitate the passing of this measure in good time, without regard to the delay caused five years ago by the details that were demanded and * the questions that were asked. I do not think our present course will be calculated to delay this measure in any particular, although it is quite evident that we might do so if we so desired.
I am informed on pretty good authority that a request was made about January 29 by the government of Saskatchewan to the federal government for about S27,000,000 to provide seed and fodder for spring requirements. I will not go into details as to how this amount was made up, but the minister might let us know whether such a requisition was made by the provincial government on or about that time. If it was, it should not have taken the government all this time to decide what they would do about it; they should have known long before this. The minister might also inform us if the Minister of Agriculture held a meeting with the loan companies and the banks early in February, either here or in Toronto, when the whole question was discussed, including the provincial government's requisition.
I shall not argue the point as to whether $14,500,000 is sufficient. I believe it is. Of course price must be considered, but if proper distribution is made and the situation is efficiently handled this sum may be sufficient. The one point about which I am distressed is this. In the four years prior to 1935 relief and seed distribution was handled in Saskatchewan by a commission. It did a good job, and there was no criticism, at least not to be compared with what we hear to-day on all sides with respect to the quantity of seed to be provided and the number of acres to be seeded. The commission had its inspectors in the different municipalities; requisition was made to them and considered by the inspector concerned, and the farmer got his seed on reasonable conditions. But the regulations that have been issued by the provincial government which is now in power are such as easily lend themselves to some degree of discrimination and political favouritism. I referred a minute ago to the fact that we have

not criticized this government very much. I believe we have been kind to them as regards the distribution of relief in Saskatchewan, not merely with regard to seed, but other matters as well. We have received plenty of information which leads us to believe that the handling of relief in Saskatchewan since 1934 has been a scandal and a disgrace, and I believe that if a committee were set up to investigate, we could prove it. There has been a lack of control of prices, and many other things could be brought up. However, this perhaps is not the time to enter into a discussion of that matter.
Will the minister also inform us whether any requests have been made by the provincial government that they be permitted to finance or assist municipalities in providing tractor power for seeding this spring, owing to the fact that there has been very great mortality among the horses of the province and there is a deplorable situation from the standpoint of horse power this spring? Reports have been coming forward regarding the loss of horses and in many municipalities it is over fifty per cent-that is, horses that died in the municipality during the winter, and the loss of horses shipped to the feeding ground in Manitoba, many of which have not returned. Many of the horses that are being returned to the province from the feeding ground in Manitoba are in a weakened condition and I was wondering whether any requisition had been made to the government for assistance to the farmers in the form of tractors for their seeding. When we get into committee on the bill I shall ask for more details with respect to many of these matters, particularly the purchasing of seed and the question of the premiums that were paid. I think we shall have to ascertain how they arrived at the price of $1.45 to the farmers.
At the present time the soil and moisture condition in the province is very favourable and the prospects for a crop are fairly good. In the last seven or eight years we have not had such favourable soil and moisture conditions for the reception of seed. The Minister of Agriculture has just returned from the province and he may be able to enlighten us in that regard. That being the situation, it is important that every possible acre that is suitable should be seeded this year. Many districts have not had a crop in five or six years and it would be serious and most regrettable if every possible acre were not seeded this year so as to give the farmers a break. I have received hundreds of letters protesting

Seed Grain
and expressing dissatisfaction with the regulations that have been issued by the provincial government with respect to the amount of seed which will be provided for the individual farmer. A report in the Regina Daily Star of March 22 is to the effect that the Liberal members of the provincial legislature are themselves concerned. The report is headed:
Hear Liberals Trying for More Seed Wheat.
Possibly it is just a hitch in banking arrangements, a ripple in administration that will shortly be ironed out, but some private members of the legislature insist there is now being carried on extensive negotiations with Ottawa in an effort to secure more seed and easier terms. It is further rumoured that important news is expected shortly from men who have something to do with the federal treasury.
The report goes on to state that a special session may be called. This is from Liberal members of the Saskatchewan legislature.
If Ottawa "fails to come through" in the next few hours, the members may be called back to Regina within a week for a short and special session to deal with one matter only-more seed grain and particularly more seed wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: What newspaper is that?


George Halsey Perley: The Regina Daily Star of March 22.


Mr. YOUNG:: Will the hon. member be good enough to tell us who is the owner of that paper?


George Halsey Perley: That question is beside the point, but I may tell my hon. friends opposite that if they will review the columns of the Regina Leader-Post they will find many a report in the last month criticizing both the government here and the government in Saskatchewan, and criticizing them far more bitterly than anything we have seen in this newspaper with respect to the distribution of seed and handling of relief.
I should like to know whether this government have had any request from the provincial authorities for an increase in the quantity of seed that will be given to the individual farmer. A very serious condition prevails out there. There are many farmers, with more than 250 acres, who should be provided with seed, but the present regulations will not permit of this.
I do not think we should hold up this , measure at this stage, but when the bill gets into committee we shall have to ask for certain details. There is a shortage of horse power out there; there is no question about it. Another report in the newspaper from
which I have already quoted, of the same date, March 22, intimates that horses brought in from pasture are dying.


Charles Avery Dunning: The same paper?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, and my hon. friends will find the same report in the Regina Leader-Post if they will look it up. I would advise hon. members to read also the Free Press and the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix; if they do they will get some interesting information. This report states that a whole trainload of horses had to be unloaded at Areola before they got to their various destinations. Some had to be taken out and a veterinary called; then they were reloaded and taken to various places, such as Creelman and Fillmore. Some had to be taken to farms on stone-boats. That is a serious matter and it explains why there is a shortage of horse power in the province. In my opinion the farmers in certain parts of that province would be justified in asking the government to give them some compensation for the loss they have suffered in horses, particularly those shipped to the feeding ground in Manitoba. They were encouraged to ship the horses, in fact they were forced to do so because feed was not provided in Saskatchewan, and when the horses were shipped out they should have been properly cared for. As I have said, however, many of the horses are returning in a terribly weakened condition and they will not be able to cope with the spring work. That is why I suggest that the government should assist the farmers in providing tractors to put in the crop, because fifty per cent of the horses will not be able to go into spring work at all. However, we shall have more details when the bill is in committee. In the meantime I think it is necessary to get this resolution through as quickly as possible in order to facilitate the seeding operations in the province. The matter is of vital importance.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I have some comments to make upon this resolution but first I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who gave us the actual amount guaranteed in Alberta last year, to give us similar figures for Saskatchewan. At the same time he might be good enough to give us the comparative acreage last year and this year.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: While the minister is looking up that information I should like to make a few observations. It is not very often hon. members hear the voice of the maritimes on a subject of this kind. But, as I said in the house the other day, we have a real shortage of seed grain in the province and in the county which I represent. It is
Seed Grain


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Only a small amount, out of the proceeds of the first crop, which as hon. members know was non-existent over most of the area in which the seed was advanced. We expect to receive the necessary information from both provinces to enable us to give our guarantee shortly, and while I will not state positively that the amounts will be those I have just given, I am reasonably certain that if there is any variation the amounts will be less than those I have stated.
As to acreage affected, I am sorry I cannot give that information. That is of course provincial information. We may have it somewhere in our records, but I have not it before me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Like the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) I deplore the lateness of the date on which this legislation is being brought down, in view of the fact that in some parts of the west farmers will be on the land within the next week or ten days. To discuss this legislation thoroughly might take some time, but anyone seeking information will be accused of holding up seed grain for the prairies. Surely we have known since last fall, and ever since this house met in

Seed Grain
January, that seed grain was going to be required, and this legislation could just as easily have been on the order paper a month ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: We had not the information from either province a month ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not blaming the Minister of Finance entirely. The provinces knew they would need this seed.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will forgive me, it is a most laborious task to ascertain accurately what is required for such large areas. I can assure him that exact information has been received only within a week; in fact I had to withdraw the resolution and reintroduce it because of an error. I can assure my hon. friend that the matter has been followed up with both provinces as diligently as -possible. As Minister of Finance I am not inclined to jump at a broad statement by any province that it needs X dollars. Frankly it is my duty to know the basis of the request and have it demonstrated in some detail. There has to be discussion back and forth. My right hon. friend has gone through it before-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he also remembers what he endured from the opposition of that day.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no doubt he endured a great deal from all quarters. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned the same matter. I can assure him that in the process of getting the information upon which this very important legislation is based every effort was made to see that no interest suffered, and it is too early yet to say that anybody is going to suffer from any delay. So far as the finance department is concerned we have moved along in the normal way and as expeditiously as the sources supplying information would permit.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister state that there was no requisition made, say by February 1, by the provincial government giving details in respect of the number of bushels?


Charles Avery Dunning: There has never been a requisition made at any time. The matter has been under discussion for, I should think, six months. With that aspect the Minister of Agriculture of course -has been more concerned than I, but the moment the matter takes the form of a guarantee of so many dollars it becomes the concern of the Minister of Finance. It is with respect to that matter that I am speaking; but there never was any requisition at any time. The amounts
here provided for are contained in letters from the provincial governments. In the case of Alberta the letter was dated March 5-


George Halsey Perley: Did not the Minister of Agriculture meet the loan companies and the banks early in February in Toronto or Ottawa and discuss this matter in detail, and was not the requisition then discussed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As the Minister of Finance has just said, this matter has been under discussion for the last six months. In the first place it is necessary to secure sufficient quantities of the different types of grain to be used for seeding purposes. That is the first job to be done. In the second place it is necessary to invite everyone who has a real interest in the matter to see that seed is provided. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, some weeks ago I did interview the loan company representatives in Toronto, and discussed with them the extent to which they would be able to assist in putting sufficient capital at the disposal of someone so that seed would be put in on the land in which they have an interest. 1 must say that we have always found the loan companies, whether in eastern or western Canada, quite ready to do everything they possibly can to cooperate with governments in putting seed in any of the lands on which they have made loans, and this year has been no exception. As the Minister of Finance has said, as the result of those discussions the loan companies are providing somewhere between a million and a million and a quarter dollars for the purpose of putting seed upon lands in certain sections of the west in which they have an interest.
There were discussions also with the -banks as to the extent to which they could assist in providing finances for the purpose of furnishing seed to farmers. There were also discussions with the municipal authorities-not the municipalities as such, but officials who have to do with the central organizations of municipal bodies-and there were discussions with the provincial governments. On a number of occasions I have interviewed members of the governments of both Alberta and Saskatchewan and we discussed the question very fully with them. It is always true that when you begin to talk in the first instance you start out with a much larger sum of money in mind than the amount finally arrived at as actually necessary to provide what is needed. But I must say that in both Saskatchewan and Alberta agreement was reached between this government and the two provincial governments as to the amount of guarantee required in each province.
Seed Grain

The Minister of Finance has already-explained that the amount of $14,500,000 for Saskatchewan is not the total that will be provided by the banks in order to finance seeding operations in that province. My understanding is that the $1,900,000 provided for Alberta will be the total, and this amount will be guaranteed in connection with that province. For the benefit of the hon. member from Alberta who spoke a few moments ago, while I am not in the habit of saying that newspaper reports are wrong, still the statement I gave in Alberta, which probably was misunderstood by some, was exactly the statement that has just been made by the Minister of Finance-that this was a guarantee; that the money required would be supplied by the banks to the municipalities, which in turn would supply seed to farmers whose applications were passed upon by the municipal organizations.
The other question raised, with regard to provision for live stock or for power in order to put in the crop, is not an immediate concern of this government. It is the concern of the provincial governments. The $14,500,000 guarantee for Saskatchewan, to be furnished the municipalities by the banks, is presumed to make available sufficient money to take care of all the activities the provincial government think it wise to pursue in order to assist in putting in the crop. As to the method that will be followed; as to whether it will be the encouragement of the old habit among the farmers-I think it is the habit in Saskatchewan as well as elsewhere-to cooperate as far as possible in making use of any power available in the community, whether it be tractor power or horse power, in order to put in the crop in that community; or whether it be by the method of providing fuel to some for tractor power and feed and fodder to others for horse power, I feel quite satisfied that the government in each province, in cooperation with the municipalities, will make what arrangements are necessary in order to see that the crop is put in. I believe, too, that the greater part of that cooperation will be among the farmers in different communities. The general practice has been that where a man has no horses, as a result of his horses having died, the government does give some assistance through this guarantee. That is, the man may be enabled to hire a tractor, perhaps, that is owned by some neighbour, and that is not in use. The tractor may be even in a village. The tractor is hired and the fuel is provided in order that the crop may be put into the ground. But all these activities are carried on by the provincial government

in cooperation with the municipal councils, and I think that is the proper place to leave them.
The question whether or not horses have come back in poor shape is not one with which I can deal, other than to say that in all the checks I have been able to make- and I have been over quite a part of the area during the last few weeks-I have not found that great numbers of horses have died; I have not found that they are any poorer than they usually are after going through a year of this kind, in any part of the dominion. It is perfectly true that if you put a number of horses, cattle, or any other live stock into a box car and carry them three or four hundred miles probably you will have to take one of them home on a stone-boat, as the result of what they do to one another during the journey. You may even have to take one out that is not worth hauling home, but these stories are very much enlarged upon, and the checks we have been able to make indicate that the death rate among live stock this year is not materially greater than in any average year in western Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister mentioned the difficulty of getting seed together. After all this is not a measure to provide seed; it is merely to guarantee amounts of money. The question of the seed hardly impinges upon the computing of the amount of money the government would have to guarantee. However, there is no use labouring the point. I do not say that any harm has been done anyone, but I do say that the lateness of the date makes necessary haste in passing this resolution, which makes it impossible, perhaps, to secure information one would like to have if one had more time in which to ask questions and to deliberate as one ought upon this legislation. I do not feel satisfied as yet in regard to the statement the minister has made, but I have no doubt he will want to enlarge upon it when the bill itself comes down. I should like to know what acreage will be affected and whether the Minister of Finance thinks this amount will be sufficient to meet the situation. For instance, I notice that the number of farmers in Saskatchewan who applied last year was 25,000, while this year the number is 81,000. Assuming that they will need the same amount of seed, that means that more than three times what was supplied last year will have to be supplied this year, whereas the bill provides for only a little over twice as much. On the suggested basis of 250 acres for 81,000 farmers, the total

Seed Grain
would be 20,125,000 acres. At the price suggested, this would mean a figure between $28,000,000 and $30,000,000. I should like the minister to give us some idea as to whether the amounts we are guaranteeing will be sufficient to enable the farmers to put in a reasonable crop.
I think we are all agreed that moisture conditions in western Canada are better to-day than they have been for the past seven or eight years. Prices have improved, and with conditions in Europe what they are, they may be even better in the near future. It would be a tragedy if at this time the crops in Saskatchewan and Alberta were seriously curtailed because sufficient seed was not available to the farmers. I think we should have some information in connection with the suggestion of the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan as to the maximum acreage for each farmer being 250. We ought to know whether that suggestion is acceptable to the federal government. Personally I think some other basis should be used. In and around the Regina plains, down through Yellow Grass, Riceton and Rouleau, you will find many farmers farming anywhere from one to five sections of land. If such a farmer has no seed available it may mean that he can put in only 250 acres. The result would be that a large part of his farm would be left to go into weeds. The farmer might not have the necessary fuel to operate his tractors-these farmers are all tractor farmers-in order to keep the weeds down and a serious situation might develop.
I suggest some other basis be used. I do not mean that these people should be given all the seed they want, but it could be worked out on a pro rata basis. A man with 200 acres would receive a certain amount, a man with from 200 to 500 acres would receive a certain percentage, and a man having over 500 acres would receive a percentage. Before the bill is brought down we ought to have some information as to the price to !be charged. It has been suggested in Saskatchewan that the farmer will be charged between $1.40 and $1.45 per bushel. That is an exorbitant price and we ought to know just what will be charged. In view of the fact that this government is being asked to guarantee the money, we should have a clear statement as to how a man should go about applying for this seed and upon what basis his application will be accepted or rejected. We should know whether exceptions are to be made to the general regulations. When a man has 'been given a certain amount of seed by the municipal council
we should know whether he can go to the inspector or to someone else and get that amount increased.
We should have particulars of the machinery that is being set up for the distribution of this seed. I think it would be well if the Minister of Agriculture had a copy of the regulations before him when the bill is brought down. Anyone reading the Regina and Saskatoon papers cannot help but be confused by the various suggestions and reports in connection with the regulations to govern the distribution of seed. A clear statement along these lines would help to clarify the whole situation, and I hope the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture will see fit to give us this information when the 'bill is in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it does appear to me that if this government is to give a guarantee we should know under what conditions we are giving that guarantee. The amounts indicated are $1,900,000 in respect of Alberta, and $14,500,000 in respect of Saskatchewan. Since we are providing the credit by which this money is being obtained from the banks, is it not desirable that full information be given? If it were not for the conditions to which the minister has alluded, it would not be necessary for us to pledge our credit. As the minister has properly remarked to the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) this is a matter between the provincial governments and the people of the provinces. If the credit of the provincial governments were good, we would not come into the picture at all. It is only because we in the west are unable to deal with the situation that we have to rely upon the credit of the federal government.
Has the seed grain already been provided? Was it secured last fall through the operations of the wheat board? Under what authority does the wheat board function? Was it permitted to buy only from producers? How has this wheat been held? At what price was it acquired? All these are relevant questions that should be dealt with. It seems to me that the government when in opposition would never have permitted a measure such as this to pass unless such information was forthcoming. I do not think the request is an unreasonable one. I have inspected the papers downstairs and I know what provision has been made to acquire this seed. I want to know what price has been paid for the seed grain and what price is to be paid by the farmer. There will be no great freight
Seed Grain

charges to pay on this grain, because it has been taken over in the interior elevators, according to the returns made a week or so ago by the auditors of the wheat board. I think all this information should be in our .possession.
Then you come to the far more difficult question, a question that in days gone by used to be dealt with in a very, shall I say, detailed manner. Some of those who have participated in this debate will perhaps recall their anxiety to know, first, how many acres a man was to be permitted to seed; whether he should have a percentage of his available acreage seeded to -wheat, to oats, to rye and barley; or should it be fixed definitely that no man could seed more than a blank number of acres? To act on such a suggestion would be utterly unfair. A man with a thousand acres would be in a position to have cultivated only the same number of acres as the man with only the minimum number. Attention has been directed to this by the hon. member for Weyburn.
Then you come to the next question, the distribution of the seed grain. There you have a question which unfortunately gets into the realm of politics. When the legislation is before us in committee I propose to suggest that there shall be no departure from the regulations, which I would like to see as a schedule to the bill. I know, as other members know, human nature being what it is, to quote the language of the Prime Minister that you have to consider the pressure that will be brought to bear upon those who are responsible for administration. That pressure takes many forms. You have the municipality and you have the provincial government. The regulations are initiated by the provincial government and are supposed to be made effective by the municipality.
Then there are the inspectors. You have one man with 1.200 acres urging that owing to the splendid moisture content of the soil and the apparent certainty of a crop, an exception should be made in his case and a larger quantity of land made available for cropping than in the case of someone who in his opinion is less fortunately situated. Surely we should try to deal with that so as not to make it possible in this democracy that men may think that their ability to secure a crop depends upon their attitude towards public questions-in other words, depends upon their political faith. It seems to me we must do everything in our power to see that that is not the case. I know something of the difficulties. I did not listen to all the criticisms urged in days gone by without

realizing that this is not a condition applicable only to one individual or set of individuals, but is the common attribute of poor, weak humanity, and that if an election is in sight and the pressure is strong the result is fairly certain. We must do something to prevent that condition arising.
These are the questions upon which we should have information. We start with what has been done with respect to seed and what is involved with respect to cost. Then we come down to our acceptance, mark you, Mr. Chairman, of the regulations promulgated by the province; for the minute we give our guarantee we tacitly admit that the conditions are acceptable to us. We have, therefore a responsibility which I hope we shall exercise not in any narrow spirit but with an earnest desire, as the Minister of Finance has said, to make some little contribution to the national welfare by the creation in this year of grace of a substantial quantity of new wealth-for that is what it means. One of the reasons why a wheat crop is regarded as so valuable is that you sow it in the spring and have new wealth in the fall. It is not like cattle, where the new wealth does not become available for years, or like many other enterprises, in the mining field, for example, where the losses are colossal and now and then you have a great success. But with wheat, if we have a crop at all, we know it will result in a very great expansion of new wealth, and that wealth becomes available in the autumn of the very year in which the crop has been sown. That is why I suggest that the minister should place the information on Hansard, in order that the people may realize the magnitude of the efforts that are being made and the reason why the public credit is being pledged, that of the dominion in addition to the provinces; because according to the terms of the resolution the provinces are giving their undertaking and the municipalities are giving theirs, and the banks are protecting their depositors -on a ten to one basis, I take it?-by the guarantee of the federal government.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no cash basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I see. Then it is probably a dollar for dollar basis instead of a ten to one basis.
I hope the minister will give us as detailed a statement as possible on the points to which I have alluded so that we may have the information before us when we come to consider the bill. The opportunity for discussion on the bill itself will not be great, because, after all, on the resolution the minister gives

Seed Grain
a broad presentation of the case. It will be recalled that on one occasion this house sat for months dealing with a resolution, and it is very important that everything should be known when the resolution is before the house.


Vincent Dupuis: As a member from the province of Quebec I think it is my duty, following the trend of thought in this discussion, to make public by putting on the records of this house the conditions and methods under which this government enters into the picture of giving guarantees to the provinces.
The Minister of Agriculture knows that we interviewed him about some cases in our province similar to those mentioned by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean). I just want to put on the record the methods followed as I understand them, and if I am wrong, perhaps the Minister of Finance will be good enough to correct me at the same time that he answers other members.
As I understand it, it is the duty of the municipality to come to the rescue of any group of farmers in the municipality, and when the municipality is unable to guarantee seed grain to the whole community in the municipality, the municipal council must ask help from the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right.


Vincent Dupuis: If the province in turn is unable to guarantee seed grain for such a large area as we have in the western provinces, and when the conditions run on for a certain period of years, the provincial government may ask the aid of the federal government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Correct.


Vincent Dupuis: And these are the actual conditions which have prevailed this year so far as Saskatchewan and Alberta are concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: Absolutely.


Vincent Dupuis: I understand, and perhaps the minister will be good enough to make it very clear to the committee, that these two provinces did present a formal demand to the dominion government this year.


Charles Avery Dunning: "Demand" is perhaps too strong. They made a request.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, a request. Has the minister received requests from other provinces, and especially has he received from the government of the province of Quebec, a request to provide seed grain?
While I am on my feet I am glad to say that I concur in the remark made by the
leader of the opposition, that the providing of seed grain should not be conditioned upon a man's political allegiance or anything of that kind, but that so long as a farmer proves he is unable to buy his seed grain he should have it. I am pleased that the right hon. gentleman said that, and I should like to be sure that this expression of opinion by the right hon. leader of the Conservative party will be conveyed to the administration in the province of Quebec; because I recall that in the last by-election in Bagot the premier of the province of Quebec said to the electors of the county: "If you want seed grain, vote for the Conservative candidate; if you do not, then vote against him." He also said: "If you want old age pensions"-and remember, Mr. Chairman, that seventy-five per cent of the cost of old age pensions is paid by the federal government-"then vote for the Conservative candidate." And he continued to speak in that way. I am sure that the leader of the opposition would not endorse such statements. I wish to be fair to Mr. Duplessis: he did not say "Conservative party"; he said, "National party." Of course this is a camouflage characteristic of the policy followed by our opponents, but it means the same thing. I am interested to see that these conditions and methods are well known to the people of our province; for I would not consent that a large area of that province should be deprived of seed grain by the provincial government upon the excuse that this government refused to grant it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member has correctly stated the conditions.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like also that the premier of Quebec should put in his own mind the right conditions under which seed grain should be provided "in Quebec by the provincial government.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I need not add anything to the remarks of the hon. member. I have previously stated the conditions under which the federal guarantee is available, and I am quite sure that the great province of Quebec would never admit that its credit is not good enough to enable it to supply anything which in its judgment should be supplied to its farmers. If and when the time comes that Quebec is in a condition similar to that of the two western provinces I have named because of conditions that are all similar, I am quite sure this parliament would give the same consideration to Quebec, and indeed to any other province, as it is now giving to these two western provinces.
I shall endeavour to reply to one of the questions of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Seed Grain

Bennett) with respect to the supply of seed. Others relate more particularly to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who will deal with them.
The leader of the opposition very properly wants to know what steps were taken to ensure that seed will be available. Well, last year it became apparent during the summer that another very serious drought was actually in existence in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan, and it speedily became apparent that unless steps were taken very likely there would not be available in that part of Canada in the possession of anyone a sufficiency of wheat to enable a crop to be sown during the 1938 crop season. Under these circumstances the government early last fall- I cannot give the exact date, but I believe it was in September-took stock of the situation and found that the wheat board at that date still owned wheat features to the extent of just short of seven million bushels.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the old 1935
wheat? So it is stated downstairs.


Charles Avery Dunning: As at the end of July, I should have said, was the date as to the seven million bushels.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Futures contracts, were they not?


Charles Avery Dunning: They were in the form of futures at that time, as was reported to the house a year ago in discussing this matter. The wheat committee of the cabinet, in conference with the wheat board, suggested that under the circumstances it would be desirable not to dispose of this amount of wheat futures, but that it would be desirable in the national interest, because of the very clear need that we could foresee for this spring, gradually to turn those futures into cash wheat of a kind suitable for sowing in the west this year and to hold it available for that purpose instead of continuing to sell it. That was done, and therefore the two governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta will be able to secure from the wheat board the wheat supplies necessary for the purpose and covered by the guarantee which we now have under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister mean that they will buy it from the wheat board?


Charles Avery Dunning: They will buy it from the wheat board, yes. It will be paid for by means of financing here arranged for as the result of the passing of the legislation we now have under discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are converting the futures into cash wheat, and the wheat is being held against purchase for seed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the story, as I understand it. Is that right?


Charles Avery Dunning: Practically so, yes. The question of price remains, and obviously that is a matter of some concern. It was very difficult to say, back in July and August and September last, what price should be charged by the wheat board to the provinces, and in turn to the farmers requiring it, for the wheat then held by the wheat board. Obviously one could pick out a particular day when the price was high and say that they ought to pay that much, or pick out a day when the price was low and say they ought to pay this much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a heavy premium on cash wheat, though.


Charles Avery Dunning: I know. I am inclined to take the view, and I was at that time inclined to take the view, that a fair adjustment of the price basis would be the average of the price from the 31st day of July last until the date on which delivery was taken by the provinces of the wheat. While that has not yet been definitely determined, it still seems to me to be the most fair and reasonable basis upon which the transaction could be based. There are of course other costs in connection with it. The wheat was not, when acquired by the board in exchange for its futures, in the position in which it will be required to be placed for the use of the farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in the elevators.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be a distribution cost. In a great many cases it was not in the country elevators.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A good deal of it was.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was in the interior terminals in certain cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said " elevators." That meant both country elevators and terminals.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, I see. I am sorry. In any event the country elevators in which it was contained were in most cases quite a distance from the area to which it must ultimately be distributed. The figure that has been referred to by the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan is $1.45 a bushel. It will not exceed that figure, but it may be between

Seed Grain
SI.40 and $1.45, calculated on the basis which I have indicated, plus the averaging of the costs of movement, which of course must be covered as part of the costs of the wheat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister goes on, could he say what the provinces paid the wheat board for that wheat?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not paid for.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, but on what basis will it be taken from the wheat board to the provinces? What will the provinces pay for that wheat?


Charles Avery Dunning: They will pay whatever the price is-the average price. The price I am referring to in the whole of this discussion is the price at which the wheat board will turn the wheat over to the provinces. The wheat board is arranging already with the provinces for the distribution of it. So that, as I understand, the price to the provinces will be a delivered price. That is the arrangement that is being made-a delivered price at the point where it is required, covering all the costs of getting it there, and this will provide the basis for the price to the farmer.


Mr. ANDERSON:: Is that wheat already deliverable to the provinces?


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it "deliverable"?
What does my hon. friend mean?


Alexander James Anderson: Is it actually delivered to them at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Alexander James Anderson: Is it waiting until this legislation goes through?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no waiting, in this sense. Arrangements for the distribution of the wheat are proceeding. The title to the wheat cannot pass to the provinces and final distribution to the farmers be made until this legislation is passed, but the physical movement is going on, because everyone was quite sure, judging by the experience of a year ago, that parliament would approve of the distribution of that wheat for the purposes indicated. So that so far as the physical movement is concerned, it is now under way, though actual delivery to the farmer cannot well take place until this legislation passes, enabling the financing to be done, enabling the municipality to borrow the money to pay for the wheat; because while the province acquires the wheat the municipality is the borrower from the banks of the money wherewith to purchase it. So that these transactions are all now in course of mechanical preparation. The physical distribution of the
wheat is proceeding, but, I repeat, the actual delivery to the farmer cannot take place until the necessary provision is made for the security.


George Halsey Perley: This matter of price is a very important one. The minister said that it would be the average price; that is, the average price from the first of August until the wheat is distributed to the farmer, or when the province finally takes over the wheat from the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should not like to be definite on that point.


George Halsey Perley: Well, the minister mentioned the average price.


Charles Avery Dunning: The difference will be slight between the two dates. I said that I believed a fair basis would be the average of the price from July 31 last until the date when the province takes delivery from the board.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: That is, on the seven million?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, on the whole of the seven million. But what difference will be created over such a long period of averaging, the difference of a few days, will not, I think, be pertinent to the issue.


George Halsey Perley: Perhaps the minister did not understand me. I want to know whether the average price is based on the price in the interior elevator or in the terminal elevator. Is it based on cash wheat at Fort William or on what the option cost the board? At the end of July, 1937, they held 6,900,000 odd.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was 6,964,000.


George Halsey Perley: What option did they hold it on? If it was in December they had to convert it before the end of December; if they held it in May, they would have until May 31. There was a great difference in the spread between the cash wheat and the option from the first day of August, 1937, to the middle of March this year. I have the daily prices here, option and cash wheat, and it is important to know just where they take delivery of the wheat. Surely it will be agreed that there should be a difference between taking delivery at Fort William and taking delivery on a contract in the interior elevator. That is quite plain, because if the grain had never been moved from the interior elevators but had remained there from the time the grain man bought it, there would be no freight charges. There might be some carrying charges, but they would not be more than
Seed Grain

the carrying charges at Fort William, so that there should be some difference between street wheat in interior elevators and the Fort William price. The price on August 31 of cash wheat Fort William was S1.27, and May future was $1.21. A month later cash wheat at Fort William was $1.42-I will not give the fraction of a cent-and May future was $1.26, or a spread of 16 cents. At the end of August the spread was 6 cents. So that it had widened out 10 cents. At the end of October cash wheat was $1.38 and the option was $1.15, or a spread of 23 cents. On November 6 the figures were respectively $1.34 and $1.04, or a spread of 27 cents. In other words the spread between August and November widened from 6 cents to 27 cents, a difference of 21 cents. The spread has remained in the twenties pretty ' well up to the present time, and on March 15 it was around 24 cents.
The committee would like to know the reason for the spread between the option and the cash price, the reason for the widening out as soon as the board undertook the operation of converting their option into cash wheat. As I understand it, the 6,900,000 odd that they converted was all in the interior parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Can the minister give us the date when the provincial government first took over the wheat from the board?


Charles Avery Dunning: We have not taken over wheat from the board.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister give us then the date on which the board first converted their option?


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the request of the government.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, at the request of the government. We might be told also how many bushels the board held on March 15. How much wheat did the board hold in Saskatchewan which they converted? I have here an order in council dated December 15, authorizing the board to sell wheat to the provincial government. That was the first order, so that prior to that time they had no guarantee that the provincial government would purchase, and they were acting on arrangements made by the wheat committee of the government, the board taking a chance that the provincial government would eventually buy the wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: As regards the request for detailed information of the operations of the wheat board in this matter, I was careful to say when speaking of the average price that that was my view as to how a fair price basis could be arrived at. I did not say that it
[Mr. Perley.l
had been definitely determined, and I made no such statement because of considerations that are present in the mind of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Between now and the time when the bill is down for second reading and in committee, every endeavour will be made to arrive definitely at a conclusion. The matter is a very difficult and complex one. My hon. friend in his last few sentences asks how much wheat the wheat board was holding on this account in Saskatchewan as of March 15. He knows they were able to acquire mighty little of this wheat in Saskatchewan. If they had any in that province at that time it would be because, having been acquired, this wheat in the process of physical movement had been moved that much nearer to its ultimate destination. But the fact that it was in Saskatchewan on a particular date would not have any real meaning in relation to the transaction. However, we will endeavour by the time the bill reaches the committee stage, to have available the details the hon. gentleman is asking for. I see no reason why they should not be given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are given in part in these reports.


Charles Avery Dunning: In part they can be deduced from the reports already tabled. When I say "deduced," I mean that the nature of the figures makes apparent the movement to some extent, but we have not the detail before us just now. It will be made available, together with such further information as can be given as to the method of averaging prices, when the bill is in committee.


George Halsey Perley: I do not want to be misunderstood. The minister stated that possibly there was not 6.900.000 bushels of wheat in Saskatchewan. Is that when the board started their conversion operation?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure it would be more difficult to turn the futures into cash with respect to wheat already in Saskatchewan of the quality required and in the geographical position required during that period. Part of it, yes.


William Hayhurst: One of the great difficulties in Alberta, and the cause of much of the distress there, is the fact that the freight rates between there and Winnipeg are so high. We live in a marginal or in some cases submarginal area. Regarding the price of seed wheat, if the price were averaged with the Saskatchewan price, the Alberta price should be lower, because we have shipped the wheat east and then probably it comes

Seed Grain
west again. If there was sufficient wheat in Alberta the price to the farmer in Alberta should be less the freight rate to these other points.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall bear that query in mind when we come to committee. My understanding is that a definite arrangement exists between the board and the government of Alberta in respect to it. At the moment I cannot answer as to the nature of it. It may result in a slightly lower price, but I do not think the difference will be material.


Mr. FINN:: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has just said he will bear the matter in mind. I have been waiting for some time to say something, and every other hon. member has had an opportunity before me. But that is neither here nor there. I was struck by the remarks of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) this afternoon. I was also struck by the reply of the Minister of Finance, which could have been no other, that because certain provinces are in a stronger financial position than others they are to keep on borrowing until their own credit is exhausted, and the credit of the dominion should be extended to the provinces which have exhausted their credit and therefore have no financial standing with the banks and loan companies. It reminds me that it was once said that before you were, I am. Before the two new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were formed, when they were territories, the maritime provinces were the eastern background and the eastern gateway of Canada to those territories, which at that time were a part of the general domain of Canada in which each province of Canada had its equity. Saskatchewan and Alberta were carved out of the territories, and we in the east had no objection whatever to its being done. Again we stood by and saw a strip of territory up to Churchill given to Manitoba. We saw the hinterland given to Ontario. We saw Ungava given to Quebec. We saw nothing given to Prince Edward Island, nothing to Nova Scotia and nothing to New Brunswick. The reason was that we were not adjacent to any such territory, therefore we could not grow and develop; and because we could not grow and develop we must remain as we are, stand on our own feet and maintain our position in this great dominion by our own financial credit.
It seems to me that this has been a rather black Friday. I have no reference to the hon. member on the opposite side, but I think it will be a black Friday if, as suggested in British Columbia, the territory of the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black) is to be
taken from her and added to the province of British Columbia, enlarging British Columbia to the detriment of the Yukon. I hope this will not take place as long as she has the ability and the physical strength to occupy a seat in this house.


William Hayhurst: What has that to do with this matter?


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend asks, what has that to do with this matter? I wonder why he did not put that question to some hon. gentlemen a little while ago when they were talking about elections in Quebec and what Mr. Duplessis said. He was silent then; but when one is speaking intelligently and leaving the political aspect entirely out of the picture he is taken to task by some hon. gentlemen opposite. Hon. gentlemen opposite have only themselves to take to task for having taken me to task because it does not matter to me whether they take me to task or not. All I say is that we in the east are told, as was pointed out by the leader of the opposition the other day. that the greatest lobbies are going on in this parliament that have taken place for some time. The reason I referred to its being black Friday was that they are lobbying to-day on the air and by telegraph. There are two matters in which the maritime provinces are interested, and while there may be an inherent right in the ministers to act, they shall not act before there is an opportunity for every interest to be heard. I refer to the question of the beam trawler and to the removal of the dumping duty on sugar from Cuba.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: I have said all I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, and I shall sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Weybum and enlarged upon by the leader of the opposition, I may say that in Saskatchewan they have a Seed Grain Loans Guarantee Act of 1938, which was put through in the recent session. The procedure under that act is this. First the municipality passes a by-law which will enable it to borrow money for seed grain purposes. A copy of the by-law is submitted to the minister of municipal affairs for approval. After approval has been given the municipality approaches the bank and arranges for a loan, giving as security for repayment its demand promissory note bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. Second, the municipality takes from the recipient his demand promissory note as well as a written agreement for a lien upon all crops to be grown during the year in which the note is
Seed Grain

given and the succeeding year on the land named in his application. Third, the rate of interest to be charged farmers by the municipalities is not stipulated in the Saskatchewan Seed Grain and Supply Act. My understanding is that if there is any increase added it will be just sufficient to pay the cost of administration, and that the final rate when payment is made will be four per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They make no profit.


James Garfield Gardiner: They make no profit. Fourth, the	secretary-treasurer	of each
municipality is obliged to register each lien agreement and on or before October 1 of each year must prepare and forward to the minister of municipal affairs a return showing the names of all persons to whom advances have been made, and the amounts thereof. Fifth, provision is made in Saskatchewan legislation to give similar assistance to farmers in the local improvement districts which are administered by the minister of municipal affairs. Sixth, (a) the committee of the cabinet and the inspector for the district determine the amount of seed grain and supplies that a municipality may advance; that is, the cabinet in Regina decides the amount that each municipality can advance within the municipality. (b) Saskatchewan legislation provides that the municipality shall not advance in my year seed grain and supplies of a greater value than $200 in respect of any one quarter section, (c) On farms of 320 acres or less of cultivated land not more than sixty per cent of such acreage is to be sown.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that a statute?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is provided by
law. Then (d), on farms over 320 acres of cultivated land, fifty per cent thereof may be sown up to a maximum of 250 acres; that is, no one can sow more than 250 acres as a result of having obtained seed from the government.
Alberta has a slightly different arrangement, though the same in principle. In Alberta under the Seed Grain Loans Guarantee Act of 1938 the procedure is as follows. First, the Agricultural Relief Advances Act of Alberta provides that each municipality shall make provision to the satisfaction of the minister of municipal affairs for furnishing to necessitous farmers seed grain, fodder, feed grain, fuel oil and lubricating oil. A provincial order in council is passed authorizing the municipality to make a loan for such purpose. Then the municipality gives a demand note to the bank bearing interest at a rate not greater than four per cent for any such loans

so authorized, and the municipality takes from the recipient his promissory note bearing interest at the same rate. A lien is taken from the farmer by the municipality upon all crops grown in the year in which the advance is made and in the next ensuing three years. Provision is made in the Alberta legislation to grant similar assistance to necessitous farmers in municipal districts, by the minister of municipal affairs.
The amount of seed grain that may be supplied to any applicant, together with any seed grain which he is able to provide for himself, is set out as follows: If the applicant has arable land in condition for seeding amounting to 50 acres, he gets seed for 50 acres. If he has 100 acres he gets seed for 75 acres. If he has 200 acres he gets seed for 120 acres. If he has seed for 300 acres he gets seed for 165 acres, and of course that includes any seed he has of his own. If he has 400 acres he gets seed for 210 acres; if he has 500 acres he gets seed for 255 acres, and if he has 600 acres he gets seed for 300 acres. If the acreage of arable land in condition for seeding is other than an amount mentioned above, the acreage for which seed may be advanced is to be calculated upon the basis of the foregoing figures; provided further that no seed shall be supplied to any applicant in excess of the amount necessary for seeding 300 acres of land. Those are the provisions of the Alberta act, and they compare closely with those in the Saskatchewan act.


William Hayhurst: If a farmer has his
own seed for one hundred acres would that be deducted from the amount he could sow, or would it apply as something extra?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the guarantee is concerned in Alberta, since it covers one hundred per cent I presume the provincial government will not go any further in relation to that matter; or will the banks with regard to any obligation that we have. In Saskatchewan in view of the fact that the guarantee covers less than eighty per cent of the total amount-I think it is about seventy-seven per cent-these figures may not cover the total amount that may be supplied by the banks for feed and seed. In other words, while the maximum figures are 250 acres in Saskatchewan and 300 acres in Alberta, the maximum will be fairly close if the banks advance more than the amount which is guaranteed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He gets seed for only 300 acres if he has 600 acres of arable land?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, not more than 300 acres in Alberta, even if he has more than 600 acres of arable land.

Seed Grain


Charles Avery Dunning: But the amount in Alberta includes any seed the farmer may have.


William Hayhurst: I do not know whether I got the answer correctly or whether the minister misunderstood me. Suppose a farmer can get seed for 300 acres under this guarantee and he has 400 acres that he wants to seed. He has enough of his own seed for 100 acres. Can he still get seed for 300 acres?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I read the Alberta act and as it has been outlined to me in this memorandum, which is really a summary of it, if a man has seed in his bin for say 100 acres he could get enough to seed an additional acreage up to 300 acres.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he could only get seed for another 200 acres?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, for another 200 acres. The total amount of seed, both what he has in his bin and what he gets under this guarantee, would be only sufficient to seed 300 acres.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then under this scheme any seed the farmer had would be deducted from anything he would be allowed?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no provision for that in the Saskatchewan act. That is purely a matter of administration, and I should not like to say what would happen. I have a fair idea of what I would say if I were administering it, but it is being administered in Regina.
In regard to the other question, as to whether sufficient has been supplied, which I think was raised by the hon. member for Weyburn, I do not think I can go further than to say this: Last year we had a great deal of discussion with regard to that same question, as to whether a guarantee of $6,600,000 was sufficient to cover the needs of the province of Saskatchewan, and as to whether $1,600,000 was sufficient to cover the needs of Alberta. After considering it from every point of view, and with all the information we were able to place before the house, I think hon. members finally were satisfied that this was as near as we could come to a sufficient figure. We have followed exactly the same procedure this year in trying to arrive at a proper figure, and I think we can say that there is sufficient provided under the guarantee to make it possible for farmers to seed their land this year, to the extent that governments can be expected to assist in providing seed. I heard very little complaint last year after the seeding was all over, and I may say that in Saskatchewan hardly all 51952-108
the guarantee was used, while in Alberta considerably less than the guarantee was used. So with that experience behind us I think this year it will be found that we will have pretty much the same experience.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But they did not restrict it to 250 acres last year. The farmers on the large tractor farms on the Regina plains, and down through my constituency, seeded more than 250 acres.


James Garfield Gardiner: Speaking from memory I think it was the same last year; there was a restriction, and I think it was 250 acres. The schedule is slightly different this year, but not greatly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was any
attempt made to have some standardization as between the Alberta and Saskatchewan regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, nothing more than that the two legislatures put through their legislation at about the same time, and naturally they compared notes and tried to make legislation conform as nearly as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did not the federal government give them any suggestions about it?


James Garfield Gardiner: In discussing the matter we suggested from time to time that we preferred to have the regulations and legislation as nearly alike as possible. Different conditions, of course, require different treatment. ,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the federal government make any suggestion as to that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nothing more than
in the discussions we had. The one matter called attention to the other.


Mr. QUELCH:: Are these regulations
which are imposed by the provincial governments imposed in order to comply with certain federal limitations?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing in any of these regulations or in any of these agreements that will prevent a province from going as far as they wish in providing assistance to farmers. The representatives of the provinces came to Ottawa and made their requests. The requirements were discussed and we tried to arrive at an agreement as to the proper action to take. As has been stated already, so far as Alberta is concerned the amount guaranteed is the amount asked for in the letter to the government suggesting that assistance was required. We checked up and found that that conformed very closely with the information we had. In so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, we had discussions about the matter and finally arrived

Seed Grain

at the figure placed in the guarantee. Of course, there was an understanding with the loan companies and with the banks that considerably more than the guaranteed amount would be supplied in Saskatchewan.


George Halsey Perley: Did the municipal organizations not take the matter up and suggest that the amount be increased? Have representations not been made as to increasing the 250 acre stipulation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no information with regard to that. I have heard rumours and have seen statements in the press to the effect that some people were not satisfied, but that has not been communicated to me officially. In further answer to the question, I might say that the municipalities did make representations that we make provision for all that was necessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me unfortunate that the same basis could not be applied in both provinces. In Alberta there is a sliding scale, whereas in Saskatchewan the maximum is fixed at 250 acres. In view of the fact that this government must approve these regulations, would it not be possible to arrange that there be a similar sliding scale in Saskatchewan to permit farmers with large farms to obtain a greater amount? It might be arranged that fuel would be provided in order that they could keep down the weeds. Otherwise we shall have a serious condition where a man with a farm of 1,000 or 1,500 acres has only 250 acres in crop and the rest going into weeds on account of his having neither horse power nor tractor power to keep the land in shape.


James Garfield Gardiner: In connection with the
point first raised, I would suggest that in the case of Alberta the amount assumed to be required is estimated on a bushel to an acre basis, whereas in the case of Saskatchewan it is estimated on the basis of a bushel and a quarter to an acre. This means that the amount allowed to the different acreages will work out about the same aggregate amount of wheat for the maximum acreage.


Mr. PAIR:: Where grain can be purchased locally, will those coming in under this guarantee be allowed to purchase in that way, or must they accept the seed from the wheat board at the higher price?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is nothing to prevent the province from working the matter out in that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I note by the last report that there was in the country and interior elevators a total of 4,625,840 bushels already

delivered and converted, and 2,338,166 5%ooths bushels still out on open purchase contracts. That seems strange in view of the necessity of having the grain converted, but probably it is in a position where it can be converted very quickly.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer as to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was referring to what was said a moment ago as to the availability of the crop. It would seem obvious that they probably have it in a place where it can be easily converted.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can suggest an explanation which my right hon. friend will appreciate from his knowledge of the grain business. If I were handling this transaction, my chief concern would be lest we put the cash premium entirely out of sight. It must have been a very difficult operation and we shall have to answer for it.


George Halsey Perley: The weekly reports to the grain commission would show what there is in the country elevators. I think there is more than that according to the last report.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall check up on that. A great deal of the stuff in the country elevators is not fit for seed.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to assist the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan in financing the cost of seed and seeding operations for the crop year 1938.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $425,720.
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that those of us who listened yesterday to the minister would wish to congratulate him upon the clear statement he made concerning the general matters under discussion. All of us who take part in this debate must realize that we are dealing with what is one of the most important questions and at the same time the most contentious problem before the country to-day. We cannot be insensible to the implications and the far-reaching nature of the questions under consideration at the moment. We

Supply-National Defence
should keep definitely in mind the fact that there is a strange unreality in ignoring the present unsettled state of the world. We cannot be blind to facts which are apparent, facts which tend to unsettle the minds of men as well as the stability of nations.
There is no hon. gentleman sitting in this chamber who does not thoroughly abhor war and all that it embodies and suggests. We have had an experience, still too fresh in mind, which indicates to us that victory is hollow and is a name applied to a state of affairs for lack of a better term. As the Prime Minister of Great Britain stated yesterday in the British House of Commons, in war there is no winner. No matter what one's personal feelings may be, there is nothing to be gained by burying our heads in the sands of whatever doctrine we wish to subscribe to; there is no use in burying our heads in the sands of north America and blinding ourselves to stark realities. We may detest the idea of armaments as such, and we may be loath to enter into any extended program to reestablish the defensive arms of Canada. It may shock our sensitivities and it may do violence to our sense of the fitness of things, but the fact remains that we are compelled in this chamber to face cold-blooded facts. In the words of Woodrow Wilson: "We are not here to argue what we want to do but what we may have to do."
No one could possibly accuse Great Britain of having been responsible for the rearmament race that is going on in Europe and the rest of the world at the present time. No one can possibly say that she, of all nations, has not lived up to the responsibilities that were hers as a member of the League of Nations. No one can possibly accuse her of having departed from her commitments until other nations forced her so to depart. Certainly no one can accuse us in Canada of having been irrational in the volume and extent of our expenditures on armaments. But, Mr. Chairman, we are compelled in 1938 to face the cold-blooded facts of the situation.
The matter under discussion on these estimates cuts cleanly across party lines, and in such remarks as I have to make I am speaking not in any political sense, but as a Canadian to my fellow Canadians. I shall address my remarks particularly to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in the earnest hope that, coming, as they do, subsequently to his most able speech of yesterday, he will give them every consideration for what they may be worth.
51952-108J
First, may I quote his words as reported in Hansard at page 1650, and with his permission digest one of his paragraphs and make it more definite. He said:
When, sir, as we do now, we contemplate the broad principles of Canadian defence, and endeavour to define with some particularity the responsibilities that rest with governments, Canada must be prepared for the preservation of the best there is in these three nations-
That is Canada, Old France and Great Britain.
*-and the best there is within her own boundaries-the best there is in democracy itself-to take her stand, if need be, against brute force and might and ruthlessness, and, if need be, for high purposes to endure sore travail.
There is a statement which, taken by itself, means that the minister who made it at least has a sense of the needs of the situation. On the other hand, when we put into juxtaposition with that statement the estimates which are now before the committee, there seems to be a strange inconsistency. Let me put it bluntly to him:	Are we prepared
to defend Canada or are we not? If we are going to try to defend Canada with a defence that is adequate, the estimates before us for 1938-39 are sadly inadequate. If we plan to temporize with defence, perhaps these estimates are adequate. If we are not going to defend Canada at all, then clearly these estimates are vastly in excess of what they should be.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) last night gave a most able presentation of his particular point of view in this matter, and I hesitate not at all to congratulate him sincerely upon his speech. He brought to the attention of the committee the necessity for us to defend particularly our harbours. The line of argument which he pursued was a telling argument. He suggested to us with great clarity that after all we were peculiarly vulnerable in such ports as Halifax, Saint John and Vancouver, and he insinuated though he did not directly state it, that these harbours could be attacked, and that we are at the moment absolutely defenceless and without protection for them and all that they represent. We know full well the vital necessity of those ports in time of war. We know full well how any Atlantic fleet would depend upon its ability to secure supplies, fuel and the like in such harbours as Halifax and Saint John, and how any Pacific fleet would lean heavily upon the harbour of Vancouver.
If we examine our own geographical position, we realize that an attack upon Canada could be made successfully only by air or by
Supply-National Defence

sea. We may, I think, safely assume that any attack by land from the country to the south of us is an absurd possibility even to contemplate, and accordingly the defence of Canada is at once confined to our harbours on the Atlantic coast in the east and to our harbours on the Pacific coast in the west; and the two coastlines. But no longer can we think of an attack as coming only from the sea. We must think of the air, and if we think of the air, then we find at once that the whole width of our boundaries should be defended. We have not 3,500 miles of border to defend with forts and batteries; but we do have our two coastlines as I have mentioned, and these two coastlines, it seems to me, can be defended at a relatively low cost.
I noticed from the minister's remarks as reported at page 1647 of Hansard that he gives us a word picture of our existing air defences. When one reads his statement, one is at once impressed with the fact that the locations of our training air fields have been well chosen, and if one did not know the actual facts as divorced from the picture he gave us, one would say that much has been done in Canada in the way of aerial defence. When we consider that we have training fields at Trenton, Vancouver, Esquimalt, Kamloops, Yarmouth, Sydney, Rockcliffe and other places, it would seem that the whole of the dominion has been fairly well covered with airfields. On the other hand, when one realizes the amount that has been spent on these airfields, the number of men with which they are staffed, the number of hours flown, and the number of persons who are being trained, one realizes how pitifully small is the Royal Canadian Air Force.
One does not criticize the air force for what they have done under the handicaps under which they have worked. One is, on the contrary, happy to think of what they have contributed so far, but naturally they have been grossly handicapped by lack of adequate equipment and by the small amount of money which they have had to spend. We must realize that all these things cost money and that naturally any government, which had to face such conditions as have existed and are existing in Canada, is loath to spend money on anything so contentious in Canada as armaments are, or as an air force is at the present time. On the other hand, we must realize the facts of the matter. When we realize that we have only a few aeroplanes- six, eight or ten at the most; I do not know what the exact number is-that will fly over 280 miles an hour; that we have absolutely

no bombers-I think I am correct in saying that-and that we are not prepared not only to defend an attack on our borders but also to repel the attacker by means of a counter attack, then we must realize that what we have done is hopelessly inadequate to meet the present situation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I correct a misapprehension? We have no aeroplanes of that speed at the present time, but eighteen are under order.


Denton Massey: Well, then, we have yet
to fly 2S0 miles an hour in Canada; the situation is even worse than I thought. We have some training ships that are incapable of a speed of more than 110 miles an hour, ships which would merely clutter up the air in case of any complication, and which would certainly be useless in any active engagement. 1 do not think the minister heard a remark I made a moment ago. We have no bombers in our air force, have we?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not yet
completed, no.


Denton Massey: We are at the moment in
the process of purchasing ships for the Trans-Canada airways. They are certainly not wartime ships. Yet, if anyone goes to any country in Europe to-day he will find that all the passenger ships are bombers in fact as well as in name.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Convertible.


Denton Massey: When one steps into one
of the Imperial Airways liners, he is not on board a passenger ship, he is on board a military plane which has been adapted for peacetime flying. WTe are about to embark upon a large expenditure for Trans-Canada airways.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Are not these
Lockheed-Electras fitted for bombing?


Denton Massey: They are very small as
compared with the modern bomber. Their lifting load is very small and their speed very slow compared with the bombers flying on passenger air routes in Europe to-day; also, as the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) remarks, they are obsolete for that particular purpose.
It seems to me that we are challenged not only to build up an air force for the defence of this country but to build up that air force ourselves. The Canadian pilot has demonstrated that he is the finest in the world. That was said by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght)

Supply-National Defence
last evening; it has been said over and over again in this chamber, and it is an established fact. We are the finest pilots in the world, and we should know more about flying than anyone else in the world. We should be able not only to fly ships but to build them as well. Only the other day I noticed that a factory is to be erected at, I believe, Malton-the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) is thumping his desk-for the manufacture of planes. Why cannot we in this country develop an aeroplane industry of our own? Why cannot we build those ships which we are to fly in our own air force? Why should we have to buy them outside? Why should we be in the position to-day that we go to the United States to purchase from them the ships for the Trans-Canada airways?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); In the defence services we are building practically all our own airships.


Denton Massey: What is the capacity of
the plant?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
more or less in the experimental stage. I think six different firms are contracting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All the engines are imported.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The engines are all imported, yes.


Denton Massey: It is not a complete plant of itself?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Denton Massey: It is in part an assembly plant?


Mr. McIVOR:: May I be allowed to give just a little information?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Denton Massey: I am perfectly willing that the hon. member should do so, but he can make his speech later.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We have in Fort William an aeroplane factory which is at present employing 334 men, most of them experts.


Denton Massey: I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Fort William that in that part of the world they are as air-minded as he says. On the other hand, with all due respect for what is being done at Fort William, I am speaking not of smaller efforts but of the large effort. If we are to have an air force in this dominion and to make the ships that we require, we shall not do so with 340 men in this factory or 120 men in a factory somewhere else. In other words, what plans, if any. has the government in mind
toward building our own ships in this dominion? What has the government in mind as regards the building of anti-aircraft guns? What has the government in mind toward either the purchase or building of the new pump gun? What has the government in mind toward the expansion of our ordnance facilities? We must realize, facing the facts as we are compelled to do, that in the event of war we must be able not only to put a fighting force into the air but to maintain it in the air. The whole question, then, is one not only of creation but of maintenance as well.
So I repeat that we must face the facts of the situation, a situation which we have had no part in creating. We are, if I may say so, innocent victims in a world of turmoil and strife, a world in which the existence not only of some nations of the world but of the empire itself is threatened, and of that empire we are definitely a part, and not only, let it be remembered, a traditional part but an economic part. Does any hon. member believe that our association within the empire is purely a traditional one? Where should we be were we a little country on our own in the northern half of the north American continent? What would happen to us in our present standing if we were to be attacked? We cannot be blind to the fact that the land-hungry nations of the world regard this dominion of ours as a juicy morsel on which to seize, and land-grabbing is not altogether unknown in these days. Japan has seized Manchuria, now Manchukuo; Italy has seized Ethiopia; Germany has seized Austria; Czechoslovakia hangs in the balance, and to-day Japan engages in another life and death struggle with China.
What is to happen next? Would any hon. member venture to rise in his place and say that there is to be no more of this; that this is the last; that we are through? Are we to be like the grasshopper in the fable who danced and sang, taking no thought of the winter to come; or are we to face, as I have said several times already, the facts of the situation? By no possible manner of means can we legitimately close our eyes to the situation which exists in Europe and which increases in seriousness, which hereafter may become less serious or may become more so. I think I understand the point of view of those living in various parts of the dominion who shun war and say that we should have no part in it because it does not concern us. But it does directly concern us if Victoria and Vancouver are laid in ruins, if Halifax and Saint John and even Quebec city are destroyed from both the sea and the air.
Supply-National Defence

The government, I fully admit, faces a difficult situation. But it seems to me that the minister in his estimates has endeavoured rather to save the face of the government than the body of the people. In other words, is this a policy of how little can we spend and get by, rather than how much do we have to spend in order to have security? I take second place to no man in deploring expenditure for defence; but when that expenditure has been definitely shown by the trend of the times to be necessary, perforce we must face the situation as it is and lay aside our individual feelings for the sake of the nation, looking at the broader panorama in its full width and implication.
Let us look for a moment to our sister dominion, Australia. We were told in the press of yesterday that $215,000,000 are to be spent in the next three years by a country whose British-bom population is not more than half our total population. Two hundred and fifteen million dollars will be spent in three years by one of our sister dominions. As the hon. member for London pointed out last night, Australia is spending for defence $4.30 per capita as against our 81.41.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); We in Canada are up to $3.11 now.


Denton Massey: As against Great Britain's


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Denton Massey: We cannot maintain our
position as a nation and depend upon any sister nation, no matter how friendly that sister nation may be. We cannot possibly retain our status as a nation if we are going to lean upon one that is not part of us.


Mr. MARTIN:: Why not?


Denton Massey: The reason is perfectly
obvious. A mother will look aft"r her daughter without any expectation of reward, but cousins do not look after cousins on the same basis. That is the answer in a nutshell, as the hon. member for Essex East well knows.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I do not.


Denton Massey: We cannot rely on the
fleet of another nation to defend us. Does the hon. member suppose for a solitary moment that the fleet of the nation to the south of us, no matter how friendly that nation may be, is going to rush up the Atlantic seaboard for the protection of Halifax? Does any hon. member think for a moment that its fleet on the Pacific is going to engage the fleet of Japan or some other nation that chose to attack Vancouver?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No question about it.


Denton Massey: Do hon. members realize
the strength of the Japanese navy and to what that might lead as far as the United States is concerned?
How exceedingly anxious we were a short time ago to develop our status as a nation. As the minister pointed out yesterday, what he called "the Balfour formula" was acclaimed by many Canadians as establishing this dominion as a nation. Some of us have rejoiced in that fact; some of us have acclaimed from the housetops the fact that we are a nation. Are we then prepared to stand on our own feet or are we not? That is the question. Can we hope to preserve our entity as such and not be prepared to defend ourselves? There is no longer a north Atlantic fleet of the British navy. Let us not forget that fact, and let us not forget either that aeroplanes fly faster than ships plough the sea, and that a warring aeroplane is not like an aeroplane carrying passengers. A warring aeroplane does not have to get back; its job is to go to its appointed destination and drop its bombs; and after it has done its work, as one of the horrors of war, does it really matter whether it gets home? It sounds ghastly, but that policy was demonstrated over and over again by the enemy in the last war. Airships now fly the Atlantic one way, and it may not be long before the range of these ships will be such as to enable them to return to the field from which they took off or to an aeroplane carrier far at sea.
In the last war we did not experience hostilities within our own borders; in the next war there is no guarantee against that. Whereas there were some who said that the cry of the defence of one's home was a futile argument in 1914. that argument at least holds good to-day. The danger in which we live in this dominion is not the danger of being compelled to send an expeditionary force across the sea, but the danger of having our own homes destroyed by attack from the air. Let it not be considered as idle talk to-day to refer to the defence of our own homes, particularly the homes of those who live in our seaports. Air attacks are not unlike accidents; you do not know that you are going to have them until they happen. It was only a few years ago, as hon. members will recall that we looked up into the sky one day and saw some twenty planes, bearing the insignia of Italy upon them, flying through the air on their way to Chicago. True, that was a peaceful mission, but some of us wondered that day how long it would be before bombing planes of some enemy of the British commonwealth might be flying through Canadian air on other than a peaceful mission.

Supply-National Defence
I urge the minister, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, that in his estimates he give consideration not only to the point of view of how little we can spend to save our face but to the point of view of how much we must spend in order to save the body of this nation.


Mr. THORSON:: Will the hon. member indicate how much we should spend?


Denton Massey: I am not a military expert any more than the hon. member for Selkirk, but I am discussing preparation in the face of the possibility of war. I am not here to state how much we should spend. The hon. member, however, knows quite well, living safely ensconced in the heart of the dominion, that he has nothing to be afraid of from the air. But how about those who live in Vancouver, Victoria, Halifax and Saint John? Their situation is entirely different. I can readily understand why the hon. member for Selkirk should have the point of view he has, but he does not face the situation which those who live on the seaboard must perforce face.
I implore the minister to look upon these estimates in the broadest possible way. In the light of his own statement of yesterday afternoon, with which he concluded his remarks, the possibility of war is not so remote that we can afford to ignore it and leave our policy to be decided after the guns have begun to thunder. We must face the possibility, as horrible and all as it is, that Great Britain may become engaged in another life and death struggle. We must try to visualize what it means to each one of us as Canadians, if Great Britain were to be defeated in such a struggle; yes, and to visualize as Canadians what would happen to us were we to be directly attacked. Every hon. member of this committee must face these decisions as an individual, and we have a right to require that our government should face them as a government.
Flights on the wings of oratory, arguments dressed up in all the detail of which every language is capable, and the subtlety of words, do not remove the fact that we are living in a wicked world wherein man is prepared to use force against his fellow man. All the sincere piety in the world is valueless when hostilities break out, and the arm of the invader is stronger than the arm of him who is merely pious. Again I urge the minister that, in the name of this dominion which we love; in the name of all the liberty and privileges that are ours as members of the British commonwealth; in the name, not merely of traditional loyalty or of effervescent
patriotism, but of common sense, we face facts fearlessly and plan our course, not under the urge that inspires military aggression but under our desire to be a nation, in fact as well as in name, ready and prepared to defend our shores and our homes against the ravages of a ruthless invader. Let us give thought, then, not to any hectic higgledy-piggledy expenditure of large sums for a navy, for an army and for an air force, but to adequate and reasoned protection against the only possible attack to which we are subject, namely, from the air or the sea, and let us have a permanent land force trained and equipped to meet any emergency which may arise.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I wish to express appreciation of the decision of the minister yesterday to precede his estimates with a statement as to general policy and to permit the discussion to cover a wide range. I feel that the statement he made yesterday will do much to allay unnecessary criticism and to give a better perspective of the intentions of the government. I am bound to say, however, that his statement does not answer all the questions, the anxious questions that are being asked by the Canadian people at this time. In this group we have withheld criticism until after the delivery of the minister's statement. We have given that statement some consideration. We appreciate the difficulties of the government in dealing with these questions. We are not unmindful of our responsibilities, and for that reason I do not intend to use any reckless language; for I fully appreciate the gravity of the situation confronting the Canadian nation at the present time.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has reminded us not once but several times of our responsibilities. But I would point out that the responsibilities of the minister at this moment are even greater. He is aware of facts in regard to international affairs; he is aware of the decisions as to British government policy which have not yet been disclosed to the Canadian House of Commons. I would be the last one to suggest that he should take a meddlesome attitude toward international affairs, or toward British policy, but I think it most important that he should deal definitely with some doubts and uncertainties which are in the minds of the Canadian people. Let us be under no misapprehension. In spite1 of all that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) has said the Canadian people most earnestly desire peace and they intend to work for peace.
Supply-National Defence

In my opinion it is the minister's responsibility to define more clearly Canadian policies, to give Canadian opinion courageous leadership and to provide a satisfactory basis upon which to unify Canadian opinion. May I suggest to him that this desirable result cannot be attained by any attempt to pacify the imperialists on the one hand or conciliate the isolationists on the other. As I view the question, unless some attempt is made to establish a plan of collective action by the great powers, there is little hope of averting a major world wrar in which Canada may be involved. We have been told by the Prime Minister that one of the most important guiding principles of policy at this time is the maintenance of Canadian unity. I submit that there can be very little unity; that he cannot satisfactorily answer the questions of anxious Canadian mothers at this time, unless he tells us more clearly how and under what circumstances or conditions Canada will employ the armed forces which he now asks this committee to provide. That is the important question, which I regret to say the minister did not adequately answer in his statement of yesterday.
If I criticize the defence policy outlined by the minister, it is not because I am opposed to defence as such. I regret very much that insinuations have been made from time to time misrepresenting my position or the position of anyone in this group in that respect, I say clearly I am not opposed to defence as such. The minister has strongly emphasized the idea that it is our duty to do something reasonable to protect our people and our country. I think he will not find any hon. member of this committee in disagreement with him on that score. What I have said and say now is prompted by a knowledge that defence involves much more than a haphazard expenditure of public funds on armaments.
He has not heard this group counsel inertia in the face of world trends of to-day. No one suggests that we should neglect our national interest and thereby to some extent court national extinction. I do not propose that we should leave our national defences in such a state of disrepair as to invite any lawless aggressor to come over and do with us what he pleases. I believe it to be the responsibility of any government to defend the country from external attack. I hope I make my position clear. We are quite as much concerned as the minister with regard to national security. We are quite as much concerned as the minister that our shores should not be ravaged or our homes laid waste. So I think we may eliminate from this discussion any insinuation that any of us
TMr. Massey.]
would remain supine should any attempt be made to ravage our homes or violate the territorial integrity of our country. But I submit that it is quite compatible with that desire for national security and national unity to question the purpose and the degree of armament proposed in these estimates.
These matters have been discussed in the British House of Commons. Only yesterday the broad lines of policy were laid down by the British Prime Minister. As was done in Westminster, so I submit broad lines of policy, may be laid down here, with more definite reference to the existing international situation and Canada's position with reference to that situation. These estimates mean that we are preparing to fight. True, . the minister emphasizes preparation for defence; nevertheless he did suggest the possibility of armed action in support of peace-time diplomacy, or of obligations to defend democracy. We should know now more clearly what the government's intentions are in this respect. The minister has not assured us that these estimates are solely for purposes of direct defence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
certainly are, every cent of them.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have gathered otherwise from the statements of the minister as reported in Hansard. When he speaks of armed support of peace-time diplomacy and the defence of democracy, he is referring to external considerations. However, I hope that at a later time we may have his assurances in more definite terms. He cannot safely be indefinite in this respect.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company-Mr. Damude-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1.-Incorporation.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the committee that considered this bill, I wish to say something about it before we * proceed any further. I must say that I enjoy very much speaking of that historic district

Niagara Falls Bridge
in which it is proposed to erect this bridge, and if there were more time I would enjoy it even more. The Niagara river frontier is one of the most historic districts in Canada, made famous first by those early French explorers whose bravery and ability to navigate the unknown wilds have never been surpassed. In the course of time it was found necessary to erect bridges over that great river. The first one to be erected, on the site occupied by the recent Falls View bridge that fell down, was erected in 1867. I do not know the date of the construction of the second bridge; but the third, the one that fell down on January 27 of this year, I believe was erected some forty years ago, in 1898.
As far as I can see, there is no reason for any hurry in considering this bill, in the first place because the state of New York has killed the bill as far as the United States side is concerned; and in the second place, to which I shall refer later, because of the proposed bridge above the falls that, I hope, will be erected some time later by Canada and the United States. While it is imperative that the cities of Niagara Falls, New York, and Niagara Falls, Ontario, should have at the earliest possible moment, a bridge erected at or about the site of the bridge which collapsed, we cannot hurry matters because, as I said a moment ago, the bill has been killed in the legislative assembly of the state of New York. So we are given ample time to consider thoroughly what is the best thing to do for that district.
There are several bridges left. First, there is the bridge below the escarpment at Queen-ston, called the suspension bridge. Second, there is the double-deck, steel arch bridge at the north end of Niagara Falls, the upper deck of which, I believe, is used by the Canadian National and perhaps other railways, while the lower deck is used by pedestrians and vehicles of one kind and another. Third, there is the cantilever bridge, perhaps better known as the Michigan Central bridge, immediately south of the lower steel arch bridge. Fourth, there is the Peace bridge itself, from the city of Buffalo across to Fort Erie on the Canadian side. So, if a bridge is not constructed on the site of the former bridge for another year, while the inconvenience may be great it is not a matter of extreme urgency.
The committee had before it two proposals, or rather one proposal and one objection. The objection was raised by the owners of the bridge that collapsed, the International Railway Company. They opposed the application of the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company, and it was interesting
indeed to listen to the proponents of the new bridge and to the statements of the representatives of the International Railway Company. Certainly their representations were not similar, and figures were presented to the committee that made me, for one, wonder on what we could base our judgment. The representatives of the International Railway Company gave figures as to the earnings of the bridge that collapsed, and as these were greatly at variance with the figures given by the proponents of the Niagara Falls observation bridge I believe we should have both sets of figures placed on Hansard. The revenue of the collapsed International Railway Company bridge was given as follows:
1928		$325,149
1929		 352,434
1930		 322,376
1931		 282,126
1932		 204,591
1933		 192,585
1934		 221,025
1935		 235,896
1936		 275,297
1937		 321,039
That gives an average over the ten years of $273,251. They stated-and their statement was not challenged-that those figures were audited by reputable auditors, and I do not believe any company, either the proponents or the opponents, would use any figures other than those which were audited. The figures submitted by the proponents of the Niagara Falls observation bridge were supposititious. I neglected to write them down, and there was no Hansard of the proceedings, but I did take the figures from one of the Niagara Falls newspapers, quoting what Mr. Suitor said in the New York state assembly. The figures quoted were higher than those submitted by the International Railway Company. As I remember, the income was estimated at between $500,000 and $600,000. On the one hand, we had an audited statement by the company and, on the other, we had figures submitted by the proponents of the bill at Albany, New York. The proponents of the bill who appeared before the committee submitted the very same estimated cost as is in Bill No. 15. It will be noted that the first action provided for in that bill is the issuing of $500,000 worth of bonds. Then section 12 provides for the issuing of securities not exceeding $7,000,000. In other words, the cost of the bridge was estimated as $7,500,000. Upon members of the committee questioning these figures and upon the proponents of the bill being told that the supporters of a similar bill before the New York state assembly had stated that the bridge would cost $3,000,000, the estimated cost was brought down to
Niagara Falls Bridge
[Stage Direction]
$4,000,000. That figure was still considerably above the figure submitted by the International Railway Company as the cost of their bridge.
The International Railway Company were represented by one of the ablest engineers on the north American continent, Colonel Monsarrat of Montreal, whose reputation could not be added to by anything I might say in his favour. Colonel Monsarrat stated that he could build a bridge sufficiently large to take care of the traffic for between $1,125,000 and $1,500,000. Upon further questioning we finally got the Minister of Highways of Ontario to admit that $2,000,000 was to be used to purchase lands. Who knows how much the bridge will cost if the land has not been purchased already! If it was a private company the land could have been bought before anyone knew a bridge was to be built, but I am sure that this land will now cost a great deal.
The International Railway Company would not have to buy any land for their bridge, and they claim they can erect a new bridge and provide ample exit and approach. The people of Niagara Falls want a new bridge as quickly as possible, and the International Railway Company claim that they could have their proposed bridge in operation within a year. They claim also that they have a right to permission to build a new bridge. I do not want anyone to get the idea that I am against public ownership. I think my record in the early days of the organization of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission will stamp me as a public ownership supporter. But I am opposed to ownership that states a bridge will cost $7,500,000, and then reduces it to $4,000,000, when it is stated in the United States that the same bridge will cost only $3,000,000. We have too many bridges that cost far more than they are worth.
Figures were submitted to show that if this Niagara Falls observation bridge is built, even at a cost of $4,000,000, it will never be a free bridge. The proponents of the public ownership bridge say that their main purpose is to provide a toll-free bridge. Figures were submitted and were not disputed that the revenue from such a bridge would not be more than $325,000. Operating expense was put at $95,000, which leaves an operating income of $230,000. Allowing two per cent for depreciation, this leaves a net income of $150,000, and, less 5 per cent on investment, makes a deficit of $50,000. If a public ownership bridge is built, the city of Niagara Falls will derive no taxes from it. Many members of the Niagara Falls council have protested against the erection of such a bridge and against the expropriation of lands from which the city

already receives taxes. I should like someone to figure out for me how a bridge can be paid for when the net deficit is $50,000 per year. The figures submitted by the International Railway Company showed that it has been difficult for them to pay any dividend on a bridge that cost between $1,125,000 and $1,500,000.
The proponents of the bill stated that the bridge which was wrecked was not able to take care of the traffic. I was over the old bridge a great number of times, and while one might have had to wait a little while on a Saturday or a holiday, there was no difficulty whatever in crossing the river on weekdays. The old bridge had four traffic lanes, the number to be provided by the suggested bridge. If four traffic lanes were not sufficient on the old bridge, they certainly will not be sufficient on the new one. It was pointed out that the old bridge could permit handling
2.520	an hour in both directions. I assume it was vehicles that were meant, as we were talking about vehicular traffic, at the time. There would be no time when anything like
2.520	vehicles would cross in an hour. The evidence was that the peak was 900 an hour. Traffic figures were submitted which showed that the record day was the Sunday before Labour day in 1928, when 15.767 vehicles crossed the bridge. The second heaviest traffic day was the Sunday before Labour day in 1931, when 12,581 vehicles crossed. On the Saturday before the record Sunday in 1928 there were 4,323 vehicles, and on the Monday following, 6,653.
I shall take Colonel Monsarrat's word for it that the four-lane bridge did have ample capacity, and as the new bridge would have only four lanes its capacity would be no greater. It was clearly pointed out that if there were more customs officials and immigration officers stationed at each end of the bridge, then traffic would move much more rapidly; but on the other hand it was pointed out that neither the government of Canada nor the government of the United States would appoint more officers to have them standing at the end of the bridge twiddling their thumbs for nine days out of ten, or perhaps more than that, just so that they would be able to take care of the heavy traffic on the first and fourth of July, Labour day, Decoration day and some other holidays.
I went to the committee meetings with an open mind; in fact I have not yet stated whether I shall vote for or against the bridge; but what I did not like from the very commencement was the attitude of the promoters of the bridge before they appeared before the committee at all. What did the

Niagara Falls Bridge
Minister of Highways in the Ontario government say? I should like western members to listen to this. I quote from the Border Cities Star of March 15 as to what happened on the day the committee opened:
Members who had taken ready exception to certain remarks made by Mr. MeQuesten in the Ontario legislature last Friday tended to fling them back at him at the first opportunity. Among other things, Mr. MeQuesten advised Ottawa to "look after its own business" and asked what right have the "Eskimos in the north," the "Ruthenians in Saskatchewan" or the maritime fishermen to meddle in Ontario's problems.
That was said in reference to members representing the maritimes and the west. I believe the hon. member for Mackenize (Mr. MacMillan) did take exception to being characterized as representing Eskimos. All that kind of talk may go in the Ontario legislature, and such methods may be able to get legislation through committees at Toronto, but they cannot get measures through committees at Ottawa-not if the opposite side can stop them from going through.
Nor did I like the language that characterized the old bridge as a twopenny-ha'penny outfit. Colonel Monsarrat characterized the old bridge as a splendid bridge, well constructed, and amply able to take care of the work it was called upon to do. The kind of talk and the methods to which I have referred do not get anybody anywhere. They may fall in line with writing letters over the head of the Prime Minister to a congressman at Washington in connection with waterways and writing letters to representatives in the house at Albany, but they are not the methods for Ottawa. Business at Ottawa is conducted on a higher plane than that.
Again, Mr. MeQuesten said-I am not giving his exact words but this was the implication-You can do what you like here at Ottawa, but I am going to introduce a bill in the Ontario legislature giving the province of Ontario control over the beds of streams. He meant international streams. Now I would like to know this:	Has this
government control over the beds of international rivers? Do I hear hon. members saying yes?
An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody said a word.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Well, then, everybody should have said a word. If the Dominion of Canada has control over the beds of international streams, that is one half, what right has the Ontario legislature to pass a bill, entitled the Bridges Act of 1938, providing that such bridges cannot be built except upon approval by the lieutenant-governor in council. I wondered, when I heard that, why this bridge proposal came before the committee at all. If the Ontario government have the right to say whether or not a bridge shall be built over the Niagara river, there was not much use in their coming here to find out whether they could get authority from the federal government.
It was said on the last day of our committee meeting that the Niagara Falls council had passed a resolution endorsing the bridge proposal, but in the Niagara Gazette of the 24th of this month there was a report of an interview with the mayor of Niagara Falls, in which he stated that that was not so.


Mr. DAMUDE:: I have it here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Just read what he says! The mayor's name is, I think, Mr. Hanniwell. I thought I had the report of the interview here; but if my hon. friend has it, it will save me the trouble of reading it, and if my hon. friend does not read it, I shall go to the reading room and bring it into the chamber and read it before the bill passes, because I was reading it only a few moments ago. Alderman McAninch said:
This city and Niagara Falls, N.Y., is suffering materially, and will continue to lose business until we get a new bridge.
The article is headed "Wire-pulling."


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is perhaps better for me not to say. Alderman McAninch went on to say:
I would move that we hold a joint meeting with the city council over the river and the chambers of commerce of both sides to get some speed in the thing. There is a lot of talk about the personnel of the Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company which has made application for a charter to build a bridge, and if our local member has a brother on the board, the Parks Commission manager has his brother on it, and Hon. T. B. McQuesten's former business partner is in the company too; there is sure to be delay.
I might say that the manager of the Niagara Falls parks commission or the solicitor characterized these men as straw men. I do not call them that, but that is how he designated them. I am not even sure that one member of the commission is the brother of the local member of parliament. I believe that one of the members is his son-in-law. But the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Damude) will know. Alderman McAninch continued:
If the way the present directors are going about building the bridge will mean a big delay, then we should back up those who are ready to build a bridge.
Niagara Falls Bridge

The International Railway company are ready to start now; they have their plans drawn; they do not have to go out and sell their bonds; they can build the bridge, they say, for a million and a quarter to a million and a half dollars. Next, alderman Twidale of Niagara Falls is quoted as saying:
_ "There is a feeling of resentment in some circles that the old bridge company has not been allowed to go on with its plans," Aider-man Twidale stated. "They served us well for forty years and have expressed a willingness to go ahead and have a new bridge ready for 1939."
What I asked in the railway committee and what I am going to find out before this bill passes is this, Have the International Railway Company the right to rebuild their bridge? If they have, it would be mere folly for us to pass this bill, because it will mean building two bridges close together, and certainly two of them are not required.
I think it would be well to make a comparison with what has happened in connection with the Peace bridge across from Buffalo to Fort Erie. That bridge cost $4,500,000, and it was stated that it would be paid for within a short time. We were told the other day before the railway committee that if we passed this bill and the proposed Niagara Falls observation bridge were erected, it would pay for itself, one gentleman said, in twelve years, another said in seventeen years; but they were quite different before the committee in New York, where it was stated that it would take maybe fifty years. On the basis of what the Peace bridge has done, it will take a very long time to pay for it, because last year the Peace bridge had a net surplus of some 866,000. For years it has not paid anything in reduction of its debt. It did pay, I believe, up to a million dollars a few years after it was erected, but it has now been erected for some eleven years.
Another reason why, in my opinion, the bill should not pass-I have just about enough time to talk on this point, and if I do not finish now perhaps I shall be able to complete my remarks after someone else has spoken on the subject-is what is said on page 14 of the white paper submitted to the house the other day in reference to a proposed bridge south of the falls. It was first recommended in 1900 by the deep waterways commission; then in 1910 by the international waterways commission; in 1913 again by the international waterways commission; in 1919 by Mr. F. C. Shenahon, one of the engineers of the Chicago drainage canal, and in 1921 by one of the United States government war department engineers, Mr. Warren. The

recommendation was that a bridge should be built south of the falls. The white paper reads in this wise:
In addition to the completion of a waterway, the Canadian share of which has already been so largely accomplished, the settlement would provide a rational plan for the future utilization of the Niagara river with full protection for the scenic spectacle. Technical advisers suggest that a planned program will not only afford greater protection for the scenic spectacle than hitherto envisaged, but will also assure far larger recoveries of power from the available waters than has hitherto been contemplated.
Such a settlement would further assure the maintenance of lake levels and the navigable depths of the Montreal harbour and ship channel.
What was proposed by these various commissions? They proposed first in 1900 and again in 1910 to erect a bridge across at Buffalo which would also act as a barrage to the outflow from lake Erie and to raise the water level of lake Erie to 573-5 feet and maintain it there. During January last the water level of lake Erie was 570-63 feet, and that was 1-38 feet lower than the average stage of January for the last seventy-eight years. The time has come when something should be done to maintain the water levels of lake Erie, and here is a golden opportunity to do so and at the same time to have a bridge. They now propose to erect a bridge about one mile and nine hundred feet south of the falls. That water barrage or bridge would have sixty large drop gates with a rise and fall to enable them to regulate the flow. Each gate would be seventy-four feet wide. They propose to raise the height of the basin at Chippawa, which is the last part of the river in which the water level now is nearly constant, with no rapids, and which is at normal 561-3 feet, by 10 feet to 571-4 feet, and in doing that they will be able to raise the water level of lake Erie to 573-5 feet.
They would do three things. First, they would regulate the flow and raise the water level of lake Erie. Second, they would provide a bridge. Third, they would stop the erosion that is now taking place at the falls. When that barrage is erected, it will first dry one side of the river and then the other; works or weirs will be erected south of the Horseshoe falls and thereby prevent their further erosion. The Horseshoe falls have been shrinking on an average six or seven feet a year for the last one hundred and sixty years. The United States falls have receded an average of only one foot a year. But something should be done, and if we let the International Railway Company go ahead and build their bridge, it is immaterial to us what it costs, while if

Niagara Falls Bridge
the governments build the proposed barrage bridge we shall have two bridges instead of one, but one north of the falls and the other south of the falls.
I notice that my forty minutes have expired, and I thank the committee for its patience.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I voted for this bill in
committee, and I do not see any reason why I should change my mind. I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport upon having clothed his subject in a very fine address, but when the dress is stripped off it does not look very good. However, he did it cheerfully and because his conscience would tell him he was doing what was right. I occupy the same position.
The first thing that caused me grave doubt was that although I asked three times and the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked once to my knowledge what was the original cost of the old bridge, we could not get that information. My reason for asking was that if that corporation were not well paid for the bridge, they should be compensated; but the learned lawyer from Toronto and those supporting him, as the hon. member for Davenport knows very well, said they did not know, and we have to believe them.
Another reason why I think this bill should be supported is that some day, whether twelve, fifteen or fifty years hence, the proposed bridge will be publicly owned, and I do not think a beauty spot of international repute like Niagara falls should be exploited or virtually owned by any private interest. You may call me a socialist, a communist, or whatever you choose, but I do not believe that any corporation should have the right to make money at the public expense from a beauty spot like Niagara falls. We have in my district a little falls which comes in as second to Niagara, namely the Kakabeka falls; it is privately owned, but some day we hope it will be public property. In fifteen years this projected bridge may be publicly owned; if it is not, no private interest will be making money out of it.
The plan of the new bridge was under consideration before the old bridge was washed away, for the simple reason that the old structure was inadequate. I am not speaking from the Niagara Falls Gazette, or the Daily Star of Toronto, or the Montreal Gazette, or the Fort William Times-Journal. I am speaking from what I know, because I was caught on that bridge once. One hon. member says it was a twopenny-ha'penny bridge, and in the language of another member, I would not give thruppence for it. It did not
fill the bill. I understood that it was not even insured. Why should it not have been insured if it was of great value? But it was valuable because it was a paying concern. Because the new bridge will be publicly owned I am going to vote for this bill, and I congratulate the hon. member who has sponsored it upon having common sense enough to bring it forward.


Mr. HEAPS:: I apologize for the hon.
member for Davenport. Since he has been sitting in this part of the house he has changed so much from the member we knew when he sat opposite that I hardly recognize him. He has improved to such an extent that I hardly thought he would make the speech which he has made to-night. If he says that he is in favour of public ownership, he ought to be in favour of a bridge which is to be publicly owned and controlled. I was under the impression that we were all in favour of the principle that there should be as few toll bridges in Canada as possible, whether they be international bridges or bridges within the dominion, I do not advance my Canadianism as far as the hon. member for Davenport does his; I do not carry the Canada-first principle to the length that some hon. gentlemen do. I do say, however, that the people of Ontario should own the bridge so far as the Canadian side is concerned; that part of it should not be owned by a United States concern. If this charter were not granted, it is claimed, the Mitten interests of the United States would have the right to build a new bridge where the old one fell down, and if they were given the right to erect a new structure there, this would mean a franchise in perpetuity. That goes without saying; in fact, it was so stated in the committee by those who controlled the bridge which fell down. It was said that their rights were perpetual on both the United States and the Canadian side. So that if the International Falls Company built a new bridge, we would be giving them a perpetual franchise, and they would have the right to operate it as a toll bridge for all time. The hon. member for Davenport said that the bill was killed in the New York legislative assembly, and that is partly true. It passed the state legislature but failed to pass the senate, and we were given the assurance that the reason it did not pass the upper house there was not that the bridge was to be privately owned but that it did not afford sufficient protection to the public, the reason being altogether different from that which we have been given to understand here.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not by me.
Niagara Falls Bridge


Abraham Albert Heaps: No. but in the committee.
The hon. member for Davenport gave the same figures that we had before us in the committee during the week. We couid not get from counsel for the private company what the bridge cost forty years ago; but he told us that during the past ten years there had been an average annual income of $273,000, while the total expenditures in the same ten year period averaged $65,000 a year. The question was asked Mr. Robertson what the profits amounted to each year, and he said he did not know. When he was asked whether there was anyone who could give any information in regard to the profits during those ten years, he was unable to answer the question. He did not know whether anyone knew what the profits had been, and an examination of the balance sheet would not disclose the profits of the bridge, because they were all lumped together with other utilities which the corporation owned on the United States side. I submit that when you find a bridge with an operating income of $273,000 a year, and annual expenditures of only $65,000, there must be a fairly large profit for those who own the bridge, especially when it has been in operation for forty years. I am not an engineer, but in my opinion the bridge must have been paid for over and over again by the profits derived from its operation. In view of these facts I do not think that they have very much of a claim against either the province of Ontario or the people of the dominion.
It has been stated that if the proposed bridge is operated on the basis of a cost of $4,000,000, it wrill never show operating profits. I do not know whether that is right or not, but I do not believe that a private corporation would be so anxious to erect a new structure unless they felt that there would be a profit from it. I do not think they would be at all willing or anxious to lose money on such a venture. The fact that they are anxious to erect a bridge would indicate that they expect to obtain a good deal of profit from it. But suppose the bridge did cost approximately $4,000,000; I still think they could show a profit. At any rate, we are faced with a choice in this matter. We are to choose between ownership of the bridge by the province of Ontario, in respect of that portion of the bridge which lies in Canada, and private ownership and control, and I am bound to say that as a member of this committee I favour the public body owning that portion of the bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

On section 4-Capital stock.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What does the expression, "shares of $100 each," mean?


Mr. VIEN:: It has been explained that it
was not necessary to have any capital stock, and merely for the purpose of incorporation five shares are sufficient to qualify the five directors who are appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not the word
"five" be inserted between the word "into" and the word "shares" in the second line?


Thomas Vien: The reprint reads:
The capital stock of the company shall be five hundred dollars of common stock, divided into shares of one hundred dollars each.
There is no objection to inserting the word "five."


Frederick George Sanderson: I must have the
amendment.


Thomas Vien: I move:
That the word "five" be inserted in line 8 on page 2 of the bill, section 4, so as to make it read "divided into five shares of $100 each."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. CAHAN:: We have not the amended bill reported by the committee; I assume it no longer reads as it did in the bill which passed second reading.


Thomas Vien: Yes; that has been reprinted. I thought every hon. member had a copy of the reprint. In the votes and proceedings in reporting the bill we mentioned that the bill had been reprinted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand it is now a capital of $500 divided into five share of $100 each.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Power to construct bridge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this not cover a location which has already been granted to another enterprise?


Thomas Vien: It is some 800 to 900 feet north of the present site.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it would prevent the other bridge from being built by the predecessors in title?


Thomas Vien: This bill does not affect the rights of the company to rebuild.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not what I said. I said it would prevent it.


Thomas Vien: It is probable that there is not room for two bridges on that site.

Supply-National Defence


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it the proper thing to take away these rights without having them determined?


Thomas Vien: I was a little concerned about that point. There is no right in the company. I asked Mr. Robertson, who appeared on behalf of the company, whether the company had any exclusive right within a certain territory surrounding the site of the old bridge. They have no exclusive right; therefore there is no right taken away from them by this bill. I agree with the leader of the opposition that there will probably not be room for two bridges at that point.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the company does own the land at the end of the bridge on our side of the river, and owns a street running some distance on the Canadian side west of the exit of the bridge.


Thomas Vien: The company owns the approaches on both sides.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the street as well.


Thomas Vien: I am not sure as to that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did I understand the hon. member to say that the company owns the site of the bridge which fell dowm?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And it is admitted that it has the right under its present charter to rebuild its bridge on that site. Those would be questions of law. But if this new bridge is to be built so near that site as to prevent the old bridge from being rebuilt, that is an engineering question, which I understand my hon. friend admits.


Thomas Vien: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. There is no engineering reason to prevent the company from rebuilding its bridge at the site of the old bridge. Even if the proposed bridge be built, the other bridge may be rebuilt, and it has been stated to the committee, and not contradicted, that prior to the fall of the former bridge the question of building a second bridge was mooted. But it is probable that it would not be possible economically to operate two bridges with the present traffic.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I understood him to be dealing with a physical impossibility, not an economic
probability.


Mr. ISNOR:: I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether the phraseology is as clear as it should be. I have in mind particularly the words, "in the province of Ontario to a point in the city of Niagara Falls, in the
state of New York. . . . north of the present upper steel arch bridge." I understand the bridge has been destroyed, and the present phraseology could not have a legal interpretation unless the word "site" is used instead of "bridge."


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. member's suggestion is a good one, that in line 24, after the words "upper steel arch bridge" the word "site" be inserted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You would have to strike out the word "present" too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill undertakes to
prescribe the site in a foreign country. We have no power to say where a bridge shall start in New York state. I recall that we had an animated discussion regarding that matter here with respect to one of these international bridges, and the law officers were of the opinion that the power of this parliament expired when we reached the middle of the stream. Perhaps the hon. member in charge of the bill will be able to make some representation as to whether that is changed. The Minister of Justice may recall that it was a bill something of this sort, and my memory is that the Department of Justice was of the opinion that we could start it here in Canada and send it to the middle of the stream, but we could not undertake to provide for its landing in the state of New York.


Mr. POULIOT:: Unless we take possession of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are not lacking signs of the opposite state of affairs. I think the language went further and said "towards the state of New York."


Thomas Vien: The question was not raised in committee.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $425,720.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner recess I was endeavouring to point out that in some important respects the minister's outline of defence policy was indefinite, and in my opinion it is extremely dangerous to be indefinite in these matters. I suggest to him that now is the time to take the people of Canada fully into his confidence. We have spoken of the necessity of maintaining Cana-
Sup-ply-National Defence

dian unity. Nothing could be more destructive of Canadian unity than to be indefinite or ambiguous with regard to some of these matters, permitting this country to be manoeuvred into a position that is not clearly understood in advance and, may I say, that is not consistent with Canadian sentiment. I know it would mean a great deal of debate, perhaps acrimonious debate, at this time more precisely to define our position, but I think it would be far better to have that debate now than to leave it until we are compelled to mobilize our man power to meet a defence emergency. In my opinion any unwillingness to discuss frankly all aspects of the matter at this time forecasts a suppression of free debate when we succumb to war time hysteria.
So I repeat the question which I said the minister did not definitely answer: How and under what circumstances will Canada employ the armed force which he now asks this committee to provide? Unless our purposes are all fully disclosed, we are entering an armament race simply because other nations are arming, and in a vital issue of this nature that is not good enough. To plunge blindly into the provision of armaments is dangerous, and I suggest we are plunging blindly because we are not yet sure of all the implications of the defence program. If we arm simply because, as the hon. member for Greenwood has suggested, we are aware of grave external dangers, we must very soon ask ourselves this question:	Against whom are we arming? It
becomes increasingly difficult to define the boundary between defence and attack. Very soon we shall be attempting to answer the question: If we must defend ourselves, shall we not defend ourselves better if we engage in external war as a means of defence? So I say that apart from questions of direct defence, the minister has hinted at steps which may be necessary in Tegard to indirect defence. I intend to refer to his remarks in that regard, which I think are open to question; and, as he corrected me before the recess, I hope he will take occasion during this discussion to make his position clear. As reported at page 1649 of Hansard he said:
The purpose of the armed forces of any country I think may be threefold: In the first place, to support peace time diplomacy; in the second place to provide a deterrent to aggressive nations; and in the third place in case of hostilities to be used after the methods of diplomacy have failed.
What does he mean by peace time diplomacy? What is this diplomacy, and what does it mean in the maintenance of the peace of the world? I think these questions should be answered. The minister speaks of efforts

to restrain aggressor nations. In what respect definitely will Canada share in these efforts? Can we share in the efforts which are under consideration, and lend support to the policies which are sometimes suggested, and in which we have no voice? I submit that the intentions of the government on these issues now should be known. What is still more important, the purposes as declared should be strictly adhered to in practice. It seems obvious to me that the purposes already declared by the minister do not square in all respects with the program which is now being carried out. Surely it is obvious that we are planning for much more than merely the defence of Canadian shores. I say that the minister cannot safely dispose of these questions with imposing and glittering generalities. We have the right to ask -him more adequately to define all the purposes and all the implications of his defence program as outlined to the committee yesterday.
In a similar manner we may question the basis upon which he has determined the scale of Canadian defence. This is also of primary importance. Defence measures mean sacrifice on the part of the Canadian people. If we are to be placed on a war time footing, we must forego measures of social security. That was brought to the attention of the committee last evening by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail); a "bullets and no bread" program has no appeal to the Canadian people at this time, unless we are actually ringed about with nations seeking to destroy us; and not even the greatest alarmist would suggest that that is the situation to-day. In this regard we should seek to strike a proper balance, or else we shall be working out the defence of the few and not the defence of the Canadian people as a whole.
I believe, that without a sound foreign policy it is impossible to determine correctly the scale of defence measures. Surely it is obvious that defence must be conditioned, first of all, by our resources, second, by our available man power and our geographical position, and, still more importantly, on the possibility and strength of potential aggression. Defence policy is naturally the outcome of foreign policy or lack of policy, and, as matters stand, we are shaping our foreign policy upon the basis of a developing defence plan, reversing the procedure that actually should be followed. Or if that is not true, we are shaping our defence policy without facing up to all the commitments which are actually involved in our existing external relations.
The minister, unfortunately I think, has not outlined very clearly our defence problem. He has shown that through succeeding

Supply-National Defence
imperial conferences we have reached the understanding that this dominion, as well as all others, must provide its own defence. We can no longer rely upon the protection of the British navy or the Monroe doctrine. These, as the minister suggested, will act simply as deterrents against the violation of our territorial integrity. If we face the matter frankly, such protection as we may enjoy in a world war will be extended by those other powers only as may seem advisable in protection of their own interests. It is well to remember this as we consider our external responsibilities. I think this has been made very plain in a recent statement by the British Prime Minister.
Again, may I point out that our neutrality, which the minister says we must defend, is not likely to be violated unless the United States becomes involved in a war on the Pacific. I think it is apparent from the minister's statement that if we can rule out definitely and clearly all external commitments, our defence problem is comparatively simple. Canada, without any extraordinary war effort, can defend her own shores against all threats within any measurable period of time. Our geographical position is favourable, and the topographical features of our country make defence comparatively easy against any invading force likely to endanger our territory within the next decade. We lie in what has often been called the strategic lee of the United States. We must recognize the fact that potential aggressors are likely to be kept occupied for some time in advancing their warlike ambitions in other directions on other continents. Canada will have ample warning of any definite threat to her territory. I think all agree that the invasion of Canadian territory is a remote contingency. The minister suggested this in his statement of yesterday.
The protection of our shipping beyond certain focal points or nodal areas adjacent to our ports is not of such vital concern as to warrant any participation in an ambitious naval program. Canadian trade is generally carried in other bottoms, and in any event our resources do not permit our attempting _ to protect our sea-borne trade on the high seas. If warring nations are given reason to attack Canada, they cannot as yet safely consider doing anything more than establishing fuelling stations at points on our coast to harass shipping and hit-and-run raids on our ports. The most pessimistic calculation I have yet heard did not envisage anything worse than this during any period for which we might reasonably make calculation. Therefore, it is obvious that we require only reasonable
coastal defence, with small supporting land and air forces. We require only a military* establishment capable of expansion to meet any defence emergency such as I have suggested.
Our defence program is complicated and our natural advantages are undermined by the uncertainty and ambiguity with respect to our external relations. That is why I have suggested that it is important that we should first have our foreign policy determined more clearly. As far as I can discover, we may or may not enter into some collective enterprise for the restraint of aggression; therefore we must arm. We have made no decision in this regard; so we do not know to what extent we should arm. We may or may not share in imperial responsibilities; therefore we must arm though we may be involved in a conflict in which we shall have no direct or vital concern. The minister has hinted more than once at the moral obligation of mutual support within the commonwealth, and many presumptions are entertained on this score. Because of this, action may be taken of more dangerous consequence than merely the defence of our own shores.
War intentions and war machines are gathering momentum in the world around us. Sooner or later some attempt will be made to check that momentum by an attempt to restrain aggression by force. If we intend to share in this enterprise, why should we not make sure now that we do not do so in the name of ideals long ago discarded and for purposes which are not now disclosed. In Canada we are benefiting by world-wide preparations for war; in various ways we are supporting the dangerous war credit inflation which to-day blocks peace moves. It has been said that to-day the threat of war yields greater profits than the promise of peace. In other countries it is becoming rapidly apparent that the sudden cessation of war-time industry would mean economic disaster. Even in Canada a reading of our financial journals and our stock exchange reports will give evidence of our growing investment in the profitable business of making war. As we are concerned at the *present time about defence, let us remember that the greater the investment of that type, the greater the desire will be to protect the investment by resort to armed conflict beyond our national frontiers.
The minister has made an attempt to gauge Canadian sentiment on this matter. Sentiment will unquestionably play its part in determining the outcome of these issues, but I submit that before we succumb to any war

Supply-National Defence

hysteria, we should remember that sentiment *s an unsound basis upon which to determine defence or foreign policy.
In the final analysis these matters must be determined on the basis of national interest. The price of Canadian participation in an external war may easily prove to be national selfdestruction. I cannot conceive of any external interest or any sentimental crusade which would warrant such national suicide. I submit that all these considerations should be, kept in mind when we discuss a defence program. As matters stand now, all these features serve to undermine the natural advantages we enjoy. I consider that our first line of defence is our external relations, the foreign policy which keeps us out of war and enables us to settle international conflict and live on terms of peace with other nations. Our second line of defence is a properly strengthened civilian morale, a fit and technically trained youth, and a proper mobilization of our industry to meet any defence emergency. The third and perhaps the least important line of defence is that which was discussed yesterday by the minister, the provision of armaments. I regret that he has placed such emphasis on the third line of defence. I consider we should give greater attention to strengthening what might be termed our diplomatic defences.
There is. necessity for greater frankness on this subject. The hon. member for Greenwood said this afternoon that this is an issue which transcends all party considerations, at least considerations of party aggrandizement. It does not transcend those considerations to such an extent as to warrant absolute silence, but there are fundamental differences that should be threshed out now. It is extremely dangerous to leave the settlement of these matters until a period when there may be considerable war time hysteria. I speak of these matters from some experience. I think all of us remember the period preceding the last war when we did almost unbelievably foolish things and inflicted almost unspeakable cruelty on those who were designated as enemy aliens. I mention these matters because sound judgment is so distorted at times such as that.
It is suggested that we have been led into certain tacit commitments. I am not suggesting that the minister deliberately misled the committee, but I hope to be able to show that there are tacit commitments which he has not discussed. I have been personally dismayed by inconsistencies discovered when discussing these issues with men who should have some knowledge of the public affairs of this country, and my dismay was somewhat
[Mr. MacNeiI.3
strengthened by an article I read in Maclean's magazine, by Professor Underhill of Toronto. The article reads:
I have yet to hear of a single journalist or military man in Ottawa who doesn't (in private) laugh at the government's pretense that its present defence expenditures are meant for defence here in Canada.
That has been my own experience, and it has been confirmed to some extent by the remarks of Professor Underhill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend must take the. government's word for that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am stating that that
is my experience, and I hope that during the course of the debate the minister will set my mind at rest. I hope during the course of the discussion the minister will set our minds at rest with regard to all these matters, which give us some uneasiness.
Professor Underhill goes on to make this significant statement:
But this is something quite different-
He was referring to the estimates for last year.
But this is something quite different from what our government is starting out to do this year; namely, to construct the skeleton framework of a great national armed force, a framework which can he filled in and expanded by mass enlistment or conscription on the outbreak of war, and which is primarily designed not for local defence at all but for a series of expeditionary contingents overseas.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
entirely incorrect from start to finish.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am glad to hear the
minister's correction. I am, however, going to proceed to place before him other points which have been brought to my attention and which tend to confirm that judgment. I am saying there is ground for something more than mere suspicion that there is preparation for participation in an external war. I am not at the moment arguing whether it is right or wrong, but I am contending that we should know definitely what are our commitments, whether implied or stated, on this score.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
is none, either expressed or implied.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Hear, hear;
that is correct.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am trying to explain
exactly what I mean, and I shall do so by referring to the statement made to this house in 1923 by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), who now sits on the treasury

Supply-National Defence
benches. On March 26, 1923, at page 1529 of Hansard, the hon. member for Quebec South introduced this resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient to declare that save in the case of actual invasion the Dominion of Canada shall not be committed to participation in any war without the consent of the parliament of Canada.
I know the Prime Minister has given us frequent assurances that parliament will decide in the event of war issues arising; but may I point out to the Minister of National Defence that his colleague in the government, the hon. member for Quebec South, makes a striking and convincing argument as to how commitments may be undertaken and how the country may be involved in war without the consent of parliament. I shall not attempt to quote his speech at length, but he makes this important point in a convincing manner, that on two previous occasions within our memory in which Canada was engaged in war, Canada was actually involved without the consent of parliament. When parliament met, it was presented with the actual fact of war. These are the historical precedents we have before us.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
exactly what we have decided to avoid now.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Well, I hope so. But
may I quote from the argument used by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. Referring to our experience in the last war and to how the British parliament was led into the position of declaring war because of commitments made of which they had no knowledge, the hon. member for Quebec South, speaking to this house on March 26, 1923, said at page 1534 of Hansard:
The Marquis of Lansdowne, speaking on the same day, August 6, 1914, states:
"I do not think anyone can have failed to be deeply shocked by what I can now describe as the cynical attempt made to bribe this country, and not this country alone, into a disregard both of its treaty obligations and of those other obligations which are not less sacred because they are not embodied in a signed and sealed document. ... To the other category belong our obligations to France- obligations of honour, which have grown up in consequence of the close intimacy by which the two nations have been united during the last few fateful years."
Bonar Law is of the same opinion in a letter which he wrote to Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister of England, on August 3, 1914. Lloyd George, in defending his policy in August, 1918, four years afterwards, stated that there could be no question of doubt but that an obligation of honour was imposed upon the British Empire to intervene in any war in which Germany should be the aggressor. I have said before that it is possible lor obligations of this nature to be entered into without consultation with 51952-1091
parliament and without the knowledge and consent of parliament. I have had in my hand a book entitled, How the War Came, by Earl Loreburn, who was from 1905 to 1912 Lord Chancellor, and consequently a member of the British cabinet. I may say that Sir Edward Grey, in the course of his speech, after stating that he had informed Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and others, states:
''The fact that conversations between military and naval experts took place was later on-I think much later on because that crisis passed and the thing ceased to be of importance-but later on it was brought to the knowledge of the cabinet."
This is what Lord Loreburn says:
"He does not say when . . . but one of Sir Edward Grey's then colleagues may be permitted, in view of his statement about withholding the information from the cabinet, to offer certain criticisms. Sir Edward Grey's phraseology rather conveys that his selection of confidants was casual, but Mr. Asquith and Lord Haldane were with himself vice-presidents of the Liberal League, a continuation of the Liberal imperialistic movement which had supported the South African war and opposed Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on that subject."
He says further:
"There was no difficulty whatever in summoning the cabinet during the election to consider so grave a matter. A good many members of the cabinet were in London or within an hour of it, while those whom he consulted were at a distance. And there are railways and post offices in Great Britain. The cabinet met in January, 1906."
And then he goes on further to say that all during 1906 and later he, as a member of the cabinet, was not made acquainted with these conversations which had taken place with the French and Belgian officers. Further, he asked the question-When did the war come, and how did they bring us into it? Speaking with regard to the action of the ministers of the crown, he says:
"The answer to this question, in a single sentence, is that we were brought into the war because Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey and their confidants by steps some of which are known while others may be unknown, had placed us in such a position toward France, and therefore also toward Russia, that they found they could not refuse to take up arms on her behalf when it came to the issue, though till the end they denied it to parliament, and probably even to themselves."
Mr. McBride: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that England was in honour bound to go and support France when she went to war, and that Canada, is not in honour bound to go and support England if she got into difficulties.
Mr. Power:	I suggest that owing to this
series of conversations and arrangements that took place between England and France prior to the last war, without there being any written treaties or conventions with the consent of parliament thereto, and without the knowledge of the whole cabinet, Britain found herself so involved that, without loss of honour, she could not stay out of the war. As I proceed further with my argument, my hon. friend will see
Supply-National Defence

that it is to avoid any such contingency arising in Canadian politics, that this resolution is being brought down this evening.
He goes on to say:
Mr. Power: I am under the impression that owing to some more of those conversations-
He was referring to the Chanak incident of 1922:
I am under the impression that owing to some more of those conversations, for instance the interchange of officers between the British general staff and our exchange of officers, and also owing to a certain resolution passed unanimously in this House of Commons in 1909, we were practically pledged to go to war in case the British Empire was forced into war through aggression on the part of Germany. It is to prevent any such contingency in future without the knowledge and full consent of parliament, that this resolution is being introduced.
Hon. members will be interested to hear these further remarks made at that time by the hon. member for Quebec South. He said:
I am Canadian, purely and simply, and I place the interests of this country before those of any other country no matter how closely we may be related thereto.
And again:
But on this question the time is fast approaching when every citizen of Canada will have to decide whether he is a Canadian first or a Britisher first. And when that question is placed before the people of Canada, without any extraneous circumstances to dim their vision or prejudice their judgment, then I think every member, of this house will have to make his choice one way or the other.
Then he says in conclusion:
I say our people should devote their attention to their own national affairs, in an endeavour to make this country more prosperous and better to live in, and indeed a country better than any other in all the world.
I hope he is still of the same opinion and that his influence has some weight in the cabinet. The minister's statement of yesterday suggests the closest possible cooperation with the British War Office on defence matters. I think it is most significant, reading the report of the last imperial conference, that whereas in the reports of the two previous conferences the conclusions dealing with defence gave first place as to the independence of the dominions, in the report of the last conference that appears at the very end, and apparently is an afterthought.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The most important part of the finding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "an afterthought." It was the climax.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have read that rather carefully, and that is the impression which it
[Mr. MacNeil.l
left with me. It is not given the same importance or emphasis as on former occasions.


Ernest Lapointe: The evil mind!


Charles Grant MacNeil: I think we should know all the ramifications of this close cooperation. We learn in the book, Consultation and Cooperation of the British Commonwealth, published by the Royal and Canadian Institutes of International Affairs, of the purposes of the imperial defence college courses, London, where our staff is trained to deal with Canadian defence and trained, as we discover, in the broadest aspects of what is termed "higher imperial strategy"-"the higher imperial strategy." May I make it clear that I am not suggesting that the minister deliberately misled the committee; but I think we must recognize the fact that all the important men on the Canadian defence staff-they are listed here: the judge advocate general, the chief of the naval staff, the director of naval operations training, the director of military operations and intelligence, the director of military training, the director of staff duties, the air commodore, the air staff officer, the president of the national research council and former chief of the general staff-all these men have received their training or their final training at the imperial defence college, formed as I said for training in higher imperial strategy.
I have here a volume of the Canadian Defence Quarterly. I am not suggesting that this is an official expression of departmental opinion; but after all it is edited by a man who is in an important position on the Canadian staff, a position where he definitely influences the training of the gentlemen cadets of the Royal Military College. I have been tremendously interested in perusing the back numbers of this quarterly in order to get some indication of the opinions of our staff officers. It is quite clear to me that while this is not an official expression of departmental opinion, the importance of this publication among the defence forces cannot be denied. The fact that it is in every officers' mess in the dominion makes it certain that if there appeared therein any statement which was contrary to the policies of the department, the officer responsible for that statement would quickly be disciplined. It has been brought to my attention recently that any officer even criticizing departmental policy has been severely disciplined. In some able articles appearing in this magazine-and I am not suggesting that these officers are disloyal; I have a great respect for their capabilities as revealed in

Supply-National Dejence
their contributions to this publication-it is clear that, whatever may be said in parliament by way of interpretation of the agreements reached at the imperial conferences, these officers are placing their own interpretation on the policies reached at the conference or enunciated in parliament. Some important conclusions will toe found in some of these articles, conclusions to which no objection has been taken officially, and expressed by men who occupy a very high place and who are close to the council upon which the government must rely in making decisions upon the issues of war.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
have nothing whatsoever to do with policy.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I made that clear. But I said that, in my opinion, the editorial staff of this publication echo, and dare not do otherwise, the opinions of their senior officers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not necessarily.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Otherwise this defence
quarterly would not be accepted in officers' messes throughout the dominion. One man makes this significant statement, characteristic of several that appear in this publication.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It does influence opinion among the officers and men of the Canadian forces. That being so, the minister must take cognizance of that which appears in this quarterly. The writer says:
It can be seen, therefore, that because of the remoteness of the possibility of Canada being invaded-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the date, please?


Charles Grant MacNeil: This is October, 1935.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is when we started.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I shall go on down the list. I have the last issue here, and the same opinions are expressed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read the last issue, then.


Charles Grant MacNeil: -that the raison d'etre of our land forces is not so much for the direct as for the indirect defence of Canada, which role is provided for by statute in the Militia Act of Canada.
The criticism is often made that Canada's land forces are for the express purpose of defending her coasts and frontier against invasion and that no legislation exists for their employment beyond Canada. We have attempted to refute that criticism and to show that Canada, being sensible of the possibility of her people demanding intervention in an
empire war, is not entirely unprepared for that eventuality. Thus one may say that the principle under discussion is both recognized and applied in Canada.
In a subsequent issue, January, 1936, this appears in an article which was awarded first prize in an essay competition in which the higher officers competed. It is a summary of Canada's obligations towards imperial defence:
To summarize briefly Canada's defence problems, the following are the principal roles which her defence forces must be designed to meet.
(i)	The local defence of her own territory;
(ii)	The defence of her neutrality;
(iii)	The despatch of an overseas contingent as a contribution towards the defence of the British Commonwealth of Nations;
(iv)	The support of the League of Nations in the application of sanctions in so far as the interests of Canada appear.
In addition to the above defence requirements, there is the age-old problem of the preservation of law and order-otherwise known as aid to the civil power.
Then I find another interpretation; this is towards the final issue of 1936:
The purpose of Canada's defensive organization.
Conclusions of imperial conferences.
In 1923 the following principles were adopted, and were reaffirmed in 1926, while in 1930, defence matters were hardly touched upon.
(a)	Each part of the empire is primarily responsible for its own local defence.
(b)	The maritime communications of the empire jnust be adequately safeguarded.
(c)	Naval bases and repair and refueling facilities must be provided.
(d)	Naval strength as provided for in the Treaty of Washington should be maintained.
(e)	Air forces_ should be developed on such lines as to facilitate cooperation between the several parts of the empire in emergency.
These principles are very general indeed, and nothing is said of the question upon which we should most desire to be enlightened, viz., our responsibilities for the collective security of the Commonwealth, which in the past has meant sending expeditionary forces. But, even though no commitment in this vital matter was made, and though no principle concerning it was laid down, we may be sure that it could never have been absent from the thoughts of those conferring, and that all remembered that forces from all the empire stood together on the battlefields of the great war, and felt that should another such danger arise, they would stand together again. I submit, therefore, that we in Canada should plan our defensive organization so that if another part of the empire needs our armed help, we can send a proper force, just as we confidently expect armed aid from other parts of the empire if we ever need it.
This unwritten principle, and the five affirmed in the 1923 imperial conference will have to guide us in deciding what defence forces we should have.


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to interrupt
the hon. member for Vancouver North, but he has exceeded his time.
Supply-National Defence


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I say a few words,' the
hon. member, will, I suppose, be allowed to proceed?


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Having said a few words,
I yield to the hon. member.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I suggest to the minister
that, whatever he may say in this chamber, from all that appears in the published statements of senior officers, from their articles in this and other publications, and from their statements to the public, they are proceeding on the assumption that Canadian opinion will demand the dispatch of an expeditionary force overseas. Time and again they have referred to the historical precedents. The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, although opposed to our participation in overseas wars, and stating time and again that we should keep ourselves from the vortex of European militarism, found his opinion overruled by an upsurge of public sentiment. Again, in 1914, these issues were determined by public sentiment. That sentiment demanded the dispatch of an expeditionary force overseas; and these officers proceed on the assumption that in the developing struggle the same will be demanded of the Canadian government.
I am not basing my argument solely on the statements of senior officers. May I say, though, that these military experts say that Canada could very easily send over not only the 500,000 men recruited during the last war but probably double that number, and that the framework of the military establishment should be reconstructed for an expeditionary force of that size. Hitherto the ratio of distribution as between land, naval and air forces has been 2:1:1, and now the minister gives priority of arrangement to the air force, as appears in his statement of yesterday. At page 1647 of Hansard he says:
A certain amount of priority has been established after deliberation:	first, for the air
services; secondly, for naval defence; and, thirdly, in regard to the repairing of deficiencies in equipment of militia services, permanent and non-permanent.
That does not suggest any concentration on coastal defence. Concentration on the defence problem which I have suggested is strictly concentration on a coastal defence problem. Furthermore, I hope the minister will explain the reduction in certain items and the increases in others in the main estimates that he has brought down. In the estimate for the non-permanent active militia there is an increase of $318,336, and in the estimate for the permanent force, an increase
[The Chairman.]
of S217.110. But in the estimate for engineering services and works there is a decrease of 81,170.000, and in the estimate for general stores a decrease of $2,106,252. There you have an accentuation of the ratio, which suggests preparations for an expeditionary force. If we are dealing with coastal defence, surely it is important to provide that equipment which is necessary for such defence. Those items in which decreases are made are those from which we might reasonably expect-if I am wrong the minister will correct me-the purchase of guns for fixed batteries and the equipping of the coast with anti-aircraft guns.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
whole trouble is the question of delivery, as I explained yesterday.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Yes, I noted the statement the minister made. Surely coastal defence requires reasonable provision along these lines [DOT]-mines and mine sweepers, fixed batteries at strategic points supported by a small mobile land force, and anti-aircraft guns, with precision range-finding devices. If we are thinking of the defence of our coasts and our ports, certainly we should make every effort to keep abreast of technological progess in this respect. But the question that I should like the minister to answer is:	Why priority to the establishment of an air force? The observations of every prominent officer with regard to recent war manoeuvres and operations have shown that aircraft, even in squadrons, no longer provide effective defence against air raids. No longer are they a defensive weapon. I am not giving my own opinion; officer after officer, observing events in Spain, where a full-dress rehearsal for the next war is being held, has declared that no longer can pursuit or bombing planes offer effective resistance against raiding squadrons, their chief value being in the work of reprisals. They damage the effectiveness of opposing forces in so far as they are able to raid the aerodromes and destroy enemy aeroplanes while on the ground. And the reasons are obvious, as any military man knows. The increased speed of raiding squadrons with modern planes is such that interception by defending planes is almost impossible. The chances of successful interception are practically negligible. There is very seldom an opportunity for the defence planes to take to the air and attain a sufficient altitude in time for effective defence. In short, the air forces do not offer that defence in those raids, against which the minister says we must have protection. Their chief value is in cooperation with the land and naval forces in reconnaissance work, and
march 25, 1938
Supply-National Defence
even there their effectiveness is limited. It is difficult, therefore, to understand why priority is given to the air force in the defence program, when we know that in Canada we shall have no opportunity for making reprisals on enemy nations; it would be impossible.


Mr. FRASER:: What about attacking warships?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Even there, if I might
quote the experts who have recently published opinions on the question, aircraft are of little value. For reconnaissance purposes they are excellent, but the minister is suggesting the absolute priority of the air service. I say, therefore, that he should have no ground for complaint if in many quarters in Canada he is told, "You are building up those forces which can most readily be shipped at the shortest possible notice to other parts of the world if required."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: ' That is not the reason for it, I can assure my hon. friend.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am glad to hear the
minister say so, but he should have no ground for complaint if suspicion is aroused. I had hoped he would give priority to coastal defence in the strict sense.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Both the expansion of the air force and the small expansion of the naval services and also the militia services are designed for coastal defence, the three in cooperation.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the main estimates there is an increased expenditure for the army. Again I say it is difficult to understand why there is a definite emphasis on priority for the air force. Considering the fact that we are developing a trans-Canada sendee and training pilots, using planes which might be readily converted into war machines, there is still less reason for priority for the air force in the defence estimates. Certainly the provision for the skeleton of a large and highly mechanized army is not necessary in coastal defence work until we are confronted with the danger of an invading force strong enough to penetrate some distance inland.
I would ask the minister again how far he has proceeded with reorganization of the military defence department. I hope he will give some statement in that regard. In the first session he outlined his plans for reorganization; but apparently, for some mysterious reason, they have been brought to a halt. If he is thinking solely of the defence of the Canadian shores, it is difficult to understand why he maintains thirteen military
district headquarters in Canada in addition to military headquarters at Ottawa. For purposes of coastal defence there could be eastern and western headquarters in addition to Ottawa, and suitable training centres at various points across the dominion. But here we have an amazing duplication of services at enormous cost right across the dominion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are not thirteen; one is numbered thirteen, but there are not thirteen.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How many are there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Speaking from memory I think there are eleven.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I accept the correction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Eleven, with military headquarters in Ottawa.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I fail to see the necessity for expensive and elaborate armouries for coastal defence. I think the time has gone by when they serve any useful purpose in training our men to meet the defence emergencies which we shall probably have to meet. Training centres of another kind are necessary, as I think the minister knows very well. The maintenance of these large numbers of units is a tremendous duplication. This is a cause of complaint, not from me or from outsiders but from officers of the force who are interested in efficiency and are endeavouring to follow the principles of modern mechanized warfare and defence. I cannot see how these expenditures can be any longer justified. I found the answer to that in some statements published by senior officers, pointing to the fact that originally our militia establishment was organized to meet the threat of invasion from across the United States boundary. That guided the founding of our military establishment, and we have religiously followed that routine ever since, when there is no longer need even to consider defence against our good neighbour to the south. Surely that establishment is obsolete. We see here and in many other respects what they themselves call the " dead hand " of tradition, from which we suffered at the outbreak of the war. I am reminded that at the outbreak of the last war some staff officers took the ground that it was improper for a British officer and gentleman to use a trench periscope to discover what was before the trench. They said it was improper for an officer to use a mechanical device from a position of security to obtain information. There is much of that " dead hand " of tradition in the department, much that is obsolete with relation to defence, and much that could be justified only as preparation to participate in an external war.
Supply-National Defence

Another matter which gives me grave concern, particularly with regard to the assumptions of the officers, is our present status in regard to self-government in these matters. The minister referred to the Balfour declaration, that we are "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of domestic or foreign policy, united in common allegiance to the crown." I would ask the government to give reality to that declaration as far as it is possible at this time, and to the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, and, what is still more important, to give reality to the assurances given to this parliament last session that there are no commitments; that parliament will decide in all these matters and in all respects the issues of war.
Apart from the constitutional requirement, if we are to be frank and honest with ourselves this evening, we must admit that if Great Britain were involved in war to-morrow, we are at war; we would have very little to say about the matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By no means.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I shall give my reasons. We are bound by the decisions of Downing street. One man has said, and quite properly, that this is an offence to any conception of our democratic rights.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are bound, not constitutionally but by international law.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There is grave doubt on that. There is a fundamental difference of opinion. I could bring quotations from Berrie-dale Keith, Professor Corbett, and other constitutional authorities to prove my statement that there is doubt as to the constitutional position, as to our freedom to claim a separate right of neutrality. The fact that that doubt exists is all the more reason why we should now clear up any uncertainty. I am not arguing the constitutional aspect now, but I say we should face it as a practical issue that when Great Britain is at war, we are at war. If to-morrow morning Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the hon. gentleman will admit that that must be qualified.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I shall endeavour to show my reasons for that statement. In spite of the constitutional provision which has been made for us to claim full autonomy, I point out that a full measure of autonomy has not yet been claimed with respect to the right of neutrality. As one writer has said, one cabinet responsible to one party in one parliament out of seven commits all the members of the commonwealth to war. That, I say, is contrary to our conception of democracy. We

should claim, as far as it is possible to claim for ourselves the right of neutrality, the right to give reality to the assurances made to this parliament by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence.


William Alexander Fraser: The hon. member will not accept the assurances when they are made.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There is another important consideration which has not been cleared up, under constitutional law. If to-morrow his majesty is declared in a state of war with another nation, we are forbidden under constitutional law to trade with enemy subjects. It will become a criminal matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not true-not under constitutional law.


Charles Grant MacNeil: That is under constitutional law. This is in effect the automatic application of economic sanctions against the nations at war with his majesty. That point has not yet been cleared up. May I indicate the position in regard to our consular services, which places us in a difficult situation. In only three countries have we ministers of our own. In the other countries, possibly the capitals of potential enemy nations, when the British ambassador is withdrawn, there is no one to represent Canada's interests, and as far as that country is concerned Canada quite properly would be considered at war. I point out to my hon. friend that last session a return was brought down showing that Canada has contractual obligations to maintain naval bases for his majesty's ships at Esqui-malt and Halifax.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is a difference between contractual and constitutional obligations.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am dismissing for the
moment the consideration of constitutional aspects. At another time I may attempt to deal with the constitutional difficulties involved. I say that as a matter of reality, these are considerations which destroy any hope of claiming for ourselves the right of neutrality. I am not suggesting that we should attempt to make a prior declaration of neutrality and bind parliament; but I am suggesting that it is in line with the constitutional developments of recent years, with our status of self-government, with the Balfour declaration and the provisions of the Statute of Westminster, that we should be able to claim for ourselves the right of neutrality. I know there are some difficult problems to work out in that regard; but let us be under no illusion; as matters stand now, we are bound by the decisions of Downing street, and that position is repugnant to the average Canadian.

Supply-National Defence
That is all strengthened by the close working relationship between our general staff and the imperial War Office. Our men are trained in the "higher imperial strategy," trained for cooperation in a common empire emergency. A permanent force officer in Canada is required to-day to pass the same examination, set and corrected by the same authorities, as an officer of corresponding rating in the British army. So that an officer of definite rank in the forces of one part of the commonwealth could be employed, either in time of peace or in war, in any appointment of similar rank in the forces of any other portion of the commonwealth. There is a Canadian air liaison officer in London with offices at the air ministry. And we have the common use of organization, equipment, establishments and training manuals issued by the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry of the United Kingdom. There is direct correspondence between our staff and the staff of the United Kingdom and the staffs of the defence ministries of the other dominions. There is a periodic exchange of liaison letters between the chiefs of staff of the British and dominions services. There is the attachment of Canadian officers to units in Great Britain. Last session the minister brought down a return in that regard, but I know that number has been increased. In addition to those on exchange, who number perhaps eight or ten or twelve at a time, last year there were seventy odd officers in training in Great Britain, and in January of this year there were approximately ninety of our officers and men receiving training under the imperial authorities.


William Alexander Fraser: Do I understand that the
hon. member does not agree that we should maintain naval bases in Canada available to British naval ships? Does my hon. friend object to the exchange of officers between Canada and Great Britain?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Perhaps I did not make my point clear to my hon. friend. I was not expressing disagreement with the maintenance of naval bases. I say that when the minister states to the committee that we have no commitments, I have a right to say that the contractual obligation to which I have referred is a commitment which destroys any hope of neutrality in the event of Great Britain being engaged in a war. May I point out further that when the Union of South Africa, by the passage of several acts, attempted to claim the separate right of neutrality, the very thing which hindered that attempt was the maintenance of the naval base at Simon's Town. That is an illustration in point. I am not attempting
to suggest what is right or what is wrong. I am arguing that this is a time for complete frankness with regard to these commitments.


William Alexander Fraser: It is a good thing the hon. member has not the dictation of the policies of this country.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Perhaps it is, but my hon. friend knows that I have a perfect right to rise in my place and state my opinion; and, as my hon. friend also knows, my opinion is shared by many others, who feel that we want complete frankness in regard to this matter.


William Alexander Fraser: The hon. member is getting it, but he does not believe it when it is given him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let the hon. gentleman make his speech later on, if he knows how.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not suggesting or advancing an anti-British argument.


William Alexander Fraser: It sounds like it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I point out to my hon. friend that I was born in Canada. I am a British subject, and I am not ashamed of my opinions in this regard. I did my stint of service in the war, together with my comrades in this house. If the hon. gentleman cares to bring my loyalty into question, he may do so, but I shall let my record speak for itself. I have endeavoured to make it clear-and I have not uttered an offensive word while doing so -that I am: not advancing an anti-British policy. As was said by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, whom I quoted a moment ago, I am a Canadian and view these matters as a Canadian. But I realize that, in the final analysis, these matters affect Canada vitally and must be worked out not on the basis of false sentiment or any mawkish patriotism, but on the basis of national interest. The day has long gone by when people in this country say, "Britain is my country; Canada is my home." I say that due to the constitutional developments in which we take such pride in this house, Canada is our country, and we are responsible for the development of Canadian policies in this regard. So I am pointing out, as well as I am capable of doing, the grounds giving rise to suspicion and uneasiness in this country at this time.
These relationships exist. Of that there is abundant evidence, and they constitute tacit commitments. The greatest commitment of all lies in the fact that we have not relinquished that constitutional relationship, the constitutional law, which willy-nilly compels us automatically to apply economic sanctions against the subjects of those nations which
Supply-National Defence

may be at war with his majesty. That is a matter of constitutional law. All these things I say constitute commitments, and I feel that it is our responsibility to face the issues frankly and discover, in line with democratic traditions in Canada, just where we stand. We should know where we stand. As I said before, it is not good enough to leave these matters for settlement until we succumb to war hysteria. Then, in the event of war, of course to discuss any such matter as this would be secession, and I am not for one moment arguing for separation from the empire. I say this at this time, with all due sense of responsibility, that throughout Canada there is a growing and profound distrust of the policy of the present British government, and that does not mean disloyalty to British traditions or to the sentiments of the British people. Sometimes there is a vast difference between the policies of a British government and the wishes of the British people. Perhaps I may not with propriety attack the British government in this house to-night; but this fact is I think, clear, that the policies which they are following to-day are not in strict accordance with the mandate which they secured from the British people in 1935.
There are some reasons for this distrust. This is one: The British government has not given us any clear assurance of its intention to support a plan of collective security to stop aggression or to lay the basis for a collective peace. That assurance has not been given, and that is an important reason for the growing distrust. Many say quite freely that the recent statements of the British Prime Minister-


Ernest Lapointe: Speaking of collective security, may I say to my hon. Iriend that for a long time I have been a great supporter of this principle. But how can he get collective security, and can he hope for collective security as a protection, when some of the largest powers in the world refuse to join in any scheme of collective security?


Charles Grant MacNeil: For the moment I am not arguing for collective security, and I realize as well as does the Minister of Justice, that there is not much hope of effective action under the present collective security plan. But I think he will agree that we should not abandon the ideal of a collective peace policy for the world, and that while the league perhaps has failed-


Ernest Lapointe: Meanwhile we cannot rely on it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Even if the league has failed, we should not abandon it entirely; for it may provide a rallying point for world opinion. But let us be under no illusion as to the mistakes which have been made by the league, and for those mistakes the great powers must accept responsibility; for the league could not function without the consent of the great powers, principally Great Britain. However, I shall not attempt to elaborate these reasons to-night. I have my own opinion as to that; but it is clear, I think, from the experiences of Ethiopia, Spain and China, that when the great powers might have stood by some form of collective action in restraint of aggression, no effort was made to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say this to my hon. friend: Is he quite sure that other nations which assumed an obligation in regard to collective security were equally prepared to play the part Great Britain was prepared to play in enforcing it? The hon. gentleman is putting it all on the shoulders of Great Britain. I am inclined to think that Great Britain was quite prepared to do all she could to further the doctrine of collective security, but she was not equally sure as to the support she would receive from some others.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I think the Prime Minister is right in some respects, but not entirely so. There were other powers who shared the responsibility for the failure of the league, it is true; but British statesmen at Stresa, as the record now shows, were well aware of Mussolini's intentions with regard to Ethiopia, and at that time they gave no indication that they disapproved. It was not until the peace ballot was held in Great Britain in 1935 that the British government attempted to restrain Mussolini. The Prime Minister well remembers the statements made in the British House of Commons at the time Japan first contemplated its raid into Manchuria, when prominent supporters of the British government attempted to defend the action of Japan, and so on.
I cannot see how anyone can defend the actions of the British government with regard to Spain. The non-intervention pact has proved to be a farce. It has not limited the area of conflict or protected democracy. I know there is a difference of opinion on this matter, but many people feel that to-day the British government is not truly representative of the opinion of the British people. Of course, the truth of this will be determined at the polls, but this is one of the reasons for the growing distrust. There is no likelihood that the next war will come as a result of any

Supply-National Defence
attempt to maintain collective action in restraint of aggression. The next war will come when the great powers determine that they must defend their imperialist interests.
I shall not take up the time of the committee any longer, but I should like to deal for a moment with the constitutional difficulties of our relationships within the commonwealth. It would be difficult to justify Canadian participation in any external war on any basis or for any cause, even in defence of the commonwealth. We must consider that, in the event of trouble, the British navy will be engaged, not on one but on three or four fronts. To dispatch troops overseas from this dominion might be a magnificent gesture of empire solidarity, but in my opinion and in the opinion of many military experts it would be nothing less than sheer nonsense. Great Britain could not divert sufficient naval strength successfully to convoy troops across the oceans.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out forcibly in The Economist recently, the protection of our resources are of vital consequence to the commonwealth. To dispatch an expeditionary force of five, six or seven hundred thousand men, three or four divisions, would certainly definitely wreck our defences in Canada and at the same time invite reprisals from abroad. These are matters that must be taken into consideration when we consider any preparation for participation in an external war. In spite of this, there is the presumption that we must prepare for overseas war. What will be the position of Canada should we engage in an external war in which the United States is not definitely concerned? Canada's position would be a most unhappy one, particularly in view of the recent neutrality legislation of the United States. There would be considerable difficulty in attempting to finance a war in which Great Britain was engaged without access to Wall Street credit. We would jeopardize our economic life if all the commodities purchased in the United States were placed on a cash and carry basis, because at the same time our sea-borne trade across the Atlantic and the Pacific would be handicapped and interfered with. Consider the results upon our relations with the United States of attempting to force the rights of belligerency against neutral shipping. We cannot afford to have anything in the semblance of a rupture with the United States, and that would certainly occur if we engaged in a war which would not be considered by that country as one of self-defence.
I think this was recognized by Great Britain when she accepted naval parity with- the
United States and when, in effect, she agreed to share with that country the responsibility of defending the sea lanes across the northern Atlantic and Pacific. What is still more important, this means that Great Britain is depending upon the permanence of friendly relations with the United States. From the practical standpoint we cannot safely engage in a war such as would jeopardize these relationships. Sentiment is all very fine; but, as one writer has said, geography is always with us. It would be the greatest tragedy, not only for Canada but for the British commonwealth, to have these relationships jeopardized in any way. I suggest that, as a matter of defence and to prevent this undermining of our natural advantages, we should give first consideration to the first line of defence, that is, our external relations.
In my opinion we have not done all that might be done in this connection. The reason I brought up the question of our relationship within the empire is that it is essential that Canada should gain freedom of action if we are to make an effective contribution to world peace. There must be freedom of action within the commonwealth. As far as I can interpret the report of the imperial conference of last summer, that issue was to the fore. Australia certainly suggested a non-aggression pact. It was clearly understood that South Africa probably might not be interested in a non-aggression pact on the Pacific. There was a definite suggestion that there should be a regional regrouping within the empire as determined by geographical requirements. I think it is clear from the statement made last year by the Prime Minister that Canada did not accept any definite commitments, because our policy must be determined in a large measure by our relationship with and proximity to the United States. I think the time has come when we should be given greater freedom of action.
Freedom of action does not mean separation from the commonwealth. It would mean an escape from what appears now to be an attempt to enforce artificial unity within the empire. One scheme of empire defence is something that is not consistent with the practical requirements of the situation. Freedom of action such as I have suggested would open the way for natural development of policy, for cooperation and association in those matters in which we are mutually interested, and for the entry into a definite international enterprise leading to a collective peace policy. I am not suggesting that we have any strength as a military nation or that we should do other than the Prime Minister has suggested, that is, take a back seat in measures of coercion. As a trading nation we have economic importance, and I think on that basis
Supply-National Defence

we can make a definite contribution to economic appeasement and international cooperation. I hope that during this discussion the minister will make it quite clear that nothing exists in the way of tacit commitments-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can make it clear now; there is none.


Charles Grant MacNeil: -that there are no tacit commitments which will put us in a position where we could not withdraw from participation in an external war.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Chairman, what we have heard from every side during the past few weeks reminds me of what we heard just over a quarter of a century ago. I remember being in the Yukon at that time of rumours of war and saying to my husband, "Do you believe what Borden is saying, that there is a danger of war?" My husband replied, "Personal!}' I do not believe it, but the Prime Minister says there is danger of war, and if I follow him I must believe what he says." So, when I hear the government say that we must prepare for eventualities, I am led to believe that the government in power must know that we have to prepare for eventualities which may not happen, which we hope will not happen, but at the same time we must be ready.
This is the third session that I have been in the house. I have refrained in the two previous sessions from taking any part in the debate on the militia estimates. I had to. My youngest son was in the regular army; my oldest son was a naval reservist in the United States forces, and I felt that under no circumstances could I say anything which would lead anybody to believe that I was inclined to a military mind, because I was not. I consider that I am an average woman and an average mother. I brought up my children to obey discipline and orders when the discipline and orders were necessary. I did not bring them up to be cannon fodder;
I brought them up with the idea that if a country is good enough to live in, it is not only good enough to live in but good enough to die for if we have to die for it. None of us wants to. We all want to live. We all want to enjoy the sunshine and God's free air; but at the same time I believe every thinking man and woman want to feel, if the call comes, that they are ready. The call might come for one of us to fight; the call might come for another to remain on the farm; the call might come for another to cook, to do all sorts of menial labour; but as men and women, when that call comes, we must be ready. I do not doubt this for one moment.

In preparing for war, for the horrible eventuality as it is nowadays, we are doing as we do when we take out a life insurance policy, or fire or burglary insurance. For years and years I have kept on paying insurance, not that I expected my house to burn, not that I expected to die immediately, not that I expected burglars to enter; but at the same time I was going to be ready, and I think the minister in his speech has made it quite clear that he wants to be ready in case of a horrible eventuality.
We in the north have felt until the last few years that we were free from fear; but now when I go to my door in the summer and look overhead and see perhaps twelve or fourteen aeroplanes in the air at one time; when I hear over the radio five minutes after a crime has happened in China, that it has happened, I think, What may this all mean to me? What may this all mean to those of us on the outposts of the empire if we are not prepared, if we are not careful? Heaven knows I do not want war. I do not want to go through what I went through in London for three and a half years, when I listened to the shrieking sirens and saw the aeroplanes and those horrible zeppelins on fire and falling in flames, with many men jumping from them. I do not want to see that again. I do not want to visit those hospitals again and see men and boys near and dear to me, as I saw so many. But with the dictators to-day doing as they are, can we do anything but prepare and be ready for what may come to us? We have a country to the south of us which in self-defence will help us; but if she helps us she expects us to help her, and we have all been taught that the Lord helps those who help themselves.
I perhaps may not always agree with everything the minister may say, but at the same time I know him to be a cautions, canny Scot. I know he is not going to rush us into an expenditure of life or money unless it is absolutely necessary, and so with all my heart and soul, while praying that there may be no further trouble in this country, I shall support him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely trust that the hon. member for the Yukon (Mrs. Black), who is not only an hon. member but, I trust she will allow me to say, also a lovable one, will permit me to extend to her my very sincere congratulations upon her excellent speech. If I do not spend any time in discussing her important statement, it will not be because I do not regard it as having a proper place in this discussion.

Supply-National Defence
I feel, in taking part in this debate, that there is the difficulty of making sure not only that one's words and phrases are well chosen but that one's temper as well is held in proper restraint. I think the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), who spoke preceding the hon. member for the Yukon, is likewise deserving of congratulations upon a speech which revealed a great deal of research and, if I may suggest, a speech which can be differentiated from the one he made last year in discussing this matter by a display of good temper, which I shall endeavour to follow. He presented a point of view almost the direct opposite of that presented by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), and I think my contribution can best be made by an analysis of these two points of view.
First of all, the hon. member for Greenwood made a speech that should occasion sincere congratulations for the manner in which it was delivered, and if I do not agree with its content it will not be because I have not a high regard for the hon. member. I suspect that he was dominated essentially this afternoon, not by a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the problem, but by the difficulty that while, on the one hand, he wanted to agree with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), he did not find it a wise expedient in all the circumstances to do so. When he said the present estimates are inadequate, he gave us one indication that those who say they are wholly adequate will find themselves with at least one opponent. But if these defence estimates are inadequate, surely there is a responsibility on the part of the hon. member to indicate in what respect.


Denton Massey: I did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, he did? The hon.
member made generalizations. He referred to the fact that the Statute of Westminster had imposed upon us as a nation responsibilities which were not being lived up to in the level of the present estimates. The Minister of National Defence is guided by experts; it is to be assumed that he is carrying out their recommendations, and I do not believe it is in the interests of a solution of this problem to take an extreme view in respect of either higher estimates or lower estimates.
Again, may I suggest this, that when the hon. member for Vancouver North was speaking, and again when the minister was speaking-and I say this as one who has no pretensions at being a soldier-I felt like making an interjection as to the wisdom of discussing in this chamber details of our military operations or of our armed strength.
Surely there is another place for that, and there should not be in this chamber a discussion of details of this kind. Parliament is the place to discuss policy. Parliament is the place to discuss the foreign policy upon which the present estimates, inadequate or adequate, should be based.
Regarding the charge of inadequacy made by the hon. member for Greenwood, we might as well face the realization that this country could not adequately defend itself in a major conflict. I do not know whether the Minister of National Defence would agree with this statement, but I believe there is no question that in the event of a serious war on any front this dominion could not hope adequately by itself to defend itself, and the level of defence which we now have must largely be dictated by that circumstance. I certainly disagree with the hon. member for Greenwood when he says now that we are a nation; now that we are a member of the family of states, the stamp of our nationhood should be determined by our military, naval or air strength.


Denton Massey: I made no such statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the'hon. member says
he did not, I suggest that he should reread his speech.


Denton Massey: I have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have before me his actual words. If I misunderstood the hon. member, I certainly withdraw what I have said. Assuming that he is correct in his correction of me, and speaking generally, I repeat surely that is not the test of nationhood. It may have been at one time part of the concept of sovereignty, but to-day we are not to be characterized as a nation in proportion to our armed strength.
With regard to what the hon. member for Vancouver North has had to say, I could not help noting that there was a great change in his attitude this year as compared with last, not only as regards temper but with respect to what I may call a tacit acceptance of these defence estimates. He spoke of tacit commitments, and he gave me the impression that he had tacitly although reluctantly declared himself in support of these estimates, although perhaps he would have preferred to see them distributed in a different manner. I do not think the hon. member is doing justice to the committee, to the problem or to our people, in saying, what has been inferred on several occasions during the present session, that there is a suppression of debate in respect of foreign policy. Before I resume my seat, I propose to make some statements
Supply-National Defence

with which, I am sure, the government will not altogether agree. There is no restraint upon me in making these observations, any more than there is a restraint on the hon. gentleman opposite. What the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has indicated in the leadership that he has given in this matter is simply that which characterizes all public assemblies throughout the world at the present time, that whatever we say should ;be stated not without some serious consideration of what is to be said, not without some serious appreciation likewise of the intensity of the present situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend might add-and how what is said here will be construed elsewhere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And how what is said here may be construed elsewhere. I think that addition is proper. I share in no less a manner what the hon. member has said by way of characterization of the deplorable situation in which the world now finds itself. There is no question that this view is shared by every hon. member. The fact that the heads of certain states, particularly the totalitarian states, are able, by the employment of force, not only to violate covenants and treaty obligations but to violate the whole tradition of the post-war world, should not prevent a clear recognition of a fait accompli, or preclude an attempt to deal with foreign policy in the light of those facts.
What we in this chamber should not fail to do is to make a differentiation of function. In this house the hon. member for Vancouver North is not speaking as a professor or as a mere student of the problem; he is speaking as a member of parliament. What he states here should be from a different point of view from what he would say if he were in the lecture hall of a university or making a public lecture apart from his responsibility as a member of - parliament. I mention this in order to set out what I think is the position of the Prime Minister in this respect. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in this country, like the minister of foreign affairs in any other country, is charged at this time, not with what ought to be, not with what has been, but with what is. The conduct of foreign affairs, then, is definitely related to questions of expediency, of commitments in the interests of peace. By that I do not mean that "peace at any price" should always be the excuse of those charged with the conduct of foreign affairs. I agree that one has some justification in such an instance to ask if peace at any price, does mean peace.

The hon. member for Vancouver North this year, as last, has spoken of commitments. It will be remembered that when he made that charge last year, I asked him: Against which countries are we committed to prosecute a war of aggression? And on the basis of his speech to-night he can speak only of a war of aggression. Against what countries are we preparing to fight? Against the United States? Against Japan? Against France? Are we preparing to fight Germany? The hon. member has a responsibility as a member of parliament, and in his sincere approach to the problem I think he should be in a position to give an answer to a question of this kind. The fact that we have defences to the extent we have is in itself no implication, open or covert, that we have commitments. Further than that, it seems to me that unless public life in this country has been reduced to a negligible quantity, we should assume that, when the Prime Minister speaks, and when his ministers speak and give us repeated assurances of the sort that the Minister of Defence has given to-night, we should accept them.
I propose to recall to the committee the statement of the Prime Minister at Geneva a year and a half ago- As far as I can recall, it has never been placed on Hansard. I myself heard him speak from the tribune of the League of Nations. The British delegation, made up, as I believe it then was, of Lord Halifax, Mr. Eden, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald and Mr. Morrison, Viscount Cran-borne and Mr. Shakespeare being present as alternate delegates, were seated in the assembly of the league along with representatives of the greater powers and other countries. What was the statement the Prime Minister made? It was not made in this parliament in the absence of the British ministers. It was not made simply to foreign ministers with the British ministers absent. It was made in the presence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the then leader of the government in the House of Lords now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Our Prime Minister stated to them and to the world that Canada had no commitments with any unit or with any body, and in respect of a conflict she reserved for' herself through her parliament what she would do in the case of war. Surely a serious declaration of that sort, pitted against the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver North, clearly indicates that if it is a question of accepting words, there is no question as to what this house or this country will do.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. COLDWELL:: Can the hon. member tell us what the Prime Minister said in Haris?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall tell the hon. gentleman that myself, in due time. May I say that the meeting at Geneva to which my hon. friend is referring was the year before last.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime Minister is able to speak for himself; I do not want to assume the role of Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, one can never tell. Not only at Geneva, but in a speech delivered in Canada again after his return, and during last session, time and time again the Prime Minister has stated the traditional policy in this respect of successive Canadian governments. One thing we may be satisfied about at the present time in Canada is that all political parties who have yet assumed office have agreed on one fundamental. The hon. member for Vancouver North has said that we must at least have a foreign policy upon which we can base our estimates, and he is . quite right. It is in the examination of our foreign policy that I propose to make my reply to him to-night.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in this chamber in 1900, said:
Whilst I cannot admit that Canada should take part in all the wars of Great Britain, neither am I prepared to say that she should not take part in any war at all. I am prepared to look upon each case upon its merits as it arises. ... I claim for Canada this, that in the future Canada shall be at liberty to act or not to act, to interfere or not to interfere, to do just as she pleases, and that she shall reserve to herself the right to judge whether or not there is cause for her to act.
That was in 1900, and that was the first declaration in this chamber by a prime minister of Canada on this problem. Sir John A. Macdonald had declared himself in equal terms if not more violently outside this chamber, though I am confining myself to statements made by prime ministers in this house. Compare that statement with that of the present prime minister delivered at the League of Nations session in Geneva, the ninth plenary meeting on September 29, 1936:
The Canadian House of Commons, by unanimous resolution, has made the adoption of undertakings to apply either military or economic sanctions subject to the approval of parliament.	.
What I have said and quoted does not mean that in no circumstances would the Canadian people be prepared to share in action against an aggressor; there have been no absolute commitments either for or against participation in war or other forms of force. It does mean that any decision on the part of Canada to
participate in war will have to be taken by the parliament or people of Canada in the light of all existing circumstances; circumstances of the day as they exist in Canada, as well as in the areas involved.
I have taken some time and some pains to reiterate this aspect of the problem. But in the face of these pronouncements, how can any hon. member in this house or anyone outside say that we have commitments, tacit or explicit, with any country? One examines the argument of the hoh. member for Vancouver North and it is this: Since we are members of the British Empire-and he might as well have applied it to the League of Nations; he might as well have said, "Since we are members of the League of Nations," or "Since we are a North American country"-these very affiliations constitute in themselves commitments tacit or explicit. That is what his argument amounts to. But the mere fact that we are members of the British Empire, members of the League of Nations; the mere fact that we are a north American country, neighbour to a great republic, one of the great powers of the world-do these facts, and these facts alone, constitute commitments?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I was referring simply to
commitments for military action abroad.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what I am referring to; we are discussing military estimates. If that is the only reply which the hon. member has to give, I take it that my interpretation of what he has said is correct.
The view of Professor Underhill in this matter is as valuable as the view of the Minister of Pensions. In this case, neither view is worth anything. They are the views of individual men. I sat in conference last May with Professor Underhill for a week discussing the problem, and there were present not only Professor Underhill but other distinguished academic people, most of whom I suspect are supporters of the group to which my hon. friend belongs. While we took no vote-as he well knows from this document which I cannot quote; I can only refer to it; I cannot discuss it because of the auspices by which it is distributed the majority took issue with Professor Underhill because they were unwilling then, in the face of the world uncertainty, to pass dogmatically upon the question in the manner in which Professor Underhill so often does; and I say that without being unkind to a man for whom I have the highest regard personally and intellectually
There is a great tendency in Canada to say that we have no foreign policy and that, consequently, since Canada has no foreign policy, there is a responsibility upon the admin-
Supply-National Defence

istration of the day to declare its policy in respect of the situation in Europe, the situation in Spain-and I mention Spain with emphasis-the situation in China, Japan, and elsewhere. Well, I suggest that in approaching this problem we should divide it into two. With respect to the period following the war until two years ago, I would share almost entirely the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Vancouver North; but as regards the period since then, looking at the realities of the situation, as one must in parliament, I submit that one must take these later developments into consideration. At the Canadian-American Conference held at Queen's University last summer I sought to make this distinction in replying to the very excellent presentation of Doctor Dafoe, one of the most profound students of International Affairs in Canada.
As to the first period let me say I am not going to deny that the present disturbance, the present uncertainty, in Europe, *might have been avoided by courageous statesmanship, by a belief in the League of Nations, actively, as well as in form and theory. I do not deny that. I shall never forget when I attended for the first time an assembly of the League of Nations in 1929. It was the last appearance of the then Chancellor of Germany, Doctor Gustav Stresemann, one of the greatest of modern Germans and one of the most peace loving men of modern Europe. Standing before the Assembly of the League of Nations, with tears running down his cheeks, the victim of a fatal disease, a dead man soon afterwards, and turning and addressing himself particularly to Aristide Briand, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, he said in substance:
Unless the world will recognize the injustices of the peace treaties; unless it will recognize that you cannot in this day of economic and political interdependence strangle one country in the hope that other countries will benefit, someone will come in my place; someone will come in as head of the German people and will be able to play upon these injustices in these peace treaties, will be able to refer to the guilt clause, to the unwise occupation of the Ruhr, and all that meant in making the middle classes of Germany a fertile soil for the totalitarian ideas now current in Germany. Unless these things are done, someone will come in and will be able, by refusal to recognize his intellectual responsibility in the matter, to rouse the German people to the use of force to get these things which are denied them by a Carthaginian peace.
I do not deny all that. But that is not the picture to-day. The fact to-day is that the League of Nations, the collective security system to which the hon. member for Van-

eouver North has referred without defining what* he meant by collective security, in respect of political action is at the moment absolutely impotent to deal with disturbances in Europe or any other part of the world. Not only that; but if one goes back to the origins of the covenant; if one reads, for instance, the life of General Smuts by Sarah Gertrude Millin, one will find that when sanctions, economic, and military as well, were provided for, it was never intended that they should apply outside the regions involved. In other words, it was never intended that military sanctions in respect of a European conflict should be enforced by countries outside Europe. That was confirmed by the Sino-Japanese dispute and the Bolivia-Paraguay affair. Sanctions in none of these instances were contemplated or even attempted on the part of any country. I merely mention that to indicate that in our talking about collective security, collective action, we must not assume that our wishes are actually embodied in the covenant of the league. Speaking as one who came out of college full of the traditions of the late war, fully convinced that if civilization were to be preserved the agencies of conference and of law had to supplant force as an instrument of national policy, and as one who to-night may perhaps be said to represent thousands of young men and women throughout this country, I say that no greater disillusionment could come to one of my generation. One must recognize the occasion for the disillusionment. That is the important point which we cannot overstress in discussing this matter.
The Minister of National Defence specified to this committee five groups that he finds in this country in respect of foreign affairs. I think those five groups are, mathematically speaking, as accurate perhaps as a mere description could be. However, I suggest to him that perhaps he will not find a majority of people entirely subscribing to his fifth group, but the majority of people doubtless come within any number of these five categories of public opinion. In respect to the last two I can find points of agreement, and I know that many thinking people in this country share the same view. If one analyses these groups and what they mean in terms of public opinion in Canada, the irresistible conclusion is that if the Prime Minister to-morrow told the house that in a given event we were going to take up arms for this or that party, he would doubtless find support in some sections of this dominion, but he would find other sections diametrically opposed. What would be the result? In an attempt to bring peace to the world, he would

Insurance Companies
be causing unrest and the antithesis of peace in his own country. One could cite example after example to illustrate that. I found it so myself. Making a tour of Canada last year I went into many sections of this great dominion, and speaking frankly of these problems I found such a variety of opinion as, in some instances, to compel me to disguise my views. If that is so in the case of a private member, surely hon. members will not fail to see it as applying still more to those who form the ministry of this country.
The hon. member for Vancouver North will find me agreeing with him on at least one point, if not with his reasoning, at least with his conclusion. We should not hesitate to obtain for this country the right of neutrality. I am not saying that I agree that we should declare now what we shall do in a given instance in respect of being neutral or not being neutral. But we should have that right. Let me point out, however, that this will not remove the difficulty which the hon. member has in mind. South Africa has that legal right; yet in international law, in spite of the constitutional and legal precautions she has taken, in the event of war involving any part of the empire she would find herself likely to be considered by any belligerent as being involved in that war. Therefore, the mere right of neutrality within the present constitutional arrangement will not meet the problem.
Again I take serious issue with the hon. member for Vancouver North. Constitutionally there is no question that we have the right to be neutral in any given event. That has been gone over in this house time and time again. If the hon. member will refer to the statement of the Prime Minister, I think in 1926, on this very point, he will find there quoted the speeches of Berriedale Keith, Corbett and others whose opinions he has discussed to-night. The conclusion is that constitutionally we have the right, in case of one part of the empire being involved, to declare our neutrality. International law, however, may present a different situation. As a practical matter I suggest this, that if war took place in which Canada sought to assert the right of neutrality, if a belligerent, having in mind our empire relations or our North American affiliations, found it convenient to attack Canada, that belligerent would not hesitate to do so because of certain legal or constitutional refinements. That cannot be too clearly emphasized.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 28, 1938