1939-05-16

[Stage Direction]
^Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence): I desire to table certain contracts asked for verbally by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). This list is not complete, but I trust to have it complete before the session is ended.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Yesterday the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to which he promised an answer to-day. The question is to be found on page 4052 of Hansard. The answer is, no; there have been no further developments.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). A few days ago he promised to bring down correspondence between the grain board and himself or members of the cabinet relative to the setting of the price of wheat last fall. Can he say when it will be brought down?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I regret that I did not bring down the one letter which was received from the chairman, but I can give the contents. The letter was to the effect that the wheat board recommended a price of 80 cents, which recommendation of course was acted upon by the government. That is the only correspondence, and there are no telegrams.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: May I ask the leader of the house at the moment, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), 'whether he can give the house any

Supply-National Defence
further information with regard to the rearrangement of the program in Ottawa of the visit of their majesties? True, it is mentioned in the press, but I was wondering if that was official. I think the house would be very glad to know.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry, but my own information is the same as that of my hon. friend-what I saw in the press. I think it is accurate.



UNITED STATES TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I regret that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in the house at the moment. I have received to-day the following telegram from Mr. Ludger Richard, the former mayor of Estcourt, Quebec. It refers to a matter which has been standing for several months, a boundary matter. The telegram reads:
What shall I do if my cattle and horses are seized? Pay? Let them be slaughtered? Or ask for permit? Notify by wire.
I wished to ask the Prime Minister what he would do if he were member for Temiscouata.
I shall have to ask the question of the Minister of Justice.
Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend sent a
copy of the telegram to the Department of External Affairs, or to some officer there, and they have supplied me with the following statement:
The United States has refunded the duty on certain cattle which were taken into the United States by Mr. Richard last year. The United States government have indicated that under their existing law duty must be paid on cattle taken into the United States regardless of whether or not the owner of the cattle is also the owner of land in the United States as well as in Canada. They have also indicated their readiness to permit the repeated entry of cattle on which duty has once been paid without charging further duty, in the case where a farmer owns one farm in Canada and an immediately adjoining and contiguous farm in the United States.
I understand the member for Temiscouata has been fully informed of the attitude of the United States government.


Mr. POULIOT:: I thank the minister, but the information he has given is of no help to Mr. Richard.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
General.
209.	Battlefields memorials, $32,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Does this item pertain to the Vimy Ridge memorial?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, it pertains to seven or eight different memorials, all overseas. It does not apply to any memorials in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In regard to the Vimy Ridge memorial, many of the names that have been cut in the stone work are beginning to fade out. Either the stone is too soft or there is some other reason and in some instances boys have taken sharp instruments and gouged out the letters. If the stone is so soft that the names fade out in a few years, is there anything the department can do, by the use of paint or some other preservative, to rectify this situation? It seems a pity that a large number of the names carved in stone should fade out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have received no official information in this regard, but I shall be very glad to look into the matter immediately and take the necessary steps to have the situation remedied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
210.	Book of remembrance, $8,000.
Mr. LENNARD:: When will the book of remembrance be completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: During the present year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
211.	Closing relief projects, $1,000.
Mr. COLD WELL:: To what does this refer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This has reference to the old unemployment relief camps. There are two or three claims pending from time to time, and the amount, which has diminished from year to year, is to meet any possible contingent claims.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Retirement of capital.
217. Annual sinking fund to retire, with interest, moneys borrowed for capital expenditures, $3,447,175.
Mr. COLDWELL:: This is a large item. Will the minister explain it?


Mr. MacNEIL:: May I ask the minister to explain also the new system of presenting the estimates to the house?
Supply*-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sorry; I cannot hear the hon. member because of the noise in the chamber.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must ask for better order in all parts of the house. It is very difficult for me to hear, and for the minister to hear, as well as for the Hansard reporter. We are now on item 217.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I was amplifying the question asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in regard to the purpose of the item. Will the minister at the same time explain the system of presenting the estimates to the house; to what extent each year we vote the amounts set forth, and to what extent we accept responsibility for future commitments?


Mr. STIRLING:: May I add a word to that question?-because it covers the whole matter of the expenditures of this department. At the close of my brief remarks after the minister spoke I asked him to direct his attention to three questions: What have we received for the $90,000,000 voted in the past three years; has progress since 1936 been what it should, and has Canadian industry been used to the extent it should? So far as I can follow the statement made by the minister, parliament in the last three years has voted somewhere in the neighbourhood of $90,000,000 for defence, while the expenditure apparently has been in the neighbourhood of $60,000,000. In his statement the minister referred to this article and that article which had been ordered but not delivered. For the last two years the estimates have not included the words we were accustomed to see, "amount not required," very often because delivery had not taken place, so that the money could not be expended. I should be much obliged if in answering the questions already put to him the minister would make his remarks general on the subject of how the money is dealt with after being voted by parliament.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North, I think that point was dealt with fairly fully by the Minister of Finance on a previous occasion during the present session, when he explained why the $3,000,000 odd were required under the estimate now referred to in regard to capital expenditures.
I should like to place on record a brief statement with regard to the general principles followed as between capital and ordinary account.
The principle followed in selecting items which are shown in these estimates as charged to capital account was that all new structures, properties, ships, aircraft, armament and other equipment not considered replacements
[Mr. MacNeil.J
of like articles and which under normal conditions are expected to have an average life expectancy of at least ten years would be a charge to capital. In addition, service ammunition required for reserve purposes as against actual immediate purposes, as distinguished from that to be expended for practice purposes, was also considered a capital charge. Other equipment included under capital is that required to complete the complement of existing units or to provide for new units in the process of organization. Expenditures classified as ordinary are those for the replacement of existing equipment because of obsolescence or deterioration, ammunition for practice, expendable stores, salaries, pay and allowances, food supplies, transportation, printing, stationery, repairs to equipment and properties and other items of a strictly maintenance nature.
Then coming to the question of the hon. member for Yale, of course from the total of $90,000,000 voted during the last three years there must be deducted the annual maintenance cost of the Department of National Defence, as my hon. friend knows very well indeed. In regard to items ordered, in some cases it takes as long as three or four years to obtain equipment from available sources. My hon. friend himself ordered certain antiaircraft guns in 1935, before the previous administration left office, and they were delivered in 1938. In regard to certain other types of guns, mostly high calibre guns such as 6-inch or 9-2-inch, it took about four years to secure delivery, though I think now the situation is much improved.
In regard to commitments, for the first time in the estimates this year a definite statement is made in regard to the amount to which we are committed as against future years, the total being around $22,000,000 in the three services. That of course is subject every year to the will and decision of parliament. In other words, the sum in respect of these future commitments that would become an obligation next year of course would be included in whatever parliament decided should be the total vote for that year.


Robert James Manion: Whatever the government decide.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
subject to the will of parliament. It is a difficult situation; as a matter of fact I do not think any other department of government is up against the same difficulty in regard to obtaining equipment. We considered every possible way of doing it. Australia has established a trust fund in London for similar purposes, but my information is that we could not follow a similar

Supply-National Defence
practice because of our audit act. This seems to be the only possible way of obtaining the necessities of national defence; that is, frankly to inform parliament. As I say, what is provided in that regard is subject of course to the decision and will of all future parliaments as to what we shall be committed to in future years-not necessarily next year. Some of the commitments I mentioned were incorporated in the estimates of 1938-39, and were not so definitely and clearly expressed in the estimates of last year as they are now. Hon. members will find in all the estimates this year the amount of commitments specifically set out. We shall therefore know exactly what the commitment will be for three or four years ahead in regard to the estimates of last year, plus the estimates of this year.


Grote Stirling: These are the estimates for 1939-40 are they not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Grote Stirling: The explanation the minister has given clarifies the situation so far as 1939-40 is concerned. Under the estimates of
1937-38 certain munitions were ordered, and presumably moneys were set aside and voted by parliament for that purpose. When delivery was not made, what happened to that money?-because presumably it was not expended. Why did it not appear in the estimates of the following year as an amount not expended?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I can answer my hon. friend best by giving the percentages of the amounts that have lapsed in various years. I would add that this is nothing new. In the following table I shall Bet out the years and the percentages lapsed.
Percentage
Year	lapsed
J.923-24	 5-95
1924-	25	
5-131925-	26	
1-571926-	27	
1-661927-	28	
1-001928-	29	
4-281929-	30	
3-081930-	31	
2-021931-	32	
11T01932-	33	
4-251933-	34	
14-331934-	35	
16-421935-	36	
9-081936-	37	
11-101937-	38	
9-181938-	39 (estimated)	
2-10


Grote Stirling: Those are the amounts
not spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Will the minister translate those percentages into dollars?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The amounts lapsed, in dollars, are as follows-I give the figures in thousands:
Amount
Year	lapsed
1923- 24	$ 896,000
1924-	25	
720,0001925-	26	
225,0001926-	27	
251,0001927-	28	
178,0001928-	29	
988,0001929-	30	
698,0001930-	31	
488,0001931-	32	
2,291,0001932-	33	
626,0001933-	34	
3,273,0001934-	35	
4,379,0001935-	36	
2,734,0001936-	37	
3,335,0001937-	38	
3,312,0001938-	39 (estimated)	
756,524
The books have not yet been closed for
1938-39.


Robert James Manion: There is one remark of the minister to which I take exception, namely that the passage of the estimates is subject to the will of parliament. Theoretically that is correct, but as a matter of fact the estimates are, speaking generally, subject to the will of the government. Parliament merely agrees, after discussion. However that was not the matter to which I wished particularly to direct the minister's attention.
This may be as good a place as any to inquire as to customs duties paid by the department. There have been statements in the press to the effect that customs duties are paid on a large percentage of the material represented by the estimates of the department. What was the amount so paid last year? Perhaps the minister can give the committee the amounts spent on the same goods, so that we could make a comparison.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
following is a statement of the estimated amounts which will be paid for sales tax and customs duty in 1939-40:
Estimated Estimated total sales Estimated	customs	tax andsales tax	duties	customs1939-40	1939-40	dutiesMilitia and general services.. $ 734,738 $ 47,350 $ 782,088 Naval services.. 261,339	30,500	291,839Air services. .. 1,714,143	328,750	2,042,893Total	$2,710,220 $406,600 $3,116,820


Robert James Manion: That	is a	little over
$3,000,000 in sales tax and customs duties, on an expenditure of roughly $63,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It is well to have these figures on. record, because certainly from the statements in the press one might have gained the impression that the amount paid for these
Supply-National Defence

purposes was much greater than it actually is. Three million dollars on an expenditure of $63,000,000 is about five per cent.
This item provides for annual sinking fund to retire, with interest, moneys borrowed for capital expenditures. Would the minister give a sample list, if I may so describe it, of articles which would be included in capital expenditures?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think I could do that exactly. It was worked out when the estimates were adopted in the first place by the technical advisers of the department. But generally speaking capital sums are expended on durable supplies and equipment.


Robert James Manion: But what would they
include?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe I mentioned that in my statement.


Robert James Manion: The list would not have to be complete. I should be content with an example.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well,
fortifications would be one example. Then, certain kinds of weapons have a life of twenty years or more. Certain ships would be included-possibly destroyers-with a life of, say, twenty years. In fact the term would include anything not to be expended in the ordinary process of carrying on from year to year.


Robert James Manion: I understand that. But
let us consider a gun, or some type of artillery which in peace time would have a life of five years. Would the department limit the amortization of that item to five years, or would it take the general figure of twenty years or ten years, and make out a general amortization in that way? If it is not done in that way, how is it done?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
general amortization period is ten years, but it is quite possible that some of the more durable articles would extend over twenty-five, thirty, forty or, in the case of fortifications, possibly to a hundred years.


Mr. BROOKS:: With further reference to
the question asked by the leader of the opposition in regard to duties paid-


Robert James Manion: And that includes sales
tax.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, this amount of something over $3,000,000 represents the amount the department pays. But the different units throughout Canada are continually purchasing supplies from England and other countries.
[Mr Manion.]
and they, too, are paying large sums in duties. I think the chief objection has been to the duties paid by individual units. Has any representation been made to the customs branch in an attempt to have either the duties cancelled or considerably reduced? These charges are a great burden on the militia units throughout the country. I believe the excuse offered is that the goods can be purchased in Canada. Theoretically that may be true, but practically I believe it is not true. In order to get the necessary equipment, that which they consider best, the units have to go outside of Canada. I suggest that a careful survey be made by the militia branch in an effort to have these duties lowered or cancelled so far as they apply to militia units struggling along on a very small amount of money.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the hon. member for Royal could see the correspondence I have he would be immediately assured that the Department of National Defence is taking every possible step to carry out his suggestion. The only possible remedy we have at the present moment is by way of rebate, and in the last two years this has been granted in several cases. In regard to the general question of uniforms, there are two points of view. There is the point of view put forward by the hon. member, with which I sympathize, and there is the point of view of the Canadian citizen who produces uniforms in Canada. He would naturally object to the abolition of the duty on uniforms imported from the mother country, for example. I can assure my hon. friend this matter has been actively before the government, but so far the representations which he is advancing have not been successful.


Mr. SENN:: Is it necessary to impose the
sales tax?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
a matter of general government policy which I cannot discuss at this time.


Mr. MARSH:: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is speaking to the converted. Was there an application for rebate in that case?


John Allmond Marsh: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it would have been successful.


John Allmond Marsh: This thing has happened not once but several times in Hamilton. In some cases rebates were applied for but were refused. I brought the matter up last year in the debate on the speech from the throne, and on the defence estimates earlier this session, and I bring it up again to-day. It seems to me it is something that could be arranged. A penalty should not be placed on the head of a man who wants to be a good citizen.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quite agree with my hon. friend. Will he be good enough to let me have the details of that particular case?


Robert James Manion: I should like to supplement the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for Royal. The government should give serious consideration to these cases. As the minister knows, many of these militia officers are making monetary sacrifices, as well as giving considerable time and hard work to building up their units. They should receive consideration from the government, and certainly they should not have to pay duty on goods which are not produced in Canada. No sales tax should be charged on goods they buy in Canada for their own units out of their own pockets.


Mr. STEWART:: I desire to support what has been said in connection with securing rebates or the cancellation of the duty. As an example, I should like to cite what occurred in my own town. It was decided to form a Highland band. There is no regiment there, but by public subscription and through contributions made by friends of the same race and others kindly disposed, sufficient money was collected to clothe the band. Uniforms
were ordered as well as band equipment, and when they arrived there was a heavy bill of duty to be paid. A rebate was applied for, but unfortunately it was not granted. It seems to me that in cases of this kind there should be a uniform ruling that rebates will be allowed or that the duty will be taken off. As the minister already knows, there is a strong body of public opinion in favour of action of this kind. The loss of revenue would be quite small, the expense to those immediately interested being out of all proportion to the revenue derived. I know the minister is interested in this matter and I hope he will be able to follow it up with some success and obtain either a rebate in each case or cancellation of the duty.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: While I sympathize to a certain extent with the views expressed by the leader of the opposition and other members on the other side of the house, nevertheless I do know that considerable military equipment is made in Canada, especially woollen military cloth, which is made in Brantford. Very good tartans are now being made in Brantford and other parts of Canada, and being a Scotsman I do not like to have to pay a duty on kilts.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What about sporrans?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: These
goods are being made in Canada, and Canadian industry should receive every consideration. I must take a view entirely opposite to that expressed by hon. members of the opposition. I am not a free trader with respect to these or any other goods, and I am surprised to hear that so many members of the opposition have suddenly become free traders.


John Ritchie MacNicol: With respect to Scotch goods.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It is contrary to their general views. I am satisfied it is not the best thing for Canada. Those of us who love our country and who are prepared to join military units should be ready to encourage and protect Canadian industry, and, if necessary, pay a small duty.


Grote Stirling: There is a certain inconsistency about the views expressed by my hon. friend. I certainly agree that supplies should be bought in Canada where that is possible. But certain of these supplies, particularly those referred to by hon. members on this side, cannot be obtained in Canada. I am thinking particularly of certain things required by an officer of the king when he is promoted, such as badges, marks of rank and other items which require gold bullion. So far as my information goes, these are not
Supply-National Defence

obtainable in Canada, at least not of the quality desired. When, an officer receives a promotion and these necessities are brought into Canada, it seems to me to be unreasonable that he should have to pay duty on them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is one difficulty. Fpr instance, take blue serge for naval uniforms. If this material were exempt from duty, the exemption might cover a tremendous territory.


Grote Stirling: We make serge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We are sympathetic toward this matter, but the difficulties are real.


Grote Stirling: I am referring particularly to gold trouser stripes, epaulettes and insignia of various kinds.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe this is one of the most entertaining interludes we have had during the present session. The argument which has been advanced by the Conservative opposition applies to many other things in which many of us are interested. I agree with the plea which has been made, but if we are to adopt this principle it should be extended to a much wider field.


Robert James Manion: As a matter of fact there is nothing new about this proposal, because rebates of all kinds are allowed. I may tell the hon. member for Rosetown-dliggar that in the past rebates have been allowed on hospital goods and various other articles. We all want to build up Canadian industry; in that regard we all agree with the hon. member for Brantford, but at the same time this is not a commercial proposition any more than a hospital is. Many exceptions have been made, even by those who believe in protecting our industries, from the point of view, it may be, of charity, in this case loyalty, without in any way infringing upon our fundamental view as to what it is best to do for our industries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The unfair thing about it is, that officers giving their services voluntarily are taxed by the country for so doing.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Do I understand that this item will appear now from year to year, either this amount or probably an increased amount for the next ten years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, a similar amount for the next nine years unless the expenditure chargeable to capital account be increased. Then, of course, the interest and sinking fund charges on the capital would be

increased, in accordance with the decision made by the government and parliament from year to year.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that mean that in voting these estimates in their present form we are undertaking commitments in respect of a program extending over ten years, with very little opportunity to review it in discussion when the departmental estimates are under consideration?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. We are only committing ourselves to the $3,000,000 odd and the $29,000,000 of capital expenditure in this year's estimates. But in addition to that, there is set out in the estimates a total commitment for future years of $22,000,000 for the three services; we are committing ourselves to that amount, subject to the decision of future parliaments. It is to be expended over three or four years after 1939^40.


Major James William Coldwell: In reality, to use a colloquialism, we are buying on time something for which we ordinarily would pay cash. We are spreading the payments for capital expenditure over a period of years instead of paying' it all in one year. Is that right?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Capital expenditure for the year. My hon. friend is confusing two things. The capital expenditures are part of our $60,000,000 for this year, but instead of paying in one sum we are spreading it over ten years, and we are absorbing the sinking fund charges in the amount of $3,000,000 odd per year. Apart from that, we are committing the people of Canada to this expenditure of $22,000,000, which is set out clearly in the estimates. That is entirely apart from ordinary or capital expenditure, and must be taken care of year by year by whoever is in authority.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Apparently we are dealing with a long-range program. I appreciate the minister's difficulty in planning any such program, and I do not object to it, but, with reference to the approval of parliament of a long-range program would it not be appropriate for the minister now to disclose what he has in mind? There could then be a general discussion of the fundamental principles of a long-range program, particularly with regard to its strategical objectives.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think I can tell my hon. friend what representations have been made to the minister, 'but first I want to make it clear that this is not a question of government policy; it does not commit any government. These are representations made with regard to a long-range defence policy for the Dominion of Canada.

Supply-National Defence
The advice given by the technical advisers is that a peace-time establishment of certain proportions would be required in Canada. The progress that has been made during the last three years has been within the framework of the estimated requirements, a detailed list of which has been given to the house already. I think it is fitting, in reply to my hon. friend's question, that I should state what the officers of the department recommend. Whether that would be the ultimate policy would possibly be a matter for a committee such as my hon. friend and the leader of the opposition suggested the other day, where it could be discussed in great detail by representatives of all parties in both houses.
The ultimate objective which the navy has set out for Canada is to build up a naval force of eighteen destroyers, nine on each coast; eight anti-submarine vessels, four on each coast; sixteen minesweepers, eight on each coast; eight motor torpedo vessels, to be used on the east coast only; two parent vessels, one for the destroyers on the west coast and one for the motor torpedo boats on the east coast.


Robert James Manion: Covering a period of how many years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no objective in point of time. It depends on our resources and financial limitations. I am only giving the advice which the technical officers offered to the minister or the government, what in their view we should have. It is a matter that could be considered carefully by a committee which the leader of the opposition suggested the other day. Then with regard to base defences, to maintain this naval force there would be required two naval bases, one at Halifax and one at Esquimalt, and two subsidiary bases, one at Sydney and one at Prince Rupert, to maintain the naval units mentioned. A personnel for the program suggested by the naval authorities would be required, consisting of 6,000 officers and ratings. The existing strength is 1,965 officers and ratings.
The capital expenditure which would be involved to achieve the objectives which they have recommended is $68,860,000, and the maintenance cost, once we had reached that objective, would be $13,500,000 a year.


Robert James Manion: Including both interest
and depreciation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, as I have just explained.


Mr. GREEN:: Would that be the complete naval vote?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Would that cover all naval services?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	The
annual maintenance cost of all naval services. It would not cover the replacement cost of ships that had to be bought. It would be the annual maintenance cost.


Howard Charles Green: That would be our total
naval vote each year?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	Yes,
and this year it is $8,500,000.


Major James William Coldwell: And it excludes capital expenditures?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	Yes,
definitely. Suppose we had to replace a destroyer or an anti-submarine vessel, the capital expenditure would be increased. The annual cost of maintaining the units set out as the objective would be $13,500,000.


Robert James Manion: Would that include
interest?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
informed that the question of interest would not come in.


Robert James Manion: It would come in if you
are considering these as capital investments in ships which would last for some years. You would not buy them out of current revenue, but rather as a capital expenditure. So that there would be interest. Will the interest be included in the thirteen million?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
would be interest on any new capital expenditures, of course, but the figure I gave was the actual maintenance cost of the establishment which they recommend.


Robert James Manion: Without interest?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Without interest.


Grote Stirling: Are these recommendations the result of the advisory committee's deliberations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, this
is the advice given by the naval chief of staff perhaps after consultation with the honorary advisory committee. But the advisory committee as such is not responsible for these recommendations. The recommendations come from the three permanent chiefs of staff.


Major James William Coldwell: If the plan of amortization outlined in this item were adopted and the $68,000,000 of naval capital expenditure were amortized in this same way, amounting to over $7,000,000 a year, it would increase the naval vote, including capital equipment, to something like $21,000,000.
Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the
financing were done in the same way; but there might be alternative ways, loans or some other way.


Major James William Coldwell: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would be an increased amount. I have not worked it out that way, but it certainly would be an increased amount.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister leaves the naval plan, may I ask if this list of ships which he has just announced is the list which the technical officers say is required at once?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the list of ships which our naval advisers inform us are absolutely necessary for the proper and adequate defence of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Well, of course, if we could get them at the present time-


Howard Charles Green: No, but do they say that these ships are needed adequately to defend Canada at the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is given us as the peace time establishment; there is no question about that. At this stage I might set out the objectives in regard to the militia as they have been presented to us. In the first place, to complete the approved plans for coastal defence: The plans for defence of both coasts were drawn up by our own staff officers in conjunction with the best expert we could obtain from the war office in England, and after very careful consultation, so that there is nothing haphazard or fortuitous; every single calibre of gun and every site has been decided on with the very best advice obtainable. Next, to provide for the antiaircraft defence of centres estimated to be exposed to air attack.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend started by saying "in regard to the militia." Does this refer to the militia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I am now dealing with the militia. That defence will be through coastal batteries. Also, to provide the principal items of armament and equipment for the several fortress garrisons, a force of two divisions and ancillary troops for the defence of Canada in Canada. There has been some criticism of the armament for mobile divisions. I want to emphasize the fact that the whole purpose of these divisions

as planned in 1935-36 is to be mobile within Canada, to supplement fortress garrisons, to aid in the defence of Canada if necessary.
The active militia is organized at the present time as follows: permanent force and one cavalry division and six divisions with ancillary troops and fortress garrisons. Peace establishment of the permanent force, 6,928; non-permanent force, 86,000. Present strength of the permanent force, 4,211; non-permanent active militia, 51,659. An increase of about 2,800 would be required in the permanent force to carry out the recommendations which have been made. No net increase of the non-permanent active militia is contemplated in these recommendations, although there might be an increase necessary for fortress garrisons on the coasts.
The capital expenditure required if the recommendations were implemented would be, to achieve the military objective, exclusive of the provision made in this year's estimates, $79,191,580; and the annual maintenance cost, once the objective were achieved, would be $20,000,000 for the militia services of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: What amount would that be over and above the maintenance costs for the militia at the present time? I refer to all the land forces.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Does the hon. member mean non-permanent?


Howard Charles Green: What I want to get at is this: what increase will that mean in the cost annually of the land forces, including of course, permanent and non-permanent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present time the expenditure for maintenance is about $13,000,000. The increase for the maintenance of the militia services would be about $7,000,000.


Major James William Coldwell: If the military capital expenditures were amortized over a ten year period, that would involve the country, for those two items, counting just over $8,000,000 for the amortization of $79,000,000, an expenditure of about $28,000,000 for this branch, if we pursue the policy laid down by the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
would be a corresponding increase if the same policy of changing to capital account were adopted.
Then in regard to the air force, I think I have given fairly exhaustively the figures, providing for 11 permanent and 12 nonpermanent squadrons. The policy is to provide (a) permanent force squadrons with a full complement and reserve of first-line aircraft; Ob) non-permanent squadrons with

Supply-National Defence
one-third of their complement and reserve of elementary and advanced training service aircraft; (c) schools for aircraft suitable for elementary and advanced training and sufficient only to train new entries and replace wastage. The fulfilment of this policy would involve the provision of 527 aircraft.
To man the air force I have outlined, we would require a permanent force of 525 officers and 4,500 airmen, and a non-permanent force of 220 officers and 2,014 airmen, a total of 745 officers and 6,514 airmen. This would involve in regard to the air force a capital expenditure of $27,946,000, and the annual maintenance cost of the Royal Canadian Air Force when expanded as I have outlined is estimated at $19,655,000. So that if all the recommendations which have been made were carried out they would entail-and this is a matter for consideration, I think, possibly by a committee of all parties-a capital expenditure of $175,000,000, and the annual budget would be about $53,000,000, instead of $63,000,000 as it is this year, for the maintenance costs of the three services. As I said before, it is not a question of government policy; these are the representations which have been made to the minister by the officials of the department.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister agree
that these recommendations are justified and necessary in order to provide adequate defence for Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly think that within our financial limitations, as soon as we possibly could afford to do it, we should go ahead on that program.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has said nothing at all about procuring equipment, which is probably one of the most serious questions we are facing with relation to our defence program. What should it cost to extend the dominion arsenals so that they shall be able to manufacture at least a portion of our requirements in the way of equipment, such as field artillery, anti-aircraft guns and rifles?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a question which, I fear, does not permit of a definite answer. Estimates have varied. My hon. friend knows very well that in the old days, when they were thinking of what was known as the grand arsenal scheme, an estimate was given to me of $30,000,000 or more in regard to our several requirements.


Howard Charles Green: That $30,000,000 was allinclusive?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yesbuildings, and some guns and equipment with munitions for the requirements of 'Canadian defence.
There is an item in the final supplementary estimates this year for a survey of the situation to obtain Canadian made guns to carry out the idea my hon. friend has in mind. I could not possibly give definite information as to what the cost would be of establishing a government-owned factory for any specific requirements, because the figures which were given to me were for a grand arsenal scheme. But I have no doubt, and in this I agree with my hon. friend, that public opinion to-day is more and more in favour of having, as we can afford it, publicly-owned institutions for the manufacture of our equipment.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there is a very strong opinion in favour of the dominion manufacturing its own armaments. According to what the minister has just said, approximately $30,000,000 would give us a complete plant capable of manufacturing all our armaments. Is that correct?


Grote Stirling: Not according to the minister's colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend would find that, although we should expand our arsenals as fast as we could, we would have to have cooperation with private industry.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is true.


Major James William Coldwell: Before we leave this item I should like to get the picture clear in my mind. As I understand it, the defence capital expenditure outlined by the interdepartmental committee amounts to about $175,000,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
correct one phrase? It was not the interdepartmental committee, it was the chiefs of staff.


Major James William Coldwell: Annual maintenance
would be about $53,000,000, so that if we take one-tenth of the capital expenditure, extending the policy we are adopting this year of $175,000,000 plus interest, speaking in round figures, it would amount to an additional outlay of over $18,000,000 a year to amortize the capital expenditures.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend is incorrect. This presumes the obtaining of all the equipment for the three services which is now provided for under the present system of financing. In other words, for the sake of argument, if we were able to-morrow to float a defence loan of $175,000,000 and get all these three services to the stage recommended by the chiefs of staff committee, our annual obligation as a nation after that for keeping up the service would be $53,000,000.


Major James William Coldwell: Including that?
Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
including everything.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Regarding the statement that $30,000,000 would build plants and arsenals, I can hardly imagine that amount would build sufficient plant to turn out any quantity of armaments or any variety of guns. Other nations have been in this business much longer than we have. Great Britain, for example, is manufacturing a tremendous quantity of armaments and munitions. They are not being manufactured in government-owned arsenals-


Howard Charles Green: Quite a lot of them are.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: They are making some small arms and minor equipment, but generally the manufacture of armaments in Great Britain is being done by private enterprise. It would be a mistake for this government to enter upon large-scale building of plants for the manufacture of armaments and ammunition of all kinds when we have so many plants in Canada to-day standing idle that could easily be equipped to turn out armaments of various kinds and thereby give work to Canadian workingmen. I could name many heavy industry plants, both in my own city and in cities throughout Ontario which I have visited, which are now closed but which could be converted in a very short time to the manufacture of armaments. The government should hesitate before spending $30,000,000 on the building of new plants.


Mr. MUTCH:: Am I correct in assuming that the estimate of $30,000,000 was for a concentrated arsenal-that is that the whole thing should be built not under one roof, but in one place?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In one area, yes.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: A great many people in this country believe in complete government control of the manufacture of all arms and munitions. But I should not like the impression to go out from what the last speaker said, that this $30,000,000 would provide for diversified manufacture in different parts of the country. It should be made clear that the least desirable procedure, in these times at any rate, would be to put-not all our eggs, but something much more valuable-in one basket. Everything that is in existence for the defence of Canada might be required to preserve that one very important area. Whatever the scheme finally adopted, the production of armaments should certainly be scattered over a much larger area.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the official view of the department at the 
present time. They disagree with the former theory of having them all in one place.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is it not true that when the present government came into power plans had been prepared for the construction of arsenals, a general plan based on the practice of Great Britain and Australia, and that a change was made by the incoming administration in that they did not go on with that plan? I believe $30,000,000 was what the minister said the arsenal would cost. The Minister of Agriculture, speaking in the house, sent out some figures to the country that I think should be corrected, namely, that the proposed arsenal would cost $200000,000.
Mr. SilKLlNG: It was $300,000,000.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: 
Mr. POTTIER:: I understood that on the
Atlantic coast there were two naval bases, one at Halifax and an auxiliary at Sydney. What happens to places like Quebec? Are they not considered naval bases at all?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of course they are, but the main defensive requirements would be for the outer portions of the St. Lawrence. The naval defence of Quebec would be from the point of view of what might be called close defence by small, speedy vessels, anti-aircraft batteries and land forces. The defence of Halifax and Sydney would be outward defence, and the two would be correlated in any scheme of defence.


Mr. MULOCK:: In regard to the remark
of the hon. member for St. Paul's, what was the location of the plant to have been, if it had been proceeded with?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
general scheme was to be at Valcartier. Of course $30,000,000 was only the initial capital cost and did not include the annual maintenance cost of the plant once it was in operation.


Howard Charles Green: What was the estimated
annual maintenance cost?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
sorry I have not that figure available. I suppose it would really depend on the production each year, and also on the calibre of guns and ammunition manufactured. I do not suppose an estimate was ever made, because it would mean analysing and examining the requirements of Canada for, say, 4-5-inch or 6-inch and various other types of guns and ammunition. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. member for St. Paul's, the policy of Great Britain now is very much one of decentralization of location in regard to munition production. That would be an obvious policy from the point of view of national security. If there were an attack upon one great central organization, your source of production might disappear in an hour or two.


William Pate Mulock: In regard to anti-aircraft guns, from what the minister said a few moments ago under ordinary conditions the requirements of Canada are rather limited. It would seem to me that if you built antiaircraft guns in a dominion arsenal of the kind suggested, the cost would be beyond all reason. Would it not be rather a question of considering the requirements of this country for a particular type of weapon, together with the number that might be ordered in addition by the British government, in determining whether or not it would be feasible for the government to consider carrying on the construction of weapons of the kind? That is something, I should imagine, that would have to be considered in each individual case.


Grote Stirling: Delivery is the problem.


William Pate Mulock: Quite.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
are two problems; one is delivery, and the other is the economic value of production. Our requirements in any of these categories are so very limited that unless we receive supplementary orders from Great Britain or some other country their manufacture here would not be economically justifiable. That has been the geat difficulty all the way through. At the present time I think the department has reasonable prospects of having a certain type of gun manufactured in Canada in the very near future, one of the most modem guns, again in cooperation with the British government.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister tell us which gun that is? I take it to be the 25-
Supply-National Defence

pounder field gun. How are we going to get those guns? We do not want another Bren gun fiasco. I think the house should know now whether these field guns are to be made in a private factory, such as the Inglis plant, or whether the government will make them, or just what is the arrangement. We should not just drift into this private manufacture of armaments. I should like to correct what the hon. member for Brantford City said, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong. As I understand the situation in Great Britain, the government is manufacturing the bulk of its requirements. It is not a matter of depending almost entirely upon private manufacture. I have here the report of the royal commission on the private manufacture of and trading in arms, which should be of great help to any hon. members who are interested in this subject. At page 30 of that report the commission explains the reason for the government manufacturing at least a portion of its requirements. Paragraph 81 states:
The experience of the great war shows that state organization and coordination of production is essential for the rapid mobilization of manufacturing capacity and the maintenance of supplies on an adequate scale. The state is better able than private industry to command control over supplies and material and labour and to ensure their proper distribution. It is by means of the possession of government factories, in which practical knowledge and experience is gained, that the state is able to exercise its function in these matters. The government factories are, moreover, invaluable and in fact essential, as a means of checking the operations of private industry both as regards costs and methods of production. Government factories again are valuable for undertaking repair work which becomes particularly costly if sublet into private hands.
I think the minister should tell us how he is going to have these field guns made in Canada, and I think he should tell us about the anti-aircraft guns. In his statement the other day he said we needed 123 anti-aircraft guns in order to be able to defend this country from air attack. At the present time we have about a dozen or eighteen. Apparently we cannot get them in England or the United States, and we are doing nothing about manufacturing them here. The house and the country should know what the government proposes to do about anti-aircraft guns.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to the first question asked by my hon. friend, I can only tell him that as yet no decision has been arrived at. In regard to anti-aircraft guns, every possible source of supply has been and is being explored.


Howard Charles Green: That does not get us anywhere at all. The minister says no decision has been arrived at, yet a few moments ago

he said he hoped to be able to manufacture at least one kind of artillery in Canada this year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not say this year.


Howard Charles Green: We should know what that plan is, and it does not help us a bit in connection with the anti-aircraft guns to say every source has been explored. That does not set up guns to defend Ottawa or Quebec or Vancouver; it is just evading the question. The minister said the same thing earlier in the session with regard to rifles; he said the government had not yet decided what was to be done about rifles. Yet we have militia officers openly saying that many of their rifles are not a bit of use; that they are war-time rifles that are not accurate. Still that is what our defence forces are equipped with. We should know what the government propose to do about getting proper equipment with which these men can fight. If men do not have proper equipment they cannot fight properly, as the minister knows from his own experience. Each of us who served in France saw the same thing happen. My battalion went to France with Oliver equipment and Ross rifles, and they had to go and scrounge Webb equipment and Enfield rifles, from other units, or from salvaging dumps, or in other ways. It simply means young Canadians are going to be slaughtered, if trouble comes, because they are not properly equipped. This house should know how the government propose to meet this lack of equipment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to rifles I want to correct the erroneous and improper statement made by the hon. member. To-day in Canada we are equipped with rifles.


Howard Charles Green: But they are all war-time rifles.	.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have the same type of rifles that are being used by the British government at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: But the British government have new rifles while we have the old war-time rifles.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Before we leave this suggested $30,000,000 arsenal I should like to address a question or two to the minister, because we are bound to hear more of this idea. In connection with this plan was it estimated how long it would take such an arsenal in peace time completely to fill the needs in connection with Canadian defence? Before the minister anwers this question, and in conjunction with it, did the plan anticipate what would be done with that arsenal when

Supply-National Defence
the defence needs of Canada had been provided for, or did they envisage a war before that time? Because if we had such a plant and went into production, as we assuredly would in a time like this, to build up as quickly as possible the maximum amount of armament needed for the defence of Canada, I am wondering about the commitments in which we might become involved. I say that because somebody would promptly make it his business to find work for that arsenal. Would the government of Canada go into the production of armaments for export, or would they divert that arsenal into competition with other heavy industries? I should like to know what has been visualized.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The plan did not visualize anything definite with respect to the time factor. It would have been impossible to do so, because certain calibres of material would take a long time to get into production. As a matter of fact the experience of Australia, to which reference has been made, has been disappointing. My hon. friend must know, and all hon. members know, that in 1935 or 1936, public opinion would not have supported, nor would hon. members, the expenditure of $30,000,000 or more for a government arsenal in Canada. I am not so sure that they would support it to-day. But the point is that even if we had received support in parliament in 1935 or 1936 for the expenditure of $30,000,000 for a government arsenal, we could not be in production at this moment on some of our primary requirements for national defence. It is a tremendously difficult problem. There are two considerations, first of which is the will of parliament, the financial resources of the nation; and the second is our ability to produce these things. I have no doubt Canadian industry is as well qualified as any other industry in the world to provide our essential requirements. The general opinion in Canada seems to be, in the first place, so far as possible to develop government arsenals, and, in the second place, to cooperate with private industry.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I wish to have it understood that I was not suggesting the scheme should have been proceeded with. I was trying to find out the difficulties involved.


Mrs. BLACK:: It is difficult for me to sit and listen to this discussion and not say something. I am sure all hon. members from British Columbia must realize there are many industrial shops which are either not working at all or are on half or part time. I wonder if it would be an impertinence to suggest to the minister that the managements of these shops throughout Canadanot only those in British Columbia-be tentatively asked how long it would take them to put them in order to produce small arms of various kinds. I make this merely as a suggestion.
We know that no government or minister can proceed in a course which is contrary to public opinion. In response to, public opinion a few years ago the air force of Canada was practically scrapped. That was a tragedy, and we realize it to-day. Our country is vulnerable to air attack at the west and north; we have no air service on the western and northern coasts which could save us. We in the north have never thought that at any time we could be in danger. But with fifteen to twenty planes over our heads daily in the towns of Dawson, White Horse and Mayo, we realize that there would be no difficulty at all in the planes of other nations establishing an air base in our part of the country. None of us wants war, the women probably less than any other group in the country. But at the same time we must prepare. In a time when nations of the world are led by madmen, what are we going to do if we do not support the government in its defence program? At the same time of course we should demand that the government, whatever party may be in power, do the best it possibly can, and that it be honest with itself-because if it is honest with itself it will be honest with the nation and with the people who comprise the nation. So far as I am concerned, in every way, shape and form, privately or publicly, by my actions or my voice-and in this I am supported by the people in my community-I would support the minister and the government in making every preparation and in doing all they possibly can to defend this country when the time comes-as I am very much afraid it is going to come to all of us.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South, I am still of the opinion that it would be a grave mistake for this government to enter upon the building of a large arsenal. It is true that in Great Britain there are a number of government arsenals, but they are merely pilot plants and are also used for purposes of research. To-day the great bulk of armaments in Great Britain are being built by private industry. As the minister has pointed out, they are decentralizing the manufacture of armaments and scattering their manufacturing establishments throughout the country. The minister and other hon. members have said that one large plant is particularly vulnerable to attack. That is a good reason why there should not be one large
Supply-National Defence

arsenal instead of a number of smaller ones. Besides, why build an arsenal and ask working men to give up their homes and establish homes in a new district, when some day the manufacture of armaments will not be required? Why would it not be better to build armaments in Canadian plants which are now closed, plants which have employed the best mechanics in the world and which are adjacent to the homes of the workmen? It would be far better to have armaments manufactured in plants of that kind than to break up the homes of working men and require them to establish homes in other places.
It has been suggested that armaments should be produced as soon as possible. I think all hon. members will agree that to convert privately-owned plants into plants capable of manufacturing armaments would take only half the time required to build new ones. I still believe we should be loath to proceed with any large-scale building of an arsenal.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I did not intend to leave the impression that we should manufacture all our munitions in government arsenals in a time of war. But to-day, although the department has made a survey of about a thousand plants-I do not exactly know how many-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe the figure is 1597.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: -not one of those plants knows how to make these guns. If we had had an arsenal built to act as a pilot plant, and capable of manufacturing small quantities, even at a fairly high cost, we should be in a position to-day to give instructions to others as to what they would have to do. They would have the necessary tools and equipment. If we go into the manufacture of armaments to-day, where are we going to get the tools?
May I place on record a paragraph appearing at page 296 of the Canadian Defence Quarterly, 1936-37:
In time of war the government factories would be quite inadequate, but in peace time they serve as places where a technical staff can be trained, and in the course of that training it is arranged that the ordinary peace-time requirements of munitions by the fighting services are produced. The factories are also organized as the centres from which manufacturing details would be circulated to the commercial industries should necessity require their conversion from their normal pursuits.
That outlines the principle underlying the use of arsenals. We find ourselves without arsenals, and we must have arms. That is all there is to it. We are going to have to be armed for probably twenty years, and we should get busy and get these arsenals going

so that we may be able to keep up with the changes that are taking place from time to time. In the meantime we ought to take this $60,000,000 on order, and get the manufacturers of this country busy on making these things so that we shall not always be undefended as we are at the present time.


Frank Exton Lennard: I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Brantford City. There are many plants in this country which are either equipped or could be equipped in a short time to manufacture different types of arms and equipment. I could cite one plant, Messrs. John Bertram and Sons of Dundas. This plant is one hundred per cent Canadian, and it is affiliated with a large plant in the United States which is manufacturing large guns for the United States navy, and I believe also for the army. In a short time it could be ready to manufacture the 25-pounder or any size of gun the department might require.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There are several points in this discussion which should be cleared up. I do not think anyone is suggesting that we should develop arsenals in Canada capable of making all calibres of guns, but there is good ground for the argument that the manufacture of small arms and ammunition should be under state control. A committee known as the Skelton committee was appointed, and one of the paragraphs of its report deals with the idea of a complete state monopoly with regard to armament manufacture. The exact wording of the report is:
Whether, putting aside the idea of a complete state monopoly, there might be a case for some moderate extension of present government arsenals-in order to produce, for example, a certain limited selection of articles, for which the government would be the only purchaser and might need a continuous supply, and for which no private manufacturing equipment now exists in Canada-is a matter which the government might wish to consider as a matter of policy.
I should like to know to Vhat extent the government intends to carry out the recommendation contained in the report of the Skelton committee. The members of that committee gave the matter conscientious study. This committee was made up of men in the service for whom we all have the highest regard.
Objection has been made to the concentration of manufacturing facilities. We have learned from our inquiry into these matters that the big job in making small arms is tooling the plant. If the government is to place an order with private industry for small arms, the government must stand almost completely the expense of tools, jigs and gauges. I shall not go over the arguments which have

Supply-National Defence
been advanced in a standing committee of this house, but as the situation is to-day, in order to place such orders economically, the government can place them only with the one plant, the John Inglis Company of Toronto. For instance, should the government desire to have the Enfield rifle manufactured in Canada in order to have a Canadian source of supply, they could not go elsewhere without incurring great cost in connection with tooling. It has been made quite clear that the tooling of this plant is suitable for the manufacture of the Enfield rifle or for other small arms up to that calibre.


Mr. GOLDING:: The tools and machinery belong to the government.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am quite aware of that. I am not discussing the policy involved; I am simply pointing out that there is concentrated in one plant in an important industrial district the sole source of supply, and the only source that is likely to develop for many years. I think there are good grounds for the arguments of the hon. member for Brantford City and the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Could not the equipment be moved with ease to another plant?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Production plans would be seriously interfered with. As I understand it, the production layout is a very intricate matter, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to move them. I imagine that rather than do that the government would undertake measures of defence for the plant. They would ring it about with anti-aircraft guns as is done in the United States.
The defence council, made up of outstanding experts on defence in Canada, also took the position that it would be in the interests of this dominion to have a limited development of arsenals for supply. This would prove a yardstick, as it were, for the cooperation with private enterprise and would ensure to the dominion a continuous source of supply. There would also be a guarantee of absolute control over all sources of supply.
While there might be objection to state monopoly in connection with the manufacture of all armaments, there are decided objections to having a private monopoly in this connection. We have had experience in this regard in Canada. There was a private monopoly in connection with the manufacture of the Ross rifle at the outbreak of the last war. Before the dominion government extricated itself from its contractual obligations with the Ross Rifle Company and Sir Charles Ross personally, it cost the government some millions of dollars. Before we are committed to any 71492-260i
long-range program, I think the minister should outline this matter very carefully at this time. I do not want to enter into an argument with regard to the Bren gun, but these points have been canvassed by the defence council and the Skelton committee. They advocate state control over the manufacture of small arms and ammunition, at the same time retaining the cooperation of private enterprise.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon, I realize that aircraft must be made by private industry. No government could undertake the manufacture of aircraft. I realize also that certain calibres of guns would have to be secured from other sources of supply. But the government could manufacture pistols, rifles, light machine guns, and even the heavy machine guns which are now obtained in Great Britain. Any industry would require aid from the government in connection with tooling, and unquestionably this business would be placed on a cost-plus basis. In the light of our experience I think it is true that government arsenals could be opened up for certain lines of manufacture at no greater cost than would be involved in placing orders with private industry. But the cooperation of private industry would have to be retained. For example, the manufacture of shells does not require a long pre-production period, such as is required for the manufacture of small arms.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Production in our arsenals has been increased six-fold in connection with certain articles and fourfold in connection with others. A gauge plant has been built in the province of Quebec, and at the present time we intend to go ahead with the development of the Lindsay arsenal. As far as my personal feelings are concerned, I should like to see all our small arms and ammunition manufactured in government arsenals, but there are other definite types of material of which we do not require a sufficient quantity to justify economical production by the government.


John Allmond Marsh: While the time may have come for the establishment of government arsenals-I do not know that it has, but I am ready to take the opinion of those who should know-I do believe that apart from their purpose as pilot plants to guide private industry, sufficient arsenals could not be put on a productive basis in time of emergency for a sum short of $100,000,000. War is always an emergency. Private industry is now equipped to manufacture munitions of all kinds if the proper guidance is given. I agree heartily with the hon. member for Brantford City and the hon. member for Wentworth.
Supply-National Defence

I can name twenty plants which could with very little loss of time be equipped to make munitions of most kinds. I agree with the minister that to put the government arsenals right now on a production basis is impossible with an expenditure of less than seventyTive or a hundred million dollars. We need lathes, shapers, drills, profile machines, precision tools and machines of one kind and another to produce munitions. There is no question that we have these in our plants to-day, and we have Canadian workmen who can operate them. With a proper control of profits, on which I think the mind and will of parliament is now determined, we should not waste too much time discussing government arsenals.


Major James William Coldwell: About three-quarters of an hour ago I asked a question regarding expenditures; I want to go back to that. The minister said I was under a misapprehension as to what was proposed in these expenditures. In the recapitulation he gave this morning of expenditures over a period of years, he said that the general staff had recommended requirements involving a capital expenditure of about $175,000,000. I note that the amounts for personnel, maintenance and equipment total $53,000,000. If this expenditure of $175,000,000 is amortized over a period of years, it will considerably increase the annual expenditure of $53,000,000. The minister gave me the impression that the $53,000,000 would include that, but it cannot possibly include it because items other than the capital expenditure total roughly $53,000,000. If without much criticism or discussion we give approval to the recommendations presented this morning, we shall be committing ourselves to an annual expenditure of over seventy million dollars to meet both the capital and ordinary expenditures of the department. Am I right in that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Suppose we floated a loan for $175,000,000; the cost of that loan would be entirely apart from the annual maintenance cost of the three services, which I mentioned as being $53,500,000.


Major James William Coldwell: If that is so, and we are contemplating these very large expenditures over a period of years, the argument advanced for manufacturing as much of the small arms as possible in government arsenals, even if it requires some capital outlay to complete and equip them, is a very sound argument, because we are actually considering a long-term defence program. We have been discussing the defence estimates this morning on a basis entirely different from that of former years. We are actually considering on the suggestion of the minister, and I think his suggestion is
XMr. Marsh.]
a good one, that we should lay out a longterm program. If we are laying out a longterm plan we should consider ways and means of producing at least small arms and other equipment which is easily manufactured in our own arsenals; because, after all, undoubtedly there is a widespread feeling that profits should be taken out of war and out of preparedness for war. Certainly we should not pass over these estimates, as perhaps we are inclined to do, without giving further thought to ways and means and, if necessary, to expenditures required, to enable this country to get away as rapidly as possible from the private manufacture of arms. I am sure that would meet with the desires generally of the Canadian people. Even those who in past years felt that any measure of rearmament was unnecessary realize to-day that the world has changed a great deal in the last two years. If, therefore, we are to enter upon a defence program extending over a period of time we should consider ways and means of taking the profits both out of war and out of preparedness for war, and doing as much of this work as we possibly can in our own arsenals. That is the policy which is being gradually introduced in European countries, where of course they are spending much more than we are on armaments.


Howard Charles Green: Are the dominion arsenals
to be expanded so that they can manufacture any type of equipment? We have certain Canadian National railway shops which could be used for the manufacture of at least some of our requirements. Is any attempt being made to use these shops?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Replying to the first question, it would take a tremendous capital sum to equip the arsenals for all types of manufacture. I think it is proper to develop the dominion arsenals for the manufacture of ammunition and small arms if a fairly permanent production is required. As to other supplies of which our requirements would be limited, it would be difficult to justify from an economic point of view the large capital expenditures involved in any grand arsenal scheme for that purpose. As to my hon. friend's second question, the department has for the last several months been in consultation with both railway companies with reference to the point he raised.


Howard Charles Green: The government does a lot of consulting on these things, but has any action been taken to use the Canadian National shops for the manufacture of military equipment?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not up
to date.


Howard Charles Green: We have really drifted off
into an argument as to whether we should have state or private manufacture of munitions in Canada. But the real point is this: According to the minister's own statement, we need a great deal of equipment, and we cannot get it. We cannot buy it in England; I do not know whether we can buy it in the United States, but certainly we cannot produce it here. Mobile army requirements are listed as 500 field guns, 340 antitank equipments, 544 infantry mortars, 60 medium howitzer equipments, 20 medium gun equipments. What is the government going to do about supplying this equipment? Am I right when I say that we have not the equipment in Canada to equip fully one brigade with modern armament? Is that wrong? If we cannot equip in Canada one brigade, what is the use of talking about a division here or a division there, or a brigade here or a brigade there? What does the minister propose to do about getting this equipment which he says he cannot get at the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The prospects for obtaining supplies are much better now than they were a year ago.


Howard Charles Green: From Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: With
regard to the argument that the manufacture of armaments should be given to workmen of the idle shops of the Canadian National Railways, I can see no reason whatsoever why those workingmen should receive any more consideration than the workingmen of closed factories in Brantford and many other cities of this dominion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They have not the
machinery and are not equipped for that kind of work.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: There are many plants in Canada, I am sure, which have equipment just as good as the equipment in the shops of the Canadian National Railways. If any orders for armaments are being given, the closed factories in the city of Brantford should receive just as much consideration as the idle shops of the Canadian National Railways.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: There is no need to restrict the opposition to that idea to hon. members from Toronto. In Winnipeg we have two
large Canadian National shops, well equipped, and with a personnel experienced in this type of manufacturing during the last war. The men there have not been employed on full time for a matter of years. These shops-* and I speak only of the Canadian National Railways-are the responsibility of the Canadian government and the Canadian people. It has been contended that in time of war transportation will be speeded up to such an extent that these shops will be needed for their regular business at full capacity, and that argument has been put forward in opposition to the use of the shops for other than railway purposes. It is urged that if in peace time we establish in these railway shops a base of armament supplies, then when the need for armaments is greatest we should have to take these men away from the manufacture of armaments and put them back on the maintenance of rolling stock. Certainly the railroad is a peace-time organization, although there are arguments in favour of the use of the government-owned shops.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There are needed 544 infantry mortars: can we make those in Canada? There are needed 16 medium howitzers, 20 medium gun equipments, 500 field guns, 348 anti-tank equipments:	can we
make those in Canada? If so, why do we not make them here? There is much unemployment in this country; surely we can put our men to work instead of ordering the equipment from some other country. I notice that there is on file in the department a memorandum to the effect that the approximate cost of a factory to manufacture 25-pounders would be $2,000,000; that estimate includes carriage works and other necessary accessories to turn out the complete weapons and wheels ready for use. It states that approximately eight months would elapse before delivery of guns begins, and if the plants were employed on production of 25-pounder guns they could be delivered at the rate of about two a week. If we can make these guns and equipment, let us do so.


Mr. MARTIN:: I may be wrong, but it
strikes me that the very nature of this subject is such as to make open discussion inadvisable, with the press and other agencies capable of distributing detailed knowledge which should be left to relatively private sources. I do not suggest that there are not some things which could be discussed here openly, in a general way, but if it is a question of equipping ourselves adequately, why should
Supply-National Defence

we, through open discussion in this house, expose to others a full knowledge of that equipment?


Mr. HEAPS:: I wish to say a word or
two with regard to the railway shops. I have had several communications from men in the shops, as well as from organizations representing the men, stating that, particularly in the Canadian National shops in the Winnipeg district, there can be produced certain armaments which are desired at the present time by the government. I do not know much about the mechanical features of the production of armaments, but one assumes, when he receives letters and communications from men engaged in the machine shops and the organizations representing them, they know what they are talking about. During the last war, between 1915 and 1918, railway shops in the Winnipeg area were producing shells-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Shell casings.


Abraham Albert Heaps: -and a large amount of other equipment. If the government is in a position to equip and willing to equip private plants with tools to produce armaments, is there any reason why shops already partly equipped for the purpose could not be further equipped so as to give the employees a little more work than they are now getting? I have no objection to further provision so far as Brantford is concerned; these men, even in the city of Brantford, are deserving of every consideration. But when we have shops owned and operated by the government, as are the Canadian National shops, and partly equipped for this purpose, I believe that our first duty is to the employees in those shops.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: No, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, yes. As a matter of fact our government has been extremely kind to the private manufacturer so far as railway equipment orders are concerned. In a return brought down to this house a few weeks ago it was shown that about ten times as much equipment for the Canadian National Railways was made in private shops as was made in the government shops, although the latter could have manufactured a large part of it. We have these railway shops, partly equipped, which could with perhaps slight adjustments produce work which the government wants done and give employment to the men. If there are factories or other shops which are also in a position to produce equipment, I have no objection to contracts being given

to them as well. Has any progress been made as between the minister and, say, both railway companies in the matter of utilizing the railway shops for the production of armaments?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All I
can tell my hon. friend is that the managements of both railways have been consulted with reference to what they can do. There is no doubt that they can do what my hon. friend says they can do; the question is as to the distribution of our requirements as between these shops, private industry, and government arsenals. It is purely a matter of policy. Objection has been raised in some quarters, among railway officials themselves, to utilizing their shops for production such as this, on the assumption that it might interfere with their normal activities in case of emergency. Whether or not that view is well-founded is a matter on which I would not care to venture a personal opinion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it the intention of the government to use every effort to work in cooperation with the railway companies and to give, if necessary to both companies, and particularly to the Canadian National Railways, an opportunity of producing in their shops whatever in the way of armaments they are capable of producing?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
opportunity has already been offered by way of conference and consultation with those who are responsible for the direction of policy of the railways. Although nothing definite has resulted up to the present, I shall be very glad to continue towards some degree of cooperation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand from the minister that evidently, as between the railway shops, the parties have not been able to come together on a working basis?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a
definite policy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, is it not possible that the government might come to some arrangement?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We did not have any concrete problem which we could submit to them-anything definite so far that we could ask them to do.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
Supply-National Defence
The house resumed at three o'clock. STANDING COMMITTEES



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES-THIRD REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Vien.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Retirement of capital.
217. Annual sinking fund to retire, with interest, moneys borrowed for capital expenditures, $3,447,175.
Charles Grant MacNeil: When the committee rose we were discussing the question of policy involved in this item, particularly in view of the fact that the department evidently contemplates planning for a long-range program. I think there was substantial agreement among the members of the committee that the staff should have opportunity to engage in a long-range program. But even at this stage of this session it is still desirable that a a special committee of the house, whether informal or on whatever basis it may be organized, should have the opportunity of discussing in detail questions of policy. In the light of the discussion this morning, the point made by the hon. member for Essex East, that perhaps we are venturing too far afield in this discussion, was not, in my view, well taken; for none of us has shown any disposition to go beyond the limits of or the information contained in the departmental report. Certain questions are matters of public policy. Sources of supply are certainly matters of public policy, even if there be no desire to question the minister or his officers in regard to specifications or details of construction, disposition of units or supplies, or anything that might be regarded as a military or naval secret. But we are discussing a matter of policy in regard to the manufacture of armaments. Under private manufacture as we have now established it in Canada-and we have now a virtual monopoly of small arms manufacture in Canada on the part of private enterprise-no provision is made for the training of mechanics. In time of emergency we shall be sorely pressed in Canada for men trained in the factory operations necessary for the support of men in the field. I repeat that it takes about eight men in the factory to maintain one machine gun in the field, forty men for a
combat tank in the field and about sixty men for a pursuit plane. These statistics are based upon computations made by the German general staff. Private enterprise is necessarily limited in its activities to profit-making operations; they have to have a profit in order to continue operations. They have to keep profit-making considerations in view. They cannot undertake responsibility with regard to training of apprentices. I do not see where Canada can possibly obtain the trained mechanics necessary to the provision of a constant supply of aircraft, munitions, or weapons of certain calibre.


Mr. REID:: Put in older men. There are enough older men who cannot get a job at the present time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have been in touch with an aircraft manufacturer in Canada, known quite well to my hon. friend; he knows that that manufacturer has had extreme difficulty in getting trained men-


Thomas Reid: Because he wanted young men.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It became necessary for him to apply to the immigration department to bring in from the United States men with special training in certain machine shop operations.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, three or four key men.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Yes, the number was
small. On the other hand that same manufacturer, for whom I have great respect, had to take a great deal of trouble to train young men. I have no reason to question his statement that actually in the first contract- perhaps the minister will corroborate this- he had to face the expectation of a loss because of his desire to train young Canadians in that highly specialized field of endeavour, rather than to import specialists. In view of that experience I suggest that we should expand our dominion arsenals along certain lines rather than rely entirely on private enterprise, and that the department should assume some responsibility, even by employing rotation, so that young men seeking this technical training may be introduced to the machine shop practice peculiar to the manufacture of munitions. It is a very important point in regard to our defence forces. It is necessary not only to organize our military units, not only to buy or manufacture armaments, but also to train in factory practice operations the men who in time of emergency will man the machines and maintain a continuous supply of armaments and munitions.	z
Supply-National Defence


Mr. BAKER:: Are young men of to-day willing to learn a trade?
Mr. MacNElL: I assure my hon. friend there are thousands of young men very anxious to get this technical training; witness the experience in the youth training projects. In British Columbia at least I have met many young men who were sorely disappointed because they were not included in the quota selected for the youth training project with regard to technical training, particularly in machine shop practice, acetylene welding, and so on.


Mr. EVANS:: Would they not receive training under private enterprise just as well as in government plants?
Mr. MacNElL: The private manufacturer, in order to reduce production costs, hesitates to assume responsibility that would be assumed by government. I am not suggesting that they are unwilling to measure up to their responsibilities, but I am suggesting that they are governed by the interests of their shareholders. They cannot always assume this responsibility.
With regard to the private manufacture of armaments, certain fundamental principles are involved, moral or political, if you like. I think we all desire to escape in Canada the evils which confronted other countries in the private manufacture of armaments. As I have already stated, we have established what amounts to a virtual monopoly in small arms manufacture in Canada. The government have no alternative now but to return, for future orders for munitions and arms of certain calibre, to an established industry where the tooling has been done, where we have practically the only small arms experts in the dominion outside of the departmental offices. That is dangerous. For instance, the firm in question cannot, nor can we expect them to, refuse orders from other sources. True, their operations are subject to the supervision and control of departmental officers, and dominion government orders must have priority, but there may come a time when they must accept orders from abroad, and the moment that happens that unit is hooked up with the international armament ring. That is not at all satisfactory.
May I place on the record the views of certain representative bodies in this regard. There are two well known international organizations of ex-service men, the Confederation Internationale des Associations de Mutiles et

des Anciens Combattants, and the Federation Internationale des Anciens Combattants. Both represent ex-service men all across the world, they have definitely declared themselves on this point. These organizations, which comprise S,000,000 members, adopted the following resolution:
Material disarmament . . . should include the suppression of private manufacture of, and private traffic in, arms, together with effective mutual international control.
There is no longer any doubt as to public opinion in Great Britain on this question. In the peace ballot conducted in 1935, in which some twelve million people voted, this question was asked:
Should the manufacture of and sale of armaments for private profit be prohibited by international agreement?
There was no doubt as to the answer given by the people of Great Britain. Canada is concerned in the decisions of the League of Nations. Under the council of the league there was set up a temporary mixed commission, which had a subcommittee on the private manufacture of armaments composed of representatives of governments, soldiers, sailors, airmen, manufacturers, trade union delegates, economists and civil servants. In its report this statement is included:
It is common knowledge that the public mind is strongly prejudiced against the uncontrolled private manufacture of munitions and implements of war, and that it is a common belief that wars are promoted by the competitive zeal of private armament firms, and would be rendered less frequent were the profit-making impulse brought under control or eliminated altogether. In general the objections that are raised to untrammelled private manufacture may be grouped under the following headings:
(1)	That armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares, and in persuading their own countries to adopt warlike policies and to increase their armaments.
(2)	That armament firms have attempted to bribe government officials both at home and abroad.
(3)	That armament firms have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programs of various countries in order to stimulate armament expenditure.
(4)	That armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries.
(5)	That armament firms have organized international armament rings through which the armaments race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another.
(6)	That armament firms have organized international armament trusts which have increased the price of armaments sold to governments.
I need not read the whole report, but this was a matter of debate in the British House of Commons. Sir John Simon placed a

Supply-National Defence
different construction on it, and in reply, Colonel David Carnegie, the Canadian member of the commission and a leading authority on the subject of armament manufacture, said:
1.	There was no doubt in my mind that the evils enumerated by the sub-committee of the temporary mixed commission regarding the private manufacture of arms were understood to have existed and the subsequent efforts of the temporary mixed commission were directed to prevent such evils from being continued.
2.	Proof of this is found in report A. 16 1924, IX, 30/7/24 where a majority and minority report is given on a draft convention prepared by me and considered by a sub-committee of the temporary mixed commission at Prague. In the minority report the findings of the temporary mixed commission report of September 15th, 1921, are given categorically as an argument for international control.
3.	There can be no doubt whatever that the findings of the sub-committee of the temporary mixed commission determined the scope and nature of the draft convention which I submitted, and during the years I was a member of the temporary mixed commission I do not recollect that any doubt was cast, at least in discussion, as to the correctness of the findings of the sub-committee.
4.	I do not think that the union of democratic control should be condemned for using the word "conclusions," for in my view the members of the temporary mixed commission acted upon them as conclusions; a strong public opinion in the world believed that the evils enumerated existed. If there was any doubt at all then of their existence, which I do not believe, ample proof has been given since that. The findings of the commission have been fully justified.
I quote Mr. Philip Noel-Baker, MP, whose work, The Private Manufacture of Armaments, is accepted almost as a classic. He says:
The nature of this major evil of private manufacture may be stated in the following way;
"The investment of large sums of private capital in armament production creates a permanent and powerful vested interest, the participants in which all depend for their prosperity on the policy which governments pursue in respect of armaments. By the nature of the case, the controlling representatives of this vested interest wield great financial power, are brought by the necessities of their business into close contact with government departments, and generally possess, or are able to establish, close political connections. This vested interest constitutes a powerful force which inevitably favours the increase of armaments and opposes those policies which tend to diminish armaments and reduce the risk of war. It exercises this influence in all important countries in a more or less effective way. Its methods differ according to the political habits and practice of different countries. But. whatever its methods, the effect is the same; the steady pressure of an elaborately organized and financially powerful vested interest against policies which make for peace and in favour of the increase of armaments, whether there is political justification for such increase or not." 71492-261
I think that is a sound basis upon which to approach the question of the private manufacture of armaments, and I can hardly comprehend that there would be any desire in Canada to proceed further in the establishment of vested interests in this country having a heavy investment in the manufacture of war materials. Then we have Admiral Wemyss, for instance, who was first sea lord of the British admiralty, who said that the system of private manufacture-
-is attended by the inevitable consequence that the multiplication of armaments is stimulated artificially.
Lady Wemyss, in writing his biography, and speaking of the last war, said:
For years before its outbreak he had watched the baleful activities of the armament trusts; the manner in which they had, heavily subsidizing the press, influenced public opinion in every country, stirring up strife and creating an atmosphere of hostility, ill will and suspicion between nations.
He had realized all the danger brought about by international rings, who, playing into one another's hands, had a direct interest in the inflation of navy and army estimates and in war scares; for. the more armaments were increased abroad, the more, obviously, had they to foe increased at home.
President Roosevelt of the United States had this to say:
The people of many countries are being taxed to the point of poverty and starvation in order to enable governments to engage in a mad race in armaments, which, if permitted to continue, may well result in war. This grave menace to the peace of the world is due in no small measure to the uncontrolled activities of the manufacturers and merchants of engines of destruction, and it must be met by the concerted action of the peonies of all nations.
And the Premier of France said:
It cannot be doubted, I do not deny it, that there is, in certain countries at least, a temptation for those who manufacture war material and who profit by inflaming conflicts, to perpetuate antagonisms. I believe that we should run fewer risks in future if the world could be wise enough to remove these profits from the daily life of the peoples.
There are many other important statements on this subject, based on the experience of the past. For these important reasons-moral reasons, may I say-the minister should give still further assurance that from now on the government will not overlook the opportunities that present themselves to lay the emphasis on public rather than private manufacture of armaments.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to say just a few words in reference to the item now before the committee. I am afraid the debate, as continued by the hon. member who just sat down, is developing into an argument

Supply-National Defence

against armament manufacture. We have not in Canada any manufacturers coming within the classification of those mentioned by the previous speaker.


Charles Grant MacNeil: We have one now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: During the war Canada produced large quantities o*f many lines of munitions, but as soon as the war was over the companies that had been engaged in that production went out of that business. They broke up lathes which had been specially made for the manufacture of shells, and took out of their plants machines which were unnecessary for the production of the goods they had formerly manufactured. If we had in Canada firms such as were described by the hon. member (Mr. MacNeil), or such as those to which reference has been made by other hon. members, I too would be just as strongly opposed to any company manufacturing implements of war, and through the profits therefrom trying to incite people to acts of violence. But we have not that kind of firm in Canada, and I hope we may never have them. So far as I can see, the argument advanced has no relation to the problem of manufacture in Canada. That type of argument might apply to plants such as the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia.-and I do not say it does. It might apply to the great Creusot works in France; again I do not say it does. But in Canada we have no organization of the kind.
Reference has been made to the small production in the John Inglis plant in Toronto. The production there is insignificant when it is compared with armament production in Europe. After all, 7,000 machine guns is a very small item. Commencing at that point I wish to compliment my leader upon the suggestion he has made, a suggestion which I believe has been endorsed by the minister. Perhaps the minister had the same idea. I do not know about that, but the first I heard of it was when it was mentioned by my leader and by hon. members who have supported him. Each of them deserves praise. I would refer particularly to the hon. members for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and Vancouver South (Mr. Green) both of whom have endorsed my leader's suggestion. The suggested committee might be described as an inter-party committee of members, and perhaps would be formed so as to include senators. When called together it would try to lay down a definite policy. I have no doubt that in my leader's mind was the thought that by this means we would eliminate from debates in the house discussions such as those we have had through the years- [Mr. MacNicol.J
at least in all the years I have been here- respecting supplies which are necessary for our armed forces. Whether we like it or not, if we are to defend our shores we must have the equipment necessary for that purpose.
The argument is as to whether we should have everything produced in our own arsenals, including the plants at Valcartier and Lindsay, and the John Inglis plant in Toronto, or whether private industry should be called in to assist. I should think the first work of the suggested committee would be to decide upon a definite policy. Having made a decision along that line, as was suggested this morning by the minister, Canada should, as promptly as possible, put itself in a position to defend both eastern and western shores. With my very limited knowledge of these matters I would say that the minister, at the head of the committee, should as quickly as possible assemble the equipment which would be necessary for the defence of our shores. Manifestly all that equipment could not be made in the three arsenals to which I have referred; therefore, at least for the present, private manufacturers would have to be induced to cooperate.
I have no doubt that, under the measure passed some time ago limiting profits in armament manufacture, the minister and officers of his department could prevent any manufacturer from making undue profits. Our defence of the east and west coasts having been attended to, I am satisfied that the Canadian manufacturer would proceed to manufacture his own line making only the profits to which he would be entitled. I doubt whether any of them would remain in the armament business after the orders had been filled. We are not an arms-producing country. Certainly armaments produced in Canada would not be shipped to other parts of the world. The Germans, French, Polish and British could produce their own, and there would be no necessity for the conversion of Canadian plants, such as has been indicated in some of the speeches to which we have listened.
The Canadian manufacturer has given a good account of himself. I have in mind the plant of John T. Hepburn, Limited, located in the constituency of Trinity, Toronto, which is shipping a large number of machines to Australia and Great Britain.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Lathes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are shipping high quality lathes to be used in the production of shells. These pieces of machinery are so fine they can be operated by a sixteen-year

Supply-National Defence
old girl. The British government has placed several different orders for these machines, and I believe the Australian government has done likewise. I suppose that machinery would be installed in the private plants about which we have heard. I doubt very much if a government plant would initiate the production of such machinery, because, as some one has pointed out, the profit a private company may get through initiation and development provides an incentive which is not found in the government plant. There is not the same incentive in a government plant to develop or invent.
After we have provided for the defence of our own eastern and western frontiers I believe the government plants could take care of the regular wear and tear and maintain the equipment already built. As I see the problem, cooperation between both suggested plans would ensure the use of our government arsenals to the limit. If necessary we may increase their size, but we should also invite private manufacturers to compete, produce and invent.
Some one has spoken about the plants of the Canadian National Railways. I realize these are first class plants, and that during the war they turned out necessary equipment. I believe shells or munitions of some kind were made in them. Many of the machines used in the plants of the Canadian National Railways were made in Dundas, Ontario. I saw the machines on the floor, ready for shipment and installation. They were manufactured in one of the finest plants on this continent, that of John Bertram and Sons Company, Limited, whose plant is in the constituency of Wentworth. As many as 3,000 men have been employed there at one time. They are inventors; they initiate and produce, and they could supply gun machines required by the government, if they were furnished with blueprints outlining what is desired. I know, too, that there are some first class manufacturing establishments in Brantford. I am familiar with those plants, having been connected with the manufacture of iron and steel products for a great part of my life. Then, in the constituency of Hamilton West-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
supply much of the machinery for our arsenal at Quebec.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All of these are first class manufacturing establishments, and could be used.
May I express one word of appreciation of what was said by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). As I said before, I have felt that perhaps we are parading too much 71492-2614
before the world's gaze our lack of equipment and our inefficiency in methods of defence. It is to be hoped that no bad result may flow from it. On the other hand if we get together, as has been suggested, we might eliminate that parade of conditions before the eyes of the world.


Howard Charles Green: Can we obtain from the United States any of our needs in the way of equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think we could. Since the imperial conference of 1907 it has been more or less a traditional policy to have our equipment standardized with the designs and patterns of the equipment of the old country. There has been a change in public opinion in this regard, but in the last several months exhaustive inquiries have been made as to the possibility of procurement of certain items in the United States as well as in Great Britain.


Howard Charles Green: Then for all practical purposes there is little hope of our getting any of these requirements from the United States.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a difficult question to answer definitely. I feel sure if there were an emergency we could get much equipment from the United States.


Howard Charles Green: To what extent is Canada dependent upon Great Britain for arms and equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I could not give an answer in definite percentages.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister give us a rough picture of the situation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except, for instance; for certain types of heavy guns, modern high angle mountings, certain types of armour-piercing shells, and such things, with proper preparation we could produce most of our requirements in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister give us a summary of the orders which have been filled in the last three years in Great Britain for Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why ask these questions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not that information at hand.


Howard Charles Green: What orders are still unfilled in Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can get that information if my hon. friend wants it, but I should rather give it to him privately.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic-Frontenac) (Translation):: 
Charles Grant MacNeil: With the passing of this item we are committing ourselves to a long-range program with certain features that involve a policy, and unless other arrangements are made for discussing it we have no alternative but to continue the discussion on the item before us.
I am not criticizing the staff officers whose requisitions the minister stated to the committee this morning. I think they have done their duty in stating those requirements. But the committee should have some knowledge as to the strategical objectives in mind and the evidence upon which the staff officers recommend this policy.
The minister mentioned, for instance, 18 destroyers, as being one of the requirements specified by the experts. He made it clear that that has not yet been adopted by the government. But may we know why we are concentrating on destroyers? It is common knowledge that destroyers are expensive, and too fast for convoy work, convoys usually moving at 15 knots and destroyers at a speed of around 35 knots. Further, it is recognized that destroyer flotillas usually operate as units of a battle fleet. Are our destroyer flotillas when finally organized to operate simply as detachments of the British navy, or is their work to be confined strictly to coastal defence? Why is the emphasis placed on destroyers rather than on submarines? A study of naval programs of countries of comparable size to Canada and with a similar coast line shows that emphasis is placed on submarines rather than on destroyers. A submarine can lie in wait at certain points and embarrass a raiding fleet much more effectively than destroyers. Why the emphasis on more destroyers rather than on mosquito craft equipped with detector devices and torpedo firing devices? They also could operate to better advantage in our coastal waters than [DOT] even destroyers.
These are all questions of policy. I am not speaking with the object of having any naval secrets divulged. I am not asking the minister to state publicly in the house what should not be stated publicly, but the strategical objectives could safely be defined without disclosing information that might be of advantage to unfriendly powers. Again, I would ask, why destroyers? Is it the intention of the government to build up a cruiser fleet? A destroyer does not carry guns of heavy enough calibre to enable it to engage a cruiser, which usually carries 6-inch or flinch guns, and should a cruiser raid our coast a destroyer would simply have to stand by. A destroyer, again, is not equipped for transoceanic convoy work but rather for patrol work in the focal areas of our ports. If the
IMr. Roberge.]
minister is unable at this stage to announce his plans with regard to the discussion in committee, could he, for instance, with regard to these long-range features of naval policy and air policy, say something of the strategical objectives which he has in mind, so that we may be assured that they are correlated first of all to Canadian needs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish
to repeat what I said a year ago in this house, that all these estimates are designed for the defence of Canada and only for the defence of Canada. In the second place, in regard to the long-range policy, this vote of S3,000,000 does not in any way affect the long-range policy which was submitted by the general staff to the minister and which I disclosed to the committee this morning. The S3,000,000 concerns only the capital expenditure of $29,000,000 which is part of this year's estimates of $60,000,000, except in so far of course as the $60,000,000 might be considered to be a part of a possible major expenditure.
My hon. friend will recall that I said definitely this morning that the proposed expenditures suggested by the general staff were entirely apart from the estimates of this year

what they thought were adequate for the defence of Canada.
In regard to the proposed committee, I fear it may be somewhat late to set it up formally this year, but if there is a general desire to do so, representatives of the various groups in the house could have an informal meeting, probably next Thursday, call in the chiefs of the staff, and go into the whole question raised by my hon. friend. I would have no objection to holding such a meeting. It might serve the purpose he has in mind at this time, and whoever may be in authority at the next session could consider the setting up of a formal committee, which I think should be a committee of both houses, so that all these things could be discussed and the long-range objectives thoroughly understood.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Possibly the minister has already answered this question, but it can be answered briefly. How much of this estimated expenditure of $63,000,000 is it intended to spend in the coming year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I believe, with the exception of the rebates to the treasury of which I spoke this morning, practically all of it. The amounts rebated by way of sales tax and customs tax roughly total $3,300,000. In every year, of course, there is a certain amount of these rebates, from one to three million dollars.
Supply-National Defence


Angus MacInnis: I was not here all the time this morning, and I do not know whether the minister has given an explanation as to what this amount of $29,000,000 is for.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I explained in a general way the differentiation which was made when this new financial method was adopted this year. The departmental officials were asked by the treasury to differentiate between what you might call the durable value requirements over a ten year life, and requirements for ordinary purposes and for the current purposes of the department.


Angus MacInnis: What is the capital construction which is to be carried out with this $29,000,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon.
friend will find the items in the detailed estimates. They are separated into two different categories-I mean under the same general purpose headings. Take even the radio services of the northwest territories; a certain amount is used for ordinary account and a certain amount for capital account. The
capital account deals mostly with buildings or fortifications or guns or requirements having a value over a term of years, generally speaking, of over ten years.


Angus MacInnis: But could the minister
tell the committee what the capital expenditure is to be, so that when we vote on the item we shall know exactly what we are voting for, whether for buildings, battleships, submarines, minesweepers, or what.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
only way I could explain that would be when we come to each particular vote, because the capital account portion is set up in each vote. In order to answer the question intelligently I would have to read the whole estimates.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has not
a recapitulation of the expenditures? If he has, of course it would be simple.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
place this on, record? This is the capital account, dealing with items included in the 1939-40 estimates chargeable to capital account, in round figures:
Engineer services and works-	.
Construction of buildings and works, including purchases of land..
General stores-	_
Clothing, armament and signal equipment,
Miscellaneous stores	
Armament	
Signal equipment	
A total under this heading of	
Ammunition procurement-
Ammunition, fuzes, cordite and other components, etc	
Construction of buildings and works	
Total	
Inspection of stores, arms and ammunition-[DOT]
Machinery, instruments and other apparatus	
Mechanical and water transport	
Naval stores-
Armament	
Miscellaneous stores	
Total	
Naval engineering-
New materials	
Ships	
Buildings and land	
Total	
Royal Canadian Air Force-
Air Force stores- _
Aircraft and engines	
Aircraft spares	
Motor transport	
Marine craft	
Miscellaneous stores	
Bombs and ammunition	
Barrack stores	
Wireless telegraph equipment	
A total under that heading of	
Buildings and works-
Construction of buildings and works, including purchases of land Civil government air operations-	.
Photographic stores and automatic pilots	
Training of pilots,

That is part of the $6,000,000 vote.
Supply-National Defence

Aircraft and engines	$1,933,000
Aircraft spares	 115,000
Barrack equipment	 180,000
Construction of buildings and works	 1,000,000
Radio services-Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system, wireless signals, and other communication equipment	 31,000
Construction, buildings and works	 39,000
This makes a complete total as set out in the estimates of $29,405,102.
3,228,000
70,000


Angus MacInnis: I thank the minister for the figures he has given. I wish to say just a word or two in support of the argument which has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) for government ownership of plants for manufacturing military equipment. Canada up to the present time has not been a military country. We have prided ourselves on that fact, and I hope that w'e can maintain this country in the future as a non-military country. But if we are to do that we shall have to consider very carefully military policy within the country, because men engaged in military activities are just the same as people engaged in any other activity- they like to have the thing they are working with as big and as prosperous as possible. That has been found true in other countries where a military caste has got in control. We need only look at the position of Japan, where the military clique is in control, with disastrous results not only to the Japanese people but to other nations as well. We in Canada have to be careful that we do not allow "brass hats" to get control of affairs here. I am afraid it has gone too far already. The government within the last few years has stated definitely that its policy is that so far as possible the manufacture of military supplies and armaments should be carried on in government plants. We are not going to implement that policy by proceeding in an opposite direction. There is only one way to implement a policy, and that is to proceed to put it into effect. The Department of National Defence should explore every possibility, including manufacture in railway shops or any other government shops of materials or equipment or munitions required by this country. I hope, I think we all hope, that this destructive period through which we are passing will be of short duration, that in the not distant future the world will be restored to reason and we shall be able to stop this mad armament race. We should be careful not to be led astray by what is happening in the world to-day and be persuaded to give anybody a free hand or to depart from what has been the policy of this country in the past. I hope that before these estimates pass the committee will satisfy itself that we are not building up an armament interest in this country.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are any field guns or anti-aircraft guns being manufactured in Canada, or are any plants for their manufacture being established in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think there are any being manufactured at the present time. Definite plans for the guns are in existence.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the total of the estimates last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think $36,000,000, in round figures, including all the supplementaries.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was the total amount spent?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Minister of Finance in his budget speech estimated that there would be a lapsed amount of $756,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This year the minister estimates an expenditure of about $63,000,000. Am I correct in assuming that the department expects to be able to make purchases which will use up the whole of this appropriation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I think it will be found that last year the department was very efficient in spending the amount voted, because in other years the amounts lapsed were two, three or more million dollars. I would estimate that practically all the vote will be spent this year. But of course my hon. friend realizes that there are included in the total this year requirements the delivery of which can be made only in one or two or three years. That is wrhy the word "commitment" is used in the estimate.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What are the plans for the manufacture of these guns, and for what kinds of guns?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it would not be in the public interest to answer that question.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand that $1,108,000 worth of machinery has been purchased by the government for the Inglis plant, and $420,000 worth of tools. Is that a capital expenditure?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the answer would be yes, it is capital expenditure. I am not certain about the amounts. The full details, I believe, were filed some days ago in a return made to the house. Of course the machinery is the property of the government of Canada, with the British government also interested.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It would be a capital expenditure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And the $235,000 provided for the Montreal Construction Company also would be capital expenditure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The total for Montreal I think would be about $200,000.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I believe the minister said $235,000 the other day.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Probably that was correct.


Charles Grant MacNeil: If it is the intention of the government to undertake the manufacture of further arms, will they now be manufactured by private industry or in publicly-owned plants-for instance, heavy machine guns, or weapons of heavier calibre than machine guns, field artillery?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not in a position to give a definite reply to that question.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Just before one o'clock a question was asked with regard to the utilization of the railway shops for the production of armaments. The minister informed the committee that there was some objection on the part of the management of the shops. I do not know which of the two companies he had in mind, the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific, but the men who have been writing to me, and probably to other hon. members, in regard to this question, are entitled to some information in that regard. In my own constituency we have a large number of railway employees, in fact one of the largest railway shops in Canada is situated there. To them this is an important question, because at the present time a great many of them are working only about four days a week; in fact the average throughout the year may be even less than that. Would the minister care to elaborate on the statement he made this morning? And will he go even a step farther and inform the committee whether he would care to see what can be done in the matter of the production of armaments in the shops of either or of both railways in different parts of Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All I can say-again I cannot be definite-is that we have complete information in regard to the shops of both railway systems. They have been examined by our inspectors, and we know about their facilities. The trouble is that there has been a certain amount of hesitation-not on the part of the department-in regard to going ahead definitely with any policy in that regard. So far as we are concerned, if the necessity arises we shall be only too glad to cooperate with the railway shops as they would be happy to cooperate with the department.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say that plans are being made for the manufacture in Canada of field artillery and antiaircraft guns. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have plans for guns now.


Howard Charles Green: Have any contracts been entered into by the government for the manufacture of either type of equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have plans with respect to a certain type of gun, but not as to a factory, and no contracts of any kind have been entered into in that regard.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister misunderstood the question of the hon. member for St. Paul's. What he wanted to find out was whether or not the government are making arrangements to have either anti-aircraft guns or field artillery manufactured in Canada. Could we have that information?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have ordered a certain number of guns, as I indicated in my address the other day. The question of the production in Canada of one particular type of gun is being carefully and closely investigated. I am not going to discuss guns or calibre here, because I do not think it is in the public interest, but I assure my hon. friend that the department is very much alive to the necessity of having this gun manufactured in Canada if possible.


Howard Charles Green: Are they to come from Canada or Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot definitely answer that question.


Howard Charles Green: It is all very well for the minister to be so secretive, but he will remember that there was also a great deal of secrecy about the Bren gun business.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.
Supply-National Defence


Howard Charles Green: It does not add to the confidence of the country or of the house in the department. In his statement a few weeks ago the minister said that part of the requirements, which I take it come under the capital item, were as follows:
Provision and development of mechanically propelled vehicles, $426,800.
Bren gun accessories such as chests, tripods, ammunition fillers, etc., $1,192,400.
Searchlight and sound locators, $400,000. Communication equipment for eastern fortresses, $477,000.
That is at page 3255 of Hansard. Could the minister explain just what types of equipment are covered by those items, and whether they are being manufactured in Canada or are to be brought from Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should be very glad to give the information when we come to the appropriate item, but I submit that the proper time to discuss various matters of this kind is when we come to the proper estimate


Howard Charles Green: Is that not a capital expenditure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have about three volumes of detailed information, and it is most difficult to answer every question of a general character. I shall be very glad to answer the questions in detail when we come to the proper estimates. I think that is the only fair thing to do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General
Radio services-Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system-206. Chargeable to ordinary account, $324,575.
Mr. MaeNEIL: May I ask what is covered by this item?
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Possibly the best way to answer the question is to say that it is for the following stations:
Headquarters, Barriefield, Dawson, Mayo, Edmonton, Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, Fort Simpson, Fort Norman, Aklavik/Herschel, Port Radium, Fort McMurray, Fort Chipewyan, Yellowknife, Goldfields, Outpost Island, North Battleford, Gordon Lake, White Horse, Bur-wash, Providence, Grand Prairie.
It is for radio services ordinaiy account at these various points.
Mr. MaeNEIL:	Does that radio service
extend down the Pacific coast to York island? Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):	No.
Mr. MaeNEIL:	Would it be possible to
consider an extension to that point? It was brought to my attention recently that settlements have been built up in some of these IMr. Green.]	,
areas which are entirely without telephonic or telegraphic communication, and since York island is being fortified-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
will be most efficient communications between all fortified points on the Pacific coast when we are through.
Mr. MaeNEIL:	Apart from this service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No,
strictly military.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these services used
exclusively for military purposes?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
are for military purposes only as far as the training of the personnel is concerned, but they are also used for civilian purposes and for the benefit of the general population.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the total cost borne by
the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that fair to the Department of National Defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps
not, except in so far as we regard our signal service in the far north as possibly the most efficient branch of the whole department, and this is probably the finest training in the world for them. The benefit the department gets out of it is the training of the personnel; in other words we really provide service in some respects for the public benefit in order to obtain the training required. The Department of National Defence is the department that pays the cost for the general good.


Mr. MASSEY:: In view of the excellence
of this service does not the minister feel that he should take over the similar service of the Department of Transport?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do
not know what the Department of Transport might think about that.


Denton Massey: Why should there be two services?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
question was brought up about a year ago, and we set up a joint committee of the two departments which studied the whole question thoroughly for several weeks. The decision at which they arrived in the end was that it was in the public interest to carry on this system under the Department of National Defence, with the Department of Transport having its own facilities.
Supply-National Defence


Denton Massey: Does the Department of Transport have services in these territories as well, or are these the only services that exist?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I could not be definite with reference to the exact location of their facilities, but I think it is only on their own lines.


Denton Massey: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I might read an extract from a memorandum I have regarding a meeting of some of the officers of the two departments which was held a year ago:
It was agreed by all in attendance that there is no duplication of radio services in so far as the Northwest Territories system operated by the Royal Canadian Signals personnel of the Department of National Defence is concerned and those services operated by the Department of Transport.
It is quite a long report, which I should be very glad to send my hon. friend if he desires it. That, however, is the substance of it.


Howard Charles Green: What is the strength of the personnel, and are they all members of the permanent militia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are ninety-two officers and other ranks.


Howard Charles Green: They all belong to the permanent force?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Alexander Marshall: Am I correct in assuming that the decrease of $33,475 is made up in item 207, amounting to $70,375?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Perhaps I had better give my hon. friend the details of it, on ordinary account.


James Alexander Marshall: Is it not a transfer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The details are as follows:
Decrease Increase
Temporary assistance .. .. $	700	....
Pay and allowances, all ranks

Stores and equipment	 18,125	....
Construction of buildings and
works	 30,500	....
Operating expenses	 3,350
Transportation and travelling expenses	
3,450	....Sundries, etc	
5,650	....$58,425	$24,950
That gives a net decrease of $33,475.


James Alexander Marshall: The decrease under construction of buildings and works, amounting to $30,500, is really a transfer from the ordinary account to the capital account, is it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct.


Denton Massey: Actually there is an increase of $37,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,


Denton Massey: There is a reduction of $30,500 under construction of buildings and works in the ordinary item, but there is an increase of $70,375 under the capital item, so it is simply a matter of book-keeping?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite correct.


Denton Massey: Is this an extension of the existing services, or repairs to those services, or what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
increase of $36,000 is mainly to provide for the establishment of new stations at Providence, Northwest Territories, and Grande Prairie, Alberta.


Denton Massey: New stations?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Alexander Marshall: How much is being spent on the new station at Grande Prairie?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: $5,680
ordinary, and $16,270 special account.


Howard Charles Green: Have these two stations any connection whatever with setting up some sort of northern defence?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, they would be invaluable for the purpose, if a comprehensive scheme or system were developed for the defence of the north.


Charles Grant MacNeil: With regard to the training of personnel, are the men rotated in the service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. Item agreed to.
Militia services.
1H. Cadet services, $144,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am pleased to see an increase in this vote, even if it is a small one. I thought from what was said last year by the minister that the increase might have been greater. This is one vote I am always pleased to support.
May I bring to the attention of the minister a report adopted a few days ago by the Toronto board of education. I am pleased
Supply-National Defence

to note that the Toronto board has again adopted a system of cadet training, and they make certain suggestions which I believe are worthy of consideration. To save time I shall read the suggestions as contained in a newspaper article:
The report, compiled after a conference with the principals of the schools, suggested that a cadet corps be formed and that the age limit be fifteen years and upward. It was felt that boys
j ?t age will profit by cadet training. In addition there is no grant from the dominion for cadets under fifteen or over seventeen.
When the minister gives his explanation he might tell us the reason for that.
. It was also suggested that the present course m cadet training be amended in certain phases, owing to the changes in military technique since the present course was set. In addition to company and squad drill, first-aid work and rifle shooting, it was suggested that instead of the antiquated semaphore signalling, cadets be given a certain amount of instruction in aviation, wireless, Bren guns and mechanical traction, subjects that appeal to the boys of to-day and which may prove beneficial in future years.
I note further that the Galt board of education has returned to cadet training. I presume that owing to world conditions boards of education everywhere will again be emphasing this type of training. I was wondering whether the vote asked by the minister will be large enough to take care of the increase in cadet training.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver). As the hon. member is aware, this vote used to be $500,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to see it that much again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To my regret the number of cadets in militia services is diminishing every year. The hon. member has mentioned air training and naval training. We have excellent units of sea cadets. I have in mind two splendid units in the constituency of Yale. We now have three units of air cadets. The other day in my home city of Vancouver a request was made for recruits to join the air cadets, and 1,500 applied, but ;hey could take care of only about 250.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does this vote cover that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, this vote covers only the dollar for each senior cadet between fifteen and eighteen. Air cadets organized more than a year ago might come under this vote, but the corps in Vancouver was formed only about a month ago.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does this vote cover sea cadets?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I happen to be honorary president of the Navy League of Ontario wdiich has sea cadet corps, and I am proud of the splendid work they are doing.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What is the strength of the cadets in the different provinces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: According to the return of August 31, 1938, the strength of cadets in Canada is as follows:
Province	Seniors Juniors Total
AJberta	.. ..	452	652	1,104British Columbia..	..	470	566	1,036Manitoba	
753	825	1,578.New Brunswick	639	742	1381Nova Scotia	
1,143	353	B496Ontario	
12,771	9,517	22,288Prince Edward Island	878	108	986Quebec	
20,548	21,742	42,290Saskatchewan	
631	373	1,004Total	
38,285	34,878	73,163


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What grants are made to educational bodies for this work? Are grants made to boards of education on the basis of membership?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
instructors are paid and there is the grant of one dollar, but there is no grant for the junior cadets. It applies only to the seniors between the ages of fifteen and eighteen.


Grote Stirling: Will this increase of
$5,000 give some small recognition to the sea cadet corps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
increase of $5,000 is mainly due to provision being made to conduct courses for the qualification of cadet corps instructors. These courses have not been held since 1931. It was felt necessary to have instruction for the instructors, and the $5,000 is for that purpose.


Grote Stirling: The minister has not
been able to arrange for some small recognition of the sea cadets?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
afraid not, nothing more, much as I should like to.


Grote Stirling: I hope the minister will not forget that, because of the valuable work that is being carried on.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is it
true that more than half the cadets come from Quebec?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that is about correct.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Then
Quebec is to be congratulated upon the interest it is taking in this movement.

Supply-National Defence


Denton Massey: Has there been an application to the minister from any of the provinces for an increase in the grant, to take care of the increasing numbers? A moment ago the minister said that 1,500 had applied in Vancouver and that only 250 could be taken care of.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So far as I recall, I do not think we have turned down any application for the formation of a new cadet corps in any part of Canada. Unfortunately there has been a decrease in the total numbers. At the moment the air cadet units are increasingly popular. How long that will last I cannot say, but it seems to be the general trend.


Denton Massey: Does the application come from the province, the municipality, or the board of education?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: From the local school board to the military district concerned.


Denton Massey: Moneys are paid directly to the local school board; they do not go through the provincial administration?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not to the provincial authorities.


Denton Massey: The minister said that there were 1,500 youths in Vancouver who wished to become air cadets. Will steps be taken to see that the full quota is taken on, or will the number remain at 250?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is hard to be decisive on that point. I must say it was a wonderful response.


Denton Massey: If 1,500 lads are anxious to become air cadets, in view of the present situation and the relatively small amount of money required to give them the necessary training, the minister might make provision for it in the supplementary estimates. I suggest that he take the matter into consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The situation described by the minister indicates what has been wrong with the cadet corps in Canada. The response in Vancouver, as I understand it, was because of the urge young men have to obtain certain technical training. I have had occasion to discuss this matter in general, and I have had no reason to change my mind with regard to cadet corps. What the hon. member for Davenport has said with regard to sea cadets is correct, I think they are receiving useful
training. But I made inquiries from the staffs of educational institutions, parent and teacher organizations and various other bodies, and the general conclusion seems to be that the type of training received in the cadet corps is useless. Even viewed from the military point of view, it is obsolete. What good purpose is served by training boys in drill formations? Everybody recognizes that the main need is for more physical training. Drilling with rifles, forming fours and all that sort of thing does little to develop a youth physically.
More technical training should be provided; these youths are eager for that type of training. No provision is being made for the type of training which would be of advantage later in connection with military work. The present training seems to me to' be useless; it merely exploits and builds up a militaristic spirit which has proven to be objectionable and which is the cause of the present unpopularity of the corps. I urge that a fund should be made available to provide for physical training. The minister is familiar with the work being done in British Columbia. Splendid results have been obtained, and the benefits for defence purposes cannot be overlooked. Under Mr. Eisenhardt, the young men of British Columbia are being developed marvellously. If in a time of emergency they should be called to serve their country, they would be better fitted by reason of the training they have received in these recreational centres. It is much more valuable to them than any training they would receive in a cadet corps. Has the minister anything in mind in connection with a physical training program?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no new departure since last year.


Charles Grant MacNeil: To what extent is physical training emphasized by the cadet corps instructors?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is no doubt familiar with the Strath-cona trust. There is an item in that trust for the encouragement of physical military training in the public schools, but I think the matter largely depends upon the schools and the instructors. The Strathcona trust was intended primarily for physical and military training, with emphasis on the physical rather than on the military training.


Denton Massey: How many cadets are there in training in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There are three air cadet units at present, and there will be four when the unit is established in
Supply-National Defence

Vancouver. Number 96 is at Trinity college school, and is affiliated with No. 110, City of Toronto, Royal Canadian Air Force squadron. No. 162 is located at Ridley college and is affiliated with No. 119, bomber squadron at Hamilton. No. 303 is located at the Trenton high school and is affiliated with the Royal Canadian air force station at Trenton. There is also some training provided in engine work.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Are instructors provided for the cadet corps?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not familiar with other parts of the country, but in Vancouver this is handled on a volunteer basis. In other cases the government trains instructors, who in turn train the cadets and are paid for this work.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: There is no doubt that this training is of tremendous advantage. Doctor Kirk, principal of the Jesse Ketchum school in Toronto, has stated that he wished the grant was larger so that they could do more. This training is of great advantage in keeping the boys from being idle. They become interested and do splendid work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What training is given to the air cadets? Are they trained by Royal Canadian air force officers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
lectures are given by R.C.A.F. personnel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In what kind of work?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mechanics and ground work.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Is there any thought of establishing one of these schools in the mari-times?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is my wish to see one or more of these schools in every province. I think the Canadian youth is more air-minded than the youth of any other country, and is more adapted to this kind of work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Military services.
188. Royal Military College, $402,544.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister explain this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Royal Military College vote this year is $402,544, an increase of $21,044 over last year. For some years the cost of part of the essential repairs to and the upkeep of the college buildings has been included in the national defence headquarters engineering services and works

vote. Due to a change last year in the financial set-up, the college vote is now required to be self-sustaining. Approximately three-quarters of the increase this year, or about $16,000, is required for this purpose. It may be expected that larger sums will be required annually in the future to maintain the college premises in good repair, particularly since the roads and approaches to the new mess building have not yet been completed. One military officer and one civilian instructor have been added to the senior staff, and there have been statutory increases in the salaries of certain permanent civil employees as well as increases for a number of temporary employees, which accounts chiefly for the remainder of the increase. As a result, the average weekly hours of labour for cooks and kitchen helpers have been reduced to a more reasonable limit. Administration arrangements and requirements change from year to year, and the allotments will fluctuate accordingly. These changes are shown in detail in the various items of the estimates.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has there been any change in the method of selection or nomination of gentlemen cadets?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
not aware of any.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the basis of
nomination?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
is a selection board in the Department of National Defence headquarters. A quota is allotted to each province. If a provincial quota is not filled on the basis of merit alone, there is then set up what is known as a dominion list of vacancies, and allotments to that list are made by the selection board.


Denton Massey: What is the proportion
of nominations to applications?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A large
number of those seeking entrance to the Royal Military College are turned down each year.


Denton Massey: Is that because of lack of space, because they are inadequately equipped educationally, or because of physical disabilities?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mainly
because of lack of space. At the present time we are limited to 200 cadets, and we cannot go over that number until the accommodation is increased.


Denton Massey: Is there any intention of
expanding the present facilities of the college or instituting another college of a similar type elsewhere?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not
immediately.


Angus MacInnis: How many cadets graduated last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
graduations for the years stated are as follows :
1926-27 			 33
1927-28		 31
1928-29 .		 34
1929-80			 39
1980-81		 40
1981-82		 29
1982-88		 38
1988-84	.. 48
1984-86		 51
1986-86		 25
1986-87 			 38
1987-88		 38


Angus MacInnis: Is any part of the tuition
fees paid by the students themselves?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For the first year, $100; and $100 in each of the three succeeding years. Then there is an outfit allowance in the first year of $250, and an expense allowance for board, upkeep of uniform and other expenses of $200 in each one of the four years of the course.


Angus MacInnis: Am I right in my understanding that there is a tuition fee of $100 each year, and an allowance to the student of $450 each year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The $450 is paid by the student for the first year only, because that is the only year in which the uniform allowance applies. For the second, third and fourth years it is $200. In addition, there is a $100 tuition fee for each of the four years.


Angus MacInnis: How many of the students graduating from this college enter the service of the state and how many enter private employment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The number entering the Canadian permanent force or the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1926-27 was 2. In succeeding years the numbers were respectively 9, 4, 8, 9, 3, 16, 14, 21, 6, 8, and last year 15. The number entering the imperial or Indian armies in 1926-27 was 4; 1927-28, none; 1928-29, none; 1929-30, 1; 1930-31, 3; 1931-32, 2; 1932-33, 2; 1933-34, 3; 1934-35, 4; 1935-36, 5; 1936-37, 6; 1937-38, 3. The percentage of graduates taking commissions for the same years was approximately 18, 29, 12, 23, 30, 17, 47, 35, 49, 44, 37, and last year 47 per cent.


Charles Grant MacNeil: If the situation is as serious as the minister indicated I would urge upon him that he seriously consider a change in the
method of selection of candidates for the Royal Military College in order to get the very best type of student.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Regardless of their means.


Charles Grant MacNeil: That is my point. Can there not be a form of competitive examination so that graduates from high school, preparatory schools, and even through the scholarship system, who desire a career in the army but whose means are restricted, may enter the Royal Military College if they have the necessary educational qualifications? The impression is abroad-the minister may be able to correct me-that the Royal Military College is reserved exclusively for members of aristocratic circles, that it is a sort of snob outfit, and that the young man without means who would like to follow a military career is denied entrance to the institution. Could not a change be made in the method of selection of candidates to give such young men an opportunity to enter?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend. It is true that some boys of means enter the college, but many boys without means are admitted. I also know sons of distinguished Canadians who could not get in because they did not rate sufficiently high in the competitive examinations. The impression of my hon. friend is a mistaken one. I have been to the Royal Military College two or three times; I have seen these boys, and they are as fine a lot of young Canadians as you could find anywhere in the country.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am not suggesting anything to the contrary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not intend to imply that my hon. friend was suggesting anything to the contrary. I believe that the selection board is eminently fair. The minister himself cannot interfere with the promotion of a single candidate to the Royal Military College. The selections are based entirely on merit. It would be difficult to improve on the present basis of selection.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Who are the present members of the board of selection?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
are changed each year. I have not the names for this year, but Colonel Fenton was, I believe, on the board last year.


Angus MacInnis: What part of the curriculum fits students for civilian work as distinguished from military work?
Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
course includes thorough instruction in mathematics, surveying, civil engineering, chemistry, French and English, gymnastics and drill, and outdoor exercises of all kinds. Highly recommended graduates are admitted to the principal Canadian universities in the fourth year in civil engineering, in the third year in other engineering courses, provided that reasonable conditions may be required in certain cases by the university in order that the student may complete the course within the time available or to meet or compensate for the requirements of the regular course. Except in Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, graduates of the college are called to the bar on the same footing as graduates in arts at the universities. The length of the course is four years of ten months each.


Mr. McCUAIG:: In the selection of the
students is any preference given to those who intend to enter the service of the country? Many boys who would like to enter the college intend to enter the legal or some other profession in civilian life. Is preference given in selecting candidates to those intending to enter military service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. But the graduates have to enter the non-permanent active militia at the termination of the course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only point I wish to
make-I have made it before in this house and I do not make it with a view to suggesting that the students are selected on any basis except quality and justice, which I think is certainly the case-is that the Royal Military College is a state-owned institution. The state pays part of the cost of maintenance of the student while he is at the college -not the full amount, but a very considerable amount. I know of several instances where boys were turned down, not because they did not have the ability, but because they could not put up the difference between the state contribution and what they themselves were expected to pay. I am not complaining about the way the students are selected or about the utility of the institution at all; I am approving of all that, but I do say that a poor boy whose father cannot afford to put up the student's financial contribution should not on that account be precluded from entering what I regard to be essentially a state institution.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: How many
graduates of the Royal Military College were there from the province of Quebec last year?
tMjr. Maclnnis.]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have not that information under my hand. Last year there were 38 from all the provinces.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: Yes, I understand that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I believe the minister said that upon graduating from the military college the students were admitted to the universities for civil engineering in the fourth year, and for other engineering courses in the third year. I understood that there had been a change in the course last year, and that the universities were now admitting them to the fourth year in engineering. Am I not right?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can give my hon. friend the allotment of the vacancies last year:
Ontario	 16
Quebec (Frenoh speaking)	 11
Quebec (English speaking)	 3 14
Nova Scotia	 2
New Brunswick	 2
Manitoba	 3
British Columbia	 3
Saskatchewan	 4
Alberta	 3
Prince Edward Island	 1
Abroad	 2
Total	 50
I have not the figures of graduates, but that is the way in which the vacancies were allotted last year.


James Alexander Marshall: Is that the quota for last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the estimated cost per student at the Royal Military College?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
average in 1937-38 per cadet, based on an enrolment of 200, was $1,894.03, or, less the annual fee of $100, $1,794.03.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is there any provision for scholarships? The universities have two classes of scholarship, one, an academic scholarship, under which a young man coming to a university with outstanding academic distinction has his fees paid; the other, a service scholarship, under which he may supervise in the library or mark papers for one of the professors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not aware of any such provision.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think it would be a good thing to look into with a view to inaugurating scholarships later.

Supply-National Defence


Charles Grant MacNeil: Are any of the cadets enabled under the curriculum to specialize in machine shop practice so that they may be qualified to supervise. In the event of an emergency, factory work across Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I believe so; this is an engineering course, and there is specialization in engineering practice, which is strongly emphasized.


James Alexander Marshall: What province did not take up its quota last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: First I will give the allotment again, and then the numbers admitted:
Allotments Admissions
Ontario	16	16Quebec	14	11Nova Scotia	2	2New Brunswick	2	2Manitoba	3	5There was one additional	vacancy in	Manitoba, and the number of candidates admitted was five. One subsequently withdrew from the college.
Allotments Admissions
British Columbia	 3	4
One from that province subsequently withdrew.
Allotments Admissions
Saskatchewan	
4	7Alberta	
3	4Prince Edward Island.. 1	0Abroad	
2	1
So that, if some provinces did not take up their quota, it was made up from other
provinces.


James Alexander Marshall: Where did the student come from who was from abroad?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not recall.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Was I not right when I said that in most of the universities they admit Royal Military College graduates to the fourth year? I believe a change has taken place. The minister said, the third year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. I think that is correct.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I believe that has been changed, has it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Military services-
189. Grants to military associations and institutes, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $106,350.
Charles Grant MacNeil: In the details of grants to military associations and institutes, the United Service Institutes and the service associations
are listed. What duties do these institutes perform, and have they any bearing on the efficiency of the forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. In the first place let me take the service associations-cavalry, artillery, engineers, signals, infantry, machine guns and tanks, army service corps, army medical corps, and a small grant for the Canadian Defence Quarterly. It is about the only organization the nonpermanent militia forces have for the purpose of meeting together and discussing their problems and making representations to headquarters and the officers of the permanent forces. From these various organizations each year there is formed what is called the conference of defence associations. They meet annually in Ottawa, they make representations to the minister and the government, and the president of the conference of defence associations now sits in with the military members of the defence council and discusses various problems affecting particularly the welfare of the non-permanent active militia. My hon. friend is aware of the work which is done by the various institutes. They meet and discuss problems of military importance, and have lectures. Institutes have been established in some of the larger cities of Canada for the purpose of providing a common meeting ground for officers of all arms and militia in the cities and surrounding districts. They are used largely for the purpose of having military lectures and addresses. Not being self-supporting they are assisted with annual grants. Coming to the rifle associations, there are two classes under local rifle associations-military, formed in regiments, squadrons, companies or other units of the service, the Canadian militia and the Royal Canadian Air Force, managed by the officers; and the civilian associations. The active civilian associations are being retained. For some years the policy has been against the formation of any new civilian association, as all available funds are required for the equipment and training of the active permanent and non-permanent units.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Who are eligible for membership in the institutes? Officers only?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Officers of the non-permanent as well as the permanent militia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any expansion in the membership of these rifle associations? At different times during the last
Supply-National Defence

year I have seen articles in the press complaining that rifle associations are not being supported as they should be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
probably refers to the civilian rifle associations. As I have just stated, the policy of the department in recent years has been, because of lack of funds, not to form any new civilian rifle associations. Probably that is what my hon. friend refers to.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be advisable,
now that conditions are so serious, to change that policy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
suggestion is in every way worthy of consideration.


Denton Massey: Is there no air force
service association?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
not aware that there is. Not yet.


Denton Massey: It does not appear in this list of grants. Is that because there is no association, or because there is no grant to an association?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
senior officers of the air force do attend the annual meetings here of the conference of defence organizations. I may be subject to correction, but I am not aware that there is yet any organization in the air force similar to those in the militia.


Denton Massey: If there is no association,
is that simply because there is no grant?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Probably that is the reason; and they are comparatively new, and not of any magnitude. I have no doubt the time will soon come when they will make a request for some organization.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister explain
the discrepancy between the grant for the institute in Toronto, $2,000, and that for the institute in Vancouver, which is only $500?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It goes
to prove at any rate that the minister is not partisan in recommending these grants.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister might explain also why Saint John gets only $200.


Angus MacInnis: Where is the cavalry
service association located, which is mentioned on page 131 where the details of this vote are given, or are there a number of such
associations? Also the artillery association where is it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All over the country. The artillery, for instance, have their local units in every city in Canada. They choose their delegates, one or two or three from each province, to attend the various meetings here of the national organization. In my opinion they are of great value. They are the people who are doing the voluntary work in connection with artillery training. They give good advice in regard to training, and are not afraid to criticize the department if the policy is not in accordance with their ideas.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How is this money disbursed for service associations? Is it paid to the units in the province, or is it used merely to cover the expenses of men travelling to meetings in Ottawa?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it is mostly used for the national meetings, but of course they frequently have their own meetings. They are all giving voluntary service, and they could not be expected to come to the national meetings unless they had government assistance.-


Charles Grant MacNeil: That is the main item of expenditure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer services and works
175.	Chargeable to ordinary account, $965,900
Howard Charles Green: How much has been spent on the fortifications and fixed batteries on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the Pacific coast, in round figures:
Albert Head	$962,000
Mary Hill	 228,000
Fort Macaulay	 58,000
Stanley Park	 133,000
York Island	 122,000
Barrett Point	 50,000
This is not up to the end of the year. I think I brought down a return which gave more recent figures.


Howard Charles Green: To the end of the fiscal year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: After the calendar year. York island, I think, would be complete.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total for the Pacific coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In round figures, $1,553,000. That is not up to date.


Howard Charles Green: What are the figures for the Atlantic coast?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend refer to fortifications?


Howard Charles Green: Fortifications and fixed batteries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is little there as yet except aerodromes.


Howard Charles Green: What amount is involved in the expenditures yet to be made on the Pacific coast?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are there any items for this year on the Atlantic coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. In the final supplementaries tabled the other day there are some expenditures for Saint John, which I shall come to.
As to the Pacific coast defences the general description is as follows. To provide for the three stages of the construction program of coast defence works which has been approved by the Pacific coast, total cost of the entire system, approximately $3,975,000, of which $895,000 was provided in the 1937-38 estimates and $1,100,000 in the 1938-39 estimates. The amount now requested is for the continuation of the program during the coming year. It is estimated that the coast defence work on the Pacific coast should be completed by the end of 1940, for which it is estimated that $1,080,000 will be required.


Howard Charles Green: The other day I suggested to the minister that a committee of the house should be appointed to inspect these fortifications.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to arrange that.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any possibility of a committee being set up by the house and given authority to go and look over these fortifications?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As far as I am concerned, both personally and publicly, I would welcome the formation of such a committee, but of course it might require some further discussion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will a committee be set up to go to the eastern coast to see the necessity for fortifications down there? Four million dollars have been spent already on the Pacific coast, and I understand that as yet not one dollar has been spent on the Atlantic.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is scarcely correct. In these estimates there is more money to be spent on the Atlantic coast than on the Pacific.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any objection to stating what has been planned for the fourth year of the program?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would be the completion of the works already announced in regard to various batteries, fortifications, searchlights, intercommunication systems-completion of the various works. I think my hon. friend is aware of what and where they are and the nature of them.


Howard Charles Green: There are no new works
to be put in?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, there are one or two on the island, one at Point Grey contemplated for the present year; and a few minor ones are going ahead or are to go ahead shortly, one at the Narrows bridge and one on Golf hill, Vancouver island. There is another fortification to be located somewhere in the vicinity of the city of Victoria, but the exact location has not been definitely decided. This really is the completion of the program drawn up by the staff officers with Major Treat when he was out here two or three years ago.


Howard Charles Green: That was the British officer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, from the British war office, who was an expert on fortifications and gunnery. It is estimated that next year the program will be completed, with a modern intercommunication system established between all these points.


Howard Charles Green: How are these forts to be manned?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The only one that is remote at the present time is York island, where we have some personnel of the permanent force. The others, of course, are more or less in the vicinity of the headquarters at Esquimalt. According to the plans of the department the non-permanent militia are responsible for the manning of the forts, and recently there has been a certain amount of reorganization of certain units into coastal battery and searchlight units for that purpose.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that question because the commander of the brigade in Vancouver, Colonel H. F. G. Letson, M.C., whom the minister knows very well, has stated publicly on several occasions that in the militia of British Columbia we have not more than a third of the number of men required to man those forts, and I think something should be done to remedy that situation. There is not much use in having the forts if the department has not the men to man them. Would it not be possible to have the British Columbia units brought up to their peace-time strength-and I
Supply-National Defence

understand they are far below it now-or perhaps increase the permanent forces on the coast? At any rate there should be provision for men to man these forts. I should like to know what the department plans to do along that line.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Some
reorganization went through a few days ago, but I have not the details under my hand at the moment. That was in regard to the very point which my hon. friend has in mind. In the general recommendations I mentioned this morning there was a recommendation for an increase in the numbers of the permanent force, but what I think Colonel Letson referred to in the address to which my hon. friend refers was an emergency, and I think he was quite correct when he said that the present strength of the units would not be sufficient to man the coastal fortifications in time of emergency. But of course it is obvious that if an emergency should eventuate, the numbers of the non-permanent militia battalions probably would be trebled overnight.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, the difficulty is that special training is required for these fortress troops. You cannot train men overnight; neither can you bring in men from the prairies or from Ontario, because they are trained along different lines. Should we not be making provision now to increase the personnel in British Columbia and train them for manning these forts?
_ Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver): I have just told my hon. friend that the reorganization has already been arranged. The training is twenty-one days in the case of the coastal garrisons as against eleven days for some arms of the militia, and that is done for the very purpose my hon. friend has in mind.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I understood that the defences on the Pacific were to be completed in 1940. Is there a set date for the completion of the defences on the Atlantic?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The most important feature of the Atlantic defences at the moment is the completion of the four aerodromes now under construction, and we hope to have those well on towards completion this year. In regard to any other fortification works, no definite date has been set for their completion.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Did I not understand the minister to say it took at least three years?


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Is anything being done to protect the Victoria fortified area from the rear? I refer to the Barkley sound and Alberni canal portion of Vancouver island, which, in the minds of many, 
constitutes a weakness in the defence of that particular area. Further, is anything being done to fortify the scarp, the southerly ridge of Vancouver island from Port Renfrew, shall we say, on towards Victoria? I have an idea, although I have no expert knowledge, that the fortifications at Victoria would not protect the strait of San Juan. Can the minister say anything about that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That question was carefully considered during the time of Lord Jellicoe's report, as my hon. friend will recall. Frankly speaking, there are at the present time two schools of thought with reference to the respective merits of the Esquimalt system of defence and the Barkley sound system, but very full plans exist in the department, and surveys will be made by the air force, possibly this year, with reference to the area which he has mentioned.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I gathered from the minister's statement the other day that he was perturbed about the difficulty of getting delivery of large calibre guns. Is this not the item dealing with the provision of coastal batteries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; these are the ground works. The guns will come, I think, under the next item.


Howard Charles Green: When will the Stanley park installation be completed, and also the installation of the guns at Point Grey?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Stanley park guns have been installed for some time. As my hon. friend said the other day, some trouble developed by way of seepage, and it was found necessary to dig a trench around the gun emplacements. I inspected the spot when I was there some five or six weeks ago, and I imagine the work has been practically completed by now. Despite the fact that it was necessary to do some extra engineering work, the result is still very well within the estimate that was first in the minds of the engineers of the department. I have here the report of the director of engineering services, who was there quite recently, and he says the work is now quite satisfactory.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the department given consideration to a highway system to lead up to these fortifications in order that guns may be brought up under fire ? I am told that if a gun were blown off its mountings or an emplacement blown up, it would be practically impossible to replace the gun. Has a highway system been developed or even considered?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not as such, although of course there are first-class roads in the vicinity of the main batteries, with the exception of the battery at York island, which is more or less inaccessible. I do not believe the department has ever considered a system of highways as such, except of course that we are responsible for providing facilities for gaining access to the gun emplacements.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The point came up the other day as to the extent of the cooperation or exchange of information with United States officers in regard to coastal defences. I am reliably informed that there have been conversations but that there has been no definite official encouragement to develop schemes of collaboration in the event of emergency. Is the minister prepared to discuss that point at this stage?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
difficult for me to discuss it except to say that there has been very definite cooperation in regard to knowledge by each country of the various preparations undertaken by the other.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It was suggested to me the other day that when the department imports munitions from Great Britain it must pay a heavy import duty. Is that correct?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was fully discussed this morning, when I gave complete details.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sorry I was not here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Out of a total vote of $63,000,000 the estimated total for this year is $3,116,000, divided as follows: sales tax, $2,710,220; customs duty, $406,600. That is the estimated reversion to the treasury by way of sales tax and customs duty out of the total vote for 1939-40.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Earlier to-day the minister said the traditional policy was to standardize on the British type of equipment, and a moment ago he said it was not possible for him to say very much in regard to cooperation with the United States. I can understand that being so for reasons of policy, but I want to take this opportunity to urge upon him the utmost frankness on that point at the earliest possible moment. Our shore lines are, after all, but an extension of the United States shore lines, and people more and more expect definite collaboration. Have we not reached the point when to some extent we should break with tradition, cooperating of course with the British authorities, but quite openly
and frankly exchanging officers with Washington, so far as the United States authorities will permit? In that way we could work out some definite scheme of coastal defence in the interests of both nations. We could get down to brass tacks, and be ready in the event of an emergency confronting both countries. We should now receive an assurance that there is a definite plan of military and naval cooperation in the event of mutual danger.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Militia services.
176.	Engineer services and works, chargeable to capital account; construction and properties, $1,401,265.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister explain if there is any difficulty in getting the guns we require, such as 6-inch and 9-2's, why, instead of getting those guns, we are getting field artillery and howitzers. I am completely puzzled about the inclusion of howitzers, which would be of very little value in coastal defence measures. It seems to me they can be used only in shelling a position occupied in strength, after there has been a landing of combat troops. The same would apply to mortars. Could we not now concentrate on the purchase of 9-2's and 6-inch guns, for fixed batteries on the coast, and leave the others until the requirements are met?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As the hon. member knows, we have received some guns of heavier calibre. The lining and the mounting of the gun are two vital factors. Modern high-angle mounting is difficult to procure, but increases the range tremendously. The range can be increased when we have the modern high-angle mounting.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the purpose of a howitzer in coastal defence? They could scarcely be used to repel hostile ships.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
not an expert on that. I must take the advice I receive from the technical advisers in my department. I assume that the complement is the same as that used in modern arms of other countries, and that we want the same form of training for our smaller force.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister also
explain why emphasis is put on light machine guns rather than on heavy machine guns. I would expect that the heavier machine guns would be able to provide sustained fire to repel hostile forces, and that the light machine guns are sometimes too inaccurate for overhead firing. Why should we not have more of the heavy machine guns, rather than the light machine guns?
Supply-National Defence


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why discuss this openly?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
information I have received-and I think the hon. member referred to it the other day- is that the new light machine gun has replaced the Lewis, and not the Vickers gun. It is capable of sustained fire in an emergency to a much greater degree than the Lewis gun and can, when necessary, be effectively operated by one man. The Vickers gun is still retained in the British army. It is capable of a higher degree of sustained fire than the Bren gun, but requires a larger crew to man it.
The governing factors in the design of a machine gun are power of sustained fire, mobility and crew, no one of which can be satisfied without a corresponding sacrifice of the other two. The difficulty of composing these contradictory factors has resulted in two types of machine gun being adopted for use in the field: the light Bren machine gun with good mobility, the minimum crew and a considerable power of sustained fire; and the medium Vickers machine gun with a very high power of sustained fire but with a corresponding loss in mobility and an increased crew. The Bren gun has been experimented w'ith for a number of years. It has answered all tests and has now been adopted as the universal light machine gun in the British army.
That is the departmental memorandum on the point. Again I would point out I do not claim to be an expert in regard to these matters.


James Alexander Marshall: What amounts of this
vote are spent in other parts of the dominion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My note shows construction of buildings and works, including purchase of land, at $1,401,265. This item covers construction of all new buildings and works for militia services during the fiscal year 1939-40, including accommodation, training facilities, rifle ranges, coast defence works and so on. Of the above amount $900,000 is for continuing coast defence works on the Pacific coast; $100,000 to commence the building program for the accommodation of the Canadian armoured fighting vehicle school, and R.CAB.C. training centre at Camp Borden; $73,215 towards completion of the land services portion of the joint services magazine at Esquimalt, British Columbia, leaving $328,050 for other buildings and works. Further details are in our estimates.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister is aware, at the present time we have no highway across British Columbia. For the defence of the

Pacific coast is it not almost vital that there be at least one first-class military highway from Alberta to the coast? Would it not be possible for the Royal Canadian Engineers to supervise the maintenance of a first-class highway of that kind?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The trans-Canada highway will be completed this year to Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: Is the Department of
National Defence taking any interest in the completion of a road through to the coast, as a military measure, aside from what it may bring in tourist trade?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid the department has been anxious about more urgent matters, although I agree with the hon. member so far as the importance of a military highway is concerned. Still I must point out that more urgent necessities confront us and will have to be dealt with before any attention can be given to roads.


Howard Charles Green: What plans are being made for the defence of northern Canada? For example, there is in northern Quebec a great portion of Labrador which might be used as a base for an attack. Has anything been done to take care of that situation?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Outside of air surveys nothing material has yet been accomplished.


Howard Charles Green: We are relying upon the air force.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: At the present time, yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would it not be possible to establish bases to increase the efficiency of coastal patrol, and to close the strait to Hudson bay?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Militia services.
177.	General stores, including authority for commitments against future years: Clothing, armament and signal equipment-chargeable to ordinary account (commitments $3,000), $1,332,147.
Howard Charles Green: Could the minister outline the situation with regard to steel helmets, gas respirators and equipment of that type? Could he state whether our forces are equipped with these items? If they are not so equipped, when will they be and what arrangements are being made?
Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We will soon have 24,000 respirators.


Howard Charles Green: Are arrangements being made to get more to equip all our troops?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: When will they be available.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We can now make them in Canada fairly rapidly.


Howard Charles Green: What about steel helmets?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no information with regard to helmets.


Howard Charles Green: Are any steel helmets available?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are now being made experimentally in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: But our forces are not equipped with them?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not
adequately, no.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the department made any plans for air raid precautions with respect to the civilian population adjacent to fortifications?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This really does not come under the Department of National Defence. An interdepartmental committee was set up a year ago to deal with this matter and has made a most comprehensive report with reference to the necessities in Canada. I believe they have obtained a great deal of literature from the old country describing the precautions taken there. So far as I know definitely, there is nothing in the estimates this year for this particular purpose.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Who is directly responsible?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think it is the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power).


Alfred Johnson Brooks: A few days ago the minister stated there would be an issue of boots to the non-permanent militia. Under what arrangements are these boots to be issued? Will they be given to a man to take home, or will they all be stored in the barracks?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think final plans have yet been made, but I understand the boots will be a free gift and become the permanent property of the member of the militia.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Supposing a man is in camp for only eleven days in one year, will he be given a pair of boots to take home?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He would be going through drills all winter. These boots are supposed to last three years for drilling and training purposes, but the actual details have not as yet been worked out.


Angus MacInnis: What is the meaning of this commitment of $3,000?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is for instruments and directors No. 7. That is a technical instrument which, I am informed takes a long time to obtain. The commitment is made because deliveries cannot be made this year.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is provision being made for fire-control instruments in connection with anti-aircraft batteries?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is something under one of the votes and I am trying to get the details.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Anti-aircraft batteries have been organized in the central part of Canada, but I understand the men are not being trained at the coast or on the actual terrain where it is likely they would have to fight.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the very question I asked myself. There have been definite requests from both coasts to have batteries placed there. We had only a limited number of the modern type of guns and as soon as others are received, they will be sent to both coasts.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I believe there is an antiaircraft battery at Yorkton, Saskatchewan. Will those men be given any training at either coast?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
might be done eventually.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I notice that under this item the minister is organizing tank battalions and purchasing tanks. This morning he said the criticism that there was too much equipment purchased for manoeuvres and not enough for coastal defence was unfair. What benefit would the purchase of tanks be to coastal defence, on either the Pacific or Atlantic?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are considered a part of the modem equipment of a land force. If our forces are going to be of any real value in cooperating with the other two services, they should be supplied with the most modem type of equipment. I frankly admit that in the services themselves there are some who think that possibly too much attention is being given to such equipment as tanks, while others are most insistent that they are essential.
Supply-National Defence


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the items which he listed on page 3255 of Hansard'? The first item is $426,800 for the provision and development of mechanically propelled vehicles.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
amount is provided for the development of light track vehicles, the further development and provision of general service fifteen hundredweight trucks, the provision of mechanical transport for the permanent force anti-aircraft battery, the provision of gun tractors for field artillery. The total estimated cost is $476,800, of which only $276,800 is provided for in the 1939^10 estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Are these items to be
acquired in Canada, or are they to be purchased from Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All in
Canada, I trust.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include tanks?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: The next item is $1,192,400
for Bren gun accessories, such as chests, tripods, ammunition fillers, et cetera.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
item is the estimated cost of accessories, namely, chests, cylinder rods cleaning, rods cleaning barrel, slings, fillers magazine, wallets web, boxes tin, plugs cleaning, cans oil, tools combination, pull-throughs double, boxes magazine, tools armourers, tripods and inspection 10 per cent of which, only $74,900 is provided for in the 1939-40 estimates. The total estimated cost over a period of three more years is $1,192,400.


Howard Charles Green: Is this additional equipment necessary to make the Bren guns usable?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
these accessories will be required.


Howard Charles Green: Are	we getting it from
the Inglis Company or elsewhere?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: All
elsewhere.


Howard Charles Green: None of it is from the
Inglis Company?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. The other day I filed a return giving complete details.


Howard Charles Green: To get the total cost of the
7,000	Bren machine guns, this figure of $1,192,400 should be added to whatever we are going to pay the Inglis Company?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
part of the cost of the machinery we are installing, owned by the Canadian government, one-third of the cost being paid by the British government.


Howard Charles Green: In this item of $1,192,400
there is nothing for machinery, is there?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, it is for accessories to be owned by the government. Of this amount only $74,900 is to be spent this year, and the remainder over a period of three years. In the general vote for stores and equipment there is an item of $1,310,000 for the actual production of the guns themselves.


Howard Charles Green: But this particular item
has nothing at all to do with the Inglis Company?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: None of this money is to
be paid to the Inglis Company?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Howard Charles Green: Have contracts been entered into for procuring these articles?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not for these articles. I have already filed contracts for various pieces of machinery.


Howard Charles Green: Is this money to be spent in Canada or Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Practically all in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: It will increase the cost of the
7.000	Bren guns by $1,192,400 over what is paid to the Inglis Company?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will purchase for the government of Canada accessories to that amount.


Howard Charles Green: It is over and above what will be paid to the Inglis Company for the
7.000	guns?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is out or order in continuing this discussion.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have no objection whatever to the discussion continuing because we are discussing accessories for which we are voting money at the present time, and I think the committee is entitled to know the purposes for which we are voting the money.


Frederick George Sanderson: In my opinion a discussion of the Bren gun contract-

Supply-National Defence


Grote Stirling: We are not discussing that.


Frederick George Sanderson: But it would be very difficult, if hon. members start discussing the Bren gun, to keep away from the contract. The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) asked me why I thought the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was out of order. It was because the whole question of the Bren gun contract is before a standing committee of this house, which has not yet made its final report.


Grote Stirling: Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with a reference to the minister's speech, which reads, "Bren gun accessories such as chests, tripods" et cetera, and the information we desire to get is, will these accessories be something supplementary to the Bren guns which are being built for Canada elsewhere? The misunderstanding. as I see it, is that the minister has several times referred to the fact that this is machinery which will be required. We do not think it is. We think it is Bren gun accessories.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
really accessories; that is correct.	.


Howard Charles Green: It is really accessories, not machinery?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Exactly.


Howard Charles Green: What will be the cost of
7,000	tripods?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Estimated at about seven hundred thousand dollars-$23,000, plus $237,000, plus $220,000, plus $220,000. The exact cost is not known.


Howard Charles Green: There are two other items mentioned in the list the minister gave, searchlight and sound locators, $400,000; communication equipment for eastern fortresses, $477,000. What are these items and where is the equipment to be purchased?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
sound locators are for anti-aircraft guns. I am informed that we have purchased one in England.


Howard Charles Green: Are they to be obtained in Canada or Great Britain?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The first in England, others in Canada, I hope.


Denton Massey: Have we on hand any grenades and bombs or are they on order?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have on hand substantial quantities of various types.


Denton Massey: Do we make them in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Most of them are imported, but for practice purposes some were made in Canada, in Ontario.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Does this item cover uniforms?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Are all of the uniforms made in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department made any investigation with regard to uniforms? Great Britain has apparently adopted a new uniform and has done away with puttees. I do not see any reason why Canada should not be up-to-date also in her uniforms.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that except for a better quality there has been no recent change in the pattern.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be well to look into that? We are paying a great deal for new uniforms, and I think we will all agree, for example, that puttees were an invention of the devil. I do not see why they should not be dispensed with in Canada. Would it be possible to consider that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be glad to remember my hon. friend's suggestion.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the searchlight equipment be procured in Canada, and if so, by competitive bids?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes;
tenders were called for and the contract has been let to the Canadian General Electric Company. It was advertised in the press.


Major James William Coldwell: Are the uniforms made in Canada also?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Are any units in Canada fully equipped with modern equipment at the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
would depend upon the definition of " fully equipped."


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows the standard equipment laid down by the department. Is there to-day a single unit in Canada fully equipped with modern equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
permanent force is well equipped. The other units cannot be fully equipped because the equipment is not issued to them. In our depots all over the country there is various equipment which is not issued.

Supply

National Defence


Howard Charles Green: The minister cannot get out of it in that way. He should know.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I cannot say.


Howard Charles Green: Is there equipment in Canada to equip fully one of our units with up-to-date equipment at the present time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not think that is a reasonable question.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is a very important question. These men may be expected to take the field almost overnight. Can the minister not answer that question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My
answer is that we are improving our position every day.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation with regard to obtaining rifles? Some hon. members on the government side of the house seem to think it is funny to have any questions brought up about defence, but this expenditure of $63,000,000 is one of the most important before parliament.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?
Mr. GREEN; Not for just a minute. If their constituents could see them laughing about the whole matter, I do not believe they would be very much impressed. We are trying to find out what the situation is, so as to improve the defences of the country. It is not a matter of just being funny.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the question?


Howard Charles Green: Are any arrangements being made to have the rifles manufactured in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend now permit me to put a question to him? Does he think it is in the best interests of the country to have here a full discussion of details which might be obtained in another place and in another way, rather than have them permanently on the records of this house-


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the "other place"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -for scrutiny by those who might find it to their advantage to have this knowledge, and might use it against us?


Howard Charles Green: 
Angus MacInnis: With regard to the statements which have been made on several occasions by the hon. member for Essex East, to the effect that we should not ask questions here, if the hon. member had been watching the debates in the imperial parliament as reported in the press, he would realize that far more information was made public there than we are asking for to-day, and it was only after that information was made public that the country realized the state of unpreparedness they were in. Nothing has been asked to-day to which the answer, if publicized, could hurt the cause which the department has at heart. Hon. members on this side are being quite reasonable in the matter, and I believe it would be better if hon. members on the other side showed a little more interest.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I hope the hon. member is not insinuating that no interest is being taken on this side of the house.


Angus MacInnis: Anyone sitting here and looking across would not think there was. There may be, but if there is, it is well camouflaged.


Denton Massey: What measures have been taken for the manufacture of small arms ammunition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
capacity of the arsenal at Quebec has been increased four-fold in the last three years, and it is quite within the range of possibility that Lindsay may be used before long for this purpose. The ammunition situation is much more satisfactory than it was.


Denton Massey: I had that in mind. The arsenal at Quebec, then, is chiefly making what small arms ammunition is being made at the present time, and it is thought that Lindsay arsenal may be expanded for this purpose as well?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It may be. The question has not been definitely decided. Lindsay arsenal may be used for some other purpose. But there is another item in the final supplementaries for further development work at Lindsay.


Denton Massey: Would it be appropriate on this item to ask the minister what is the present position of Lindsay arsenal, or should that come up under another item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
Denton Massey: The minister feels that
it will be possible shortly to manufacture in Canada our full requirements of small arms ammunition?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, we
are practically doing that now, except that I do not think we are up to the reserve amount which is deemed to be advisable.


Denton Massey: It will probably be divided between Quebec arsenal on the one hand and Lindsay arsenal on the other?


Charles Grant MacNeil: In connection with the
manufacture of gas masks, has provision been made for an issue to the civilian population?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
will be through the other department, if they proceed with that, but so far we have not enough for that purpose. I believe that the total we have at the present moment is about
20,000	military pattern.


Charles Grant MacNeil: That supply is solely for
the military forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. We can now make them quickly in Canada. We have had the cooperation of the national research council in the work which has been carried on.
71492-262J


Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: Has the minister any information as to damage by moths to uniforms? I have had some inquiries about that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
no information with regard to that. I believe that the stocks are well protected. If my hon. friend has any information I should be glad to have it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Use moth balls.


Howard Charles Green: In the opinion of the department how long would it take to put a division in the field, in the event of trouble?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid I am not an expert military man to answer that question.


Howard Charles Green: No, but the minister in his statement said something about its taking six months to mobilize in the event of trouble. Could he amplify that statement? It is really very important to the Canadian people to know just how long it would take for us to put a force in the field.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am going to ask that the committee rise. Next time the committee sits-


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister can
figure out an answer in the meantime.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 139, to incorporate Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge Company-Mr. Gray-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. GRAY:: I do not wish to delay my own bill, but perhaps a word of explanation to those who are not members of the railway committee might be in order.
This bill originated, as is noted, in another place, and was reported to this house. Here it was referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. That

Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge
committee dealt with it and it was reported back with one amendment, which will be reached on section 18. That amendment provides that the company before commencing the bridge must deposit with the government the sum of $50,000 to guarantee completion of construction.


Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to find out from the sponsor of this bill whether the Canadian National Railways, who operate in that locality, have considered the policy of claiming this territory for this particular type of bridge. In the first place the national railways have spent a great deal of money in that district. The rapid growth of the motor bus and truck as a competitor of the railways should be considered. No doubt this bill was considered by the senate, but I do not see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) here, and this is an important project. International bridges have been constructed to connect various Ontario points with the United States. Some of these bridges have been a success; some have not. They are taking the business away from the national railways. In the city of Toronto we have the same trouble about the buses and motor-cars; they got control over the situation through the radial entrance. The municipalities should be interested in this. It is a strange thing to me why this bill was introduced in the senate; why did not the proposers of the bill come to the House of Commons which represents the people. What are the views of the municipalities concerned on both sides of the border? What has the state of New York to say about the matter? What control is there over rates? Will this particular type of bridge conform to the Railway Act and be under public regulation on both sides? We have had a great deal of trouble about bridges over the Niagara river. This parliament granted authority for bridges at Sarnia, Windsor, the Niagara river and other places. There should be some public regulation and control and binding action. I do not know anything about this company, but the bill gives it very wide powers. In my opinion the promoters should tell the committee why this bill was introduced in the senate, whether it conforms to the Railway Act and whether Ontario has been consulted and the views of the municipalities on both sides obtained. Will it be necessary to have concurrent jurisdiction with the state of New York?
Since I have been in this parliament we have gone pretty far in incorporating companies for all sorts of purposes, and this bill gives pretty wide powers. It is introduced at

a time when we should give due consideration to whether this parliament should enact bills of this type. I should like to hear from the proposer of the bill.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I have to voice my opposition to this bill on a number of grounds. It is not my intention to delay third reading, but I wish to draw the attention of the committee to three or four main reasons which I believe are paramount against the passing of this bill.
The first is that when a bridge is about to be constructed in any city, town or municipality there should be traffic congestion. If there is no traffic congestion then, generally speaking, there is no necessity for a bridge. In the standing committee this afternoon we were given a number of details relative to that question. My submission is that there is no traffic congestion at Prescott, at any rate not a sufficient amount to warrant the construction of this bridge. On the contrary the figures indicate just the opposite. In 1937 some 55.000 vehicles crossed at Prescott; in 1938, only 47,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: Yes, on a ferry.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, on a ferry. So that, assuming the bridge to be constructed, and comparing that position at Prescott with the present position at Ivy Lea, one certainly would not have double the number of cars going in and coming out that one has at the present time. And if the same condition that at present exists at Ivy Lea were to exist at Prescott, this financial expenditure is not warranted. We were told this morning that the cost of the bridge would be in the neighbourhood of $3,200,000. Even if you had 100,000 cars crossing the bridge at, say $1 each, it would not give enough return to pay the operating expenses, let alone the interest on the bonds.
There is another objectionable feature, namely, that there are already too many bridges along the St. Lawrence river. At the present time there are four such bridges between Montreal and Niagara Falls; one at Caughnawaga, one at Cornwall, one at Ivy Lea, and the Niagara Falls bridge.
Unfortunately all the capital in these undertakings is United States. I do not mean that we should not welcome United States capital in this country; but the moment the Americans are incorporated under United States authority they buy the Canadian charter, as they did at Brockville and as they probably will do at Prescott, and then they take control of the Canadian side. I wish to register strong opposition to that angle of the case.

Prescott mid Ogdcnsburg Bridge
There is another feature, namely, that this country should sooner or later realize the importance of public ownership of these schemes, as exists at the present time in the United States. When that comes, there may also follow what we all expect, freedom from tolls. I believe that is the ultimate end that the United States authorities have in mind. But so far as Canada is concerned we are doing this business entirely through Canadian corporations; private companies are being set up, and they are being purchased by United States concerns. The result is that United States capitalists take full control of these bridges. I say also that if this bridge is constructed the door is open to anyone who may wish to apply for a similar charter. At the present time there are ferries at points all along the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Windsor. At some places the traffic is not nearly as heavy as it is at Prescott, while at other places it is heavier. Probably next year or the year after those people will come here demanding similar powers.
There is only one redeeming feature in the bill, namely, the amendment which was made this afternoon in the railway committee, which stipulates that before any work is done in connection with the scheme, the sum of $50,000 must be deposited by the United States company as a guarantee.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On section 18-Time for commencement and completion of bridge.
Ross Wilfred Gray: There is one slight amendment to this section. In line 42, the first line of section 18, the words "construction of the said" are to be inserted after the word "the."


Mr. VIEN:: That has already been amended in the railway committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Rights of municipalities saved.
Mr. ROBICHAUD:: I would ask the sponsor of the bill to explain the real intent of this section. I think I know what it is, but in my opinion the section states exactly the opposite to what it is meant to state. Let me take the principal words:
The company shall not locate, construct or operate any of the works . . . without first obtaining the consent of the municipality . . . and upon terms to be agreed upon . . .
There is something missing.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Upon terms to be agreed upon with such municipality.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: But go back to the main clause; you have "shall not locate upon terms to be agreed upon." That is the very opposite to what you mean to say. It reminds me of trying to fix an axe handle onto a pick or a turtle foot onto a peg-leg rabbit. You know what would happen to the peg-leg rabbit with the turtle foot, turning round and round on that turtle pivot. He would get nowhere, and that is what you have here. You need one word inserted there; you should have tl e word "except," so that it will read "the company shall not locate 'except' upon terms to be agreed upon." Otherwise it means that they shall not locate upon terms to be agreed upon, which is exactly contrary to what you have in mind.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I can only say that this is a standard clause; that by-laws have been approved by municipalities and moneys paid under it. There may be something in what the hon. member says, but certainly in connection with the bridge with which I am most familiar, that between Sarnia and Port Huron, we have never had any difficulty.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I am not discussing the merits of the clause; I am discussing the phraseology. I believe you must insert the word
"except," otherwise you are doing exactly the opposite to what you want to do.


James Samuel Taylor: I am disposed to agree with the hon. member.


Ross Wilfred Gray: There may be some merit in the suggestion, and I accept it.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Then I move that
section 20 be amended by inserting the word "except" before the word "upon" where it first appears in line 39.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Thomas Vien: I am in favour of the bill because of the conditions under which we are presently operating. But as I had occasion to point out to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines this morning, I would draw to the attention of the government the desirability of setting up in Canada a commission or a public body empowered to deal wirt these international bridges. This bridge will have no capital, so to speak. It has only five hundred dollars made up of five qualifying shares for its directors. When the bonds to

Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge
be issued will have been redeemed out of the earnings of the bridge, the bridge will be turned over, that part of it lying within the United States to the government of the state of New York, and that part of it lying within Canada to the government of Canada. It will then become a public bridge.
It has been necessary to create this corporation to carry out the project, because we have no such body presently existing in Canada. Within the last nine or ten years several international bridges have been built, but there is no uniformity of regulation and legislation in connection with them. We have the board of transport commissioners who have power to regulate the bridge, so far as the safety of the public is concerned, the proper operation of the bridge, the regulation of traffic and tolls.


Mr. CAHAN:: Why should it not be placed under the jurisdiction of the international
waterway commission?


Thomas Vien: It might very well be placed under the jurisdiction of that body. But the international waterway commission deals more with international waters than with bridges. But I would see no insuperable difficulty in adding to their powers whereby they would be able to operate under authority of a bill of this kind.
I believe the time has come when such a body should be set up, either in the form of a new commission or, as has been suggested, by adding to the powers of the international waterway commission. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the government to the desirability of passing uniform legislation and setting up an authority capable of dealing with matters of this kind. Further I think it would be good business for this country to enter into an agreement with the government of the United States or of the state of New York to redeem all bonds presently outstanding in connection with all international bridges, and at the earliest possible moment to make them free. I believe any money spent in that direction would be more than repaid by the great incentive it would give to the tourist traffic which has become one of our Canadian industries.


William Henry Golding: I frankly confess that I do not know anything about this bill. I do not know who is promoting it, or anything else about it, nor do I know the decision at which the railway committee arrived. If there is a vote taken I should like to vote intelligently or not at all, and for that reason I should like to have some explanation. Would ' the sponsor tell us something about the matter?


Ross Wilfred Gray: The bill was dealt with fully to-day by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Evidence was heard from the chairman of the committee on the Ogdensburg side, which committee has been in existence for a number of years. From time to time they have had funds available for building, but there never has been Canadian legislation. The committee also heard the engineers, and after due consideration reported the bill, suggesting only the amendment I have already moved, whereby it is provided that before operations are commenced on the bridge the sum of $50,000 should be placed in the treasury of Canada as a guarantee of completion.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 30, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932-Mr. Neill.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) is not here, if the hon. member has no objection the bill might be allowed to stand.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I am sorry, but this bill has been waiting on the order paper for a number of months. The hour for private bills will not occur again this session, because we shall not be sitting on Friday night and this bill would not be reached on the following Tuesday. The minister was certainly aware of it. He was notified before he left that it was coming up, and the matter is thoroughly familiar to him, and has been over a number of years, because it has been brought up in the house again and again. I do not wish to be disobliging to the minister, but I know he and his friends are fully informed, and if we do not go on it simply means wiping out the bill. I move the second reading of the bill.


James Samuel Taylor: Mr. Speaker,
I suggest that this bill is out of order in being presented to the house at this time.


Alan Webster Neill: I have the floor, I think.


James Samuel Taylor: I have brought up a point of order.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member did not mention it.

Fisheries Act-Salmon Trap Nets


James Samuel Taylor: ' I am able to show from Hansard, in dealing with this bill and kindred suggestions to amend the Fisheries Act, that the bill is out of order at the present time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What is the point of order?


James Samuel Taylor: The point of order is that the bill is out of order because it deals with a matter that is before the marine and fisheries committee and that committee has not yet rendered its report. If I may speak in extenso on this matter, I should like to show just how the matter arises. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) has allowed the motion for the second reading of this bill to stand on more than one occasion, but on one occasion it is recorded in Hansard that he stated definitely that fish traps were sub judice by reason of the fact that the matter was being discussed in a committee of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member may speak to the point of order, but he cannot make a speech.


James Samuel Taylor: I am not making a speech; I am still on the point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has stated his point of order.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor), he has stated his point of order, but he has not stated a point of order. So far as I can gather, his argument is that my Bill No. 30, as to the contents of which he appears to be ignorant, is out of order because it deals with a matter now before the committee on marine and fisheries. The answer to that is that it does not deal with a matter now before the committee on marine and fisheries. That is the only difference between us. It deals with a totally different subject. That is the answer. I think I can best illustrate this by reading the bill itself which contains only three lines and a half. It reads:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this act or regulations thereunder, no person shall use, for the taking of salmon, any salmon trap net in any Canadian tidal waters of the coast of British Columbia.
The matter before the committee on marine and fisheries is Bill No. 15, which deals with fish ladders, and an amendment moved by myself. My amendment deals with a situation that exists off the southwest comer of Vancouver island, a distance of some ten or eleven miles. The bill now before us proposes to prohibit traps in all British Columbia.
In order to clinch the matter, I may say that this point of order was raised by the minister when I moved my amendment, and the decision was against him. The minister later on moved to refer his bill with my amende ment to the committee, and when it was brought up before the committee the question arose as to what could be discussed. An attempt was made to widen the discussion to take in all of British Columbia, but the chairman mled that this could not be done. He stated that the committee was bound by the order of reference to consider the bill of the minister and my amendment which dealt with Sooke. The whole proceedings of the committee, referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo, dealt entirely with that amendment and not with the matter covered by this bill. The whole question was threshed out when I introduced my amendment. The minister raised the same point of order and Bourinot and May were quoted, but the decision was against the minister. The decision was that "there were two distinct matters. The minister's bill dealt with fish ladders. My bill deals with traps throughout British Columbia, but my amendment dealt with only a local situation which existed ten miles in the southwest of Vancouver island. Following the ruling which Your Honour gave when in the chair, I submit that I am in order in proceeding with this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Might I ask the hon. gentleman who has moved the second reading of this bill whether it is his intention to refer it to a standing committee of the house? If it is not his intention to do so and have the matter thoroughly investigated there, I think we should have a more complete explanation as to the desirability of this proposed enactment.	*


Alan Webster Neill: I am quite prepared to explain, the bill, but we were arguing the point of order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I assume the citation which the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) has in mind is No. 665 which reads:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to vthe proceedings of the committee.
That rule is, of course, well known. The point is that this bill has nothing to do with the order of reference to the committee. A standing committee is limited to its order of reference, but the order of reference in this instance was Bill No. 15 and a certain amendment suggested by the hon. member for

Fisheries Acl-Salmon Trap Nets
Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). That matter is before the committee and it obviously cannot be discussed in the house.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The amendment is the same as the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The amendment dealt with a limited area, while the bill deals with the whole question of fish traps. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni is seeking an opportunity to discuss the bill in the house. When the matter is discussed and if time permits I shall probably differ with him in some respects, but on the point of order, I submit that Bill No. 30 is not in any way before the committee. This rule should not be invoked merely to prevent the hon. member from discussing his bill. My purpose in rising is to draw attention to that fact and to suggest that the hon. member should have an opportunity to discuss his bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would not have made the suggestion I did except I understood that the Speaker had held that the point of order was not valid. In my opinion there can be no doubt about the fact that the point of order is not well taken.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, while it is true that the bill has not been specifically referred to the committee, I think I am right when I say that the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) to Bill No. 15 was in the exact words of his present bill.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: That is my belief until I am shown to the contrary. The bill states that no person shall use, for the taking of salmon, any salmon trap net in any Canadian tidal waters, which applies to the whole province. That is the exact wording of the amendment before the committee, on which amendment the committee has not reported, and therefore I do not think this bill can be brought before the house. To do so would be a far-fetched play on words.


Alan Webster Neill: 
James Samuel Taylor: I suggest that the hon. member himself has placed his bill out of order. He is reported on page 2357 of Hansard as follows:
The question of fish traps is sub judice; that is, it is referred to a committee and therefore it is not debatable here.
There is the whole question. It is not debatable here whether in whole or in part, if his bill is for the whole Pacific coast of Canada and his amendment for a portion of it. We have clear evidence in the proceedings before the house that he specially put forward his amendment in order that like a good general he might have a position to which to retire if he failed in his first attempt. His fight was precisely the same on the amendment as it is on the bill, and he so stated.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I object to the hon. member wasting my time reading what I said.


James Samuel Taylor: The hon. member said:
If I should drop my amendment and trust to the vague, distant, fortuitous possibility- for that is all it is-that a private bill, or a public bill introduced by a private member to be strictly accurate, may be reached, I may find myself in the position that my bill may never come up.
Again he said:
I introduced it only in order to do what a good general does, prepare a position to which he may retire if he is driven from his present one. Since I have looked into the merits of the proposed amendment and its relation to the bill now before the committee, I have becom* fully satisfied from the best authorities that my amendment is in order and I should like to be allowed to go ahead with it.
Identifying the amendment with the bill already on the order paper, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is out of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I rule that th. point of order raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) is not well taken.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friends by raising the point of order, upon having largely achieved their object of preventing this bill from being discussed and voted on, because it is getting close to nine o'clock and it will be too late then.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: Those are not the method* that commend themselves to fair-minded men and women.

Fisheries Act-Salmon Trap Nets '


Frederick George Sanderson: Before the hon. member proceeds, I would point out to the house that when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has spoken, it will close the debate.


Alan Webster Neill: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to speak on the bill yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is moving the second reading.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first speech which is being made on the second reading.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and it will certainly be the last.


James Samuel Taylor: I submit that this is the first speech once removed.


Alan Webster Neill: What is the matter with that thing now?
There are four main reasons, Mr. Speaker, why this bill should pas. The first one is that it would give employment to a lot of our fishermen, many of whom are on relief or pretty close to it. Secondly, it would promote the conservation of fish, something that is badly needed now, because if the traps are allowed to continue the salmon fishing will disappear. The third is the big loss that will come to us on this side of the line by our not taking out our traps, thus encouraging the Americans to put theirs back in. We have only five, while they had 219, and they are threatening to put them back in because we do not take our five out, in consequence of a gentleman's agreement made on both sides of the line. When their traps went out our share of the Fraser river catch rose from 30 to 86 per cent, and the total catch went down. So there is that advantage; it saves the run of fish by catching less fish, while our fishermen caught much more. The fourth reason is that if our traps are continued there it will mean the loss of our splendid naval reserve of fishermen. If our trapping goes on, the Americans having taken theirs out, they will put back their traps, and in a short time 90 per cent of our fishing will disappear and 90 per cent of our fishermen who go to make up the naval reserve will also disappear. Trained fishermen cannot be found at a moment's notice. The coast is honeycombed by propaganda and by fishermen from a foreign nation. Our fishermen know all that coast and acting as pilots, scouts, mine layers, et cetera, would be invaluable; they would almost be worth their weight in gold. For that work they would be better than a man off a warship. We have already started a naval reserve there with two hundred of our young fishermen, the
finest God ever put breath into. What are you going to do in time of war if you take away the livelihood of these men? You do not get much loyalty or protection in time of war from a collection of piles and a lot of wire-netting.
To take up the various points, fishing by means of traps is admittedly the most destructive form of fishing, and if allowed to go on it will destroy the industry. Alaska has already struck hundreds of them out, and British Columbia has stopped them all except five or six at Sooke. The United States stopped them and took out 219 traps at Puget sound, on the gentleman's understanding that we would do the same. The trap net is to fishing what a pump gun is to a man going out shooting. Why is it not allowed? Because you would kill off the ducks. And why should trap fishing be allowed? You are not allowed to use a machine gun to shoot deer. Mankind is the only victim that you are allowed to slaughter indiscriminately. You cannot use the roe of salmon when fishing for trout because the trout would soon disappear. The fishermen are asking that they be not allowed to use sole as bait for cod. Why? Because it is so effective that the cod banks would soon disappear. It is the same principle with the trap.
As regards the results on the United States side, they had 219 traps. The fish come round by Sooke and into Puget sound. They were decimated by these 219 traps. Then they come to the Fraser river to breed and spawn. But the moment the Americans took out their traps-they never could get the measure through the legislature, and it was done on the initiative of the people in the state of Washington-that moment the catch on the Fraser river ran up from 30 to as high as 86 per cent of the whole. For two years the vested interests tried to put a repeal measure through their legislature, but without success. They almost got the measure through last year; they got it through the upper house but not through the lower. What is one of the arguments that have been adduced? It is this: "Perfidious Albion has not played the game; we took our traps out, but Canada has not done so, so let us put our traps back in again." A very plausible argument. If we do not take our traps out, the argument will be too strong against us the next time the matter comes up. If we do not take ours out, it will be a splendid argument for those on the United States side to put theirs back in again. We have only five traps, and if you took them out



MVISSD EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Fisheries Act-Salmon Trap Nets
it would give employment to about two hundred or more men. That is worth something.
If we leave the traps in and the Americans put theirs back in again, we lose our fishermen for the naval service. We decided to take out the traps all over British Columbia except at Sooke, and only allowed them there because on the United States side they had 219 traps. But we did not allow them anywhere else, and when they asked for traps elsewhere in the north we said, "No, but we must let them have them at Sooke, because of these particular conditions." If we do not take the traps out now, the cannerymen, standing by, will say, "If you allow traps in one place you will have to allow them all over British Columbia." The argument will be logical and we shall find it hard to refuse. Once allow that, and it will be a very short time before ninety per cent of the fishermen will disappear; for only ten per cent of the present number will be required as trap tenders, and after that the fishing industry will go down too. That is why it is so vital and important that we should take this step now.
James Samuel Taylor: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Alan Webster Neill: No. There was one of the
members of the committee-


James Samuel Taylor: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon.
gentleman should not interrupt the hon. gentleman who has the floor.


Alan Webster Neill: I say no.


James Samuel Taylor: Is the hon.
member aware-


Alan Webster Neill: No; and I do not propose
to be aware.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Nanaimo will please take his seat.


James Samuel Taylor: But he is misstating facts.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. gentleman's interruptions have put me off. Perhaps I had better begin again, and I would if I had time. There are forty-one employees at these traps; they said so themselves. It would pay us to pension off those men in order to save the situation as regards traps on the United States side and so that traps would not be allowed
[Mr. Neill.)
all over British Columbia and throw thousands of our fishermen out of employment. One of the members of the committee-I am quoting now a member of this house, and he will excuse my quoting him; he is an honest, reputable and intelligent member-rose and used these words, and they are the facts from somebody who knows: "Gentlemen, you all know I own a cannery, and if I could have a trap at my doors as these two men have, I could catch all the fish I wanted with twelve or fifteen men, but I do not do that. I have to employ between two and three hundred, and I do not grudge it, for the sake of giving employment to the fishermen and keeping out the traps." "But," he said, "other men will say, if there are thirty-eight canners in British Columbia, and thirty-seven do without a trap, why cannot the thirty-eighth? The answer is inevitable. And if one can have it, why cannot the other thirty-seven have it?
On all these counts upon which I have touched I submit we should pass this bill. The people of British Columbia are aroused. I presented a petition of 10,000 last year and one of the 2,500 this year. But that is not so outstanding. The associated boards of trade of Vancouver island, last year, after a desperate attempt by the trap owners to get this resolution rescinded, passed, after a three-hour debate, a resolution confirming their former action and again turned down the trap owners. The Vancouver board of trade are not fools, nor are the city councils of Vancouver and New Westminster, or the Prince Rupert board of trade, or the Prince Rupert town council, or the Trades and Labour councils. Are they all so gullible? People quite remote from the particular interests concerned are taking an interest in this and are determined to get action, although they are not directly affected. I hold in my hand a communication which came to me two nights ago. Talk of me "railroading" stuff; I did not know that this body was in existence. The Vancouver youth council, at a recent congress attended by 232 delegates-almost as many as the members of this house-and representing 45,113 young people, put on record a very strong resolution along the lines I have indicated, and they end up with these words:
This is the considered opinion of the young people of this province, and the outcome of the present debate will be watched with considerable interest.
The population of British Columbia is not large, and when one finds 45,000 young people taking such a keen interest in this matter it shows that the people generally are on the alert. In this case it is not a question of a

Live Stock and Poultry
one-man fight. There are seven members from British Columbia concerned in this matter, and only two of them are in favour of the traps; the other five are against them, and almost everybody who knows this subject and who is not directly interested in the traps takes that view. British Columbia is aroused on the subject, and I predict that those men who support traps will not come back to this house after the next election. If my constituents who have been so kind and so loyal to me over the years should honour me again, I shall associate myself with men of like minds and we shall not let the thing die, we shall carry it on. I will support no government and no party which approves fish traps. They are a relic of the feudal system. Thirty years ago one man would control fifty or one hundred square miles of water and one could not put a hook or net or line into that water without his permission. It was the feudal system gone riot, and this is a foul remnant which has not been wiped out. We have now an open policy so that a man does not have to go to a cannery to get permission to fish.


James Samuel Taylor: Tell the truth.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: I crave the indulgence of the house for that statement. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I forgive him frankly and freely.


James Samuel Taylor: I have proved the hon. member wrong many and many a time.


Alan Webster Neill: Dear me! I have made out a prima facie case why this matter should be looked into. I hope that at least it will go on the record and be studied by hon. members; I hope that they will have a chance to examine it in detail; for if they do I am sure that their verdict will be along the lines I have suggested, in order to do justice and to take this slimy excrescence from the backs of our people living in British Columbia. It has disgusted us. The Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, Minister of Fisheries in the union government, visited British Columbia in 1917 and saw what was going on. He saw this feudal system and he put his foot down and said, "No more of this; we will institute an open-door policy. If a man wants to run a cannery and pays the necessary money he can do so; he can have ten canneries if he wants to; but the man with the fishing gear will be master of his own soul; he does not have to get his licence from the cannery where he is compelled to sell his fish; he can fish in the open waters which are the creation of provi-71492-263J
dence and the right of every Canadian, and he can dispose of his fish where he likes." That was going to spell ruin, but it did not spell ruin; it spelt success and a certain measure of prosperity, but unfortunately this particular feature was left and it has not been wiped out all these years.
I believe I have still half a minute. It is said that these traps have been fishing since 1904, but for thirty-two of those years they have been fishing illegally. I wish I had time to go into this. It was only when this matter was brought up in the committee two years ago that they decided, "We had better get busy," and they put a notice in the Gazette, which they should have done thirty years sooner; for they had been fishing illegally all these years and they should have got a permit that their traps were not a menace to navigation. However, they did not do it. They were arrogant in their ability to control governments and parties. In December they put a notice in the Gazette-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hour for private bills has expired.



LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 104, respecting stockyards, live stock and live stock products and hatcheries-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment from the committee to strike out the "s" on the word "regulations" in line 6-the first line of the section-making the word "regulation."


Frederick George Sanderson: That is unnecessary, the amendment is in the bill.


Mark Cecil Senn: When this bill was before the house on first and second reading there was little or no discussion on it. The minister stated at that time that it was to go before the standing committee on agriculture, and for that reason I believe hon. members refrained from saying anything. The bill went before the agriculture committee and was passed practically in the form in which it was introduced into the house.
This is a new bill, as we were given to understand in committee, yet it incorporates very largely the features of the bill of 1923.
Live Stock and Poultry

It also incorporates, I believe, a number of regulations which were in force under that bill. The bill was somewhat hard to follow in committee because there were very few explanatory notes. It was explained at that time that explanatory notes are never printed in a new bill. But this bill is, after all, a revival of the bill of 1923 with a number of the regulations and some added features. It would have been much easier to follow if there had been explanatory notes showing which clauses are new and which are old.
There are three parts to this bill:	The
first deals with stockyards and operations within them; the second, with live stock and live stock products, particularly grading and marketing, and the third, with hatcheries.
In the main I am fully in accord with the provisions of the bill. I believe it goes a long way to assist agriculture in its marketing problems. But I believe some things that have been omitted from the bill might very well have received more consideration and some day will be incorporated into legislation, because, if they are, it will give the department more authority than they have at the present time.
The first feature of the bill which is new is the appointment of an advisory committee. There have been advisory committees set up in other branches of the Department of Agriculture, in the seed branch, and there is a bill before the house to appoint an advisory committee to deal with cheese and the dairy industry. This is a good feature, if it is properly carried out. But if it is going to be successful and fulfil the purpose for which it is intended, the committee must be fully representative of all live stock interests, both producers' organizations and distributing agencies. Of course that will depend largely upon the minister himself, who will give authority to different organizations to appoint members. There is no statement in the bill as to how many members this advisory committee will comprise. Perhaps the minister will inform us what he has in mind in that regard.
Part I, as I said, deals with stockyards and operations within the stockyards; and there is a new feature in this, because the bill assumes some control over packers' yards as well as public stockyards. One feature of part I of which I doubt the efficacy is that the power to control and set up regulations and fees and charges has been taken away from the live stock exchanges and given to the stockyard companies, that is the companies which own and control the stockyards. The reason 
assigned by the minister for doing this is that there are, I think he said, eleven stockyards and only six live stock exchanges within those yards. In those stockyards which are owned and operated by railway companies and by Canadian interests I have no fault to find with the new set-up. But at least one stockyard company I know of is largely controlled by foreign capital, and I am not sure but I think it is true that certain packers' interests have at least some control of some of the other stockyards, controlling interests in some of the stockyard companies. If this be true, it would be unwise to vest such power and authority in these stockyard companies, particularly unless strict supervision over the arrangements they make is undertaken by the department itself.
So far as the control assumed in this bill over packers' yards is concerned, it is all to the good. As years go by an increasing amount of our live stock is marketed in packers' yards rather than in the public stockyards, and it is high time that the power which this bill gives should be taken by the department to control in some way not only the construction and equipment but the management of packers' yards. I shall mention only one thing, something that is very much talked about among producers, and which I hesitate to mention; it is this, that in the public stockyards the weighmasters are appointed and paid by the companies. The packers or whoever buy animals in those stockyards have no interest in the weighing; it is controlled by weighmasters appointed by someone else. But when cattle or hogs' go into the packers' yards they are weighed by weighmasters who are in the employ of and paid by the packing companies. I am not suggesting at the moment that there is any dishonesty there, but I say that if neutral weighmasters could be appointed, or someone who is in a neutral position-I would even go so far as to say someone appointed by the department-placed in a position of weighing the live stock that comes into these packers' yards, in the same way as grain is weighed under the grain act, this would at least remove from the minds of the producers any suspicion of wrongdoing. I urge the minister to consider that matter carefully.
Another point is that if the owners of the stockyards are to set up the regulations and the fees and charges they will, practically speaking, control the commission men who operate on those exchanges. It is undoubtedly true that, in some instances at least, there are too many commission firms operating in

Live Stock and Poultry
the different yards. Of course the argument will be advanced that the more commission men there are, the more competition there is in the market. If there is scarcity on the market I believe that the more commission men there are, the better. But when there is a surplus of cattle, more than can be disposed of, I do not think competition enters into the matter at all. And unfortunately, if there are too many men operating on any particular market, I believe there is a tendency to raise the fees too high in order that they can all exist.
There is another matter, not dealt with in this bill, which I think requires serious consideration. I refer to the necessity of some kind of control over truckers. During the last few years, particularly in Ontario, a large business has grown up in the shipment of hogs and cattle to the yards of the packers and to the stockyards by means of trucks. In many instances the trucker himself operates as a commission man or dealer, assuming the same powers that are assumed by commission men on the market. The regular commission men, however, are provided with concise and complete forms on which to make their returns to the men who consign cattle or hogs to them. They must keep special bank accounts; they must make government deposits to assure those who deal with them that they are in no danger whatever of losing money. I think the day is not far distant when this or some other government will have to take this matter in hand, because, as time goes on, it is becoming much more of a business, and I believe it will continue to increase.
I want to say just one more word and then I have finished for the present, although I may have something further to say as some of the sections come up for consideration. Part 2 of the bill provides for the control and regulation of exports; I believe that will be found in section 34 or 35. I am strongly of opinion that the control over the quantity and quality of our exports has not been sufficiently stringent. I have made the statement on more than one occasion in this house that I believe that situation exists particularly in connection with cheese and bacon. As I have stated previously, we have the grain act under which the quality of our grain going to the United Kingdom and other foreign markets is always carefully supervised. I believe it is right that this should be so. I sat in the agriculture committee during the revision of the grain act during the last week or two, and I heard a great deal about control samples and all the rest of it. I believe that is the
right system to follow. In the case of bacon going to the mother country, in my judgment we have altogether too many grades. To-day Canadian bacon is about ten shillings per long hundredweight below Danish bacon on the English market. That is altogether too great a difference; and if it is true, as has been stated many times, that the price we receive for Canadian bacon in the British market is one of the principal factors controlling the price of hogs in Canada, then I think the higher the price we get for our bacon in England, the better it will be for the hog industry and, in fact, the whole live stock industry. I would urge upon the minister and his officials that they tighten up the regulations, particularly in connection with allowing packers and shippers to send so many different grades of bacon to the old country market.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Inspectors and other officials.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This section provides for the appointment of inspectors. To what extent in this measure is control being taken over the handling of live stock into packing plants directly by truck? I do not know whether this is the appropriate section for this question, but I am asking it at this point because I notice this bill varies greatly from the old act.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the proper place to discuss that point would be when we come to the regulations dealing with packers' yards.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well; I will let it go until we come to that section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Advisory committee.
Mr. HARRIS:: Perhaps the minister would elaborate on this advisory committee, and tell us just how it is proposed to set it up.


James Garfield Gardiner: The proposal is that we should have a committee named by the different important live stock organizations across the country.


Joseph Henry Harris: And by the packers?


James Garfield Gardiner: The marketing agencies and producers generally. It is possible there might be someone on the committee to represent the packers.


Joseph Henry Harris: I should like to get that point clear. I quite see the necessity of the
Live Stock and Poultry

advisory committee, but we should have some idea of how it is going to be formed, and how the personnel is to be chosen. I should like to place on record two or three sentences so that when this committee is set up, the minister and his officials may have this idea in mind.
There is a tremendous difference in the weights of hogs or cattle. What is commonly known as off-car weights receive one price, while fed-and-watered rates receive another price in the daily market quotations. The situation in Canada in that regard, as the minister knows, also obtains in Chicago, Buffalo, St. Louis, St. Paul and all the other United States markets, where we get our lead. With the advent of the truck, however, which is so rapidly taking the place of carload lots, the old rules in regard to the difference in weight as between off-car weight in the one instance and fed-and-watered weight in the other, no longer obtain. Trucks travel as far as two hundred miles to bring live stock of all kinds to market, but has the government inspector any opportunity of ascertaining whether any particular load of live stock has travelled that distance without feed and water? They have no background of experience on which they can base their judgment, and I believe those charged with the administration of this legislation, who will receive their instructions from this advisory committee, should give special study to that feature of it, so that the producer may get a fair deal when his live stock are weighed up.


Mark Cecil Senn: I think the minister was going to state how many members he thought there would be on this advisory committee, and at the same time perhaps he might designate some of the live stock organizations that he thinks should be represented.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are live stock unions and certain producers organizations that are producing live stock. Then there are the packing houses which are interested in the matter of marketing. I assume that all these organizations would desire representation of some kind on this committee. I do not think it would be wise to have the committee too large. Probably it should be composed of seven or nine members, or something around that figure. I am not in a position to name organizations, because I would not like to give them the impression that they are all bound to be represented on such a committee. We do not want to have the committee too large, and yet we want to have it entirely representative of the producers and those who
I Mr. Harris.]
ire engaged in the marketing of live stock, as well as those who are engaged in the operation of packing houses.
The object of having the committee is not exactly that which was mapped out a minute ago by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). It is not intended that this committee should give instructions to officials who may be active throughout the country. The committee will be called in, and will advise in connection with activities in the country. The department will be guided by the advice it receives from the committee, but the instructions will largely come from the department.


Joseph Henry Harris: The department, according to what the minister has just said, will be guided by the instructions it receives from the committee. As I understand the situation, it is the duty of the minister to see to it that producers and live stock organizations are listened to by his department, and also see to it that the Department of Agriculture is not in any way dominated by the packing house industry. No one in the live stock industry knows as much about the operation of the live stock branch of the department as do those who are engaged in the packing house industry. As the minister knows, they have their men here on each and every occasion, when any little matter arises. The producer organizations in Canada are not properly organized. To my mind they do not have a representation of a kind which gives continuous attention to the industry, so far as the relationship of the industry to the department is concerned. From my observations in the last fifteen years there has not been the same connection between producers and the department as there has been between packing house interests and the department. That is a weakness on the part of live stock producers associations.
The live stock producers of Canada are not headed up sufficiently to approach not only this but other problems affecting them. I feel that in a committee such as is here suggested the producers of live stock in this country should be given proper recognition. The minister will say at once that they are getting every recognition, but I would point out to him that they do not have what is commonly described by the men on the street as lobbyists, economists or any personnel of that kind close to the heads of the Department of Agriculture. To my mind they are not sufficiently close to give proper consider-
Live Stock and Poultry
ation to this and all other legislation affecting the live stock producers, whereas the organizations which receive the live stock are highly organized. They are listened to by the deputy minister. And much of the legislation in the last twenty-five years which has come before committees such as this has been legislation which was reviewed and put up by the deputy minister to the minister holding office at the time. But prior to that it has been lobbied for and asked for by highly organized interests in this country-and of course it is well that we have well organized packing houses. At the same time a little more balance in the equation on behalf of the producers of live stock would not go amiss.


Mr. THOMPSON:: What would be the
duties of the proposed committee, and would it operate continuously or only be called in from time to time by the department?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be similar to the committee which operates under the seed branch. That is, there would be a committee representative of live stock unions and producers from across Canada who would be called in. When they are called in, their expenses would be paid. They would not be under any obligation to pay expenses in connection with trips they would make when advice is sought from them. The objective of having a committee of this kind is to meet the very kind of criticism to which the hon. member for Danforth has called attention. It goes without saying that packing plants across Canada do see to it that their ideas with regard to trading are kept constantly before the department. There is no doubt about that, and one would expect it, because the packing plants are well organized. They are equipped to have men available at all times to come to the department and make representations on their behalf. There is no doubt that they have always made those representations. The question as to the extent to which they influence officials in the department or legislation passing through the department may be an entirely different matter. But it is only natural to suppose that when the public see men associated with the packing houses constantly coming to Ottawa, and see reports in the press that those representatives have been here to make representations, they are inclined to place perhaps too much emphasis upon the influence that those men may have.
In order to guard against that kind of thing the suggestion is that we have an advisory committee, that men be appointed representing other interests in the live stock industry, and that those men be permitted to come to Ottawa to place their case before the government from time to time. As a matter of fact that is why in the early part of the discussion I was not too definite in stating that the packing houses would be represented on this committee. At the moment I am not absolutely convinced that there is a necessity for any strong representation, if any, on the part of the packing houses. From time to time they do come here and make their representations. It is just possible it might be desirable to have all parts of the industry meet from time to time in a committee of this kind in order that the representations of all parties may be known to one another. I speak of representations in connection with legislation, or activities of the department.
But I would say that there is no doubt whatever that, apart from the packing plants, all other interests in the industry will be represented on the committee. It is just possible, too, that it may be thought advisable to have a small representation from the packing houses on the same committee.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the advisory committee have anything to do with, for instance, the setting of the price differential on bacon hogs- heavies, lights and so on? Perhaps at the same time the minister could tell the committee who sets the differential now between selects, heavies and lights?


James Garfield Gardiner: The market sets the differential, but the premium is a matter that is agreed upon. It is discussed with officials of the department and finally agreed upon. But the differential is set by the market.


Joseph Henry Harris: I cannot accept that answer, that it is the market which sets the differential. I believe the next sentence was more to the point. But who decides the difference?


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be some criticism of the way in which the market is set, but whatever market we have, it really sets the differential. The packer makes his bid, and whoever owns the live stock has the choice whether or not he accepts. It is quite possible that he has not much choice if there is no other place in which to sell.


Joseph Henry Harris: The market starts on Monday morning with a certain price, depending upon the shortage or over-run in all parts of Canada and the United States, but in this instance there is a fixed differential between
Live Stock and Poultry

selects, lights and feeders and bacon hogs. That differential obtains month in and month out, week in and week out.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have before me a statement of the markets and the differentials, and I would suggest that it does not bear out the claim just made. It does not indicate that there is anything really set about it. I find the Toronto market on April 27 shows lights and feeders selling at a discount of $1.50. In the Montreal market lights and feeders averaged a price of $9.10, while bulk sales were from $9 to $9.25. There is a difference all the way through the market. On the Winnipeg market bacon hogs were selling at $785, and lights and feeders at $8. That is just a fair indication that the market has something to do with setting the differential. What is being offered and what is being demanded on a particular day does set the differential.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, when a
carload of mixed hogs arrive at the market, it is well known that the packer will take the whole carload or none at all, and he fixes his price on that basis. Selects get a premium, while heavies are forced to take a certain deduction, but the owner of the hogs or the shipper has no choice. He cannot sell his lights to the special buyer referred to a moment ago by the minister. This is one of the matters about which the producers of hogs in this country complain justly. It is not right to say that the market fixes the price of hogs. For instance, the Montreal market generally runs to heavies, but if we have a carload of hogs made up of heavies, bacons, lights and others, the packer says he will take all or none. The shipper knows very well that if he takes out the selects or the lights or the heavies he will not be able to sell the others so easily. The packer gets the carload for the carload run.
Under this section the minister proposes to set up an advisory committee. I think this is a good thing, but it will not only be worse than useless, it will be just another nail in the producers coffin if this advisory committee is dominated by the packers as is the whole situation to-day. I have no desire to reflect on the packers, but it must be as clear as daylight that the disorganized or individual producer cannot compete with the organized packers. The minister has stated that occasionally the packers come to Ottawa, but last year I asked for a return of the correspondence between his department and the Canadian packers and Mr. Todd. What was the result?


James Garfield Gardiner: He is the secretary of the whole group.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was the result? The minister's own officials rang me up and asked me not to insist on their bringing down that correspondence. My motion was for a limited time, I believe for two or three years, but they told me there was a ton of it. They offered to send over the index, and they sent me several boxes containing hundreds of index cards. It was quite obvious that there were several hundred files. I looked through the index, and I discovered that there was not even a minute regulation passed in the live stock branch which was not referred to Toronto. There was case after case, and evidence that day after day the officials of the department were running to Toronto to consult these people. The minister talks about the packers coming to Ottawa occasionally and exercising a little influence, but this is what the files showed. Let me repeat, so long as the packing industry dominates the live stock branch in the way it has for the last fifteen years, the farmer of this country will never receive a fair deal.
A moment ago I asked what was in this bill to protect the producer of live stock, but so far as I can find out from the bill, there is virtually nothing. The minister has said something about inspectors going into the packing plants, but that does not amount to a snap of one's fingers.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a great deal that we cannot regulate from here.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a great deal that can be regulated from Ottawa. What happens? A truckload of hogs is driven up to a packing plant, and in the majority of instances the trucker, who is the trustee of the farmer, backs up his truck and sits in his seat while the packing house employees weigh and grade the load and do everything else with the hogs. The trucker takes the ticket that is given to him. If I were to suggest that they were not giving the farmer a square deal, I suppose I would be charged with saying that the packers were not honest. That is not the question at all. A fundamental law in trading is the law that states that the fellow who buys should not also be the seller. The man who is doing the selling should have a chance to check his weights, classifications and prices. I venture to say that not ten per cent of the farmers shipping live stock by truck to-day are ensured a square deal, human nature being what it is. There are

Live Stock and Poultry
some stories going round as to what happens in connection with these unsupervised weighings, but I have not been able to verify these.
I am told there are things going on that ought to be stopped, and I may tell the minister that his officials know that these things ought to be stopped.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to go on in this way discussing section 13. If we are going to discuss this particular matter in the manner in which it is being discussed, then I insist on its being discussed in its proper place, and that is not on section 8.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a minute while I have a look at section 13. Not at all. Under section 8 it is proposed to set up an advisory committee. If the minister wants to split hairs and discuss this matter on a narrow basis, why we can do it, but I have no disposition to do it. Section 8 reads:
The minister may appoint or authorize any group of persons engaged in the production or marketing of live stock or live stock products to designate representatives to act on an advisory committee with him or his representatives in connection with the marketing of any live stock or live stock products, and any person so appointed or designated shall be repaid all actual reasonable travelling or other expenses incurred by him by reason of his so acting on such committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: But section 13 reads-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Never mind section 13
just now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Let us get down to the point and consider these matters in order. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the point of order?


James Garfield Gardiner: Section 13 reads:
The governor in council may make regulations prescribing-
(a)	the manner in which stockyards and packers' yards shall be constructed, equipped, maintained and operated;
(b)	the manner in which complaints against the operation, maintenance or management of a stockyard or packers' yard shall be dealt with;
And then 13 (d):
(d) the manner in which receipts, classifications, weights and purchase prices of all live stock shall be recorded at stockyards and packers' yards and made available to the minister.
All the matters which are being discussed at the moment are dealt with in section 13, and that is the proper place, I submit, to discuss them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit that discussion of the
methods of handling live stock and of marketing live stock comes under section 8, which proposes to introduce a new feature in the marketing of live stock in Canada, namely, the setting up of a committee. I submit, therefore, that the discussion is in order on this section.


James Garfield Gardiner: But discussion of the details of trucking to packers' yards and all that kind of thing should come on section 13.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is your ruling, Mr. Chairman? I do not want to embarrass you, [DOT]sir, and if the minister wants to split hairs I will wait until we reach the other section.


Mr. BARBER:: I assume that section 8 applies to parts II and III of the bill, to those engaged in the poultry industry, and that their problems will be placed before the minister by the advisory committee. The poultry industry certainly has problems to-day in the marketing of eggs and day-old chicks, for instance.


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee is concerned with all the activities under this bill.


Ernest Edward Perley: How many members from west of Fort William will be on this committee, and how many live stock exchanges are there in the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member
perhaps was not in the chamber when I spoke a few moments ago. Our present desire is not to exceed seven or nine members for a committee of this kind. A proportion of them would come from west of Fort William, but I am not in a position at the moment to say how many.


Ernest Edward Perley: I do not think the committee should be dominated by members from the east. Fort William is a distributing point for trainloads of live stock going to Toronto and the east and also to the United States. I believe that such a committee can serve a useful purpose, but it is important that the west should have proper representation.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I would call the
minister's attention to a complaint that is prevalent among live stock producers, particularly bacon hog producers, namely, the constant fluctuations in price. We find that prices vary from week to week, particularly when the farmers have bacon hogs to sell. They are largely marketed twice a year, because the litters come twice a year and in six months are ready for market. Just at the time they are being sold, the packer or someone in control of the situation forces the price down, but the instant the hogs are out
Live Stock and Poultry

of the farmers' hands, up goes the price again. Yet the bacon from these hogs is all sold at the same price. Whether the price for hogs is high or low, the bacon sells at the same price. If this committee would look into and regulate the fluctuations in these prices, it would afford much relief to the farmers because it is one of their biggest grievances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would it not
be possible to have this advisory committee appointed by the producer organizations themselves, or is there not some way whereby those who are interested in live stock production can have some say as to the personnel of the committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: The section reads:
The minister may appoint or authorize any group of persons engaged in the production or marketing of live stock or live stock products to designate representatives. . . .
That will be the method followed, the producers' organizations designating the representatives they desire to have on the committee.


Harry James Barber: Will the poultry industry be requested to nominate a representative? It is an important industry, and with the problems it has in marketing eggs and other products, surely it ought to be represented on the committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just possible that the committee will have to operate in divisions or sections. The poultry section would be called in with regard to the marketing of poultry; the section dealing with hogs would be called in with regard to the marketing of hogs; and the same with cattle and other products. The different organizations would be represented, but they would not all necessarily be called in to the same meeting. The poultry people will be represented on the committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I may have misunderstood the section. It says that the minister may appoint any group of persons, and so on, or he may authorize any group of persons to designate representatives. There are two different methods of appointing representatives.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be representatives whom we wish to appoint who are not necessarily members of some of these organizations, but wherever an organization is to be represented, it will designate its representative.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was challenged a few moments ago as being out of order, but I

cannot allow this section to pass in silence. This is a live stock measure; it deals with live stock and live stock products. There are two sides to the marketing of live stock- the producers' side and the buyers' side. The two sides are absolutely distinct, and are in conflict one with the other. It is not fair to the producers of the country to set up an advisory committee that will be dominated by the packers. I suggest to the minister that the advisory committee be composed exclusively of producers. The minister could have his processing committee on the other side if he wishes, and bring the two together round a table under the chairmanship of himself or someone else in the department, but there should be a committee or advisory board composed of producers and producers only. Their interest is in direct conflict with that of the packers or processors, and so long as the packers or processors are on the committee they will dominate it. They are doing that very thing to-day, and they have done it for fifteen years.


James Garfield Gardiner: There need be no fear that a committee of the kind proposed here would be dominated by the packers. As a matter of fact I am not at all sure that there will be packers on it, but I would not care to commit the department or any minister who may be in charge of it, myself or anyone else, by saying that the packers never would be represented on a committee of this kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not separate the two functions?


James Garfield Gardiner: There might be an argument for separating them in the same way as we separate those interested in hogs and those interested in poultry, but I can conceive of its being essential sometimes that both sides of the activities in connection with the industry be brought together, and it is just possible it will be necessary to have meeting after meeting, where the packers and also the producers will be represented. I cannot conceive of any meeting being held at which, if the producers are represented by the type of men whom I have usually found representing producers in different parts of Canada, they would be dominated very much by anyone. Just as able men will be found among the producer organizations of this country as are in the packing plants.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I should like to say a word along that line. Last year I attended a successful show of pure-bred swine, and on one of the nights the show was going on, a number of producers, including men
Live Stock and Poultry
prominent in the swine industry in Canada as well as in the province in which the show was located, met with a representative of the packers-I do not recall his name; I never met him before-and discussed matters of mutual interest. At the close of that conference, which was entirely informal, the leading swine producers there expressed themselves as having learned more about various problems which had been troubling them than they had ever known before, although they were not in entire agreement with the packers' representative. They came to a better understanding, for instance, of the British swine regulations, whereunder the price is based largely on the cost of feed, and the government tried to set up a price for bacon which would enable the farmer to pay for his feed and his labour and show some little profit when his product was marketed. In connection with that they pointed out that it would likely happen this year that prices would be lower because of the lower cost of feed in the old country. This, of course, is true in Canada as well, and permits the making of a profit on bacon sold at a somewhat lower price. They also pointed out something which I am sure most producers would not recognize, and which I have never heard discussed in this chamber, namely, the fact that the difference in exchange between British money and our money last fall, varying from around $4.90 to S4.70-and the spread may have been a little wider than that-meant a difference of about half a cent a pound on the live hog. That is something well worth knowing in order to remove a feeling that injustice is being done when the reason for such a difference is not apparent.
Another point which was of great interest to many swine producers last year was the high price which ruled up to about August and the heavy drop which took place after that date, a drop which was greater than normal. It was indicated that last year packers in western Canada had to bring in pork products from Ontario to hold their own domestic market because on account of lack of feed in the crop of 1937, many producers had gone out [DOT]of business for the time being and there was not enough stuff on the western markets to supply the demand. The home demand had to be met at all costs, so for the first time in many years pork products went west instead of coming east as they usually have done.
With reference to something the minister touched upon at the close of his last remarks, I should like to say that the men who represented the producers were just as keen, perhaps keener, and more alert in many ways, than the representatives of any packers could
be. Certainly they were just as keen, but they had not had some particular points brought to their attention before. They expressed themselves as well satisfied with the conference and anxious to have similar conferences from time to time. They were of opinion that it was a valuable experience to them to meet representatives of other branches of the industry such as the packers. I do not mean that they agreed with regard to everything. I do not suppose a board such as is to be set up now, if it includes packers' representatives and producers' representatives, will always get along quite smoothly. But I do say it will be a good thing to have them coming together at times to thresh out problems of common interest.


Mark Cecil Senn: It seems to me that the
remarks of the hon. member for Melfort serve entirely to prove the contention of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I do not discount in the least the ability of those who are engaged in the live stock industry. I believe there are men in that industry just as capable and possessed of judgment just as good as will be found anywhere. But the fact remains that they have not the opportunity or the means of finding out many things which are known to the highly trained and technical men employed by the packers. That is why, I believe, the hon. member for Kootenay East objects to having this committee composed both of producers and of representatives of the abattoirs. I think he is entirely right when he says that this committee should be composed of representatives of the producers, and after they have made their decision, after they have consulted with the officials of the department, is time enough to have any conference which may be necessary between the three interested parties- the officials of the department, the representatives of the packers, and the representatives of the producers. There is no doubt that the packers' representatives will already have learned what is going to happen and will be the ones who will be present at the door of the Department of Agriculture.


Malcolm McLean: I should like to ask the hon. member for Haldimand whether it would not be better for the producers to thresh out these points with the representatives of any other branch of the industry in order to get what information they may have to offer them-tested and tried, if you like; I do not suppose they would accept it unthinkingly-before making their final representations to the department, so that they
Live Stock and Poultry

can have all the information they can get, from whatever source it comes.


Mark Cecil Senn: I suppose it is to the minister rather than to me that the question should be addressed, but I would say that is the very job which is up to the officials of the department, to keep themselves posted on these matters and not to be influenced in any way by extraneous considerations. The officials of the department are trained men. I think I may say without undue flattery that in the Department of Agriculture we have as highly trained a body of men as one will find anywhere. Many of them are the equal of those who represent the packers. But I say that in any event the men who come from the farm, while their abilities may be just as great and their judgment just as good as those of anyone else, have not had the opportunity and the ways which the officials of the department or the trained representatives of the packers have of finding out these things.


Malcolm McLean: I agree that is
so. The men from the farms have certainly the ability and the native intelligence, but there are points upon which they are not informed. I disagree, however, with the hon. member for Haldimand when he thinks we can expect that the officials of the department can be as alert, "up to the minute" and full of knowledge of marketing problems as the representatives of the packers would be.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is what the departmental officials are there for.


Malcolm McLean: It is not exactly what they are there for. The function of the departmental officials is two-fold. They are interested in the producing end and they are interested in organization and marketing.


Mark Cecil Senn: Look at the next clause and see.


Malcolm McLean: But I do not think it would be reasonable to expect that they would be as aware as are the packers of changes in the market from day to day, the difficulties of marketing, and the true inwardness of various matters affecting the market in the old country, unless a special organization were built up for that purpose. I do not say we should not have one.


Mark Cecil Senn: We have. We have a commissioner over there now.


Malcolm McLean: It is bound to be an organization of a different type from that which the packers must have in order to

preserve their very lives. Government agencies generally, while they are useful and gather information, are not of the same type and are not actually engaged in the business.


Mr. WEIR:: This section is really a new feature. It was not in previous legislation, and it meets to some extent the requests and desires of all members of the committee. I agree with the suggestion made by my hon. friend opposite. I certainly would hope that the committee would be set up in such a way that it would not be dominated by the organized meat packing industry or the organized elements of the industry. The only thing I thought of comparing it with at the moment was the committee set up under the Seed Act, whereon both producers and representatives of the industry itself compose that committee; and I assume they hold meetings occasionally to deal with the matters of mutual interest. I understood it was the same feature largely being incorporated in this section.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The weakness in this section seems to me to lie in the fact that it is so indefinite. First it provides either that the representatives on this committee may be appointed by the minister or that the minister may authorize certain groups to appoint representatives. Second, the members of this committee may come from two classes of people, either those who market live stock or those who market live stock products. There is no differentiation between them. I do not know how large the committee is going to be, how many are to be appointed by the minister or how many are to be appointed by some group authorized by the minister; I do not know how many delegates on the committee are to be from producers' organizations or processors' organizations. Last year under the minister's department there was a bill which also set up an advisory committee, and it set out the different organizations that would send representatives. This committee may consist of five members or fifty; they may come from the cattle producers or swine producers or poultry producers, or all from the east or all from the west. There is no clarification. I am sure the minister would give every assurance that in selecting the members he would try to have all groups represented, but it should be possible to state in the bill at least the maximum size of the committee and some rough idea as to how many would come from producers' organizations and how many from processors'.
Live Stock and Poultry


James Garfield Gardiner: The difficulty is there are so many organizations representative of live stock producers or dealers of different kinds that it would be almost impossible to name them in a bill of this sort and say they are all to be represented directly on such a committee. I think the only manner in which the committee could be constituted to be representative of the whole producing group across Canada, as well as those engaged in marketing, is in this form. From time to time it might be added to; or to deal with one particular section of the industry one group might be set up, and another group to deal with another section of the industry. There would not be any advantage in calling a group of poultrymen, or of cattle raisers- although the latter might be representative of both cattle and hogs-to discuss matters having to do with the marketing of hogs. That would be bringing in many people who would not be interested. The same thing would be true if one called in the cattle raisers and hog raisers to discuss matters having to do with poultry.
This committee would be so constituted as to represent the different sections, who would be called in at different times.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister mean that what would be set up would be a number of advisory committees?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would probably take the form of one advisory committee divided into different sections.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A number of
subcommittees dealing with different phases of live stock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Joseph Henry Harris: An hon. member made the suggestion that this was perhaps on all fours with the situation in the seed industry. Surely he must realize at once that the seed industry cannot be compared with this industry, inasmuch as the products of the live stock industry are so much subject to shrinkage in the marketing, so perishable after they are in a marketable condition, that the elements of cost of storage are not on a par at all with the seed industry, and in nine sections out of ten of the activities of this industry there is really no comparison or parellel with those of the seed industry. Would the minister say it is his considered opinion that in dealing with the seed industry-and the hon. member for Macdonald knows a good deal about this -the producers of seeds dominated all the discussions and conclusions that were come to? Was it not rather a case that the buyers of the seeds not only set the market but
had the most to say and guided the conclusions with regard to grading and so on in like manner as obtains in the grading and marketing of live stock? He knows that to be the fact.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Joseph Henry Harris: I was hoping that the minister would make one or two observations and leave some confidence in the minds oi members of the committee, who, no mattei on which side of the house we sit, are verj much disturbed with regard to the producers interests. Do not let Canada know that the Liberal party is the party of the big interests


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henry Harris: Hon. members may smile as they will and may interject a little crossfiring with regard to the big interests, but you sheep who are following the only shepherd who is left in this house to-night- and I am sorry I have to interject these remarks when the ministry are away on such an occasion, but I am not going to let it go- I say to you back-benchers of the Liberal party, and some who are not back-benchers who know more about big interests than some hon. members who are new in the house, you to-day have let yourselves get into the position of those who are catering to the big interests in Canada. You are doing it with regard to this particular legislation. When we come to the next clause, if you want another general inquiry into these interests you may have it. But I warn the Liberal party here and now, and the minister and all those associated with him, to cut a few of the strings with which you are tied, if you want to enjoy the confidence of the Canadian people after the next election.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Commissioner.
Harry James Barber: Under section 8 we set up an advisory committee to advise on marketing. Under section 9 the government appoints a commissioner to investigate and report on marketing. Would the minister explain the double-action there?


James Garfield Gardiner: There was a certain
division of the old Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934, which was intended to apply to all natural products and particularly agricultural products, which provided for investigation. We thought it wise to embody in this bill this section which gives some power to the Department of Agriculture in relation to the live stock industry to make it possible to have an investigation of this
Live Stock and Poultry

kind into any of the activities having to do with the live stock industry, and more particularly the matter which has just been discussed.


Harry James Barber: That would be in connection with interprovincial and export dealings? It would not relate to internal transactions?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as it affects anything with which we have power to deal under this legislation.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Would the commissioner mentioned in section 9 be independent of the committee appointed under section 8? Would they act independently of each other? And what is his function?


James Garfield Gardiner: The advisory committee under section 8 is not appointed as a commission- to investigate, but that committee may bring to the attention of the department what it may consider to be grievances in connection with the operations of the trade, which it may desire to have investigated. That investigation would be carried on by the person appointed, who would be competent to make such an investigation, and who would report back with the information the committee desired.


Mark Cecil Senn: This commissioner would not have power to act in Great Britain, would he? We already have a commissioner there for this very purpose, have we not?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not a commissioner there for the purpose of making inquiries such as would be made under the Inquiries Act. The commissioner there carries on work in connection with agricultural matters.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could not the work this man is supposed to do be carried on under the Inquiries Act without the appointment of this special officer?


James Garfield Gardiner: There could be a commission set up under the Inquiries Act to carry on a wide investigation of the whole industry, and probably that would be done if it were desired. But there might be complaints with regard to the operations of a certain plant which we would wish investigated.


Mr. FINN:: Will this be a permanent
official?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Here we are giving the minister power that hitherto has been reserved
IMr. Gardiner.]
largely to the governor in council. The Inquiries Act provides:
The governor in council may, whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada. . . .
The whole purpose of tie Inquiries Act is to provide for inquiries in connection with something of national importance. That power is there now; at any time the government may appoint such a commissioner by merely passing an order in council. But that is not satisfactory to the minister; he wants a permanent commissioner.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is what is provided
for in this section. It does not say he is to be permanent, but it says the governor in council may appoint a commissioner.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the minister, as
my hon. friend stated a moment ago; it is the governor in council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so, but the minister knows very well that the governor in council will appoint a commissioner if the minister asks for such an appointment. This section provides:
The governor in council may appoint a commissioner to investigate and report on the marketing of live stock or live stock products.
That is the first part of it. The second part reads:	.
For the purposes of such investigation, the commissioner shall have the powers of a commissioner appointed under part 1 of the Inquiries Act.
That provision is not needed at all, if you are going to deal with the matter in accordance with the general purposes of the Inquiries Act. The power is there at all times, but the minister wants it in this bill so that a commissioner may be appointed at any time, such commissioner to have the powers granted to a commissioner under the Inquiries Act. I submit that this is something which should not be put in a bill of this kind. The Inquiries Act is there and the minister can appoint a commissioner any time he wishes.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: If the hon. member for Kootenay East has finished I would direct his attention to the fact that we have a similar provision in the elections act giving the chief electoral officer the powers of a commissioner under the Inquiries Act.


James Garfield Gardiner: And we had a similar
provision in the Natural Products Marketing Act, the only difference being that it was much wider than this provision, which is narrowed
Live Stock and Poultry
down to meet the conditions of the live stock industry alone. We had the advice of the Department of Justice on how to deal with this properly, and this provision is in accordance with the advice received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not at
all clear to me yet just what is to be the function of this commissioner. If he is to be a one man commission to make a survey of live stock marketing in Canada and submit a report to the minister and the advisory committee, then it seems to me the government have power to appoint a one man or a three man commission at any time to carry on that work. If, on the other hand, he is to be a permanent officer whose business it will be to coordinate live stock marketing in this country, then it seems to me he should have much greater power than this. Here he is to be a commissioner to investigate and report on the marketing of live stock or live stock products. He has no administrative function; he is merely to investigate and report. So it seems to me he should have either more or less power. If he is to be a one man commission to make a survey, and if his work will be finished when he makes his report, he need not be in this bill at all. If he is to be a permanent official whose work will have to do with the coordination of live stock marketing, then he should be vested with greater po-wer. The minister might clear up just in which of these two classifications he belongs.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have commissioners now to do what has been suggested by the hon. member for Weyburn. We could appoint a commissioner to go out and conduct a general investigation with regard to what is being done in a certain packing plant, but under our general legislation we have not the power to enforce the production of returns such as can be ordered under the Inquiries Act. Under this section the commissioner will have power to enforce the production of the sort of information that is desired in order to make a proper report. We do not want to go to all the expense and difficulty of setting up what is generally known as a royal commission under the Inquiries Act in order to investigate matters of the sort that are intended to be investigated here. We do think, however, that when we appoint a commissioner to make an investigation of that kind he should have some of the powers necessary to enforce the production of records, accounts and such matters.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That means that he is to be a temporary one man
commission whose work will conclude when he makes a report?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Section agreed to on division.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Definitions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know it is perfectly useless to say anything about what I have in mind, but I gather this is the section on which the minister wanted the discussion to which I referred earlier in the evening.


James Garfield Gardiner: The next section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the section under which regulations are set up in connection with live stock exchanges, packers' plants, packers' yards and so on.


James Garfield Gardiner: These are just the definitions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Regulations.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, we will have the discussion now. I think there is no doubt in the minds of a large proportion of the people of this country who have made a study of the problems of the live stock producer that he is distinctly handicapped in the handling of his products when they are handled in other than a recognized public yard. This part of the bill deals with stockyards. I do not know whether either the agriculture committee or this committee realizes fully the significance of the change that is made in connection with this legislation. When the live stock act was passed originally-I have it here-in so far as it dealt with stockyards the object was gradually to build up public yards where the individual producer would have an opportunity of a square deal in the handling of his products when, in the very nature of things, it was impossible for that producer personally to follow those products to the door of the buyer or to the market. It was assumed that under government supervision the rights of the producer, when his products came to those yards, could be so safeguarded that he would be assured of a square deal.
What the committee is now doing in passing the bill is to a large extent breaking down the control of these public yards that has been built up over the years. Simply because a number of stockyards grew up and, according to the explanatory note six of them did not have live stock exchanges, we are going to throw the thing largely overboard, and the
Live Stock and Poultry

owners of the yards are now to be the people to determine the regulations which will control the handling of producer's stocks sent to those yards for sale.
If there were any need for further illustration of the domination of producer's rights and interests by the most interested party of all, namely the party who buys his goods, certainly we have it in this particular legislation. I have said in the house many times, not because I am opposed to the packing interests, but because I know the packing interests are not the interests of the producers, that the producer has been largely under the domination of the packing interests in this country. I know very well that to-morrow some of the gentlemen in the packing industry will criticize me and say that I am attacking them again. That is not the point. So long as one takes a stand in defence of the rights of the producer he is in conflict with the processor or packer.
In this instance we are indulging in a sort of retrograde movement, and we are doing away with the meagre safeguards which, through the public yards, have been built up over the years. Since the public yards were established and through the evolution of transportation there has grown up this practice of trucking directly to the plants. It is a practice which is very much encouraged by the packers-and it is their right and privilege to do so. I am not questioning their right to do it, so long as there is no law against it. But the wisdom of it, from the point of view of the producer is an entirely different matter. We do know that by the trucking system the producer has been brought more and more under the domination of the buyer of his product. He has no chance at all, except through the ordinary decency dictated by the instincts of good business-and nothing else.
As I was about to say when I was interrupted, and was prevented from doing so, at the present time there are literally, I would venture to say, hundreds of truckers who go out through the country and load up their trucks. In so doing they become the trustees of the farmers' products, just as much as a trust company is trustee of an estate. They carry those hogs or cattle, as the case may be, to the central market, back their truck up to a yard gate, sit on their seats while the truck is unloaded by the buyer and the goods are weighed by the buyer. And, so far as I know, there is little if any supervision in regard to grading-none whatever in regard to cattle, and very little in regard to hogs. The producer of that live stock has no chance 
whatever of a check, and no right to a check on his product. The stockyards did give him a chance, because they were supervised by stock exchanges, and supposed to be checked by officers of the Department of Agriculture.
What we should have had in this live stock measure was some definite stiffening of regulations in connection with the handling of live stock. For instance, there is the matter I have brought up over and over again where a carload-and I am speaking of a railway carload-of hogs may be shipped to a market from some western source, and where the buyer from a large packing plant will come along and refuse to buy at all, unless he can buy all of them. That sort of thing should be stopped. It is known to be going on. Officials of the department know it, and in the last few years there has been plenty of time to work out regulations which would deal with a matter of that kind. I have ideas on it, but it would be futile to express them here. This practice, however, is something which should be stopped. Further, it is entirely wrong to leave to the buyer of the live stock the right of weighing and handling them, and of deciding what should be put on the ticket that is to be handed out.
Without any question we should place in this legislation additional safeguards for the producer-and we are not doing it. On the contrary we are abandoning what little protection he has had, through live stock exchanges controlling these markets.
Let us be perfectly frank about this. The minister will probably know more about the matter than I do, and will correct me if I am wrong; Is not Canada Packers the largest or among the largest of the shareholders of the stockyards in Toronto.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand not, but-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister should find out, because I am informed that they are. You are taking control of the greatest market in Canada, the market that determines the price of live stock all over Canada. I say that because we know that every morning there goes out a telegram stating what the price is on the Toronto market. That influences the Winnipeg market, and the Edmonton and Calgary markets.


James Garfield Gardiner: To answer the question put to me, according to my information the Toronto stockyards are controlled by a holding company which has its headquarters in Chicago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I am told that Canada Packers have a very strong interest in it.

Live Stock and Poultry
However, why should we let a live stock company in Chicago control the Toronto live stock market? The market in Toronto is the greatest in Canada. It dominates the price in this country. Every morning a telegram is sent out which fixes the price on the basis of the Toronto market. I cannot conceive of this thing being done. It is the most ridiculous, the most unfair thing ever proposed to parliament, that a bunch of dealers in Chicago should dominate the Toronto market which, in turn, dominates the price of live stock throughout Canada. The thing is preposterous, ridiculous. In my opinion, this bill should not go one particle farther until that part of it is corrected.
With regard to the other markets; who dominates the Winnipeg market? Who owns the Winnipeg market? I think it is owned by a railway company.


James Garfield Gardiner: Two railway companies.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All	right,	two railwaycompanies. What	in-I	was	going to	usestrong language-what in the name of heaven do two railway companies know about live stock markets or	live	stock prices?	Ofcourse the railway companies are interested in the feeding and watering, and so forth. That is all they are interested in. There is no reflection	upon	the	railroads,	or
upon Sir Edward Beatty or Mr. Hungerford when I say they know nothing about the live stock business. That is not their business. But we are going now to take the great Winnipeg market, the second greatest market in Canada, and turn it over to Sir Edward Beatty and Mr. Hungerford, or to some paid officials under their control.
What about the Edmonton market? I have forgotten the interests which control it. But there was a good public market in Edmonton. Then Canada Packers established a market about a mile and a quarter away, at their plant; and I have all the figures here, but I will not take time to refer to them to-night; I have them here, by the ream, showing the tremendous increase in live stock trucked to the packing plant.


Charles Robert Evans: Because they paid better prices.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I doubt that very much; I certainly do not believe that, and I have gone very carefully into this matter, many times. On the contrary, I think there is a definite and distinct loss to the producer. But that is not the point. Why are we turning over to the owner of the stockyard the control of the stockyard instead of having what we had before, the live stock exchange? Or
there should be definite control by the government or by the department. Let me come back to this. The idea behind this whole business of public markets is to provide an impartial place where the undefended producer of live stock may send his goods with safety. That was the theory, but we are now abandoning that absolutely. We are turning it right over to the conflicting interests. Again I repeat, because I know I am going to be misunderstood by many, this is a question of simple human nature. One who is the buyer of a thing cannot at the same time serve the seller of the thing. It cannot be done because it is beyond all human nature.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: What about section 16? What does it mean?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is to prevent a pro prietor from dealing in stock, but we have not reached that.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the very thing we are talking about?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is not
within miles of what I was talking about. The minister knows quite well what I am referring to. What we should have been doing is to put the control more definitely in the department or the government. Not only that, but we should have brought the control of the packer's unloading plant into the same position as that of the public yards. That is what I was hoping would be done. When I read this bill I found that we were making literally no provision for that at all even in the face of the transformation which has taken place in the last few years in this business. I refer to the shipment by truck, which matter was discussed, I think in the agriculture committee and certainly in another committee which sat two, three or four year* ago. This is not a new question; it is something which has been growing up from year to year. We are literally turning the farmer over to the party who is buying his good*. I do not care if he is a saint from heaven, so long as one is more or less afflicted with the frailties of human nature it is impossible for a buyer to give to the seller of goods the treatment to which he is entitled. It is the duty of parliament and the Department of Agriculture above all other departments t* protect the interests of the producers in thi* regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I have just this to *ay: The section is carried, but it is a sad hour right now for the producers of Canada.
Live Stock and Poultry


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to deal further with this matter, but in view of the remark just made I think I should say something. The remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) are much along the lines of what was in the minds of those who first desired this legislation and who had something to do with its drafting. It was felt that the present control over the marketing of live stock should be made to conform more with what is being done than was possible under the previous legislation. The methods by which live stock is marketed to-day are different from those which were used when the stockyards were originally set up. At the time the stockyards were set up there is no doubt it was the intention to direct all live stock into the stockyards so that anyone desiring to purchase would have to go there in order to obtain his live stock. But, as everyone knows, since trucks began to be used live stock has been trucked over long distances. At the beginning of his discussion the hon. member for Kootenay East mentioned 200 miles, but I may say that live stock from my own farm is. trucked close to 350 miles into Winnipeg. The truckers leave in the evening and they are in Winnipeg early the next day.
There is not a farmer but knows that in many instances he gets better service at certain times of the year from such trucking than he would get even from the railroads. The packers know they can direct these truckers to their packing plant past the stockyard. When live stock is taken past the stockyard directly to the packing plant any control which we may have over the stockyard is of no avail. The intention of this legislation is to provide greater control. Something was said with regard to the exchanges handling the stockyards, but as was said when the second reading of this bill was under consideration, there are eleven stockyards but only six have exchanges.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Which six?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the names in mind just at the moment.


Mark Cecil Senn: It would be the larger ones.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. In so far as a packer having an interest in a stockyard is concerned, there is a section of the bill which makes it impossible for a packer to operate a stockyard if at the same time he intends to buy live stock. That is the intention of the legislation, and if it does pot work out, we will consider it when we come to it. It is the intention that the owner of a stockyard . shall not be directly interested in the purchasing of live stock.

Then there is another point to be considered in relation to what has been said. The objective of any organization, no matter what it may be, that sees fit to own and operate a stockyard is to get all the business it possibly can get into that stockyard. It would have no other reason for operating, so why should it have any particular reason to encourage live stock to pass the stockyard and go to the packing plant to promote the interests of the packing plant. Its whole interest is to get business into the stockyard, so to operate the yard as to see that the business does go there.
The bill does provide greater control over the packers' yards to which truckers may go or to which stock may be taken by other means. The bill provides for greater control than has ever been exercised in any previous legislation. I do not think there is any particular reason for saying that this legislation is drafted for the purpose of taking away from someone who might properly operate a stockyard the control over the marketing of stock, as against any control which may be exercised by the packers themselves. The intention is the very opposite. I do not think it is necessary to appear to be defending the packers or to be saying anything in their defence. There is a great deal of criticism of the packers all across the country, some of that criticism justified and some of it probably not justified. In any event, this legislation is intended to regulate the trade in a manner which will give less control to the packer than he has under the legislation which exists at the present time. In view of the action taken earlier in the day, it is necessary for us to go back into committee of supply this evening, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUJjTTJRE Experimental farms.
H, Branch farms, stations and illustration stations, $1,406,427.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How many
farms come under this vote, and by provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are branch farms and experimental stations. There are 198 illustration stations. The branch farms and stations are located at' Charlottetown, Summer-side, Kentville, Nappan, Fredericton, [DOT] St. Anne de la Pocatiere, St. Joachim, Cap Rouge,

Supply-Agriculture
Lennoxville, Farnham, L'Assomption, Nor-maiidin, Ste. Clothilde, Harrow, Delhi, Kapuskasing, Winnipeg rust research laboratory, Morden, Brandon, Saskatoon forage crops laboratory. Indian Head, Regina, Forest nursery station Indian Head, Rosthern, Mel-fort, Scott, Sutherland, Swift Current, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Manyberries, Beaverlodge, Windermere, Summerland, Kelowna, Agassiz, Smithers, Saanichton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service.
15.	Production service administration, $36,460.
James Alexander Marshall: What is the explanation
of the reduction in this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Hon. members will recall that last year, when the estimates were going through, the department was being reorganized, and certain branches were being split up, some being put under production and some under marketing.
There is not a reduction in the total expenditure. Any reduction in this item is -made up by increases elsewhere.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What work
is done under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: It comprises the administration of all the production services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-Health of animals.
16.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $1,677,981.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the
government doing this year about the epidemic of encephalomyelitis? There are still some cases in the west.


James Garfield Gardiner: This work is carried on mostly by the provinces, but we are giving whatever assistance we can. They ask from time to time for the assistance of some of our officials, particularly our veterinarians, who give whatever assistance they can.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Do we supply the
serum or do the - provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The provinces.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is any compensation paid
for losses sustained?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


James Alexander Marshall: I understand that the
vaccine is obtained from two laboratories in the Llnited States, one in New York and the other in California. Is it not possible to get that vaccine in the dominion? Cannot our laboratories prepare it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The serum is being
made at the university of Saskatoon. I am not sure about the other laboratories. Most of the serum last year was obtained from the United States, as the hon. member says.


James Alexander Marshall: Will there be enough
vaccine for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to meet all the requirements? My understanding is that most of the vaccine will come from the United States.


James Garfield Gardiner: Importations are being
made by the provinces from the United States, which importations together with the supply produced by the university of Saskatoon, are considered sufficient to deal with the problem.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is any subsidy paid by the federal government to the provincial governments so that they can get the vaccine at a lower price and make it available at a reasonable rate? When the epidemic occurred last fall, farmers had to pay atrocious prices for the vaccine to local veterinarians, who themselves had to pay high prices for it. Is the federal government bonusing the provincial governments in this connection?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. But the fact that
the provincial governments are supplying the vaccine at cost regulates the price that others can charge.


Mr. GRAYDON:: There is a matter coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act which has to do with the regulations under the act governing the cooking of raw garbage to be fed to hogs. This is done in some instances on a very large scale fairly close to the suburban sections of large metropolitan areas, including Toronto. In one of the townships in the constituency I represent, a number of special permits have been issued under the regulations of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and it has given rise from time to time to a good deal of criticism and complaints from nearby residents who are affected by these piggeries fairly close to residential properties and farms. I would suggest to the minister, without making any undue criticism of the operation of the regulations, that the . trouble with respect to the location of these plants might largely be avoided if no permits were issued by the dominion unless the consent and approval of the local board of health is first obtained. I realize that in some instances these permits have been granted without the consent and approval of the local board of health, and I make the suggestion in a constructive way to
Supply-Agriculture

the minister in order to avoid difficulties that may arise in future in the operation of the regulations.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that the health officer of the city has absolute authority in the matter, and that he can exercise his authority with regard to the establishment of any of these feeding places independently altogether of the department. Our permits only make it possible for us to supervise these places; they do not permit the particular thing to be done. The health officer can stop them at any time.


Gordon Graydon: I think the minister, in referring to the health officers in cities, did not perhaps catch my point exactly, because, so far as I know, there are no piggeries in any city areas; they are usually in townships or rural areas.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they have health officers too.


Gordon Graydon: Quite true, they have health officers there, but I think the dominion government might well take it into consideration, that before they issue permits they should have the consent and approval of the local board of health.


Mark Cecil Senn: What proportion of this vote is to be devoted to the prevention of bovine tuberculosis? Also, what restricted areas are being tested this year; how many of them are partly completed, and how many are new?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of compensation which is here provided for is $390,000, but in addition there is $400,000 in the supplementary estimates, which brings the amount close to $790,000. It is much higher than any previous vote, and is for compensation only.


Mark Cecil Senn: To what areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: It covers all Canada, of course; right across Canada, wherever this is being done. Prior to last year Alberta had not taken advantage of it, but now all provinces have done so.


Mark Cecil Senn: I want to find out about one or two areas which I know of, which have voted on the matter and voted favourably towards it. Does the minister contemplate doing the work in these areas this year? How many areas have made applications that have been tested; how many does the minister contemplate dealing with this year, and which ones?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps the hon. member would specify the area he has in mind. There is quite a'long list. I may be able to tell him from the list I have before me.


Mark Cecil Senn: The particular ones I had reference to are in the Niagara peninsula, including the counties of Haldimand, Lincoln, Wentworth, Brant and Norfolk.


James Garfield Gardiner: The order of precedence in which they stand at the moment is: Lanark county, Simcoe county, the townships of Rama and Mara in Ontario county, Waterloo county, Hastings county, Grey county, Norfolk county, Essex county, Haldimand county, Wentworth county, Lennox-Addington county, Brant county and Dufferin county. Those are in Ontario; that is the order in which they stand at present.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: What order is followed in doing the testing in the different counties? Is it according to their precedence in making their application, or is there any patronage in connection with it?


James Garfield Gardiner: What they do usually is to work in blocks, and the area which is already established is widened. That is the natural thing to do, because when an area is established it is much easier to work from that than it is to start in a new county. For example, for many years I was right on the boundary line of an area in western Canada, and I found difficulty in keeping any cattle that I had, separated from the cattle across the road. Naturally, in order to avoid that kind of thing being accentuated, the tendency is to spread out the area you are working in. But apart from that it would be pretty much in the order in which the applications are made.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: The reason I asked that question was this. The county of Lanark stood at the head.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are already working there.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Yes, they are working there now. It is probably two years since a canvass was made of that county to get the farmers to sign up. That was done and they made the application. There appeared in a local paper this spring a notice that, through the influence of the defeated candidate in Lanark county, Lanark county was going to be cleaned up, tested for tuberculosis.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: It appeared in all th*
papers that, through the influence of my opponent, who no doubt had the patronage i* Lanark county, that county was being tested. I want to know whether or not the man who has the patronage of the riding has something to do with the testing business or having the tests made.

Live Stock and Poultry


James Garfield Gardiner: I can assure the hon. member for Lanark that his opponent did not ask me to take any action in connection with the matter, and I am assured by the officials that they started in Lanark absolutely on their own initiative.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I assume that, if there were any patronage, it would probably have come by the course the hon. member has mentioned, that an attempt would have been made in that direction.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to ask-and it is not for the purpose of holding up the item- what advance is being made in treating and working upon Bangs disease? In my judgment that is a much worse difficulty to-day in the dairy and live stock industry than tuberculosis. Has any advance been made during the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The number of herds under the policy has increased during the last year. Anyone can have his herd tested; that is, we provide the service within reasonable limits, but there is no compensation.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there a suitable serum?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no serum which can be used for treatment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the testing made free of charge?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, May 17, 1939