1939-05-12

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McPhee.


Mr. THOMAS  VLEN@Outremont: That Bill No. 21, an act respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation, be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole.
Motion negatived.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. FERLAND



CORRECTION OF A NEWSPAPER REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):	Mr. Chairman, I
rise to a question of privilege. In the. newspapers Le Canada and Le Droit of May 11, 1939, I find the following report:
Mr. Charles E. Ferland, Liberal member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montreal, stated that while the aid given to the farmers of the west amounted to $80,000,000, the farmers of Quebec province were to receive only $11,000,000.
I did not make this statement. Besides it does not appear in Hansard.

Canadian Wheat Board


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and my earnest hope is that he will reply "no". After the last general election did the Hon. W. D. Herridge, K.C., brother-in-law of the ex-Prime Minister and leader of the New Democracy or any one of his legal firm or his legal firm itself remain counsel of the Bank of Canada, and if so for how long?
Mr. DUNNING:: It is difficult for me to give an answer offhand.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In my opinion this is not a proper question to ask upon the orders of the day. I think it should go on the order paper.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can state that there is at the present time no counsel for the Bank of Canada, nor has there been one for some time. It is correct that the Hon. W. D. Herridge or the Herridge firm were acting in that capacity following the establishment of the bank in the first place. At the present time there is no counsel for the bank.


Mr. POULIOT:: Thank you.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the third reading of Bill No. 63, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: In the past few days we have listened to a number of speeches on this question, ranging all the way from sincere endeavours to show the need in Canada for a higher price than this bill proposes, to the exhibition of active buffoonery to which we were treated yesterday by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I refer to his speech in these terms because I am sure he realizes quite well that it is absurd to suggest that men who have lived in western Canada for many years, whether they be farmers or school teachers, men who have lived in the rural districts and listened day after day to discussions on matters of farming, are not fully informed as to the trials and tribulations of the people of the west
and well qualified to speak on matters relating to the farming industry. Personally I have been a farmer in the west since 1909, and I think I am as well qualified as any hon. member to speak on this question.
Up to the present we have stressed two main points: first, the need of higher prices to make it possible for farmers to continue in operation; second, the justification for the farmers making this demand.
Going back a few years, we remember that by 1928, generally speaking, conditions in western Canada were fairly satisfactory. At that time the farmers had assumed pretty heavy responsibilities, and in large measure on account of their realization that low prices would return, and the endeavour on their part to place themselves in a position to stand up against such unfavourable conditions. They therefore took steps to increase their holdings of land and to acquire the more modern machinery which would make it possible for them to farm these lands efficiently.
In 1930 prices crashed to a level lower than had been known, with but few exceptions, during the preceding three hundred years, and these low prices were followed by five or six, and in some districts by seven or eight, years of drought. Farmers who by 1928 had built up strong reserves in the bank, and in some cases held ten or fifteen thousand dollars' worth of life insurance, saw their savings wiped out and were forced to take the cash surrender value of their insurance. In many cases the machinery they had acquired was not paid for. In a great many cases their land was being purchased under a crop agreement. It was only natural that after five or six years of these conditions the farmers found themselves in a hopeless state. Many of them in good faith invoked the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, hoping thereby to be able to meet their obligations. But as we all know, the farmers who prior to 1936 went under that act did not receive as sympathetic consideration as the farmers who have gone under it since that time. They signed agreements which it has been impossible for them to fulfil. I hope it may be possible to have these cases reopened; otherwise it is only a question of time when those who went under the act prior to 1936 will lose their land.
The reason we are urging that the price be raised above 70 cents is that farmers who have gone through the long period of drought and low prices have had their reserves wiped out, and it is very necessary that they should be allowed a breathing spell, largely to enable them to regain their poise. Some people may
Canadian Wheat Board

point out that the price proposed involves a reduction of only ten cents, but remember that the price was held at 90 cents, so that in reality the reduction represents twenty cents a bushel. I would urge the government, even at this late day, to reconsider their action and allow the price to remain at 80 cents. I emphasize the fact that the Bracken conference, which truly represents western Canada and which made a thorough investigation of the whole question, while realizing that 80 cents will not provide a solution of the difficulty, urge that the price be maintained at 80 cents for at least another year in order to give the farmers a chance to get back on their feet and to carry on, which they will not be able to do if the amount is only 70 cents.
It has been urged that bill 83 will more than compensate the farmer for any loss he may incur through the reduction of price from 80 to 70 cents. But as we have pointed out, bill 83 will bring about a slight increase of cost to all farmers and will benefit only very few; in some years it may not benefit any.
While on this subject I should like to deal briefly with the position of the drought areas- because in my opinion bill 83 is more a form of drought relief than a crop insurance measure. It must be remembered that to-day the existence of the drought area is recognized as the result of a mistake in federal policy, and for that reason it must be regarded as to a large extent a federal liability. That measure will provide only a limited amount of protection for farmers in the drought area, so that it cannot be fairly considered as in any shape or form compensating the farmers in the other rural districts of the west for any reduction of price.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said he thought it was a mistake to refer to cost of production per bushel; that we should speak of cost on an acreage basis. But it must be realized that costs on an acreage basis also vary considerably. In a wet year the weed growth is considerably greater than it is in a dry year and therefore the cost of handling summer-fallow in a wet year will be greater than the cost in a dry year. In certain areas where the land is very weedy the cost of summer-fallowing will be greater than the cost of handling clean summer-fallow. If you are going to stubble in it is cheaper to stubble in a crop than to summer-fallow, and in some years a stubble crop will give as good a return as a summer-fallow crop. It is therefore extremely difficult to say what the cost will be. We have not suggested that you can determine what the rMr. Quelch.]
cost of production is, but it seems only logical to take the average yield in the west over a period of years. The minister, I believe, said that in Saskatchewan the average yield was 13 bushels to the acre or thereabouts, and in Alberta it is in the neighbourhood of 16 bushels over a period of years. Taking the average of these two we get a yield of 14| bushels to the acre, and, dividing the average cost by the average yield, we get approximately the average cost per bushel, which, I presume, should give an idea of what the price ought to be to make it possible for the majority of the farmers to carry on.
I quite realize that in a drought area the farmers would have to have perhaps $5 or $6 a bushel to make it possible to continue on that basis, but it is impossible to establish crop insurance on an actuarial basis in such an area. The fact is that a large number of areas will have to go out of production so far as grain farming is concerned, and the sooner that is brought about, the better. Such areas will eventually go back to grazing. I submit, therefore, that to try to introduce a scheme that will make it possible for drought areas to continue in the grain farming business is a mistaken policy. Our objective in that direction must be to find ways and means of taking these areas out of grain production, and that would bring about a reduction in the cost of production on the average throughout western Canada. And if we must compete in the world's market, as apparently we have to, then the lower we can bring the average cost of production the better it will be if we are to make it possible for the western farmer to dispose of his grain in the world market to a greater extent than at the present time. I maintain, therefore, that it is a mistake to try to bring drought areas into this question at all. We should recognize that it is an entirely different problem, the result of a mistaken federal policy, and therefore we should concentrate on the problem of making it possible for the majority of farmers in western Canada, outside that area, to continue in the grain farming business.
I return to the Bracken conference. They took that point of view and their conclusion was that in order for the majority of farmers of western Canada to continue in business and to regain their feet, after the trials and tribulations they have been through during the last eight or nine years, it was necessary to guarantee a price of at least 80 cents. It is not a question whether that is the cost of production. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw that it is not cost of production, but it is better than 70 cents and it would give the farmers a chance to build up

Canadian Wheat Board
reserves again. For western Canada cannot be on a safe footing until the farmers have built up reserves. Bill 83 will not make it possible to establish those reserves because it will deal only with certain farmers. There, will be many farmers with total crop failure who will not get any protection under bill 83. The only protection the farmer can hope to get in the last analysis is something that will enable him to build up a reserve so that when the bad years come he will have something to live on. In 1928 we had such reserves and for two or three years the farmers were able to live on them; but after five, six, seven and eight years of distress it is only natural that their reserves should have been wiped out entirely, so that to-day the farmer is operating on a shoestring. And so I again urge the government-


Mr. POTTIER:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he asking the government, through public funds, to set up reserves for individual farmers?


Victor Quelch: No. I am not; but I am suggesting that through government agencies we should make available to the farmers a price which will enable them to build up reserves for themselves.


Mr. EULER:: It is the same thing.


Victor Quelch: 
Mr. MICHAUD:: Is the hon. member
aware that the eastern farmers have never had any reserves?


Victor Quelch: Farming in eastern Canada, generally speaking, is entirely different from farming in the west. It is a different type of farming, which does not need as large a reserve to enable the farmer to operate as is needed in western Canada. Grain farming is altogether different from small stock farming.


Mr. GOLDING:: You had better come down here and farm for a few years.


Victor Quelch: Small stock farming is entirely different from grain farming. Any hon. member who is familiar with grain farming and who has also engaged in small mixed farming knows that the statement I make is sound, that the grain farmer must have a larger reserve behind him than the small stock farmer requires. In western Canada there are
many small stock farmers without reserves, but they have their weekly cream and poultry cheques coming in. The grain farmer may have a small poultry cheque coming in, but very often he has no cream cheques to depend upon. Moreover, cows in such an area would be a liability two years out of three. In a dry year the farmer need not worry about feeding his tractor; all he has to do is to find the fuel for it when in operation; but if he has animals he must find ways and means of keeping them alive during a drought. It is therefore nonsense to suggest that the western grain grower should go into mixed farming. In some areas, yes; but in other areas it would be suicidal, especially in the southern part, which is a straight wheat farming district. Nor would it do to suggest oats, barley or grass, because it is not a good grass country. As I say, it is straight wheat; and as the hon. member ifor Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) said, the worst thing that could happen to eastern Canada would be for the west to go out of grain and into mixed farming, because it would flood the east with various live stock products with the result that prices would crash.


William Henry Golding: Do you think that the Ontario farmers have been having a prosperous time?


Victor Quelch: No, but the mixed farmer can unquestionably carry on with a far smaller reserve than can the grain farmer of western Canada, because the grain farmer has to keep up machinery and he must have fuel, whereas the small live stock farmer needs but a very small amount of machinery. I have been in both businesses and I know what I am talking about, whereas the hon. member is not familiar with western conditions.


William Henry Golding: And you are not familiar with conditions in Ontario.


Victor Quelch: On the question of justification, I do not want to go over the ground again because I have already discussed the subject from this point of view. But for a number of years western Canada has been contributing in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000 a year to eastern Canada, and that in itself is complete justification for western Canada demanding that a small portion of that contribution should be used as a fund to guarantee the farms in the west against destitution- and low prices will mean destitution. If the hon. member across the way will stop mumbling and wait until I am through to make any remarks he wants to make, I suggest it would facilitate the discussion.
Canadian Wheat Board

I admire very much the courage of hon. members opposite who rose to protest against the 70 cent price. It is not easy for members of the Liberal party to vote against the party, but the people of western Canada will rightly appreciate that sacrifice and the stand which those hon. gentlemen have taken. I was disappointed in the attitude of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). He suggested that it would be quite wrong to vote against this bill because it would defeat the government and we should lose all the legislation. That seems to me a puerile argument, scarcely one that this house should be expected to take seriously. The question before the house is whether or not we are willing to sabotage- again I use that term-agriculture in western Canada. That is what it means when you allow the price to fall to the level of 47 cents. Western Canada has every right and justification to be dissatisfied. It is not a question of pleading for relief; it is a question of demanding that which they have a right to demand, namely, a price of at least 80 cents a bushel.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I just desire to clean up one or two matters referred to yesterday and to state my position; I think I can prove I was justified. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) made a statement reviewing the prices for 1928-29 in which he said that when wheat could not be bought the price would rise. I should like to follow that up further and say that that is a justification for a holding policy on the part of the board, even this board.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: What did I say?


Ernest Edward Perley: I will read it from Hansard:
It is only when wheat cannot be bought at a stated price that the price starts to rise.
That argument could be used in support of the board's holding policy, because it is only when wheat is sold that the price goes down. However, what I want to deal with particularly is the hon. member's reference to the six cent preference. On many occasions we have heard him try to make out that it was of no value. He said yesterday that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett kept away from that question, or said very little about it. I could refer him to Hansard where on many occasions Mr. Bennett explained thoroughly to the house the value of that six cent preference, what it meant to Canadian shipping and ports, and so on. I well recall his reference to two vessels arriving in Liverpool, one with a shipment of Canadian wheat and the other with wheat from some other country, and what it meant.
[Mr. Quelch.l


John Gordon Ross: It meant the
same price to the grower.


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon. member for
Moose Jaw said this six cent preference was only a "hoax"-that was his word. We heard him say that several times. I would remind him and the house that in 1937, when the United Kingdom agreement was up for renewal, he voted for that "hoax." He did not express himself against that preference; he did not say in the debate of that year that it was of no value, and he voted for it. So that his position is inconsistent in that respect.


John Gordon Ross: Not at all; it
does not make any difference whether he voted for that or not.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to make a
final appeal to the minister to see that the advisory committee is reinstated. There is nothing in this act as it stands now requiring him to do otherwise; he could, if he so desired, by order in council, dismiss the advisory committee, so to speak, of the cabinet, and have the advisory committee reinstated. It is quite apparent from what was said yesterday that the advisory committee of the cabinet does not know what is going on in respect to the board's selling policy. The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) said he did not know the policy himself.


William Daum Euler: Surely he did not say that.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have it right here in
Hansard. I asked the minister if he knew, and he said he did not.


William Daum Euler: Meaning the Minister of
Agriculture?


Ernest Edward Perley: The Minister of Mines
and Resources.


William Daum Euler: The minister can speak for
himself, but I should be very much surprised if he said that.


Ernest Edward Perley: He said so distinctly. I
asked him if he knew the policy, and he said he did not.
Just one other point. I was endeavouring yesterday to get certain information. I said that if this bill had been brought down sooner and had gone to the special committee, we would have asked for certain information which I think is due to the country. Last night the argument was put up that we did not give it in 1935, that we got it only up to a certain period. I have here the evidence and the report of the special committee on the wheat board act of 1935.

Canadian Wheat Board
The sittings were mostly held in June. On June 27 we had the evidence of Mr. Findlay and Mr. Mclvor giving the standing of Mr. McFarland in his stabilization operations right up to the first of June, only one month before the bill passed the house. I was asking yesterday for information starting away back last August, September and October, and also with respect to last January. This is important, and I do not think I was unreasonable in asking for information regarding the situation five months back when, as I said, information was given to that committee practically up to the days they were sitting. I just want to make it plain to the house that I was not asking for anything unreasonable but only for information similar to that which the opposition asked for in 1935, and which they got practically up to the date of the sittings. Here is the record to show that I am right.
I just want to make a final plea for the reinstatement of the advisory committee. I am sure that if they were reinstated the selling policy would be different and the board would come out very much better. I should also like to see the price set at a much higher figure for the next year, and I should like to see a permanent policy adopted with respect to wheat marketing.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I wish to occupy only a very few minutes on the third reading of this bill. I am not surprised at the acrobatic performances of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and of hon. members opposite and of the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house on this grain problem. Not by the widest stretch of the imagination can this bill be said to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It is not a long-term policy. The price should be left until August or September, left to the wheat board and a capable administrator like Mr. McFarland. This bill is not in the interests of the prairie farmers. It would be far better and would cost far less money to adopt the suggestions made on second reading of the grain board bill in 1935, referred to by the very able member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), who has given a great deal of study to the matter and much valuable information to the house on this question. It would be far better if the country would nationalize for a while the grain crop as an emergency measure-it would cost Canada millions less than these grain bills-and see that the middlemen are cut out altogether. Under this bill the middlemen will be still flourishing at the old stand. We should widen, not restrict, the wheat board and give them a free hand.
Various briefs were presented regarding this question before the Rowell commission by the three prairie provinces. What has become of those briefs? It was said in the debate on the address that we were to wait on this problem until the Rowell commission report was received. That report has not been received, yet we have these bills to forestall it. The industrial workers have to wait for the Rowell commission report; why should not the wheat board be allowed a free hand.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said the six cent preference was of little value. I have a great deal of respect for him as an old friend, but I think he is all wrong on this bill. What good was the six cent preference, he said? The house has spent ten days discussing these bills but we have not had ten minutes' discussion on a much more important thing. The security of the country is better than opulence and Canada's export trade in wheat may be ruined by the dictators.
This bill limits the amount that can be sold to the board by one producer to 5,000 bushels, tying their hands, taking away their powers, and making the board nothing but a lot of office boys for the Minister of Agriculture. This bill will have the effect of providing relief for some and not for others. The country has lost the benefit of the Ottawa agreements six cent preference in the British market, and the United States have seized the opportunity and taken it from us. They are sending 100 million bushels of wheat to Britain for rubber and tin. All you are doing in these bills will amount to nothing in a world crisis and emergency in world affairs, because three or four submarines can sink your shipping in the seven seas and Britain will get none of our wheat at all and will be starved out by the submarine menace.
How do they treat the people who are going to contribute largely to this cost-the industrial workers? As I have said many times, I am not for east or west or north or south; I believe we should have a system of protection for all the people of Canada all of the time, and not for some of the people some of the time. The principle of this bill is to rob collective Peter to pay selective Paul. Yesterday when I was calling the attention of the house to the lot of a few industrial workers who cannot get bread or lodging, and have not six cents let alone seventy cents in their pockets, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) did nothing but turn it off on the provinces and municipalities to pay. Then when a big deputation of clergy complain in Toronto and go to the municipalities they are told to go and see the province and the dominion, and
Canadian Wheat Board

the Minister of Labour said it was the provinces' burden. What kind of protection is that-protection for one part of the country and not for another? The municipalities are made the goat of it all. The application of this six cent British preference has gone forever.
I may tell hon. members opposite that without the six cent preference they will never get back their markets abroad. Britain, you see, is now dealing with others. Why did not the minister lay on the table of the house all the correspondence for which I asked when this bill was in committee? I requested the correspondence with Hon. H. A. Wallace, Secretary for Agriculture at Washington, with regard to joint action between the two boards on the north American continent to handle the marketing of the wheat of Canada and the United States in an orderly way which would help us. Will the minister do something along these lines, in order that the people of these two countries may be sure of their right share of the markets of Europe in these times of emergency, and under present conditions in the grain trade?
We can blame hon. gentlemen opposite for the condition of the grain trade in Canada to-day. As I said before, for many years they have worn a coat of many colours in connection with this question. It was said last February the wheat board was to be abolished; then it was to be retained; then Canada was to get out of pegging. January, February, March and April went by; now it is May, but the various acrobatic performances of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with this question and all these bills have not surprised me, because hon. gentlemen opposite have been everything by fits and starts and nothing long on the grain business. We are told that the price of 70 cents is not enough. It should be only what the country's ability is to pay next August, and it should be left to the wheat board. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) say 70 cents will reduce the people of the prairies to the level of serfs and to the conditions of European peasants. Let me tell them that the serfs are not all on the prairies; there are many of them walking the streets of the industrial cities to-day-fine industrial workers who get nothing; broken down men who have never been out of work before, many of them returned soldiers, without six cents let alone seventy cents in their pockets. But they have to suffer all this while they wait for the report of the Rowell commission, while others get all kinds of handouts. The wheat board and it alone should handle all these bills.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: The other day the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) stated that you could not form an estimate of the cost of producing a bushel of wheat. We are of the opinion that this bill does not cover the cost of production, and we consider that the western wheat industry should be given the same treatment that is given every other industry in Canada, especially in view of the fact that the western farmers have contributed so greatly to the prosperity and development of this country. Now that they are in danger of becoming bankrupt I think the question is most serious. The cost of production at least should be assured to those people.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw went on to say that while you could not fix the cost of producing a bushel of wheat you might be able to fix the cost per acre. We would have no objection to that. Just a moment ago the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) referred to the fact that an estimate could be made in regard to the cost per acre. I happen to have under my hand some figures I received from the bureau of statistics on January 26, 1939, indicating the enormous sums of money contributed to the wealth of this country by the farmers of the west and also giving average yields per acre over a ten year period. I have no objection to basing the cost of production on a ten-year average, but I have every objection to forming this estimate of cost in the manner indicated in a statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) some time ago. He told us on what the department based the estimate of 60 cents, and then for no good reason at all that figure was raised to 70 cents. This is what the minister said, and I am now referring to page 2617 of Hansard for April 5:
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):	How did the
government arrive at the 80 cent price?
Mr. Gardiner: That is the set price.
Mr. Johnston (Bow River): But what was the basis on which it was set?
Then follows the statement to which I should like to direct attention:
Mr. Gardiner: I shall deal with that later. It is a matter of opinion, largely.
In a matter so serious as this it is ridiculous that any capable government should even attempt to fix the cost of production as a matter of opinion or by a lot of guesswork. In this report which I received from the bureau of statistics last January I find that the average yield per acre for the province of Manitoba over a ten-year period was 13-84 bushels. Following up the suggestion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw, if you can form an estimate of producing an average acre of

Canadian Wheat Board
wheat and you know the average yield, surely you can get down to a reasonably sound figure as to the cost of producing a bushel of wheat. The figure I mentioned was for Manitoba. I could give the yearly average for that ten-year period from 1929 to 1938, of the farm value of these crops, which runs into millions of dollars. Now we are putting that whole industry on a footing that can only result in bankruptcy. The average yield for the entire province of Saskatchewan for the same ten-year period was 8-46 bushels per acre. The farm value in 1929, for instance, was $165,382,000, while for 1938 it was $76,-
560,000,	and so on all down the line. That is a tremendous industry to leave at the mercy of a government which bases its estimate, as the Minister of Agriculture said on April 5, on opinions or guesswork. The average yield for the ten-year period in the province of Alberta was 14-65 bushels per acre, and the contribution of that province towards the wealth of the dominion was $94,385,000 in 1929, while in 1938 it was $82,940,000.
These figures prove conclusively, Mr. Speaker, that this is a tremendously large industry. Why, therefore, should we not correct this figure of 80 cents and give these farmers at least a chance to recover the cost of production? I do not think even that is sufficient. I do not believe any industry should merely get back its cost of production. If other industries are entitled to a fair profit- and some of them are getting an excessive profit-there is no reason why the farming industry should not be dealt with in the same way.
There is one other thing that I believe should be done before this bill is permitted to pass. The drought area in the southern parts of the three western provinces should be considered as a national responsibility. Then the remainder of the provinces could be put quite nicely on an insurance plan. We have always contended that the provinces of the west should have a form of crop insurance but that the drought area should be taken out of those provinces and considered a national responsibility, because that drought area is caused by elements over which human beings have no control. That has always been considered a national responsibility and must continue to be so regarded in the future. For that reason I think it should be taken out of the rest of the western provinces, which could then come under a crop insurance plan. Then if you want to put on a one per cent tax I do not think there would be any great objection. At the present time, however, I have in mind the Peace River district, which will be taxed one per cent in 71492-248
order to assume part of the responsibility for the southern parts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, which is really a national problem and should be considered as such.
It has been stated several times that under this crop insurance plan the farmer with only four or five bushels to the acre will greatly benefit. That may be so, but I would ask any man who has farmed-and the other day the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) were referring to school teachers not being conversant with the farm problem-


John Gordon Ross: I said nothing of the kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: Maybe it was the hon. member for Temiscouata. I will accept the correction. But I understood he was speaking for the Liberal party, anyway.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: He was speaking for himself.


Charles Edward Johnston: He belongs to your bunch over there, you were all applauding him.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: You are not repudiating him, are you?


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me again refer to the five bushels per acre the farmers are supposed to get. I contend a man who has a five bushel crop or a four bushel crop, or anything below that amount, is absolutely throwing his money away if he harvests it. It is not worth harvesting. I know of a great many farmers in western Canada who, when they have seen that their crops did not yield that much, have considered they were not worth harvesting and have burned them off.


John Gordon Ross: Five bushels to the acre?


Charles Edward Johnston: I doubt if five bushels would be enough.


John Gordon Ross: What kind of wheat?


Charles Edward Johnston: Because by the time one pays his threshing bill, and by the time he puts through a separator straw which might have yielded twenty or twenty-five bushels to the acre, and pays by the hour to have that done, he will not get much out of it. Anything one would get out of it would certainly cut down the advantage he would get from the bonus plan.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has contended continuously that in estimating

Canadian Wheat Board


Mr. McNEVIN:: What about Ontario?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member can make his speech after a while.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: In Ontario-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member can make his speech afterwards. I am not concerned with Ontario.


Mr. BRADETTE:: You have been speaking quite often yourself.


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Bradette) has much to complain about. He takes his fair share in debate. He is not well advised to suggest by his interruption that members from the west should not be interested in the problems of the farmers of their constituencies. It would be more to the credit of some hon. members if they gave us fair consideration.
I think it is opportune for me now to put on Hansard an opinion, not of members of this group, not of western members, but of the Searle Grain Company, just as I gave the opinion of the premier of Manitoba for the purpose of showing that there are men in Canada who are taking this question seriously. This letter of the Searle Grain Company is dated April 5, 1939, the very day upon which the Minister of Agriculture told us the basis for his 60-cent price-that it was merely guesswork. Under the heading "Protecting the wheat industry" the Searle letter says:
The Hon. Mr. Euler, Minister of Trade and Commerce, on March 28, in the House of Commons, in discussing the tariffs, expressed himself in part to the effect that he was not in favour of such a reduction in tariffs as will ruin any Canadian industry-
With that I am wholly in accord. I take no exception to it, but I wish he would apply
Canadian Wheat Board

the same thing to agriculture as well. Then we would be one hundred per cent in agreement. It goes on:
-that the Canadian producer or manufacturer should have sufficient taritf protection to give him a chance of fair competition in his own market.
I do not dispute that for a moment, but I do dispute this statement-


William Daum Euler: If the hon. member will allow me-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Do not interrupt him; he is a statesman.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have no objection to a reasonable interjection.


William Daum Euler: I just want to get the matter straight. My hon. friend referred to myself as not being in favour of such a reduction in tariffs on manufactured goods as would injure or ruin an industry, and he said he wished I would have the same consideration for agriculture. I certainly have, but will my hon. friend indicate where there is any indication of a reduction in tariffs to ruin Canadian agriculture? Because certainly it has not been under discussion.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is mentioned later. I intend to read it all. The minister in essence said that he had no intention of bringing in any wheat legislation to injure the industry, but that is the very thing that he is doing. He is, as a member of the cabinet, supporting this legislation which is designed-intentionally or not-to ruin this industry.


William Daum Euler: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: And incidentally it is going to cause a great deal of hardship in the west and force repudiation; ic cannot do otherwise. If the minister can show me any logical reason for fixing a price of 70 cents I should like to hear it; I certainly have not heard it yet. If he can show us on this side that a price of 70 cents is going to meet the cost of production and give a fair commission to the farmer, I shall be only too pleased to know it, and everybody else will.
The Searle letter continues:
Such a policy, of course, is excellent for the survival of Canadian tariff-protected manufacturing industry, but what, we venture to ask, about agriculture? And particularly what about the great western wheat industry under such a policy? For the ability of that wheat industry to compete (the tariffs now make production costs very high) in the most important markets it has, i.o. foreign markets, is to-day being most

seriously harmed, and the wheat industry being ruined, by the very same tariff protection that is enabling manufacturing industries to be temporarily prosperous.
I think it is opportune for us to mention that the prosperity which eastern industries' are enjoying is purely temporary. Once you ruin the west there is bound to be a reaction on eastern industries, and you will have them closing up; for one of their greatest markets is western Canada. If you do not give the producer of the west a fair price above his cost of production, it is bound to have an adverse effect on eastern industries. The letter goes on:
If the tariff protection enjoyed by manufacturing industries is to remain at the present high level, so as to ensure that all existing Canadian industries (many of which were brought into being and only exist to-day by reason of these high tariffs) are to be kept in being and prosperous, then it is a sad lookout for Canadian agriculture, and for our western wheat industry in particular; for it finally means that 2-j million people in the prairie provinces

far more than are employed in all the Canadian manufacturing industries put together-will be condemned to an extremely low standard of living, lower perhaps, we suggest, than peasantry itself.
There is another point to be considered, too. What about the continued prosperity of manufacturing industries themselves? If foreign markets for our western wheat are to continue to be curtailed-as they certainly are curtailed to-day by Canadian high tariffs-then the purchasing power of 2 i million people, a most substantial market for eastern manufactured goods, will automatically be curtailed in proportion. High tariffs, therefore, while they raise the cost of production of all farmers, and curtail drastically the sales of wheat, if continued will certainly inflict serious harm upon Canadian manufacturing industries themselves, and so upon all their thousands of workers.
When one adds to these evils, the high cost of arming for war-the direct result in turn of high tariffs which restrict international trade-one wonders whether high tariffs are of any permanent value to any one!
By this bill, which we are about to give its third reading-or rather, which the Liberals are about to see shall pass, because they have the majority to force it through-we are compelling the farmers to accept a price which is bound to cause bankruptcy and ruin throughout the west, which will put our people, who are a reasonable, aggressive and industrious people, back into the position of peasantry; and, as the Searle report indicates, there will be worse consequences even than that. The question is so serious that I think it should be reconsidered by every hon. member and the price raised to at least 80 cents.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I desire to make, only a few observations. After a whole week of discussing the wheat legislation, one feels inclined to say to the government, "Your blood be on your own heads," and let it go at that. Unfortunately, when one passes legislation like this one's blood is not always on one's own head. Not only have the people who pass it to accept responsibility, but a great many others have to sulfer the consequences. I desire, therefore, to take a moment or two to make one last appeal to the government.
I think the government realizes that this is perhaps the most important and serious measure which has come before this session of parliament. It will affect not only the economic life of the people of western Canada but the well-being of the whole economy of Canada. How serious it is can be seen by even an impersonal observer who will take a moment or two to look over what has happened.
When the government first announced its wheat policy there was an outcry in western Canada such as those of us who have lived there over a quarter of a century have never seen before. A petition came down to this house with 166,000 names on it-an unprecedented thing, coming from one province alone. A committee came down here and had an interview with the government. It was headed by a man who is associated politically with hon. gentlemen opposite, a man known for his political integrity and his good judgment. I refer to Premier John Bracken. The fact that when the bill came before this house yesterday and went to a vote, five hon. members on the government side voted against it-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We know all that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You may know a little more.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Oh, repeat it. We know about it. It is no news to us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I desire only to make a few observations, and I am sure the hon. member would not want, by interrupting, to get into a long debate.


An hon. MEMBER:: More from the gramophone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact that five hon. members voted against the bill ought to give the government pause; it should cause them to stop and realize that this bill is not popular. It is not popular in western Canada. It is not popular even in this house, and if it
had not been for the party whip the vote against that bill yesterday would probably have been much higher than it was.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is the hon. member a popularity seeker?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have listened to the defence of the bill which has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am astonished that so many of them who represent agricultural constituencies have sat silent day after day in this chamber.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Surely we have had enough speeches!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to get into a partisan argument, but the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was here in 1934 and 1935, and every one remembers what the opposition of that day did to the wheat board bill and the national products marketing bill. I believe that one debate lasted a month.


William Daum Euler: Silence is often golden.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, it was not golden on that occasion; it was a lot of dross.
I could not help but look over the arguments presented by hon. members opposite. I noticed that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) adopted an old trick: not being able to defend his position, he proceeded to attack the members of this group on the ground that there was not a farmer amongst them, and on the ground that some of us had not been able to attend the meetings of the committee on agriculture. I am quite prepared to put the record of my attendance and my efforts and my conscientious application to the business of this house alongside that of the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
However, during the last two or three days we have had a display of what is going to be the technique of Liberal members in western Canada in trying to excuse this legislation. I refer to the speech of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen), recorded in Hansard at page 3898. He starts out by saying:
I must confess that when this policy was first introduced I had grave doubts as to its value. I believe at that time my thoughts were directed more to the fixed price or initial payment, as it is called, than to the other part of the program.
In the same paragraph a little further down he says:
I take some credit for the increase from 60 to 70 cents, although at the same time there was a reduction in the acreage bonus from fifteen to twelve bushels to the acre.
Canadian Wheat Board

I hope that if the hon. member for Marquette is going to take the credit for the increase from 60 to 70 cents, he will also take the credit for the fact that the payment which will be made under the acreage bonus plan is reduced, and that the number of farmers who can qualify under it is reduced as well. I hope he will also take the credit for the
5,000	bushel limitation which is placed upon the quantity a farmer can deliver to the wdieat board. He goes on in the same speech:
We still have a wheat board, which has always been requested by the west.
Well, we still have a wheat board, but how long are we going to have it? On February 16, during this session, the Minister of Agriculture told us that it was the government's intention to get out of the wheat business; and we have been told repeatedly that the wheat board is only a temporary and emergency measure.


William Daum Euler: That is in accordance with the recommendation of Mr. Justice Turgeon, the royal commissioner.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly, but I am talking about what the hon. member for Marquette said, that we still have a wheat board. If we are to judge from the remarks which have been made by ministers of the crown, the wheat board is not to 'be very long with us, and bills 82 and 89, proposed to the house last week, are setting up the administration which is taking its place. Will the hon. member for Marquette stand up and say that he has information from the government that the wheat board is to be retained as a permanent marketing measure?


Mr. GLEN:: What I said was that we still have a wheat board.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, we still have a wheat board, but every indication is that it will be removed as soon as possible. Bill No. 82 would indicate that. I asked the Minister of Agriculture about it when that bill was before the house, but we could get no guarantee that the wheat board is to be retained as a permanent measure.
The hon. member says:
We still have an initial payment, which has been increased from 60 to 70 cents.
Only a lawyer can do arithmetic like that: "we still have an initial payment which has been increased from 60 to 70 cents."


James Allison Glen: Is that not true?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes. It is
also true that we have a fixed price which has been lowered from 80 cents to 70 cents.


Mr. TUCKER:: It has not been lowered
by this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
James Allison Glen: Is that not true?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but we
have always had them under the wheat board act. The government now want credit for giving us something which we already have. I cannot see that they are going to get very much credit for leaving us with what we had when they came into power. The electorate is not going to measure them by what they left us with, but by what changes they made in the legislation which was on the statute book when they came into office. The wheat board, the fixed initial price, the participation certificates-all were on the statute book when they came into power, and the fixed initial price was 87J cents, lowered by the government to 80 cents.


Walter Adam Tucker: The fixed price was not
in the legislation when the government came into office. There was the power to fix an initial price.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly, and it was fixed for 1935 as the hon. member knows.


Walter Adam Tucker: The price was not in the legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly it was not.


An hon. MEMBER:: Well, don't try to make out that it was.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the
Minister of Agriculture stand up in his place and Say that the farmers wanted 70 cents? Will he?


Mr. GARDINER:: When the hon. gentleman gets through I will stand up and tell him all about it.

Canadian Wheat Board


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It will be the first time this session. Will the Minister of Agriculture stand up and say that any body of farmers in western Canada wanted 70 cents?


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) wants to make a speech and a series of alibis as he did the other night, he can wait until I am through.


Walter Adam Tucker: It was not a series of alibis but a straight argument.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the
minister tell us that any body of farmers in western Canada asked for this price?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are many things you don't know and I will tell you about them when you sit down.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask the minister, now, when he rises, to give us a list of agricultural organizations in western Canada who are on record as agreeing to a fixed price of 70 cents.


William Daum Euler: Did my hon. friend ever hear of anybody who asked for less money than he thought he could get?


Mr. LANDERYOU:: What an argument!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of course, if the Minister of Trade and Commerce means that he is always bluffing when he goes bargaining, I am prepared to accept his statement.


William Daum Euler: Very generous for a preacher.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Continuing, the hon. member for Marquette made this statement:
Our representations were that the figure of 135 townships was too large, and the minister has seen fit to bring down that figure, so far as Manitoba is concerned, to 100 townships, or a little better than 11 municipalities. That is something for which we thank the minister, because we believe that in Manitoba 100 townships is a much more equitable figure than the original proposal.
He may thank the minister, but this is one of the things he cannot take credit for. If there is any credit coming to anybody for the reduction of the number of townships from 135 to 100, it comes to the social credit members who in committee made a strong plea on behalf of Alberta that the number be reduced, and the minister was kind enough to accept those representations. I know that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) is impatient, but he will forgive me-
Mr. McLEAN (Melfort) Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. gentleman that I have never spoken a word since coming into my place a little while ago. I have never said a word at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Congratulations.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. gentleman must have something troubling his conscience if he thinks I am impatient.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He is making more noise than anybody else in that corner, and useless noise too.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to put on the record one or two more quotations from hon. gentlemen opposite giving their reasons for supporting this bill. The hon. member for Marquette is reported at page 3901 as follows:
If the will of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party prevails in this house, it will mean the defeat of the four hills that we now have before us.


James Allison Glen: Quite true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At page 3741 the hon. member for Rosthern is thus reported:
I'f you try to destroy this government by voting against the 70 cent amendment and call on us from western Canada to join with you in doing that, if we answer your call we will destroy the government and lose the whole program. I ask my hon. friends:	Do you
think we should do that?
That is rather in contradition of the statement made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) who, in the budget debate, said that while he did not like the fixed price-at that time it was 60 cents- we must remember that the members from the prairie provinces commanded only eleven per cent of the votes of the house and that therefore we could not do anything about it. In other words, some hon. gentlemen opposite say that we are so small a group that we cannot do anything about it, while others seem to think that if we acted in concert it would defeat the government and defeat all the legislation. Both the hon. member for Rosthern and the hon. member for Marquette know perfectly well that it is not a question of defeating the government. They know that the other wheat legislation has passed the house-


Walter Adam Tucker: It is not through the senate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and they know perfectly well that, with respect to bill 63, which we are now discussing, had they intimated to the government in caucus that they would vote against it, and had a
Canadian Wheat Board

sufficiently large number of them signified their intention of doing so, the government would never have been defeated because the bill would either have been withdrawn or have been amended.


William Henry Golding: What do you know about it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Were you key-holing, or peeping?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hon. members cannot go back to their constituencies and get by on the ground that they were afraid of defeating the government, because the government has an overwhelming majority; and if, as I believe some of them sincerely tried to do, they had exerted all the influence they possibly could through their party to get thisschange, and failed in their attempt, then it was up to them to stand up in the house and vote against the bill. Whether they have the courage to do so or not is a matter that they must settle with their electors; but let us not go through with the farce of pretending that if hon. members from the prairies had voted against the bill the government would have been defeated. The government would still be in power and hon. members could have registered an emphatic protest.


James Garfield Gardiner: Wait until you see the results of the election.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a
debatable point. It it will make the Minister of Agriculture sleep better at night to believe that the results will be favourable to the government, I hope he will keep on believing so. I want him to be as happy as possible until the axe falls.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact that the hon. member admits it is debatable is a fair indication he expects us to win.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In conclusion I wish to make one last plea to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture. Ever since this wheat legislation was introduced, and after the frequent changes that we have had, I suggest that we are still pretty well back where we started. There are still a number of people who will suffer under the legislation. There are still people who will get less for their wheat by virtue of this bill.


Mr. DONNELLY:: And a lot of them will get more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are other people who will not qualify under the bonus acreage scheme and will not get the benefit of that legislation.
[Mr. T. C. Douglas.'J


Walter Adam Tucker: And under the scheme you advocate many of them would get more than they did before.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I must ask hon. members not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


An hon. MEMBER:: He invites it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have never objected to bill 83 in principle, although I did say that there were some aspects of it that called for certain qualifications.


Mr. EVANS:: You talked enough against it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I cannot bring myself to believe that the legislation that has passed the house is sufficient compensation to compel us to accept this bill, No. 63, and I plead with the ministers of the crown who are responsible, in view of all the protests that have come from western Canada, in view of all the protests that have come from the grain growers themselves, in view of the spirit of protest which the government knows exists within its own party, as evidenced by the vote on the floor of the house yesterday- in the light of all this I ask the ministers to give most serious consideration to the whole question before throwing the wheat economy of western Canada to the wolves.


James Garfield Gardiner: A few minutes ago the minister
from Weyburn-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The minister!


Mr. PERLEA :: A long range policy.


James Garfield Gardiner: -the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) was discussing this matter from a purely political point of view. He was attempting to impress upon this house the contention that this bill is setting a price of 70 cents to the farmer. It has been stated over and over again since the debate opened that no attempt has been made under this bill to set a price for the farmer. I think what I read to the house last night from the statement of the then prime minister, in placing the legislation of 1935 before the house, will convince hon. members that at that time there was no intention of setting a price to the farmer for his wheat. The intention, then, as now, was to set an initial payment or initial price. The whole intent was an initial payment, which we have always known in western Canada as an advance.
To bear that out I might remind the house that a definite set price in the bill was asked for at that time. I think I am in the memory of hon, members when I say that the definite

Canadian Wheat Board
price asked for was 95 cents. Even when the advisory committee met with the board, which was appointed I think in July, 1935, in order to discuss this matter the question between members of the advisory committee and the board itself was as between an 80 cent advance and a 95 cent set price. I need only recall the fact that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), speaking during the campaign of 1935, stated to his constituents in Montreal that a much higher price than 87^ cents had been asked for, and that the government was responsible for making it 87i cents rather than the price which had been asked, which as I said was 95 cents.
As a matter of fact one particular group was advocating a set initial payment of 80 cents. Another group was advocating a set price of 95 cents; and the government of the day established an initial payment of 87| cents. They justified that figure on the ground that it bore some relationship to the world price of that time. In the remarks I read to the house last night the reason for that is clearly indicated. The prime minister of the day indicated that it was intended by the legislation of 1935 that all the- facilities which had been set up for the handling of Canadian wheat, both in Canada and in Great Britain, were to be given an opportunity to continue to operate. This bears out the contention that an attempt was made at that time to set an initial payment, not what would eventually work out to be a final payment for the wheat of western Canada. That initial payment was kept somewhere in relation to the world price for the further purpose of making it possible for farmers to market their 1935 crop without that marketing being interfered with by what might be paid for the carry-over from the crop of previous years.
I say this in order to indicate that an attempt was made under the legislation of 1935, and is being made under this legislation, to establish an initial payment, not to establish a price that the farmer is to get for his wheat for this or for succeeding years.
I tried on one or two previous occasions to emphasize that the only reason for the wheat pool not being able to operate in previous years was that it followed the price upward on a rising market but was unable to follow it down on a falling market. Those who are accusing this government of sabotaging, or attempting to sabotage, the wheat board- and the hon. member for Weyburn used that term a little earlier in the debate; those who spoke the other night of the government
attempting to betray the farmers of western Canada-that term again was used by the hon. member for Weyburn; those who referred to the present activities of the government in relation to this question as a shabby deal for the farmers of western Canada, are in the company of those who at the present time are attempting to sabotage the wheat board by exactly the same methods as the wheat pool was previously sabotaged.
There are only two ways by which the wheat board can ever be prevented from operating continuously in western Canada. One is by setting the initial payment so high that all the taxpayers of Canada will have to pay a considerable part of the price paid for the wheat every year. If any section of this house or any section of the grain trade of western Canada-not the grain trade but the operators of facilities in western Canada, who by the way financed the whole campaign of opposition to this program, financed the sending in of the resolutions that were sent in, financed the newspaper campaign in connection with it-I say that if there is any group of individuals who are engaged in sabotaging the wheat board it is the men who are attempting to force the initial payment so high that the remainder of the people of Canada will not stand for that payment. That is one method by which it can be done, and the surest.
What is the other method? There is only one other method by which the wheat board can be sabotaged, that is by the farmers themselves refusing to deliver their wheat to the board. My hon. friends talk a great deal about the desire of the farmers of western Canada for a wheat board. They talk sometimes of the desire of our farmers for wheat pools. Others talk of the desire of our farmers for certain other bodies through which to market their grain. But the farmer himself by his action shows what he desires to do in connection with the marketing of his wheat. If the farmers of western Canada desire to maintain a wheat board in operation all they require to do is to deliver their wheat through the facilities to the wheat board at a reasonable advance and a wheat board will be kept in existence. If a reasonable advance payment be provided for under that board and they be allowed participation in any profits made over and above the advance payment as the wheat is sold during the remainder of the year, that is what the man who really believes in a wheat board is asking for. And all those who believe in a wheat board in those terms-and they are the only people who believe in a wheat board-have an opportunity of doing that thing under the

Canadian Wheat Board

bill which we are now considering. If they do not desire to operate under that bill, they have the further opportunity of operating under bill 82, which makes provision for the setting up of central selling agencies over which they themselves have absolute control and under which also they have an absolute guarantee from this government of an initial payment of 60 cents. Those who believe in the pooling of grain in western Canada consider this to be a sufficient guarantee to induce every farmer who actually believes in that method to put his grain under an organization of that kind.
In addition they have under the legislation which is yet to come before this house, in the form in which it has come back from the committee, a measure which will control the' grain trade as it has been in existence through the grain exchange for a number of years. For the first time in the history of Canada every wheat grower in western Canada has the option of choosing among the three different methods of marketing grain which have been advocated in western Canada by different sections of the farming population. At least fifty per cent of the farmers of western Canada show by their actions that they still believe they can market their grain to the best advantage through the open market system. They proved that when the pool was in operation; they proved it in 1935 when the board was in operation, and they will prove it any year when the initial payment is established at a level which bears a reasonable relationship to the world price for wheat. The other fifty per cent of the farmers in western Canada have been divided in their opinion. Perhaps the majority of them believe a government wheat board can market the crop of those who believe in cooperative marketing to better advantage than any other organization. Perhaps a majority of them believe that they can set up and control an organization of their own to handle the marketing of their grain to better advantage than in any other manner. But whatever they believe, under the legislation brought into this house this session the farmers will have the opportunity of determining for themselves what form of organization they desire; and the only people who are trying to sabotage that one choice, that of continuously marketing their grain through a wheat board under the control of the federal government, are those who are continuously advocating a price so high that no federal government will be able to maintain it over a term of years.
I want to tell the hon. member for Wey-bum, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and hon. members from

Alberta and anywhere else that none of us on this side who represent constituencies in the wheat growing area have any qualms of conscience about going out to the prairies and placing the program that has gone through this house this session before the farmers of the west, and resting our case with them. Never before in the history of grain growing in western Canada have the farmers been given the opportunity of deciding for themselves-apart from the agitation carried on by a bunch of paid agitators, to whom we in the west have become accustomed-exactly how they want to market their grain. If they want to market it through a wheat board they can establish that fact by delivering their grain to the board under a 70 cent guaranteed advance. If they do not desire to do that they can indicate their wishes by the fact that they do not so deliver their grain; and if in that way they indicate that they do not want their grain handled any longer by a government board then they have the opportunity of proceeding under bill 82 and setting up their own voluntary organization to handle their wheat. If they do not desire to adopt either of these methods they may still choose to sell their grain in the open market. This session the house has placed these three choices before the farmers of western Canada, and we are prepared to abide by the decision of those farmers as to the system they prefer. No one on this side of the house has attempted, by any word or action, to sabotage the wheat board or do anything that may be detrimental to the farmers of the west. We have attempted to help them in solving their problem of marketing their grain, and we believe this legislation will help. I would suggest that this bill be given third reading, that we stop playing politics with. it and send it over to the senate where it may be dealt with.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I had no intention of saying a word this morning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Then sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. I simply rose to ask a question, but when members of this house tell me that in connection with this or any other question I am to resume my seat I intend to stand in my place and say what I have to say. I am not going to be intimidated by the overwhelming majority of those occupying seats in this house and calling themselves Liberals.
The minister made a very serious charge in the course of his speech in this house this morning. I am going to ask him what evidence he has 'to back up that charge.

Canadian Wheat Board


Mr. SLAGHT:: The bills themselves.


Major James William Coldwell: He says the whole agitation in connection with these wheat measures has been financed by operators on the grain exchange-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: -or operators connected with the grain exchange-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not say that at all.


Major James William Coldwell: Elevator companies; it is the same thing. I want to say that the committees that met this government and placed this question squarely before the people of Canada were committees that arose out of the conference that was called by Premier John Bracken of the province of Manitoba, which met in Winnipeg last December. The committees that met the government, endeavouring to place before it the very point of view that we have tried to place before this parliament, on every occasion were headed by Premier John Bracken of Manitoba. Does the minister rise in his place in regard to a man who has held the premiership of one of our prairie provinces and call him a paid agitator, or financed by elevator companies?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not mention the Bracken committee at any time during my speech.


Major James William Coldwell: I know you did not, but you said the agitation had been financed.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I would ask the hon. member to observe the rules and address the chair rather than the Minister of Agriculture.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry, but when insinuations of that sort are made in this house-


James Garfield Gardiner: I never said that.


Major James William Coldwell: -and those are insinuations, I say some evidence should be given to support them. The minister has said a good deal about the initial price, the advance price. We know' it is an advance price; it always has been, but the point is that the advance price has also been the maximum price.


James J. Donnelly: No, it is not.


Major James William Coldwell: In the last several years.


James J. Donnelly: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Can the hon. member tell me when, since 1935, participation certificates have been any good?
71492-249J


James J. Donnelly: Why did not the pool operate when the government set the price at 90 cents?


Major James William Coldwell: There was never anything paid on the participation certificates. The minister also said that in fixing this price in times past the board had taken into consideration the price prevailing on the world market, and had set the initial or advance price in view of the then world price. That may be true, and I quite agree with the minister to the extent that in view of the world situation and the large carryover that exists, unless of course the picture is changed by crop failure or some other calamity which may easily occur, the initial price is likely again to be the maximum price, and in that sense a fixed price. What I am pointing out to this house and to the minister is that a price of that kind will mean ruin to the wheat growing industry of western Canada. The minister in the very able speech he made last Friday evening told the house that up to 1935 the wheat industry of this country had been self-supporting. What other industry is there in the country with a better record of self-support than has the wheat industry? He also told us that the average price for thirty years had been 95 cents a bushel. At the end of thirty years what is the condition of western Canada?


An hon. MEMBER:: The farmers always supported themselves.


Major James William Coldwell: What is the condition
in western Canada?-mountains of debt, widespread misery and poverty.


Mr. MARTIN:: Whose fault is that?


Major James William Coldwell: Whose fault? Let me tell you whose fault, if you wish to know: It was the fault of the economic policies of successive governments of Canada. I wish to tell the hon. member that his own Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers)-and it has been quoted so frequently in the house I hesitate to quote it again-stated that on balance the prairie provinces had paid year by year $47,000,000 a year-


Malcolm McLean: That was under conditions existing four years ago.


Major James William Coldwell: -to protected industry in Canada. And let the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), who has interrupted, look at the report of the conference which dealt with the marketing of western farm products, and he will see that an economist brought in from outside Canada made a similar estimate.
Canadian Wheat Board


Malcolm McLean: But that is not correct to-day.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for Melfort says that he was not correct. But I have heard the same hon. member for Melfort use the very argument I am using now.


Malcolm McLean: In a degree.


Major James William Coldwell: In opposition to tariff policies of the government.


Malcolm McLean: It is a matter of degree.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not an explanation.


Major James William Coldwell: It might not be a complete explanation, but it is one of the explanations.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is not the issue.


Major James William Coldwell: It may not be the issue; but I was answering an interruption as to why we should expect more than 70 cents. I am trying to tell what my hon. friend might also have told the one who interrupted, on some other occasion. I have no doubt that he has.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: We are not getting a thing in the eastern provinces.


Major James William Coldwell: Let us not get into an argument with respect to east and west.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no!


Major James William Coldwell: I do not wish to set east against west.


James J. Donnelly: You are trying to do it.


Malcolm McLean: You are doing it.


Walter Edward Foster: These interruptions should not be made; the house is not in committee.


Major James William Coldwell: When an hon. member asks for justification, I am prepared to give that justification, that is all.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: We from the east have had justification too.


Major James William Coldwell: When I look at the various expenditures which have been made in the past-and I will not go into them- I take the word of the Minister of Agriculture that the industry which to-day we are endeavouring to save is an industry which throughout the years has been self-supporting. If the hon. member had not interrupted I would have been in my seat long ago.
We have had the question raised as to whether or not the farmers of the west want a wheat board. A short time ago I quoted in the house a resolution moved in Moose Jaw

in 1919, and one which the hon. member who is now Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) supported very ably at that time. In 1921 an hon. member who occupies a seat in this chamber and who voted against the government's legislation yesterday, namely the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) came to the house following a general election fought on the policy of a wheat board. In June 1922 the Liberal government of that day passed a wheat board act, which never became operative. It was as a result of that that the farmers turned to the organization of their own cooperative institutions, now known as the western pools. Our farmers all through those years, I say-and believe it-have desired a system of orderly marketing, under wheat board control. I remember that in 1935 they were right behind wheat board legislation.
To-day it is not altogether a question of an emergency condition. Rather it is a question of endeavouring to give a compensating adjustment to an industry which through all the years has been self-supporting. Now it is threatened with virtual extinction. And when a minister of the crown says that this agitation has been financed by elevator companies-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: We will see what Hansard says; that is pretty much what he said. It is what we understood, in any event- and that we had paid agitators going up and down western Canada, and that we would have them again-


James Garfield Gardiner: Those I spoke of will admit it themselves.


Major James William Coldwell: And that they are paying for columns in newspapers of the west- I say that when these statements are made in the House of Commons, by a minister of the crown, reflecting upon men who are connected with the Bracken committee-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member has no right to say that I reflected upon men who put advertisements in the newspapers of western Canada and paid for them. They are in the columns of the papers; all you have to do is to look at them. That is not reflecting upon anybody. They put the advertisements in and paid for them, and put their names right under them. Anybody can see them.


Ernest Edward Perley: They advocated 40 cents, too.

Supply-Labour-Combines


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It may be that other organizations are putting advertisements in the newspapers, but the statement the minister made was a broad and sweeping statement. He spoke of agitators going across the country.
Then, the minister spoke of sending these bills up to another place and ceasing to play politics, the inference of course being that we were playing politics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No question about it.


Major James William Coldwell: I want to say this,
and I defy any man in the house to deny it, that as a young man-now nineteen years ago-I joined the progressive movement in this country because I came out of a rural atmosphere. I was brought up in it, and I came to this country and associated myself with rural people.


James Garfield Gardiner: And you have belonged to every other organization since.


Major James William Coldwell: I have belonged to the common people's organizations, ever since- and I have not betrayed them.


James Garfield Gardiner: You lost your deposit twice, trying to run for them.


Major James William Coldwell: Lost my deposit twice; but as the minister knows-


James Garfield Gardiner: You had to leave the common people, and go out to run somewhere else.


Major James William Coldwell: As the minister knows, I might have run for his party and saved my deposit, but I would have lost my very soul.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as the house will see in Hansard, the arrangement last night was that we would take up to-day the supplementary estimates for the last fiscal year, and then the estimates of the Department of National Defence. We were under the delusion that the third reading of Bill No. 63 would be carried without much debate this morning, but as the debate is continuing I desire, in order to carry out the understanding of yesterday, to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938-39

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
[DOT]465. Combines Investigation Act-further amount required, $6,500.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister explain this item?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): It has never been possible to estimate exactly the number and cost of inquiries that will take place under the Combines Investigation Act. The additional amount now proposed to be voted is to meet the actual expenses incurred in the operation of the act last year,


Thomas Langton Church: What steps is the minister taking to investigate combines that affect the high cost of living in Canada, combines in commodities, many of which have been referred to in the house? Under the act you have to go to the province and make application to the registrar to have an inquiry made. There may be a coal famine this winter, and I should like to know what steps the government proposes to take under this or some other statute, perhaps holding an investigation under the Inquiries Act, to reduce the high cost of living in Canada and the high prices charged for many articles in ordinary domestic use. Surely if ever there was a time in the history of this country when the government should do something to reduce the cost of living, it is now. Surely the minister who is in charge of the Combines Investigation Act can find some other way of doing things than by reference to the province or the municipality. As it is now, there is a reference to almost everybody, and I know of no regulatory body that is doing anything to bring down the high cost of living or to deal with the high rates of interest, which is a subject we have discussed on many bills that have been before the house this session. Surely parliament, having spent millions on commissions since 1900, can do something practical for the working people of this country engaged in industry in the cities or in agriculture.


Mr. ROGERS:: I can only speak with respect to the investigation of combines. The procedure under which applications are made is set out clearly in the terms of the act, and it has been found possible for that procedure to be followed in various inquiries that have been held-into tobacco, for example; and there is an inquiry now pending with respect
Supply-Legislation

to fruits and vegetables in British Columbia. There is no necessary reference to the province or the municipality, and I see no reason why the procedure is not ample to cover any inquiry that may be asked for under the act.


Thomas Langton Church: There has been a combine relating to a public utility, a telephone company, that is charging high rates, on the evidence of the department's own publication. Was the minister represented at that telephone inquiry to protect the consumers?


Mr. HOWE:: Parliament set up a judicial board to deal with that matter. While it has nothing to do with the item under consideration, I am sure that the tribunal set up by parliament will go into the matter fully.


Thomas Langton Church: Now the Minister of Transport has come to the rescue of his colleague. He has power under the railway act as well as under the Combines Investigation Act to investigate this very combine, and what does he do? He just passes it over to some regulatory body that does nothing at all. If that is the policy of the government, you had better retire as members of parliament. These two ministers are trustees to safeguard the interests of the public, and they are not carrying out their duties and functions. We have spent ten or twelve days debating grain and we cannot get any answers to the questions put from this side of 'the house.


Mr. MacINNIS:: My impression is that the registrar under the Combines Investigation Act has been very active during the past year. Has the minister before him or can he give offhand a brief resume of the activities under the act during the past year? I do not wish any lengthy explanation-just a brief summary of the industries investigated.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no objection to answering the question, but would my hon. friend find it equally satisfactory if I gave the information when the main estimates are before the committee?


John Charles Landeryou: Would the minister at the same time inform the committee of the applications made under the act and refused?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can supply that information when the main departmental estimates are before the committee.


Mr. MANION:: And would the minister at the same time give us the number of trusts, combines and mergers that have been wiped out of existence since this government came into power?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I might be able to do that too.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
470. House of Commons-Estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms-further	amount required,
John Charles Landeryou: What is the reason for the additional amount required?


Charles Avery Dunning: The House of Commons vote depends entirely on the length of sittings of the House of Commons and the expenses necessary in connection with its various committees. I may tell my hon. friend that it depends somewhat on the amount of talking done in committees that is a matter of record, and therefore a matter of expense.


Mr. FAIR:: How many persons were employed by the house this session?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer that at the moment, but if my hon. friend will ask 'his question when the main estimates are before the committee, I shall be glad to see that the information is available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
472. Sendees to veterans and dependents:
Employers' liability compensation-further amount required, $38,000.
Mr. GREEN:: Would the minister explain this item, and also let us know how the payments are divided as between the provinces?


Mr. POWER:: I can give the explanation. Towards the end of the year we had four large claims to settle, amounting respectively to $8,000, $20,000, $2,000 and $5,000-1 am giving only round figures. All four came from Ontario.


Robert James Manion: What was the total expenditure under workmen's compensation, including this amount?


Charles Gavan Power: The previous expenditure was $40,000, and then there is this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health branch
474. Treatment of sick mariners-further amount required, $20,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: Are the mariners referred to in this item indigents?


Charles Gavan Power: They come under the Sick Mariners Act, under the provisions of which, broadly speaking because there are exceptions and the act is complicated', every vessel coming to Canada must pay sick mariners' dues. When those dues are paid the moneys go to providing for the care of sick mariners.

Sup-ply-Justice-Mounted Police


Thomas Langton Church: In reference to the work which is being done by the police systems of the country relative to the opium traffic and such matters, the time has come when the federal parliament should provide part of the cost to municipalities of policing these cities, in respect of carrying out duties of the kind. Not only under the health branch, but in almost every department of the public service, if parliament expects the municipal police forces to undertake such duties they should help to pay the cost, and not load the expense of maintaining law and order in this country on the municipalities in the way they are doing, to say nothing of obligations arising from the provincial statutes. The larger cities are entitled to some contribution for the maintenance of the law relating to opium and narcotic drugs and other statutes, including the criminal code. It is time that there was some joint action. People are being interfered with on the streets by bandits; they are the victims of other law breakers; and I think the minister should give consideration to a policy of financial cooperation with the municipalities.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to give the matter my most serious consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
.',76. Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-further amount required, $75,000.
John Charles Landeryou: Will the minister
explain the increase of S75,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Owing to natural wastage
in the force, there are about 120 men who disappear annually in the normal course by death or otherwise. We were compelled to start recruiting from October last 200 additional men. All of them have not yet been obtained. The purpose is to replace men who normally disappear. The increased amount is necessary for the equipment, clothing and pay of those additional men.


Mr. BARBER:: I notice that $50,000 of
this vote is for travelling expenses.


Ernest Lapointe: That is
for expenses. It is the usual phraseology of the item.


Thomas Langton Church: Here is another matter,
connected with the mounted police and the conservation of law and order and the enforcement of dominion laws. Will the Minister of Justice not consider some relief for the
municipalities in respect of the work they are doing in cooperation with the work of the mounted police in the cities and towns at this time under the present emergency which confronts the empire? Take the city of Toronto; it is costing us a lot of money to maintain the police force. In New Zealand and in New South Wales the governments make grants to the cities by way of subvention or subsidy to help them to maintain law and order. With the increasing use of the pistol, life is not safe to-day on the by-ways of any city. Surely the government should cooperate with the municipalities to give the civic taxpayers some relief, in view of the number of people who are being attacked and injured, victimized by burglars, struck by motor cars, and so forth.
In connection with sabotage and mischief of that kind the mounted police are doing excellent work in Toronto, but there should be definite cooperation. As a matter of public policy, there is, but too much of the cost of police work is placed upon the municipalities. Then along comes the province and the same thing happens. The police system is costing the taxpayers more. than they can stand. If the government has at heart the interests of law and order, as I know the minister has, recognizing that the criminal code is being extended all the time to new offences and new conditions, surely the government can give a grant to the large municipalities to help them maintain their police forces and cooperate with the mounted police in the enforcement of federal statutes; otherwise enforcement will be very ineffective. In some places the police are maintained out of the fee system, and there is no proper protection.


Ernest Lapointe: I think
the plea of my hon. friend might be more properly addressed to the provincial government. The municipal police forces are under the provincial governments^ I mean that the municipalities are the creatures of the provinces, and there must certainly be coordination and cooperation between provincial and municipal forces. If we tried to invade that field we should certainly be charged with trespassing upon a jurisdiction which is not ours. In many, indeed in most provinces, the provincial authorities have made arrangements with the federal government to the end that their policing shall be done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it works very well. But I do not think it will be possible for us to

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
do anything along the line suggested by my hon. friend in Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario. It is for the provincial and city police to apply the laws and regulations.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Ordinarily I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) in many of his submissions with reference to Toronto, but I suggest to the minister that to give effect to his philosophy in this matter would be to impose on the law-abiding communities of Canada who make their contribution to the federal budget and revenue the special burden of taking care of offenders in cities whose educational and moral progress is retrograde in that it produces within their boundaries wrongdoers who ought to be controlled by local police. In considering the appropriations for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we must have regard to the fact that they are the force upon whom we rely for our secret service activities in Canada. They are the force upon whom we rely in the main for the larger national protection of public services and industries if war were to threaten or to break out, and upon whose shoulders lies the responsibility for combating sabotage. During the last war their activities were tremendously effective, protecting as they did the Welland canal against foreign attempts to destroy it, protecting the Revel-stoke tunnel on the Canadian Pacific railway, protecting against sabotage activities key and basic power plants and industries the maintenance of which is so important. To permit these forces to be broken down to assist cities, such as the one represented by the hon. member for Broadview, in the control of their local bad men, would be entirely to take away the national purpose and effort of this great force of which we are all so proud.


Mr. HARRIS:: I suggest that the mounted police should be especially well drilled and trained with regard to that part of the code having to do with the carrying of offensive weapons. When we come to deal with the criminal code, I hope the minister will see fit to amend it in such a way that a good many less of our citizens will be permitted to carry these offensive weapons. At the same time there should be a more rigid control over the sale of them, right from the -45 down to the little air rifle-as to all of which the minister has had at different times representations from the police commissioners of various municipalities, especially in Ontario.


John Charles Landeryou: Is this item for an increase of personnel or just to replace personnel?


Ernest Lapointe: As I said before, it is in order to have men trained to be effective when the others disappear.


John Charles Landeryou: What is the reason for the regulation which forbids a member of the force to many for a certain period of years?


Ernest Lapointe: There
has been no change in the regulations.


John Charles Landeryou: That may be, but I have never understood the reason for it.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the same in the militia. The salaries of constables for the first few years are not high enough to enable them to support families, and that is the chief reason for the prohibition, which ceases to apply after they have been in the service for a certain time. Had I known that the hon. member would raise the question I would have brought the regulations and stated the arguments for and against the provision. These however are merely supplementary estimates. When the main estimates are before the committee I shall be prepared to discuss the point.


John Charles Landeryou: I should like to have the exact reason.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement of Canada.
479. To provide for the payment to the government of the United Kingdom on account ot losses sustained under the New Brunswick pOO British family agreements of August 4, 1927, and August 27, 1935; and to approve the financial concessions granted to the New Brunswick 500 British family settlers by way of 30 per cent reduction in debt, interest remission for one year and dollar for dollar bonus m accordance with the terms of the agreement of August 27. 1935. and orders in council P C 1025, of April 18. 1935; P.C. 1183 of May 18 1936, and P.C. 1158 of May 23, 1938, $54,415.72.
Mr. BROOKS:: Will the same provisions be in force this year with regard to the settlers in New Brunswick under the British agreement, and in the matter of the bonus and the thirty per cent reduction?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Certain sums probably will be required from time to time to adjust losses with the British government under the terms of the agreement. This amount is required for that purpose. The 500-family scheme for New Brunswick was first entered into in 1927 under an arrangement among the governments of Great Britain, Canada and New Brunswick, but the main expenditures, under

Supply-Trade-Exhibitions
that arrangement, were borne by the British government and the province. In 1935 the federal government which preceded the present one took over the obligations so far as New Brunswick was concerned, and there were put into effect at that time the same provisions as applied in the general 3,000-family scheme, as it was then known. Under the agreement between the federal government and Great Britain covering the 3,000-family scheme, adjustments had to be made from time to time when losses occurred, and this item is to cover losses that have arisen.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the provision with
regard to the thirty per cent reduction be in force again this year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be ready to discuss that question when the main soldier settlement board estimates are before the committee. No further reductions are available to soldier settlers under the law as it stands.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I shall bring the matter up again.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister before him the total amount of the appropriation made for the past fiscal year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There will be another item in other estimates covering the agreement with the British government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND COMMERCE Trade and Commerce
480. Exhibitions and fairs

further amount required, $120,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister heard from Canadians, returning from the world's fair at New York, expressions of disappointment at the location of the Canadian building and at the general set-up of the building in comparison with the main British building and its location and with the buildings advertising other parts of the empire? I have not been to the fair yet, but I understand that the other buildings are adjacent to the main British building, while the Canadian building stands on a site by itself.


William Daum Euler: I have heard no complaints whatever unless I except an article that was printed in one of the Ottawa newspapers about a week ago and with which I do not agree. I personally visited the grounds about two months ago and I regarded the location as quite good, very suitable indeed. It is not
adjacent to or in connection with the British building. The British building is a large structure and I believe the British government is spending four or five million dollars. We are spending about one-tenth of that. It may be said that we are not spending enough, but I can assure the committee that the site is quite good. As regards the building itself, if there is criticism it is not well founded. Surely hon. members must have seen pictures of the building. I may add that the general style is dictated by the fair authorities, who want some sort of harmony in the arrangement of buildings. We invited the Canadian Institute of Architects to draw plans and to enter a competition for which we offered prizes. About 130 qualified registered architects competed in the drawing of plans and the selection was made by the president of the institute of architects, the chief architect of the Department of Public Works, and the deputy minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce. So that we had the benefit of the very best advice and skill in the drarving of the plans of the building. There is also a definite restriction as to the height.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the Australian building near the British?


William Daum Euler: Neither Australia nor New Zealand nor any other dominions have separate buildings of their own; their exhibits are in the British building. We felt that Canada, being contiguous to the United States and an important dominion, should have a building of its own.


Thomas Langton Church: How does it come about that after all the money spent on these fairs, the Glasgow fair and advertising there, Canada got such little value out of it in the way of armament orders? We did not get any. Then I notice in the booklet got out by the government of Canada for the New York fair, a large and attractive booklet of about forty-six pages giving views all over Canada, Ontario is almost entirely ignored, although it is right next door to the empire state of New York.


William Daum Euler: I do not know that one should go into a complete discussion of matters in connection with the world's fair on this item; and certainly it has nothing to do with the Glasgow fair. I visited that fair last summer, and in my opinion our exhibit was a pretty good one.
My hon. friend said we did not get any armament orders as a result of our exhibit at the Glasgow fair. I hardly think it was regarded as an occasion to advertise Canada as a maker of armaments and munitions. I
Supply-Trade

Exhibitions

would not take any special responsibility for that. There are other ways and means of securing orders for armaments than a display at the Glasgow fair.
With regard to the New York fair, there is a good deal of advertising going out. This particular vote really has to do with the various departments that are exhibiting there, agriculture, fisheries, mines and resources, and transport. The amounts spent on the exhibits are placed in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but in a sense they are not my own estimates.
My hon. friend made some reference to Ontario. I am not attempting to draw any comparisons, but we invited all the provinces to have their own exhibits at the fair, and are quite ready to allot space to the various provinces. Unfortunately, however, not all availed themselves of our offer. The only ones that did accept the invitation and are making a display are Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Of course Canada as a whole has an exhibit, and the two great railway systems also have their own exhibit. By the way, our building is being officially opened to-day to the public.


Robert James Manion: I saw the article to which the minister referred; it was in the Ottawa Journal, I think, written by one of the correspondents from New York. He was very critical regarding the same point as that made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol). Not only did he say the building is on a back street, but he criticized very severely the fact that it was not closer to the British .empire building, where the minister says the Australian and New Zealand exhibits are located. Why was it decided to take a .different position? I received a letter of complaint, perhaps prompted by the same article. 'Why was it decided to have our building on a side street? If the minister says it is not,
I cannot contradict him. I have not been in New York, consequently as to information .in that regard, I am dependent on the article and one letter which I received personally. The charge was made that it was not in a good position to be seen by visitors to the 'air, whereas the British building, including the Australian and New Zealand exhibits, is in i good position.


William Daum Euler: I have not the article before me. If I read the last paragraph of my notes, which bears directly on what my hon. friend -.says, it may answer his question:
The Canadian pavilion is situated in the 'foreign government zone in the immediate -vicinity of the United States government I Mr. Euler.]
building, with the Pan-American building on the north side and on the south side Argentina, Ireland, Norway and Rumania. There is a vista in front of the Canadian building across the most important section of the exhibition and thence to the Court of Peace, where all entertainment is carried on. The Canadian building is just inside the second most important entrance to the fair, Flushing Gate.


Robert James Manion: The minister claims it is a good position?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
GOVERNOR general's WARRANTS, 1938-39
487.	To provide for direct relief expenditures in the drought areas of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta (governor general's warrants of September 21 and October 4, 1938), $1,765,000.
Robert James Manion: Altogether there are three or four items here that deal with the west. A statement concerning them might be useful. They amount to six or seven million dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: The first item, $1,765,000, is for the purpose of providing money over and above what was voted last session to take care of relief in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The agreement called for a certain amount, $9,000,000, to be spent before March 31. Last session we voted certain amounts to carry us down to the first of July. After July 1 we required $1,765,000 to carry us to the end of that year; that amount was supplied by warrant and we ask to have it voted now.


Mr. LANDER  YOU@: How much went to Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of this amount $1,591,765 to Saskatchewan and $106,543 to Alberta.


John Charles Landeryou: How does the minister account for such a tremendous difference?


James Garfield Gardiner: By the fact that Alberta was not so unfortunate as Saskatchewan. The allotments voted were $9,000,000 and $1,800,000 originally. The Alberta government did not spend quite all of that during that period.


John Charles Landeryou: We should like to have an explanation of the next item, $4,500,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the amount required under the agreement for this year with Saskatchewan, in order to provide for relief to March 31.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give the total amount, taking the two items together, one to provide direct relief and the

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
other to provide material aid? Has he at hand the total amount used in the prairie provinces for those purposes, not including wheat?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the total divided exactly, but the amount for feed and fodder this year was approximately $1,500,000, and the remainder was for direct relief.


Robert James Manion: But the minister said that this first item, No. 487, was $9,000,000 altogether for the whole year.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not those figures, but if my hon. friend will bring the question up when we are on the main estimates I will have the information here.


Ernest Edward Perley: Where was the material [DOT]bought under item 488 purchased?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any feed and fodder purchased this year would be purchased in Saskatchewan.


Ernest Edward Perley: All in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor general's warrants.
488.	To provide for material aid and for the purchase and distribution of feed and fodder for live stock in the drought areas of the province of Saskatchewan (governor general's warrant of October 4, 1938), $4,500,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the minister give the same reply as to this?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is the agreement for this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor general's warrants.
489.	To provide for the purchase and distribution of foodstuffs in the province of Saskatchewan (governor general's warrant of October 4, 1938), $300,000.
Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to have that figure broken down as to the share to Alberta and to Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The $300,000 was all for
Saskatchewan.


Charles Edward Johnston: How was it that Alberta did not get any? Did they not ask for assistance in that regard?


James Garfield Gardiner: Alberta asked for
assistance on relief this year, but we found on examination of the situation there that there were not ten municipalities in the province having five bushels or less per acre, and for that reason they were not admitted for relief this year.


Charles Edward Johnston: This item is said to be "for the purchase and distribution." I understand the dominion government purchases and distributes these things in Saskatchewan, costing something like $300,000. It represented apples, beans, cheese, fish and so forth. As I understand it, Alberta made arrangements to have some of this material donated to the province, and then asked the federal government to assist in meeting the cost of distribution, but their request was refused. Would the minister care to comment on that?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that it all went to Saskatchewan this year and that none was distributed in Alberta. A year ago there was $1,000,000 worth distributed in Saskatchewan and Alberta. We distributed all the commodities we purchased, but at that time Alberta asked us not to distribute certain products there but to allow them to distribute some apples from British Columbia, I think it was, for which they had arranged themselves. So we distributed a larger quantity of some other commodities and paid for that distribution, but I do not think we paid for the distribution of the apples, which were distributed by the province. This year there has been no distribution in Alberta at all, so far as I know.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wrote the minister in this regard last summer, just at the time this fruit was being distributed in Saskatchewan. The British Columbia fruit growers had agreed to give Alberta, free of charge, a certain number of carloads of apples, and the provincial government asked the assistance of the dominion government in distributing the apples. Here we have $300,000 going to Saskatchewan, yet I understand that the dominion refused even to participate in the distribution of this fruit in Alberta. I do not think that was a square deal.


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not distribute in Saskatchewan anything that was arranged for by the provincial government. If they had similar arrangements with the fruit growers of British Columbia, they took care of that themselves. We simply distributed the fruit we ourselves purchased for distribution in those areas where the crop was under five bushels to the acre, or close to that figure.


Charles Edward Johnston: But this
item says distinctly it is for purchase and distribution. Here is one province, Saskatchewan, which requested the dominion government both to purchase and to distribute.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not do that.
3962	COMMONS
Supply-Governor General's Warrants


Charles Edward Johnston: The dominion government bought and distributed these goods.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but the government of Saskatchewan did not ask us to purchase and distribute them. This government decided to purchase and distribute food in an area for which we had accepted responsibility, and we did so without any request from the provincial government.


Charles Edward Johnston: That may be perfectly correct, but the point is that the dominion government went to the expense of not only distributing the stuff in Saskatchewan but of buying it as well, and they gave it to that province without even being asked to do so. Here is a sister province right next door to Saskatchewan, which arranges with British Columbia fruit growers to have some of these apples donated, without any cost at all to the dominion government. Then when it asks the dominion government to assist in the distribution only, it is turned down flat, while Saskatchewan gets $300,000. If that is not a raw deal I do not know what it is.


Thomas Langton Church: These votes are all for
Saskatchewan, and we have had twelve days of Saskatchewan. After all Saskatchewan is not the whole of Canada. There are people in the cities, towns and rural districts of Ontario who are suffering just as greatly as the people of Saskatchewan. Under the statute as I read it an emergency must be national in scope. Why is it that the central provinces, the maritimes and British Columbia do not get in on this? I can go to Parry Sound, to Muskoka and all along the railway line there and see people who are suffering, but we are not doing anything for them. If this is a Saskatchewan parliament let us adjourn.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only answer that by saying that the people of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, without any request from the government or assistance from the government, packed about 1,200 carloads of commodities for shipment to that area last year because they considered that the people there needed these things, and the government of Canada just assisted them in doing the job.


Victor Quelch: The basis for this relief
was distress caused by crop failure in certain areas of Saskatchewan. An application was made by Alberta for similar aid to people in distress in that province, and a great deal of correspondence was carried on from September right up to January. The names of 
thirty-five municipalities were sent to the Minister of Agriculture as being in need of this assistance, though it is true that in those municipalities the yield was above five bushels to the acre. Apparently the regulation laid down that a municipality with a yield of over five bushels to the acre would not be eligible. The yield in these municipalities ranged from five to seven bushels an acre, but the wheat graded only No. 4, so that the monetary return from seven bushels of No. 4 was less than the return from five bushels of No. 1.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, we have already passed the
84,500,000	item and are on the $300,000 item.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is correct; we
are on item No. 489. Shall the item carry?


John Charles Landeryou: The minister has
already pointed out that the yield in Alberta was not less than five bushels to the acre, and that this was why no fruit, fish and other commodities were purchased and distributed in that province. He made that statement himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: That was why as a
federal government we had no obligation in connection with giving assistance, but that does not mean no assistance was required. When assistance is required under these conditions the provincial government is responsible in Alberta, the same as in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


John Charles Landeryou: The minister said the hon. member for Acadia was out of order.


James Garfield Gardiner: He was discussing
another matter entirely.


John Charles Landeryou: What was the basis for the purchase of $300,000 worth of fish, fruit- and vegetables for distribution in Saskatchewan? Was it an acreage basis there?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have already stated it. If the hon. member has any answer to my statement, let him make it.


John Charles Landeryou: I cannot understand it. The minister has called the hon. member for Acadia to order. I have not been able to follow the minister in his explanation, and I should like to know the basis on which the government proceeded to purchase $300,000 worth of commodities under this item.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Charles Landeryou: I want to know the reason.


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister has
answered that question three times already.

Supply-Governor General's Warrants


James Garfield Gardiner: I have answered the
question three times and I cannot be responsible if my hon. friend does not understand it. The position is that once the government of Canada determines, through information gathered from the province and otherwise, that it has no obligation within that province which is national in its scope, then the government does not take action and does not spend money, for exactly the same reason that we did not spend money in Ontario and Quebec for similar things.


John Charles Landeryou: Then how did you determine whether or not there was an obligation?


James Garfield Gardiner: I stated that in connection with the previous item.


John Charles Landeryou: But we are not dealing with the previous item; we are dealing with item 489, and I want to know the reason for establishing an obligation.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no national obligation.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to the minister through the chair.


Victor Quelch: When I was at Edmonton they telephoned Mr. Mann in Regina to find out where the Minister of Agriculture had obtained the information which gave him the impression that Alberta did not need aid. The reply from Mr. Mann was that he had not provided that information. The federal representative at Edmonton said he had not furnished it either. I should like the minister to tell us where he got the information.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is on the file the
hon. gentleman has, which is the return brought down this session, showing that I got it from the Alberta government.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister tell
the committee the system followed in the distribution of this relief in Saskatchewan? While I am on my feet I want to ask the minister another question. It will be recalled that on one occasion last year I asked if the minister would table the report of Doctor Stapleton on his investigation into the whole system of relief and the distribution of relief in Saskatchewan over a period of years, up to, I think, 1936. I am asking this question in view of what took place in the province last year, and particularly in the northern part. Is it possible to have the report?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is possible to table it. I will inquire before the general estimates are brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor general's warrants.
1,90. To provide for a contribution to the international commission for the assistance of child refugees in Spain (governor general's warrant, November 4, 1938), $10,000.
Angus MacInnis: Will some one tell the committee whether any Spanish child refugees came to Canada, or if there are any here now?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. This grant was not for the purpose of bringing Spanish children refugees to Canada but was a contribution to a general fund gathered through the instrumentality of an international commission sponsored by the League of Nations. A request was made of the government to contribute something to the general fund by way of food supplies. We contributed $10,000 and delivered fish around the early part of the year.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Did we contribute only fish? Did we send any wheat?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, only fish.


John Charles Landeryou: Is the total amount used up?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


John Charles Landeryou: It is too bad, because there are all kinds of Canadian child refugees in the city of Hull who are in need of relief. Will the minister consider using any portion that has not been used, for Canadian refugee children in the city of Hull?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: May I interrupt the hon. member? There is nobody suffering in Hull.


John Charles Landeryou: I would like to contradict the hon. member, because I have had them up in my room this afternoon. They are people cut off relief.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


John Charles Landeryou: I will bring them here. Item agreed to.
Governor general's warrants.
491. To provide for compensation to owners of animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act (governor general's war-want, November 23, 1938), $120,000.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and the government upon the cooperation they gave us when we put on tuberculin tests in our district. Whole herds of cattle were wiped out because of tubercular infection. We have received splendid cooperation, and had it not been for the vote I do not know what those farmers would have done. I have seen splendid herds
3964	COMMONS
Supply-Governor General's Warrants
of cows, of twenty-six or more, condemned by the government inspector. Those cattle were costing the farmers more than they were worth, but when they were condemned the farmers received compensation which enabled them to buy cattle to take the place of those which had been destroyed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Has this not been voted for the past ten or fifteen years? Have we not for some time compensated farmers for cattle which had to be slaughtered?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, farmers have
received compensation in this respect for a number of years.


Harry James Barber: Does this vote provide for expenditures in any new districts, or does it apply only to the districts affected last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The vote provides for expenditures in the last fiscal year. Any amounts for new districts this year will be in the further estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor general's warrants.
To provide, under agreement with the province of Ontario, pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938, for a program of special works for the purpose of assisting in the alleviation
an emergency unemployment condition in the northern sections of the province (governor general's warrant, December 14, 1938), $1,000,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour give the details as to what this amount was used for, and where it was used?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This warrant was issued to meet an emergency situation in northern Ontario, which arose because of a very serious curtailment of employment in the woods in that section of the province. I believe it is estimated that the cut this last winter has been about twenty-five per cent of the normal. Therefore about the beginning of December of last year we had to meet a condition brought about because thousands of men who normally found work in the woods were congregating in the cities and towns of that part of the province. We felt the situation could best be met by carrying on certain highway work in northern Ontario in the winter months.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give me the details?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Note: Although the total of the above maximum dominion contributions exceeds $1,000,000 it is understood that this approval does not increase the maximum dominion contribution of $1,000,000 authorized by the agreement.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister at hand the total amount spent in northern Ontario in the last year by the dominion government? Then, if he has the figures of amounts spent by the province, I should like to have them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can say only that the total of 81,000,000 provided under the warrant was expended for winter work in the period from December 1 to March 31. Previous work in that area last year did not come under the Department of Labour. When the estimates of my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources are before the committee I am quite sure he will be able to supply that information.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that at the present time much of the work in that northern section, around the constituencies of the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, has been closed down,
and the contractors are simply waiting for something to turn up. I met one of the contractors in Montreal the other day, although I believe he is a resident of Toronto, not of Montreal. He said, incidentally, that he had been doing work in, I think, the constituency of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, or in any event in some part of northern Ontario, as I learn from Fort William that a good deal of the work up there has been shut down, and that the contractors are not busy. This man from Toronto told me that he was merely waiting, and that if nothing turned up he was going to close his plant. He is keeping only a skeleton staff on the work.
As the minister said, last winter there was a scarcity of work in that section of the country because of the lessening of work in the bush. That was brought about because in

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
the previous year the pulp and paper companies cut too much and left themselves with an overload of pulpwood; so that last winter they cut very little and almost eliminated cam-p work. I am told a great deal of work is badly needed up there to keep the employees of contractors busy and thereby relieve the unemployment situation. The gentleman I mentioned described it to me in this way, that because this government is refusing to meet a like amount put up by the Ontario government, the provincial government is refusing to go on with the work. I am giving the statement, of course, as he gave it to me; I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I do know that there has been a good deal of complaint from the provincial government as to this government failing to give them what they consider is owing to them by the federal authorities. We had some differences ourselves in that regard, but we did put up a huge amount of money. I believe the item in dispute is quite large. I merely wished to say a few words on behalf of Fort William, and the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River can speak for their sections. I do suggest that the Trans-Canada highway and mining roads in that section be treated as generously as possible. It is a large area of country; the territory from North Bay to the Manitoba boundary is as large as Germany and France put together, yet the population is small, and the conditions of distress are largely due to the overcut of pulp and paper. I urge upon the government that they give every consideration to further cooperation with the provincial government with a view to keeping these contracts going, so far as they can within reason, in order to help out conditions in that section of the country.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Being in close touch with the situation in northern Ontario, I might perhaps say a few words. There is great need for work this year in the area referred to by my hon. friend, and it is true that the highway work has not yet started, but if my hon. friend is familiar with the conditions he will realize that there is still a great deal of snow upon the roads in northwestern Ontario; in fact some of our airports in that section are still unusable on account of the snow. I think my hon. friend forgets the kind of weather we have there.


Robert James Manion: No, it is very much the same as here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was talking yesterday with a contractor interested in the northern highway program, and he told me that on account
[Mr. Manion.l
of the weather it would not be possible to resume work on a large scale until June 1.
The appropriations of the dominion for tourist, highways and mining are considerably larger than last year. As my hon. friend is aware, joint projects are carried out by the provincial government. It has long been the custom to ask the provincial governments to make allocation of the various projects, and we have not as yet received the allocation. We have advised the provincial government that we shall be very glad to consider allocations with them when they care to submit their list. There has been no friction between us in this matter.
My hon. friend referred to a claim of the provincial government which the dominion government has not paid. Shortly, the provincial government claims that the late government failed to pay about $14,000,000 on account of work done jointly during the regime of the previous government. We have not been able to find any agreement or justification for such a payment.


Robert James Manion: I admitted that there' was a dispute with the late government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, it was a matter entirely with the late government. As minister from that section of Ontario I feel very keenly for the citizens who are in distress, and the government is making every effort to relieve the situation there as rapidly as possible. Perhaps it was on my recommendation to the government that the situation last winter was relieved to the extent indicated by this vote. I am glad to say that recently the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has arranged with the Department of Transport to carry on a large program of rock ballasting work in that district. That work is now being put under ivay and is absorbing a fair amount of labour. When weather permits a resumption of road work, we hope the situation will be back to normal.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Speaking in support of this item, I may say that a small portion of this amount, matched as it was with a like amount from the province, was spent in my district of Parry Sound on road-making during the winter months. It went far towards helping out the unemployment situation, and produced splendid results for the money spent.
I feel that the item could be criticized rather on the score that it is not large enough than that there is any excess expenditure. When the appropriate minister comes with his estimates-I think it will be the Minister of Mines and Resources rather than the Minister of Laboui-he can very properly put in a substantial allowance, to be matched again

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
by Ontario, for continuation of road work in the northern parts. Dollar for dollar value is being received for the money expended, and the expenditure goes a long way toward reducing the relief rolls.


Robert James Manion: Lest it might be thought, from what the hon. gentleman has said, that I was criticizing the item, let me say that I am not opposing it at all.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: No; I understood the hon. gentleman to have commended the item.


Robert James Manion: That is right.


John Charles Landeryou: Is the Minister of Labour aware of the appalling condition of destitution and poverty that exists in Hull, and would he consider using any of this money to relieve the terrible distress over there?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is out of order.


Alphonse Fournier: If I may interject, Mr. Chairman, at the proper time I can give my hon. friend information that he needs regarding the city of Hull.


Mr. McCANN:: The remarks of the leader of the opposition have elicited most of the information I desired to have. May I, however, ask the Minister of Labour who determines the allocation of this money? Unlike the hon. member for Parry Sound, I can say that none was spent in my district, and that is one reason why I want some information with reference to its allocation, and to call the attention of the minister to the fact that within 150 miles of Ottawa conditions are just as emergent as they are in any part of northern Ontario.
As to the contention that the work is necessary and that it encourages tourist traffic, this government started on a policy three or four years ago of helping to build feeder roads from the Canada-United States boundary line into northern Ontario. There lie between the Ottawa river and the St. Lawrence many roads which were started under that policy and were given provincial and federal aid, but they have not been completed. With reference to the policy of road building, while this grant of $1,000,000 perhaps met an emergent condition last year, there should be continuity of policy in this regard. In my judgment it is poor business to build patches of road here and there and have no continuity of policy over the years which would ensure their completion. As it is now, it is a matter of patchwork, building a piece of road here and a piece of road there. The federal treasury is making huge grants, and it should have some say
where the money is to be spent. If we had some definite policy with reference to road building and our assistance to the provincial government in that regard, and at least a fifty per cent say as to where the roads should be built, we would be a good deal further ahead in the long run. If a grant for road building comparable to this is made this year, I hope the Minister of Labour will stiffen his back a little and that some work will be done in areas where roads were started a few years ago so that they may be brought to completion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The amount voted by the dominion government was applied to projects which in the opinion of the province could be carried on usefully during the winter months in the areas where distress existed. In other words we left it to the province, subject to our approval of course, to indicate the projects which could be carried on usefully and at the same time relieve this unemployment situation. As for the larger question raised by my hon. friend, there will be an opportunity, I am sure, to discuss that when the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Resources are before the house later.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am certainly in favour of this vote. Last winter, when it was decided to spend a certain amount of money in northern Ontario, I was to some extent disappointed at the way the money was divided. I supposed it would be divided almost equally, considering that the situation is of almost equal gravity in all the ridings of northern Ontario; but I found out that there was a difference. I must, however, give credit to the Minister of Labour for having rearranged the distribution of that money.


John Charles Landeryou: I do not think the hon. member gave him enough credit. He gave him only a million dollars.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We do not expect too much from a political Santa Claus. We gathered enough experience to enable the government to remedy next fall any errors which may have been made. If moneys are to be given from the federal treasury next year and work is provided in the cutting of a right of way over the trans-Canada highway, or for roads in some sections of the northern country, we shall know what can and cannot be done before the snow is out of the way. Before that time it was found almost impossible to cut a right of way properly; one can visualize how hard it is for an axe man to cut stumps and clear the ground when we have four or five feet of snow as we had last winter. We shall gain from that experience. I hope it will be found possible first to build a camp, and second to open a lot
<3968	COMMONS
Supply-Governor General's Warrants
of gravel pits on which it will be possible to give some work to our agricultural population. We are not aifected so grievously in mining sections such as Sudbury. I am not speaking with any particular knowledge of that section, but I have reference more to the Porcupine section. We certainly need help in the Hearst and Cochrane sections, and a great deal can be done in employing settlers and their horses in useful work which will provide them with decent roads when the snow is gone.
I wish also to compliment the government- I do not know from what direction the orders were given-in that we always held that we were the missing link of the trans-Canada highway. I echo the fine words which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) uttered a few moments ago with regard to the work done in his own section of the trans-Canada highway. I believe it is due to the Minister of Labour that this winter there was started a real program of work on the trans-Canada highway, particularly west and south of the town of Hearst. We are going to be able to go north at Cochrane and Kapuskasing, also from Hearst and then to Oba, where you come in touch with the north shore of lake Superior.
Again I would compliment the department or whoever is responsible upon the inauguration of that work. It has not been the solution of all our problems of unemployment, but it is a step in the right direction. The work will be enlarged in following years, and we shall have gained from the experience of last fall and last winter.


Angus MacInnis: How many men have been given employment on that particular project? What was the rate of wages paid, and how many days a week did each individual work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will answer the hon.
member in so far as I have the information here.
The men-days worked were as follows:
Men-days
January, 1939	 41,609
February, 1939	 96,245
March, 1939	 123,323
Total	 261,177
That is the equivalent of the employment of 3,600 men for a continuous work period of three months. The wages paid were the prevailing wages in the district in which the work was done in accordance with the practice followed in highway work.


Angus MacInnis: What are the prevailing
wages in that district which were paid on that work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the information at hand now, but I will make a note of it and provide it to my hon. friend if we have a record of it here. I am not sure that we have, because actually the work was done by contractors under the provincial department of highways.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The wages paid were
the prevailing rates for provincial government men employed in that section of the country.


Angus MacInnis: But does not this government insist on a certain rate on any projects in respect of which the government is giving financial assistance?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: They were all satisfied.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is stipulated in the agreement that fair wages shall be paid, and they are regarded as the prevailing wage in the district where the work is done. I can assure my hon. friend that the inspectors see to it that this stipulation is strictly carried out.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for
Parry Sound does not know whether the men were satisfied or not. I am sure that he would not be satisfied if for his work he was paid what those men got.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I interrupted to say that
there was no dissatisfaction-


Angus MacInnis: How do you know?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: -with the prevailing
rate, because I took some trouble to know about the expenditure, and about the men who were taken off relief and went to work on this job. I challenge my hon. friend to name a single man who is dissatisfied with the two million dollars spent.


Angus MacInnis: The item before us is
for one million dollars.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member has
been told already that the province matched it with another million. Two million dollars were spent.


Angus MacInnis: Quite so. There was no
suggestion in my mind, and I do not think the Minister of Labour misunderstood me, that there was any exception taken to the rates paid. I was asking, merely for my own information, whether on this work, as should be the case in all work of this kind, the wages paid were equitable and sufficient to keep those employed.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Well, the hon. member
has the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Interim Supply

Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved that a sum not exceeding $24,308,853.91, being the amount of each of the several items as set forth in the further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1939, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to his majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: The month of May is getting along, and our interim supply, of course, will run out at the end. Having in mind that we shall be having an adjournment next week, I find it necessary to incorporate in the supply bill for last year a resolution similar to that which has just gone through, providing for a further sixth of the main and supplementary estimates for the coming fiscal year. I move:
(1) Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $45,095,590.78, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $20,389,783, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items as set forth in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to his majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1939, the sum of $24,308,853.91 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to his majesty on account of
certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, the sum of $45,095,590.78 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to his majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, the sum of $20,389,783 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 140, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending the 31st March, 1939, and the 31st March, 1940, respectively.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
General.
208. Adjustment of war claims, $60,000.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: When we were last in
committee we were discussing item 208, but there was an understanding amongst all members that there should be a general debate without restriction when the item was called again.


Robert James Manion: As the minister says, it was
the understanding that we should discuss in general the whole question of defence under this item, and in the long run I think it will save time to do so; because if one were forced to divide one's remarks into various parts the debate would likely take much longer. I have no desire at this late stage to delay the committee, but this question of defence in general, which has caused very much discussion throughout the country, is in present world conditions of the greatest importance. There will be, as there should be, a considerable debate upon it in view of the magnitude of the main item-$63,000,-000-and its importance to the dominion.
I listened the other day with a great deal of interest to the minister for about two and a half hours as he gave details of the work of his department, and it is with some dif-
Supply-National Defence

fidence that anyone like myself attempts to discuss a subject of this kind; it is a matter that calls for far greater expert knowledge than I pretend to possess. But I do wish to indicate in a general way the feeling which I believe exists throughout the country with reference to this matter particularly.
From my reading and conversations I have had with those who claim to be experts, I believe it is the general opinion in Canada among military men who are well posted that we are not properly prepared in any way to defend ourselves should there be a world war, that we are unfortunately not in a position to protect ourselves to any great extent. The minister, it is true, gave a great many items indicative of the preparations that have been already carried out, but he also submitted a long list of requirements that are on order and some that are still to be requisitioned, which would seem largely to support the idea that our defence is not in very good shape. May I admit at once that it is due to the laxity, if I may use that word for want of a better, of all governments for a long time back; though I do believe that the present government came into power at a time when world conditions were changing. Because world conditions were changing, and possibly because of the fact that our government did little in this matter; the present government deserves to share more of the responsibility than either the government that preceded them or the government of my hon. friends which preceded us before 1930.
We have spent in the last three years something like $90,000,000; we have in the estimates this year something over S60.000.000, yet it seems to me we are only now getting prepared for possible repercussions if a world conflagration takes place. Now on the eve of an election, this government, having been in power for four years, are taking precautions which I believe should have been taken earlier. It seems that in almost everything the government do they lack a distinct plan or method. The wheat bills that we have just been dealing with are a good illustration; they have been changed four times at any rate within the last few weeks, if not the last few days. The unemployment and youth problems have not been adequately dealt with,
I noticed an item in the press this morning regarding the putting up and taking down of flags and decorations in front of this and other government buildings. Even in the matter of putting up a few flags the government seem to muddle it.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Order.


Robert James Manion: What is the point of order?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The item under discussion has nothing to do with the subject with which my hon. friend is dealing.


Robert James Manion: I know as much about order as my hon. friend, so that I shall probably go on without being called to order by him.
In regard to defence, we have just the same type of indecision as in practically everything else with which this government have dealt. It is true that they give in reply the old tu quoque argument. They say that between 1930 and 1935 we did nothing. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) shakes his head, but the other day the Minister of National Defence devoted a considerable part of his two and a half hour speech to showing that between 1930 and 1935 we neglected to put up the defences that we now complain this government has not put up. I admit it at once, but I could if I wished go back to the period 1921 to 1930 and show that in those nine years the Liberal government which preceded our Conservative government neglected it in the same way. I consider that the Liberal government between 1921 and 1930, and our government between 1930 and 1935, were excusable on this ground, that the whole idea of disarmament was general throughout the world from 1920 until about the middle nineteen thirties. There was a desire not only for physical disarmament but for mental disarmament. The Minister of Justice, who makes a study of international affairs, will recall the Kellogg-Briand pact of August, 1928, which put on record the desire or determination on the part of the great countries of the world in future to settle all international disputes by peaceful means rather than by warfare. It was the spirit bf the times. That same spirit continued until the early nineteen thirties, right up to about the time we went out of office. In fact it was not until at least 1935 that there was really any marked change. I was at the disarmament conference of 1933 and I met there representatives of many countries. All of them were determined if possible to bring about a disarmament treaty; they were very hopeful of its being brought about-England, France, all the countries they represented. That was the spirit of the middle nineteen thirties, and that feeling lasted until at least 1935. Hitler's rise had then begun-I think he became chancellor in 1933-but the world generally did not realize the possibilities of international discord that his coming would bring, did not realize the danger that would arise from that type of dictatorship. It was

Supply-National Defence
late 1935 or early 1936 when the Rhine was refortified and Germany began to rearm. It was then that Great Britain and France really awakened to the danger. Great Britain began to build up an industry of the utmost importance to the British Isles, and it was then that I think we lagged; we should have copied Great Britain-perhaps not immediately, because after all Great Britain is right on the edge of the volcano and we are farther away. But long before this time we should have realized that there was need for more defence provision than we have at the present time.
On top of that we have made a mistake even this year, when we have begun to show signs of life; we have begun badly with the Bren gun embroglio and the Janin contract, which I do not intend to discuss now. In building up the industries of our country and utilizing them for the making of munitions the start was made in a bad way. For example, to-day, as the minister told us in his speech, we have something like four anti-aircraft guns-I think that is what the minister said.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
were four ordered by my predecessor; at the present time we have fourteen altogether in Canada.


Robert James Manion: Well, I may have misunderstood what I read in the minister's speech.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The figures vary from time to time.


Robert James Manion: But I understood the
minister to say, dealing with anti-aircraft guns, that we had only four.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I give my hon. friend to-day's figures? Fourteen on hand and 18 on order.


Robert James Manion: Let me read the minister's words and see wherein I was mistaken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information at that time was probably about two months old.


Robert James Manion: On page 3243 of Hansard the minister is reported as saying:
By March 31, 1939-
Only a month and a half ago.
-the following orders had been completed: four 3-inch anti-aircraft guns ordered in 1935 have been delivered.
Then on page 3245 he said:
As to anti-aircraft equipment, answering the question of my hon. friend a few moments ago, they were ordered by the previous administration and since then there have been ordered 14 anti-aircraft guns of the 4-5-inch calibre and 4 of 3-inch calibre for future delivery, at an estimated total cost of $1,289,240.
The member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) then asked:
When does the minister expect delivery?
And the minister replied:
I think fairly soon, but I cannot be specific in regard to that.
Have they been delivered since?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; these are naval anti-aircraft guns. In addition to those ordered by the hon. member for Yale when he was minister, there are 14 now awaiting delivery in Canada-18 plus 14.


Robert James Manion: My impression, from information obtained from men who are well posted from a military standpoint, who have studied the question, is that we would need to use in round figures probably 100 antiaircraft guns.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think 124.


Robert James Manion: Well, then, we need at least 100 more than we have. I doubt whether to-day, in the present state of international affairs, there is any equipment we require more than anti-aircraft guns, because if war broke out and we were attacked by a foreign country it would be an attack by air; it would have to be that. While a ship might come across the ocean and bomb some of our ports, it could do nothing of importance further than that without the use of aircraft. So that if there is any article of warfare that is badly required at present in this country, it is what I have mentioned-anti-aircraft guns. The minister says we would need about 124, which sounds reasonable to me, because we would require them on both coasts and some in the centre of Canada for fear of possible attack from Hudson bay and James bay.
In addition the minister said we have thirty-six modern service aircraft and about 174 others that are either obsolete or are training aircraft; in other words they are old-fashioned boats that can be used for training purposes only. I imagine it would be suicide to send any men up in them to compete with modern aircraft coming, say, from an aircraft carrier that entered the St. Lawrence or James bay or other adjacent waters. So we have thirty-six effective planes, and if you spread those out in the sections of Canada where they might be needed you would have perhaps twelve on each coast and twelve around the centre of Canada, which I imagine would be about one-fifth or one-tenth of what we should have.
So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this government should have profited by past mistakes; by our mistakes, those of the last government, if you like, and by their own

Supply-National Defence
mistakes when they were in power from 1921 to 1929. I submit that it should not have taken the government four years to realize that we had made a mistake in thinking the world was going to be peaceful when in fact the world has no semblance of peace at the present time except in so far as there is not actually a war taking place, with the exception of the one in China.
I am merely touching these points in a general way, but I come next to our navy, which is weak in the same way. That is probably the fault of all of us; we were all against spending large sums of money on a Canadian navy. Again, however, for the last four years this has been the responsibility of the present government. The minister says we have six destroyers with 4-6 inch guns, and it has been stated by authorities that one cruiser with 6 inch guns could drive these destroyers off the sea. Yet we are one of the great trading nations of the world. Our import and export trade in round figures I suppose is worth a total of a thousand million dollars a year; yet we have practically no defence against anything like a heavy enemy ship coming across here, after perhaps breaking through the British navy and the United States navy, if the United States were in the war, and attacking the focal points where our trade converges, say at Halifax, Saint John and up the St. Lawrence, and on the other coast towards Victoria and Vancouver.
There are a few suggestions I should like to make, again in a general way. In the first place I agree with the minister's statement that we need fear no danger from the south.
I do not think the English-speaking nations are in any danger of ever fighting among themselves, either Canada and the United States or the United States and any other part of the British empire. I feel that if such a war ever took place it would be akin to fratricide, and I do not think there is even a possibility of anything like that happening. So our defences must be on the east, the west and the north. We have a long coast line, all of which is vulnerable to a certain extent. It is true that our geography does not change, but unfortunately military science has advanced very greatly, so much so that distance has been largely annihilated. We have reached the stage in warfare when machinery is much more important than men; indeed to-day an army without machinery would be slaughtered in very short order if it had to compete with an army well equipped with the machinery of war.
That we are in danger from the air seems very evident, if only from the fact that the 
United States itself has been spending huge sums on protection from attacks by air, in the construction of aircraft, anti-aircraft guns, and so on. Generally speaking no enemy airplane would find it reasonably feasible to attack the United States without passing over some portion of Canada. Therefore the fact that the United States is vulnerable to air attack or at least they think they are so \ulnerable that they are building defences- shows that we are much more vulnerable due to the formation of our country and the shorter route around the northern section of the globe. Our terminals, our ports and our trade routes are all vulnerable to foreign attack. I pointed out in other discussions in this ^ house, I think during the Bren gun discussion for example, the danger from James bay. I do not want to repeat what I said then, but an area from Quebec on the east to Winnipeg on the west would be within range of airplanes brought into James bay by an enemy ship. In that area we have the industrial and political hearts of the country. Therefore we must go on doing all we can, as rapidly as we can, to increase our defences. It would seem to me that our anti-aircraft supplies are most urgent. I am not sure of the order in which I am putting these matters, but I would say the aircraft themselves would come next. The minister has his orders in, and I hope we all realize the need of pushing these orders forward to completion as rapidly as possible.
In addition to protecting our ports and our trade routes we must be in a position to protect our neutrality should the oft-quoted possibility of a war between Japan and the United States ever materialize. We have an indented coast line, with many islands, which would be ideal for use by an enemy country as a base for submarine attacks; and if we could not protect our neutrality, with a country like the United States fighting for its very life, we would be in a difficult position if we allowed our coasts to be used by enemy ships.
Then we must build up a nucleus for all the different branches of the service. That is being attempted, and I Should like to see it go forward much more rapidly.
Another very important matter that has been neglected is the building up of our industrial life in a proper manner. As I pointed out a short time ago, about the middle thirties Great Britain realized the necessity of building up her industrial life in order to be able to supply her own needs in various types of munitions. In the same way, on a smaller scale, we should be doing the same thing. We cannot buy these things, at any

Supply-National Defence
rate to any great extent, from any other country in the world to-day. We might buy some material from the United States, though it would be too bad to have to do so if we could make them ourselves, as we can. We cannot buy them in England at present, because England may have to fight for her very life, and she requires all her industrial power to manufacture supplies of one kind and another for herself. In this country we have the ability, the ingenuity, the engineering skill and the financial power to build up a great industry of this kind. From 1914 to 1918 we did magnificent work along these lines. I was looking up a speech I made some time ago in connection with another matter-I do not remember the subject of the debate-and I am going to quote a statement I put on record at that time, coming from the British war cabinet and put out after the last war, showing the possibilities of this country for building up a great industry and supplying ourselves with munitions. At page 1870 of Hansard for this year I quoted the statement of the British war cabinet at some length. This is what they said:
Dealing at this juncture with production, as it had been in 1917, the British war cabinet declared that "the manufacturing resources of Canada have been mobilized for war production almost as completely as those of the British isles," and added these detailed facts. . . .
Fifteen per cent of the total expenditure of the ministry of munitions in the last six months of the year was incurred in that country.
That is, in Canada. Then the article goes on:
She has manufactured nearly every type of shell from the 18-pounder to the 9-2-inch. In the case of the 18-pounder, no less than 55 per cent of the output of shrapnel shells in the last six months came from Canada, and most of these w-ere complete rounds of ammunition, which went direct to France. Canada also contributed 42 per cent of the total 4-2 shells-
Then they go on with more details which I shall not put on the record. In the next column this statement of the British war cabinet gives complete figures with regard to quantities, of our exports during the four years. I said:
There are a good many other details w-hieh I do not wish to put on record, but I think these are worth while:
"Shells	 65,343,674
Fuses	 29,638,126
Fuse parts	 16,174,073
Cartridge cases	 48,627,673
Percussion primers	 35,386,488
Shell forgings	 6,412,115
Explosives; chemicals (lbs.)..	111,297,107
Metals; compounds (lbs.). ..	107,282,336
Lumber (feet)	 53,327,107
Exploder containers	 13,285,000"
Then I say the statement goes on to deal with the matter complimentarily in greater detail, during the four years of the war. Speaking roughly, that was the stupendous amount of production which Canada put into the war zone. It was a magnificent piece of work. In the review from which I quoted on the other occasion it would appear that they could give no praise too high for the splendid' work which was done during those four years in mobilizing our industrial activity for the purpose of building up a great industry to supply the allies with ammunition of various kinds.
At the present time the world is unhappily in such a condition that we have once again to consider the same line of business. It isa very unhappy circumstance that we should have to do so. I do not suppose there is anybody in the house who believes more in peace or is a more sincere anti-war person than I am. At the same time I am not one who believes that we can remain defenceless when the rest of the world is building up defences. A condition which, although it has no bearing on the matter, may be considered as being akin to it, would be that suggested by some of my hon. friends to the left. They suggest that we should remain free trade when the whole world is protecting itself against our exports. I believe the two situations are similar. We must follow the line taken by the rest of the world.
Consequently I submit it is a great opportunity for Canada and a great opportunity for business to build up. It is a great opportunity to relieve our unemployment situation. I say the government is to be criticized for not having grasped that fact much sooner than it did. It is true the minister told us, in another speech, that some 1,500 industrial plants have been surveyed for the purpose of mobilizing our industrial strength. But so far as I know the mobilization of industry has not been proceeded with to any great extent. We have even antagonized industry by the very contracts to which I referred a few moments ago, namely the Bren and Janin contracts, where no competition was brought into the picture from big manufacturing corporations, of which I know, which would be open to consider such contracts. Therefore I say we have so far missed an opportunity, of which advantage can still be taken, and which I emphasize strongly should be taken advantage of at the earliest moment.
In addition to building our own supplies, there are undoubtedly great opportunities for us to use our great industrial works to supply other countries, particularly Great Britain.
Supply-National Defence

We realize that Great Britain is sitting on the edge of the volcano, and is in a position where she requires to build up her defence with the utmost speed. If we have the industrial development to meet the requirements of Great Britain, then we have an opportunity to help her not only as part of the empire but to meet her needs of supply. I am informed that New Zealand and Australia have got much farther than we ha-ve along the road of supplying themselves with munitions. Surely with our great industrial plants we can go more deeply into this matter, and do it with the utmost speed. We require aeroplanes, munitions, artillery, mechanical transports, tanks, armoured cars, tractors, rifles and machine guns, to name only a few of our absolute needs.
Someone has said that the industry of a nation governs its military strength. To build up an industry or at least to convert it from its ordinary work into the work of manufacturing munitions and war supplies takes time. Consequently I feel that the government have been far too slow in this work, and that we should move forward with the utmost speed to catch up, as England is to-day catching up, on the neglect in the early days of the nineteen-thirties. People did not then realize, as we did not, that the dictatorships would soon be endangering the democracies of the world. And so, if needs be, we must be ready to mobilize our industrial strength in war-time.
Then, in a speech I delivered some weeks ago I suggested that we should have something by way of a committee of the house and the senate for the purpose of consulting with the present defence committee which exists in the Department of National Defence, to go into matters which cannot be dealt with quite so fully in the whole house or in a committee of the house as they could be in a small committee of that kind. In such a committee there could be the utmost secrecy, and details could be given. I believe that is a matter which is well worthy of consideration by the government. That committee could be made up of some of the members of the House of Commons and of the Senate who take a particular interest in this matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am quite in favour of my hon. friend's suggestion in that regard.


Robert James Manion: I am glad to hear that; but I would be gladder to hear that he was putting my suggestion into effect. Agreeing with me does not get us very far; the minister would go farther if he would carry out the suggestion. He would find a precedent for

something along that line, because I think there are committees of that sort in the United States; I do not know whether or not there is one in England.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Robert James Manion: All the more reason, then, why we should have it. We would be able to go into detail that we cannot possibly place before the House of Commons, for reasons of national interest, if you like.
I admit it is unfortunate at a time like this when we could utilize our wealth for the constructive development of the country and to develop it along lines of peace, that we should even have to consider defence expenditures such as we have before us. But we have to take the world as we find it. We are not in control of the international gangsters who are to-day endangering the peace of the world. And because of the fact that they do endanger the peace of the world we have not only to protect our ideals but to be ready to participate, if we must, in self-defence, in defence of our ideals, of the empire, and of world democracies in general.
Once more when the world is again calm, as we hope it may be in the near future- although at the present time there is not much prospect of that condition-Canada may again lead the way towards peace and disarmament. Of course the trouble has been that science has gone ahead so rapidly that the 3,000 miles of ocean which we always looked upon as a barrier is no longer an effective defence. Consequently we must have these different types of armaments for our defence.
I should like now to say a few words about our militia, in general. After all, it is the oldest arm of our defence, and I think it is still a dependable one. There is no doubt that in the last war the militia was the great arm of defence. The development of war in the air was an important factor, but the militia was so important that if either side had been deficient in it the war would have concluded much sooner.
There are the two branches, namely the permanent and the non-permanent forces. I have nothing to say about the permanent force. In the permanent militia in the Department of National Defence we have in Canada a splendid group of men. From the days of the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) we have had a splendid group of men giving their lives to the keeping together of a skeleton force of men, to which they may add when occasion arises.
But I do not believe any of us have given sufficient attention to the non-permanent

Supply-National Defence
militia. There is no doubt that it has been neglected. I remember that when I sat on the government benches we were criticized because of expenditures, no matter how small they may have been, for the non-permanent force. True, to-day there cannot be the same criticism there was at that time, because I believe even the greatest pacifist in Canada must realize the changed condition in the world. But we have all neglected that branch of the service. There has been a group of loyal and energetic officers who have shown devotion and self-sacrifice for the non-permanent militia, and who have given, of their time and money to help the organization along. But they have not been able to get from any of the governments, either the one to which I belonged or the present one, sufficient clothing, boots or supplies for the men. I was glad to hear the minister mention in his speech that there is more being done in the wray of handing out supplies of boots and clothing. It was shocking to learn-and I confess I did not know it until the minister stated it-that in the past few years the non-permanent militia had been dependent upon supplies left from the last war, which ended a little more than twenty years ago. It seems extraordinary that there should be any part of them left. These splendid men who have built up the non-permanent militia at their own expense and by their own selfsacrifice and energy should be assisted to build it up in a stronger way. I care not what pacifist suggests that we should not have military training; I sincerely believe there is no finer training for a young man than something in the way of military training and discipline. Far be it from me to suggest anything in the way of being warlike, but I believe that young men in military training get a discipline and physical fitness that they cannot get anywhere else; and when young men are willing to join the non-permanent militia and take part in parades, it may be, and drills and training, we should give them every encouragement, and encouragement also to the officers who have done so much by their own efforts to help build up the organization. The estimates for this branch of the service are about the same as last year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
explain that? The total is exactly the same, but S40.000 was allocated from the larger vote because of shortening the hours for civilian caretakers in the various armouries. That is being corrected later.


Robert James Manion: I do not know that I
quite understand the explanation.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); I understood my hon. friend's complaint was that the 7H92-250
training vote was less this year. The vote for the non-permanent militia is exactly the same, but the actual amount for training is less because of the hours of civilian caretakers in various armouries being shortened. That, however, is being taken care of later.


Robert James Manion: I am very glad to hear
that. I wholly support the idea that we should help the force. I have only a few more remarks to make, and then I shall leave the discussion to others who wish to follow.
The minister in his speech said that there was a turn-over of about 50 per cent in the non-permanent militia. There would be a turn-over of one-third, of course, as a result of the training being for three years. But 50 per cent seems pretty high, and I believe it is because the men felt dissatisfied with the clothing and boots with which they were being supplied. I want to assure the minister and through him the government that in any encouragement he gives to either the permanent or the non-permanent militia I shall be very glad to support him because that is the foundation upon which we must build in time of need.
This is not the time for a debate on international affairs, and I do not intend to indulge in such a debate. But world conditions are such that it is necessary for us to protect our nation and our national ideals. It is also a time when we can build up an industry such as I have suggested, which will be for the defence of the country and give employment. I am told by a friend of mine who was in Hamilton recently that he was advised that in that city some of the steel plant employees and employees in electrical plants were being laid off to add to our out-of-works. That is the very type of employee who would be of the utmost use to us in this new industry which it is possible for us to build up.
What strikes me is that if unhappily an international conflagration should break out, we are not only in danger but largely defenceless. I do not think that is an exaggeration. There has been very little done to correct the state of our defences, and never was there a time when we had a better opportunity to correct it than now when there is so much unemployment, with half a million unemployed men in Canada. That offers a splendid opportunity for the government to stop fiddling and get down to business seriously. We have the ability, we have the need. Therefore we have the opportunity, and the government should awaken and push this matter vigorously, show more courage than it has done, and more than we showed, for that matter, between 1930 and 1935. But

Supply-National Defence

at that time, I repeat, there was not the call for it that there is now. After four years in office this government should get down to doing what is urgently required and do everything it can to supply to-day's urgent needs.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer in a sentence. The minister mentioned cooperation with the British government in regard to the training of pilots, and said that some fifty British pilots would be trained over here. In the British isles they speak of pilots in such huge numbers that fifty seems to be merely a fleabite. I think that opportunity might well be broadened to give pilot training to a very much larger number if the British government desire it-not fifty, but hundreds and perhaps thousands. We have a huge area suitable for training of that kind. I am told that the reason why the British wanted to have us cooperate with them was that in their densely populated country there were dangers from aeroplanes crashing and all that sort of thing, whereas we have wide open spaces capable of furnishing miles and miles of training area which could be utilized without danger to the civilian population.
I suggest that we cooperate with the British government to the utmost possible degree in that regard. If there was in the past any reason for not doing so, it seems to me that reason has gone. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and I, from different sections of the house, took the same attitude with regard to cooperation. I do not think the Prime Minister was as clear-cut as he might have been ; but after listening to him and then to the Minister of Justice in regard to the absolute impossibility of Canada remaining neutral in a war in which Great Britain was engaged-an attitude which I took just as they did, or at least as the Minister of Justice did; for I might say, after hearing the two speeches of the Prime Minister and the speech of the Minister of Justice, that was their attitude-I believe the attitude of the government is that we must cooperate with Great Britain to the fullest possible extent short of conscripting our men to send them overseas. I take the same attitude myself, and since we have taken that attitude, it seems to me that the government might well forget the position they took in the past, if it is that which is holding them back, and cooperate to the fullest possible extent with Great Britain in the training of British pilots over here. Certainly they will receive no criticism from me or from this party if they cooperate with the British government in that matter,

and I think much more should be done than is indicated by training only fifty pilots.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have on more than one occasion in the last few months offered the utmost cooperation to the British government, and the number was determined not by this government but by Great Britain.


Robert James Manion: They determined on the fifty?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Then I make no further comment on that. Before resuming my seat I wish to say that I support the department and the government in any constructive defence plans for this country. The democracies must stand collectively together, as I stated in the house on another occasion. If ever there was a time in the history of the world when democracies should stand shoulder to shoulder, it is now. We must try to secure ourselves, in a sense, collectively. I frankly admit to-day that I have not much faith in the power of the League of Nations, but it is the only organization we have that acts as a sort of forum at which the different nations meet. Therefore I should not like to suggest our getting out of it, but rather, through it or by some other method, we should endeavour, all the democracies of the world, to work collectively together to protect the ideals of free speech, free parliamentary institutions, individual freedoms and freedoms of other kinds which we possess and which the dictator countries do not possess. Whatever our faults may be-and we have many in the handling of our affairs; many of them have been pointed out by various people in the last year or so-despite them all I would rather be as we are than be regimented as are the people of Germany, Italy and Russia, and I think our people generally, if they had the choice to make, would take exactly the same attitude. The only protection we have against international gangsterism is that we should stand together as democracies shoulder to shoulder. If we do not do that, there is a danger, and, to my mind, a great danger, of the dictator countries conquering in the end. I do not even like to think of such a possibility.
In closing, let me repeat that I am ready, and this party is ready, to cooperate with the government in constructive methods for building up a munitions industry in this country, for building up our defence forces, and utilizing this $63,000,000 in the best interests of Canada as a whole.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. J. N. FRANCCEUR (Lotbiniere) (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were taken up, there was a protracted debate, in the course of which every phase of our foreign policy was discussed. The latter is linked up with national defence and with the expenditures that are necessary for its maintenance and development. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), as well as group leaders, former ministers and many hon, members availed themselves of that opportunity to define their stand and to lay down before the people of this country the results of their investigations.
During the last few months, great events have engaged our attention; a disturbing, ever-recurring thought, which is almost an obsession, is preying upon our minds and compels us to ask ourselves: Will war break out? Shall we succeed in preserving peace? The world is in a state of turmoil. Night and day, at every hour and every minute, the radio and the press give us news despatches, and acquaint us with governmental discussions, rumours and comments; on all sides there is in evidence a state of unrest reminiscent of the conditions that prevailed before the catastrophe of 1914. Having scarcely recovered from the trials we underwent at that time, we are now being threatened with a still more severe ordeal. That state of mind is reflected in our debates, as is shown by the twenty-six speeches delivered during the debate on external affairs. In listening to them, we were reminded of the fact that parliament is truly a place where people speak-and at great length. In that respect, our system of government, availing itself of all its rights and privileges, is faithful to its traditions. In the years to come, should any parliamentary historian or chronicler with leisure and a good deal of courage, wish to deal with those discussions, a reference to Hansard will enable him to realize the labours of the people's representatives. He will note, I am sure, that no problem escapes their attention, and that they know how to analyse and solve it.
When we look over the policies of the British government, and the relationship between the latter and the dominions, our minds are exercised mostly over the momentous decisions that would have to be taken in the event of a European conflict in which Great Britain might be involved. In dealing with those various matters our thoughts and actions must be governed by certain leading principles.
We must choose between three courses: neutrality; participation with or without con-71492- 250i
scription; and non participation. The legal aspect of the first course has been thoroughly discussed. The question has been put whether or not Canada is empowered to declare her neutrality, and whether her parliament may decide to wage war or to preserve peace. Opinions vary to a great extent. As always, our legal lights are pointing in opposite directions. While the endeavour to define a right is commendable, it is more important to face the facts and to act accordingly.
However, two distinct theories have been evolved. The supporters of the first one state that European wars are no concern of ours since they arise from the clash of economic, financial or political interests; that the Berlin-Rome axis corresponds to the England-Erance axis, soon to be joined by Russia, each one of those groups endeavouring to court the favour of small nations; that all through the centuries, wars have resulted from the old seesaw game of treaties and alliances; that the negotiations leading to those treaties and alliances are not submitted to us for consideration and approval; that we are acquainted with decisions taken, outside our knowledge and without our consent, and without our having a say in the matter. According to that school of thought, we are not bound by such decisions and our neutrality having been declared, we must resort to the most complete isolation. That is the policy which is invariably followed; the decisions are taken by the British government and they are afterwards communicated to us.
In this connection, we must remember the speech delivered by the prime minister, Mr. Chamberlain, in the British House of Commons, on the 13th April last, after the occupation of Albania by Italian forces. After reviewing certain events which had occurred before that serious incident, he said:
Consequently, they have come to the conclusion that, in the event of any action being taken which clearly threatens the independence of Greece and Roumania, and which the Greek or Roumanian governments respectively consider it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's government will feel themselves bound to lend at once to the Greek or Roumanian governments, as the case might be, all the support in their power.
We are communicating this declaration to the governments directly concerned and to the powers, especially Turkey, whose close relationships with the Greek government are known, and I understand that the French government are making a similar declaration this afternoon.
I need not add that the dominion governments, as always, are being continuously informed of developments.
The second theory is that of intervention or participation in European wars as soon as England and her ally, France, have decided upon war, either for the preservation of the
Supply-National Defence

independence of Greece, Roumania or Poland, or-those two countries wishing to remain world arbitrators-for helping them to fulfil that ambition; that should they be unable to achieve it by themselves, at their own expense and risk, we must go to their aid, not only in organizing our own defence, but in putting expeditionary forces at their disposal; that such forces must be kept in readiness through every means, even through conscription; that we must exhaust our resources in man power and money in order to maintain democratic ideals on the European continent and ensure the freedom and independence of those countries that are threatened by fascist and nazist doctrines; that such sacrifices will be necessary if we are to continue enjoying our freedom on the American continent.
There are some who bring to the study of these problems a great deal of logic and common sense, whereas others cannot seem to rid themselves, in this regard, of the influence of passion and prejudice, with the result that there ensue acrid discussions and controversies which threaten to cancel all our efforts toward national unity. But the decision will rest, in the final analysis, with parliament.
To the domestic policy, on which we were not agreed, is now added an external policy which multiplies our disputes and fans the flame of dissension.
We are being called upon, this year, to vote a considerable increase in the National Defence estimates. In making our decision, we must keep in mind the sole interests of this country, not forgetting to take into account the events of the last few months which have endowed the situation with ever-increasing gravity. Whether we wish it or not, these events are bound to affect us and we cannot afford to ignore them. They impose upon us new obligations, the first of which is to increase and develop our armaments in view of our country's defence. This idea is opposed in certain quarters where it is feared that such armaments would inevitably draw us into new adventures. "What is the reason, they add, for this huge expenditure, and against whom are we arming''?
Every citizen has the duty of defending his country. Now he cannot accomplish this duty unless he is furnished with the adequate means of doing so. The advocates of neutrality which, they feel, parliament should proclaim, cannot assuredly allege that this neutrality should not be protected in case of aggression. It would be most unwise to wait until this happened before looking about us for some means of protection. It would then be too late. One usually protects one's self against accident and illness hazards by taking out an 
insurance policy, which does not necessarily mean that the insured shall fall ill or be the victim of an accident but that, should he be stricken with illness or fall victim to an accident, he shall be properly safeguarded against the consequences thereof. It would undoubtedly be far better not to be forced to insure ourselves against such hazards, yet it is equally wise to pay the premiums and make sure that we are protected. The same rule applies as regards the defence of our country. It is not after an attack has been launched, nor war declared, that we should resort to arming ourselves. In truth, all these precautions shall not prevent further assaults against our peace of mind, unless the hope expressed on March 31 last by Major Vernon Bartlett, independent member of the British parliament, should come true:
We shall not be able to enjoy ourselves until Franco's widow tells Stalin on his deathbed that Hitler has been assassinated at Mussolini's funeral.
I am aware that, in the province of Quebec, a campaign is being waged against what is termed the armaments race, and that it is being said that this increase in the estimates has no other purpose than the sending, in case of war, of an expeditionary force to Europe.
According to the advice of experts, any such attempt, in view of modern armaments and especially the development of aerial and submarine warfare, would end in disaster. Neither Canada, nor the United States could, as was done during the great war, land troops in France or in England. This opinion is shared by all those who, without being experts, are aware of the grave peril to sea navigation which bombers and submarines constitute. It is perhaps not irrelevant to mention here the despatches we have all read to the effect that certain members of the British cabinet were of the opinion that the King should cancel his trip to Canada. They feared that, should he cross the Atlantic under present conditions and war be declared while he were in Canada, he could not return to England before the cessation of hostilities. The following cable dated London, April 15 last, was recently published in the Montreal Standard:
The Sunday Express said to-night that some members of the cabinet are attempting to persuade King George to cancel his scheduled visit to Canada and the United States this summer.
There is a sharp division of opinion whether Their Majesties should make the tour at all or not. Certain ministers feel that if there even is a possibility of a war within the next two months the king and queen should not be allowed to cross the Atlantic.

Supply-National Defence
Were a war to break out while they are on the American continent there might be no possibility of their returning to Britain until the hostilities ceased.
Not only are those who oppose the defence appropriations obsessed by the idea that an expeditionary force is to be sent overseas, but they persist in stating that armaments will lead to our participation in external wars and, therefore, to conscription. In order to alarm public opinion, they keep recalling what took place from 1914 to 1918 and say that we are heading for similar catastrophes.
They insinuate that those who are in favour of providing for the defence of the country want war and that those who oppose any increase in the defence appropriations are against war. This unsound reasoning can only create disunion by means of which certain undesirable elements seek to obtain control.
In 1937 I obtained from my electors of Lotbiniere the mandate to sit in this house. I did not seek it under false representations; it was given to me with full knowledge of the facts. National defence was the main issue. I maintained everywhere that it was our duty to organize the defence of the country and to vote the appropriations required for that purpose. I pointed out that this expenditure was not made with any idea of aggression, but solely to repulse any attack from the outside and to protect our neutrality.
When in 1938 I had the honour of moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I made identical statements. I added, however, that if we were to impose heavy sacrifices upon ourselves in order to maintain and develop our means of defence, we did not intend to participate in external war nor, above all, to spend a single dollar for the dispatch of an expeditionary force beyond the ocean. I was of the opinion then, as I am now, that measures of national defence, within our means, are a sufficient participation; that when all the parts are properly defended the whole is sufficiently protected. Such a defence cannot be improvised; each year new circumstances compel further efforts.
War is a horrible thing. Must we, to avoid it, abstain from all defence preparations? Must we remain in splendid isolation, counting on our neighbour to come to our assistance in the event of our being attacked? It is well for us to rely on our neighbour, but, in order to obtain his help in war time we have to show beforehand our intention to do our part.
From time immemorial the world has wanted peace, but invariably, at fixed periods, wars have broken out. More than ever treaties are but scraps of paper thrown into the wastepaper basket according as interest or ambition dictates. It is unnecessary to cite instances remembered by all.
During the past year the statements and actions of Hitler and Mussolini have been such as to make us not only anxious but prudent.
It is well to remember these words of a great statesman:
Peace is nothing but the more or less prolonged interval required to get ready for another war.
More than a century ago, in 1807, Talleyrand wrote:
When all the talk is of peace, that is the time when it is necessary to prepare for war more than ever and to multiply resources.
Governments live by the sweat of their brow. That is a universal law. In these troublous times heads of governments have great difficulty in getting their sincerity recognized. Their clearest statements are questioned; they are charged with the blackest intentions; suspicion and doubt is raised about them.
Why should there be any doubt about the explicit statements made by the Prime Minister at the imperial conference in London, in May and June, 1937? Why doubt his more recent statements made on March 30 last, concerning conscription:
One political fact is equally clear: in a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity. Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could be made, and if this government were in power it would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence. Profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed. But men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
Why should it be thought that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was not sincere when the following day, speaking on the same questions, he said:
Reason, judgment and the interests of the country must predominate.
The French Canadians will never agree that any government has the right to force them to military service on the other side of the ocean.
I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it. I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that
Supply-National Defence

the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies. The men would be needed here; and in any event it is parliament which will decide about it.
We should take reasonable measures, within our means, to protect ourselves from possible attack, at least while we are waiting for outside help; we must have some means of helping ourselves.
Can any statement of principles be more formal or any engagement more absolute?
Should the government's actions prove to be at variance with the above statements, the people will appreciate and judge. Their verdict cannot be doubted.
I have always considered that within the ranks of a party it was not necessary to worship the leaders, but only to trust them. That requires a certain discipline. This discipline, indispensable to any common action, while keeping us in the limits of intelligent leadership in no way diminishes the sincerity and strength of our convictions; it does not prevent criticism of leaders-in fact, leaders should invite criticism and seek to profit by it, so long as it relates to matters of policy. The exercise of this freedom of thought, of speech and of criticism is the basis of true liberalism. However, we should avoid the kind of criticism that degenerates into wrangling, for then, outward appearances of wisdom ill conceal intrigue and weakness which make one the victim of compromising associates and of dangerous and unscrupulous backers, whose sole purpose is to ensure the success of their electoral propaganda.
More than ever if we wish to maintain our parliamentary system is it necessary to submit to leadership. Some years ago, probably foreseeing the dangers which threaten the democracies to-day, a French statesman, Raymond Poincare, speaking of the need of a sound political system, said:
The difficulty is not to set out on paper a long list of legislative resolutions. Usually, such lists are simple enumerations of future failures of election promises. There is one thing which is at the same time harder to attain and more necessary, that is, to apply to the daily study of the successive problems arising from the normal run of political life that community of mind and of ideas upon which, to a far greater extent than upon the deceptive identity of formulas, rest the strength and cohesion of parties. That unanimity of resolve, that spontaneous agreement on guiding principles are not attained without the sacrifice of some personal opinions to the common will. The governing principles upon which unity is achieved should never be forgotten. The leaders must initiate all important decisions and accept their responsibility with courage; their authority should not be based on expedients and opportunism; they must manfully adopt a policy looking to the future; their aims must be lofty and far-seeing. All must understand that failing organization, method and continuity lMr. Francceur.]
of purpose, a party, no matter how generous its intentions might be, is doomed to tergiversations, disorder and helplessness.
Our leaders have "initiated all important decisions and accepted their responsibility." The easier course would have been to cajole the people and adopt methods which are being brought into use for the purpose of getting votes at the next election. It is an easy way of getting applause.
I might be permitted to quote the words of a writer who has defined the character of a leader in the following words:
Those who look for cheap applause are not real masters-neither of themselves nor of those they want to lead. Mob enthusiasm is easily raised by cajolery, by a flow of words, by high sounding and empty formulas whose flourish dazes and intoxicates, because the mind is saved the hard work of thinking. In that manner mobs are easily swayed but they are not carried very far. At the first onslaught, the ranks give way, are shattered and thrown In every direction. The character of a leader bears a different stamp. It is a moving spirit because it is a motive power.
During the debate on the address, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) delivered a speech which excited some interest in the province of Quebec. He concluded his speech by the following declaration:
. Let us be frank and face the facts. Participation <in a continental war will, whether we want it or not, be an issue at the next general election.. It will most certainly be an issue in Quebec. I could not escape it in my own constituency even if I tried.
He made no mention of other most important problems which surely will be the subject of long discussions during the electoral campaign.
His leader, however, if he is to be judged by his propaganda, does not appear to make an issue of that problem in the province of Quebec. On the 19th of April last, for instance, the hon. leader of the opposition sent to the electors of my constituency, apparently over his own signature, a circular letter covering the speeches of the hon. Messrs. C. Senn, W. Earl Rowe, T. A. Thompson, and J. H. Harris, on the importation of vegetable oils, and on the live stock and dairy industries.
I shall quote a part of that letter with which the hon. member for Argenteuil is undoubtedly acquainted:
In the House of Commons, the Conservative party demands that the interests of the producer be respected and protected. In that connection, I suggest that you read the speeches delivered by Conservative members, among whom Mr. M. C. Senn, member for Haldimand; Hon. W. E. Rowe, member for Dufferin-Sim-eoe; Mr. T. A. Thompson, member for Lanark; Mr. J. H. Harris, member for Danforth. Mr. Harris reviewed the question in great detail on March 18 and 24, 1937.

Supply-National Defence
No doubt you recall the successful fight waged by the Conservative party to protect Canadian butter against the unfair competition of the New Zealand product.
The Conservative party has always taken the interests of the Canadian farmer and to-day as ever continues fighting so that he might be treated fairly.
As may be seen by the above, the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, until otherwise ordered, shall have as in 1911 and 1930 two main issues by which they hope to obtain the largest number of votes possible: (1) participation in imperial wars, for the nationalist wing of the party; (2) butter.
The nationalist wing will say: Are you for a war which will bring conscription in its wage, or in favour of peace? If you are in favour of war and conscription, vote Liberal. If you are opposed to war and in favour of peace, vote for us.
The old line Conservative wing will say: Are you against the importation of New Zealand butter?


Robert James Manion: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt? The hon. member speaks very good English; unfortunately my French is limited, so would he be good enough to say in English what he was saying about the Conservative party? I would appreciate it.


Joseph Napoléon Francoeur: I understand that the hon. leader of the opposition may not have taken notice of a letter written in French, dated Ottawa, April 9, 1939, apparently signed by himself and addressed to one of my electors, about the importation of butter from New Zealand. It is signed "R. Manion". Perhaps the leader of the opposition does not understand the French language well enough to assure himself that it is his policy which is formulated in this letter. Perhaps the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) did not know this letter was written by the leader of the opposition and sent to electors in my constituency, but if I am correctly informed, this letter is a first step, by way of propaganda for the next election, to be distributed all over the province of Quebec.


Robert James Manion: This is the first I knew of its being distributed, and I do not know what butter from New Zealand has to do with the prospect of war. So far as a letter written in French to a person in my hon. friend's constituency is concerned, I do not suppose he objects to my writing in French even if I have to have someone help me with the translation.


Joseph Napoléon Francoeur: Not at all. Perhaps
to-morrow, after reading my speech in the translation-


Robert James Manion: Yes, but there is a habit sometimes used on the other side of making speeches in French which they know are not well understood over here and utilizing the opportunity for purposes-


An hon. MEMBER:: Cheap, cheap.


Robert James Manion: Nothing cheap about it.


Joseph Napoléon Francoeur: If there are no French speakers on the other side that is not our fault.


Robert James Manion: We have been up against that practice for a long time.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: Both languages are official.


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: Go and
learn French, that is all.


Joseph Napoléon Francoeur: The orthodox wing of the Conservative party will say: Are you against the importation of New Zealand butter? Then, vote for us. If you are in favour of such importation, vote Liberal.
My compatriots have not forgotten the aftermath of 1911 and 1930. They know what that double action electoral propaganda is worth. The trick can no longer deceive any one. They will not hesitate in choosing between true leaders who have gained their confidence years ago and are still enjoying it, and improvised chieftains who are resorting to every conceivable trick in order to secure their support.
The Canadian people, guided by logic and common sense, and visualizing those higher ideals of justice, peace, progress and prosperity which they are seeking to attain, will once more ensure the triumph of Canadian liberalism.
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-
Laprairie) (Text): Before beginning my speech, Mr. Chairman, may I say that in view of the remarks made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), I intend to make it in French, and I have no excuses to offer to anyone for doing so because both languages are official.


Robert James Manion: I have no objection at all to both languages being official.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: During the course of the debate on the military appropriations, last year and the year before, I expressed my views on the subject of national defence. I did so in the light of events with which we were faced, taking into consideration our needs, our financial resources, our sovereign status with the obligations it entails, statements and
Supply-National Defence

Central Finance Corporation

Reconciliation between Italy and England took place in January, 1939, and on leaving Rome, Mr. Chamberlain's parting words were:
We depart convinced of the sincerity and good will of the Italian government.
If Franco-Italian relations were not as cordial, they were no worse than in January, 1938, when Italian troops had committed border violations in France's African colonies.
Moreover, Italy was faced, in 1938, with the same economic problems as at present. Anxiety over sustenance, the needs of her people and too limited a territory for her ever-increasing population have led her during recent years to endeavour to increase the size of her possessions. Mr. Chamberlain stated, however, on Feb. 1 last, that Mussolini had promised him that Italy would not resort to war in order to achieve her ambition.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 20, respecting Central Finance Corporation and to change its name to Household Finance Corporation of Canada-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Change of name.
John Charles Landeryou: Can the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill state what effect any decision of the supreme court may have upon this measure?


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: Mr. Chairman, in replying to the question of the hon. member for Calgary East I should like to make a short explanation. In view of the apparent opposition to this bill, more particularly to clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, and in view of the further fact that apparently a number of members have the impression that there are some sinister motives behind this bill, I have decided to move to strike out all the clauses after clause 1. The result will be that the remaining clause will merely effect a change of name. Hon. members will recall that when a bill similar to this was before the house, certain objections were raised because it was thought to be granting special privileges, and if I remember correctly, the same suggestion was made with regard to
fMr. Raymond.]
this bill. But if my motion is accepted and clause 1 is the only one left in the bill, it will merely effect a change of name. I have been approached by a number of members who have suggested that I go on with the bill in spite of the fate of a similar bill on Tuesday last. I appreciate their thoughtfulness and suggestions, but in view of all the circumstances I deem it advisable merely to ask for the adoption of clause 1 to change the name of the company, and drop all the other clauses.


John Charles Landeryou: Is the hon. member
going to move accordingly now?


William Ross Macdonald: We are
on clause 1 now, and I give my hon. friend the assurance that as we reach the other clauses I shall move that they be dropped.


Mr. REID:: What will the real effect of
changing the name be? Will the change of name mean that the parent company in the United States will still have control of this company in Canada? That is an important point for this committee to consider before we even agree to the change.


William Ross Macdonald: The
company in the United States owns all the stock in this company. There will be no change in that respect; they will continue to own all the stock.


John Charles Landeryou: This is a United
States company which desires to change its name to correspond with the name of the parent company in the United States?


William Ross Macdonald: It is a
Canadian company incorporated by act of parliament in Canada, but its stock is owned by a United States company.


Thomas Reid: I am not surprised that a change ' is being made in order to get the bill through, but may I say to the hon. member, in reply to his suggestion with regard to sinister motives that this is the first time I have heard any sinister motives imputed to members of the house in connection with this bill, and I say that in all sincerity. My objection to the bill had no sinister motives behind it at all. It was simply that I objected to giving a special charter to United States interests in this country to charge two per cent a month.


Mr. PLAXTON:: What is wrong with it?


Thomas Reid: They are charging too much interest.


Hugh John Plaxton: It is too low.


Thomas Reid: The hon. member may be a high interest man; I am a low interest man.

Central Finance Corporation
As I stated the other evening, British Columbia has granted the right to a company there to charge one per cent a month; that is twelve per cent or better a year. At two per cent it works out to 26J per cent a year, and amounts to usury. So I strongly object to it. I doubt very much if the bill introduced by the Minister of Finance will control this corporation; but that remains to be seen. The Minister of Finance gave the house the assurance that it would, but I noticed that when the bill came before the house, the government soon dropped all responsibility for these two bills, although last year they seemed to give this bill their blessing, to the extent at least of allowing it to go before the committee. The bill, as it is now proposed to amend it, might meet the views of other members, but limiting its scope to a change of name does not make it any sweeter to me.


John Charles Landeryou: My objection to the bill is on the same ground as that taken by the hon. member for New Westminster. I do not believe that a rate of 26-6 per cent is an economic one, and I have protested for that reason.
Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford); The clause respecting interest is being dropped.


John Charles Landeryou: But the hon. member said that the objections to the bill had sinister motives behind them. I am not contending that there is any sinister motive, although I am not so sure that there is not, because we have already passed a bill to govern these small loan companies throughout Canada. We are all familiar with the report that has been submitted to parliament by the banking and commerce committee wherein it was disclosed that one of the banks of this country, the Canadian Bank of Commerce, has been extending small loans, and loans for the same purposes throughout Canada to the very type of borrower who has been borrowing from these small loan companies.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Does the hon. member know what the loss has been to the bank to date on these loans?


John Charles Landeryou: The loss made by the small loan companies has been less than one per cent.


Hughes Cleaver: I am asking what loss the Canadian Bank of Commerce has taken on these loans.


John Charles Landeryou: The hon. member may draw a comparison between the small loan companies and the Canadian Bank of Commerce, but the Canadian Bank of Commerce is engaged in making small loans through all 71492-251 i
its branches throughout Canada, while these small loan companies are fastening themselves upon needy borrowers in the large industrial centres with a large population to draw upon.


Hughes Cleaver: Although the Canadian Bank of Commerce have loaned eight million dollars in small loans, after deducting their operating expenses they have made no interest on that money to date.


John Charles Landeryou: That may be true. I am not suggesting that they have been making a great deal of money on this business, and surely it is not necessary for a large bank to make a great deal of money out of making small loans to needy borrowers who are suffering from insufficient income.


James Allison Glen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the sponsor of the bill has declared that all he wants retained in the bill is the clause to change the name of the company, and if that clause is all there is before the committee, why should there be a discussion on the merits of other clauses that are not before the house?


John Charles Landeryou: The whole bill is before the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have no knowledge that the sponsor of the bill is going to move to drop the other clauses. If he is, I would ask him to do it.


William Ross Macdonald: In order to make myself perfectly clear, I assure all hon. members that I am going to move to drop all clauses of this bill except the clause to change the name of the company. All I am asking to-night is that the name of the company be changed from the Central Finance Corporation to Household Finance Corporation of Canada, and that in French the company may be designated as La Corporation Canadienne de la Finance du Menage. I would therefore move:
That section I be adopted, and that the remaining sections be dropped.


Frederick George Sanderson: I suggest to the hon. member and to the committee that the proper procedure would be to start with section 1 and go on through the sections, and the sponsor of the bill can say, when we come to section 2 or section 3 or whichever it is, that it is dropped. That will keep the record clear.


William Ross Macdonald: I assure all hon. members and hereby give my undertaking that I will drop the sections other than section 1 as they are called.


Frederick George Sanderson: When they are called. Shall section 1, subsection 1. carry?
Central Finance Corporation


John Charles Landeryou: No, Mr. Chairman. A point of order was raised by an hon. member who considered that I was out of order in discussing this.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I gave my ruling on the point of order.


John Charles Landeryou: Speaking to the hon. member who directed the question to me, I say this-


An hon. MEMBER:: Direct your remarks through the chairman.


John Charles Landeryou: -through the chairman, that you cannot draw comparisons between the operations of the Canadian Bank of Commerce in granting loans-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Charles Landeryou: "Order" yourselves- to needy borrowers-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member for Calgary East is out of order. We are now on subsection 1 of section 1, change of name.


Mr. YOUNG:: I share the views of the hon. member for New Westminster, and I believe the hon. member for Brantford has sensed the feeling of this chamber in respect of another similar bill. He has assured us that all he is asking is a change of name. I think we shall be saving the time of the committee to-night by changing the name according to his suggestion.


Mr. RINFRET:: Before the section is passed, I have a question to put to the hon. member on this very matter of the name. I believe that this is in order. Section 1, subsection 1 reads:
Section one of chapter seventy-seven of the eta' ut es of 1928, an act to incorporate Central Finance Corporation, therein and hereinafter called "the company," is amended by changing the corporate name of the company wherever appearing in the said act and in the amendments thereto, to "Household Finance Corporation of Canada."
Then, between brackets:
(which in the French language may be designated as "La Corporation Canadienne de la Finance du Menage").
Then in the French language, which I will not read, there is an exact translation of the same, except that the French name appears in the first place and, between brackets, there is the statement that it may be designated in the English language as "Household Finance Corporation of Canada." I do not exactly raise an objection, but I rather want to draw the committee's attention to the point that I have not any doubt in my own mind, and
(The Chairman.]
I do not think the committee has, that the French version is a law by itself and the English version is a law by itself, and I wanted to ask the mover of the bill why he has chosen to include between brackets the French name in the English version and the English name in the French version.


William Ross Macdonald: I appreciate the point which has been raised by the minister. The only answer I can suggest at this time is that the bill is printed in the English language and-[DOT]


Robert James Manion: Did the hon. member make the translation?


William Ross Macdonald: -it was carried out in the first instance in English and then, so that there would be no mistake about it, it was translated into the French language. No doubt if the bill had first been printed in the French language, the name would have appeared in French and the English translation would have followed, but as the English version was printed in the first place the English name comes first.


Robert Fair: In order that no mistake may be made, I think we ought to sit heavily on this bill and on any company which tries to put over legislation such as this. With regard to similar companies, when the small loans bill was being discussed here, I did not say anything; but when I find things like this going through, I think it is time all of us voted against any and every company which tries to put over a deal of this kind. An interest rate of 24 per cent on money is out of the question.
So far as changing the name is concerned, I have doubts whether this company has been doing business in a straight-forward manner, because anybody who charges what they have done should be ashamed to put his name on the records of this or any other country. I believe that we as members of this house should let the people see that we are not going to stand for any hold-up. Let us take a definite stand at this time.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to know the purpose of changing the name of this company. I make no apology for the fact that I have not any respect for or sympathy with a company which charges the exorbitant rates of interest which are charged by this company. I suspect something subtle in the endeavour to change the name. "Central Finance Corporation" does not appeal to a great many people, because usually when they go to one of these large concerns it is pretty certain that they will be soaked. But now it is proposed to change

Central Finance Corporation .
to a name which may influence a good many people-the "Household Finance Corporation". One might think they are going to finance a household, but a little while after a person borrows from them they will own the household, because at an interest rate of 26 per cent there is no danger of the company losing money. It was mentioned that this is a very fair company and that it does business with people who have salaries of about $150 a month, a relatively large remuneration which enables them to make their monthly payments without putting their property in jeopardy.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am
speaking to the first subsection and urging why the name should not be changed. The point is that people who would go to a central finance corporation, as the original name indicates, would not necessarily be in a great emergency. I contend that a person who has $150 a month does not need to borrow. But that is not the question. The point is, what is the situation of the person in extreme emergency who wants to save his piano or something like that? I take it that this new name of " Household Finance Corporation" is a somewhat subtle change, made for a reason, and that it will be only a matter of time when a man with an income of $100 or less-and I believe that such people constitute a good number of those to whom this company makes loans-will find that the finance company will own his piano as well as a good deal of his money. Therefore I am strongly opposed to changing even the name. I suspect that it is just one step towards getting what they want. They realize, because the other bill was turned down so flatly the other day, that they have no chance of getting this bill through at the present time, so they have said to themselves, "All right, we will take a little step this time;" and next year, or perhaps later in this session, they will reintroduce the bill and try to get the next clause passed. So far as I am concerned, they are not going to have so much as the first clause adopted.
Section 1 agreed to on division.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive, dropped.
On section 5-Application of Loan Companies Act.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 5 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: In my opinion the
nays have it.
Section dropped.
On section 6-Date of commencement.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 6 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I inform my hon. friends that the effect of dropping this section would be to put the legislation into force much earlier than they desire.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill	No.	115,	for	the	relief	of	Roberta
Copeland Cool Roberts.-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill	No.	116,	for	the	relief	of	Margaret
Maud Turner Bell.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Janni Kal-manowitz Rittner.-Mr. Factor.
Bill	No.	118,	for	the	relief	of.	Ambrose
Tibbitts Aston-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw).
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Anne Ver Trees Hart Acena, O.

Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill	No.	120,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Boretsky Pozomick.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Elsie Victoria Oliver.-Mr. Factor.
Bill	No.	123,	for	the	relief	of	Kathleen
Emma Gladys Smart Higginbotham.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Audrey Elizabeth Logan Williams.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Winnifred May Routledge Nilsson.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Ernest James Feasey.-Mr. McAvity.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Ethel Jean Peters.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 134, to amend an Act to incorporate The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.-Mr. Young.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Harold Morris. -Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Philippe Emile Collette.-Mr. Bercovitch.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 122, for the relief of Doris Mabel Casselman-Mr. Bothwell-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
Private Bills


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the only similarity is in name.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: With regard to this and several other bills outside the province of Quebec, may I ask whether there are no divorce courts to which they might go?


Ernest Lapointe: They are all from Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, there is one that is coming up a little later.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 124, for the relief of Rose Edith Winer Bazar-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1

Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Is this one from Ontario?


Frederick George Sanderson: "Residing in the city of Outremont, Quebec," according to the bill.


Mr. VIEN:: Carried on division.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



EVA CLARA DOE DURRELL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 129, for the relief on Eva Clara Doe Durrell-Mr. Hill-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Arthur Graeme Slaght: Without desiring to make any attack on this particular bill, and without any knowledge of the facts Which were ascertained in the other chamber and by reason of which this bill comes to us, I desire to suggest to the committee, and particularly to the members of the administration, that the farce which we have been going through for the last half 'hour, and the farce of dealing first in the senate and then in this house with the pretence that we are giving our real attention to or have any real knowledge of the legislation which we are enacting, ought to end with this session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. £Mr. BJackmore.]

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 137, for the relief of Muriel Suckling Brown-Mr. Plaxton-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Jean-François Pouliot: This evening this committee has passed seventeen bills of divorce; this is the eighteenth. I have strongly protested against this practice, which is shameful. I cannot understand how the respectable members of the Senate and the House of Commons can stand such dirty and stinking legislation. It is clear in nearly every case that the evidence has been fabricated either by the parties or by the investigators, who are experts in keyhole business. They can see, from a distance and through a keyhole, anything that is done. It is the same story of the sheets raised to their shoulders, the bottle of Scotch half empty, the two glasses, and the rags on the chair. Then they come with evidence which is no evidence, and the hon. gentlemen of the senate are satisfied with it. After reading the evidence which is agreed to favourably by the senate, I would not recommend any one of them to the Minister of Justice for appointment to the bench. It is clear and evident that the so-called evidence is just a fake, yet it is agreed to by the other house. Here we swallow it without tasting it, but it smells very bad and I object to it. We shall have the royal assent given to some bills next week, and I hope that his majesty will not be called upon to sanction any one of these dirty bills. In fact, I know personally that he will not, and I praise highly the government for not putting those bills before his majesty, because if they did he would get disgusted with this parliament.


Mr. LENNARD:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend says
" order"?


Frank Exton Lennard: Yes, certainly, the hon. member should know better; he should not mention his majesty's name in connection with such bills.


Jean-François Pouliot: I mention him because I respect him, and my hon. friend should know better than that himself. I find that this business which is being done at the present time by the Senate and the House of Commons is shameful. I said so before without any protest from any member of this house, because the hon. gentleman who now speaks was not present at the time. But now that he is in he should acquire better manners.

Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge
He should think of his father and his mother, of his grandfather and his grandmother, who did not behave in that way.


Frank Exton Lennard: On a point of order,
I demand that the hon. member withdraw that statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: If I withdraw the statement it will mean something insulting towards his ancestors, which I do not mean. I have respect for them, as the hon. member should. As the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) said so aptly, there is a time to finish all this. Why do we have this divorce business? It is just to give some fees to the lobbyists who pay a licence fee of $25 to the clerk of this house to go round and make $500 on each case of divorce. That is all; and as they are friends of all governments, they keep that business for years. In order to give that soft and juicy pear to some pests, we are putting ourselves to shame. What member of the house can decently hand the statute books of this country to anyone who is not familiar with our system of legislation without knowing that Canada has been discredited in all countries of the world in this connection. It is time, sir, to stop this shameful practice. Look at the statute books of this country, the laws governing each man, woman and child in Canada. At the end of the book there is some private legislation. It is not so considerable now as it was for a time, but it is still too great; even one of these divorce bills would be too many. We have something more important to look after than bills of this kind. It is time we stopped this sort of thing, and the only way to stop it is for the senate to refuse to accept such legislation. It is up to the senate not to accept any of these bills when they come up for first reading and to tell the sponsors to go somewhere else if they want legislation of this kind.
I say that, Mr. Chairman, with deep conviction and because I have respect for this house and for the senate. I also have respect for the governor general, and I do not want him to put his name on such legislation. Therefore, sir, I hope the wish expressed by the hon. member for Parry Sound and others of my colleagues will be followed, so that in future we may be relieved of this rotten, dirty, stinking legislation.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We have had two members of the legal profession speak on this question, and I agree with them that we shall have to watch anything that tends to break down the home life of the country. I think this is an argument that the province of Quebec should
take care of its own home life and not send here that which, if we would call a spade a spade, is a type of legalized prostitution.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would remind the committee that we are on bill 137, for the relief of Muriel Suckling Brown.


Ernest Lapointe: So far as Quebec is concerned, I may tell my hon. friend that there are fewer divorces, even granted in this way, in the province of Quebec, than there are in the other provinces which have divorce courts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray for the second reading of Bill No. 139, to incorporate Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge Company.
Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambton West) :: On Wednesday last I moved that this bill be given second reading and referred to the private bills committee. At that time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) thought some report should be made to his department in connection with the matter, which I thought quite proper. I understand that this report has been made and that he has no objection to the bill being given second reading and referred to either the private bills committee or the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for further consideration. So far as I am concerned, it is entirely up to the minister to which committee he would like to have the bill referred.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be considered as intervening in opposition to this bill. I do ask, however, that it be studied by a committee of the house that has had some experience in dealing with matters of this kind. Hon. gentlemen will recall that last year a similar bill was debated before this house for many weeks, and that so much opposition was shown to it that, while it passed this house, it was withdrawn in another place.
These bills are very important. After all, this proposed legislation authorizes an expenditure of some $4,500,000. It gives a franchise for a definite period of three years, but according to the wording of the bill as long as seven years may be taken for the construction of the bridge. The bridge may be located at any point within five miles either way of the harbour of Prescott, the other

Prescott and Ogdensburg Bridge
end being in or near the city of Ogdensburg. The project also gives a United States company the right to take over the whole project and award the contracts, although it is specifically provided that half the labour and half the materials shall be of Canadian origin. So I say I am not opposing the bill, but I do ask that it be studied carefully.
I appreciate the fact that in this house we are not supposed to refer to proceedings in the other house. But as the report in the other house was practically an instruction to this house I think I am entitled to read a few words from the debates of the senate for Wednesday, May 10.


Mr. CAHAN:: Is that a report on this bill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, on this bill. It is a report of the committee on railways and shipping, by its chairman. Right Hon. George P. Graham. At the end of the report we find these words:
The committee had the gentleman in charge of the bill agree that a deposit clause should be inserted in the bill. As time was so short, it was agreed that this clause should be inserted in the commons, although this is a senate bill.
I read that because I think the second house to consider the bill might reasonably assume that the first house had gone fully into the substance of the bill and had attended to all matters of that kind. I cannot imagine the reason for the haste in the other chamber with respect to a bill having the importance of this one. It was literally put through over a weekend. I might say that I instructed my law officers to attend the committee and give me a report of the proceedings. The bill was put through so rapidly that my officers were unable to find the time and place fixed for the committee to sit, and so failed to attend.
I therefore ask the committee of this house to give this bill the consideration that a bill of its importance deserves. I quite concur in the motion for second reading, and would suggest that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which has dealt with similar bills in the past.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to add only a few words to those of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). I ask that in the committee the bill be given consideration from two points of view. Hon. members will recall that recently a bridge known as the Thousand Islands bridge was constructed, in the county of Leeds, at a point probably thirty or forty miles distant from where it is proposed to construct the bridge designated in this bill.
Bridges are desirable in connection with tourist traffic, but I submit that this house ought not, without careful consideration,

authorize the construction of a second bridge which may have the effect of destroying the value of the investment of those who have invested money in the one recently built. These bridges cost a large amount of money, and from the point of view of justice to those who have already constructed a bridge we ought to consider carefully whether or not we would authorize the construction of another bridge which would practically destroy the usefulness of the first one. That, however, is a matter to be decided between the two companies.
I wish to point out that the bill authorizing the construction of the Thousand Islands bridge and the bill before us each contain a section providing that when the obligations of these companies are satisfied by tolls from the bridge, the bridge then becomes public property and free of tolls. In that connection I would point out that if too many bridges are constructed, the time when they will be free of tolls will be long delayed. All I ask is that the committee consider these matters, from the point of view of fairness to both the company which has already constructed a bridge, and the public, which desires to have these bridges free of tolls as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 23, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938-* Mr. Fair-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Signed pledges by candidates. Mr. FAIR: It is now nine o'clock.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is Bill No. 23 before the committee?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, I wish to say a few words with respect to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nine o'clock.


An hon. MEMBER:: Two more minutes.


Ernest Lapointe: The bill will go to the foot of the list; that is all.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is nine o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 1 carry? Some hon. MEMBERS: No.

Supply-National Defence


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I would not have time this evening to give my reason, but I do object to section 1. Perhaps it might be called nine o'clock.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
General.
208. Adjustment of war claims, $60,000.
Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I was comparing the international situation as it existed in May and in July, 1938 and as it was in January, 1939, when the national defence estimates were brought down in this house.
In the light of these facts and statements, can we not conclude that while events in Europe justified the greatest pessimism in the spring of 1938, the outlook was more favourable in January, 1939?
There was still, to be sure, the matter of colonies. But that claim was not new. Let us remember Hitler's provoking and defiant words in the spring of 1938, as compared with his courteous language both in November and in January last.
On November 8, Hitler, speaking in Munich in the presence of thousands of soldiers had this to say:
We have many times stated that we have no claim against France and England, except the return of colonies which were taken away from us without any regard to right. But I have always asserted that this could not, of course, lead to war. . . . With that exception, we have no claim against these countries and we do not ask them anything.
Then, on January 30, 1939, in the Reichstag, chancellor Hitler made it clear that between Germany, France and England there remained ony a colonial dispute to be settled, but that it was not worth while going to war on that ground.
Whatever the situation in Europe may have been in January, 1939, Canada was still an American country. In what respect then, was Canada in itself more threatened than at the end of May, 1938? In what way was she so much less protected that an increase of about 850,000,000 in the defence estimates should have been necessary?
Let us remember the opinion which the Prime Minister expressed in the speech which he delivered on May 24 last. After having stated that the situation in Europe was quite serious, he said:
It is unlikely . . . that at the moment, with the world as it is to-day any other country will single out Canada for attack. The talk
which one sometimes hears of aggressor countries planning to invade Canada and seize these tempting resources of ours is, to say the least, premature. It ignores our neighbours and our lack of neighbours; it ignores the strategic and transportation difficulties of transoceanic invasion; it ignores the vital fact that every aggressor has not only potential objects of its ambition many thousands of miles nearer which would be the object of any attack, but potential and actual rivals near at hand whom it could not disregard by launching fantastic expeditions across half the world. At present danger of attack upon Canada is minor in degree and secondhand in origin. . . .
I have pointed out that so far as we ourselves are concerned, being a country by ourselves, if we were confined to looking after ourselves we have little to fear.
The situation described by the Prime Minister in May, 1938 had not changed in January, 1939, and I wish this were better appreciated by those who are systematically attempting to stir up agitation towards war in playing upon the feelings of the people.
Such was, at any rate, in the opinion of the prime minister, the position of Canada as a country on May 24 last, and such it was too, on January 25, 1939, when the estimates were brought down-Canada was still less open to attack.
In fact, the three aggressor nations were no longer in the same position as the year before.
Japan needed all her strength to overcome the stout resistance which the Chinese have put up for almost two years; Italy still remained a negligible factor in so far as we were concerned; Germany, having established over Central Europe an economic domination which ensures her important markets, and the raw materials she needs, did not have to look westward, more especially in view of the fact that she would need aerial and naval bases which she does not have at the present time.
Of course, we could not' prevent a nation misled by ambitious leaders from launching into some mad and unpractical military venture, but, as the prime minister so forcibly explained on May 24 last " danger of attack upon Canada is minor in degree and secondhand in origin." Besides, chancellor Hitler himself pointed out to president Roosevelt on April 28 last, that, from a military standpoint, it would be sheer madness for him to dream of attacking or invading American territory.
Not only was Canada, as a country, less threatened, but she was better protected.
In the first place, our defence system had been improved. The thirty odd million dollars voted last year were used in strengthening further our defences.
In the second place, the president of the United States, Mr. Roosevelt, had given us the assurance that his country would extend her protection to us.
Supply-National Defence

Here is what he said in Kingston on August 18 last:
I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened.
He had on the same occasion recalled that, in a speech delivered a short time before in Brazil, he had included Canada within the "Fellowship of the Americas" with the warm approval of all nations of South America. In reasserting so emphatically that the United States were determined to protect Canada and to defend her against any foreign interference or threat-a gesture which he has renewed since that time-president Roosevelt warned those nations who might be tempted to attack us of the risk which such a venture would entail for them. Such a stand safeguards us against any serious attack.
In the third place, we had been given for our further protection, a declaration of American fellowship, known as the Lima declaration, which entailed the defence of American territory against any interference. In fact, in December last there was held at Lima, in the republic of Peru, a panamerican conference.
At the opening of the conference, the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Cordell Hull, made the following statement:
There can be no doubt as to the determination of the American nations to resist any invasion of this continent by the armed forces of any power or of any combination of powers.
And the final declaration at the close of the conference made absolutely clear the will of the American nations to resist any attack launched against any part of the American continent.
All these are formal guarantees of security which we did not possess a year ago.
Not only were we less threatened, and better protected, but we were in a more awkward financial position.
The budget deficit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, totalled 117,715,368; for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, it has reached $55,000,000, and it is estimated that prospects for next year are even darker.
The Right Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made the following statement on February 27, during a debate at page 1359 of Hansard:
There are many works and reforms that I should like to have in my constituency, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) says that there is no money for them.
It is under such circumstances that the Minister of National Defence has moved and further moves that we authorize the expendi-
ture of $85,000,000 for armaments-that is, an increase of $50,000,000, notwithstanding the fact that during the last two years our defence system must have been considerably strengthened as the result of the large amounts authorized to that end.
What is the purpose of these preparations?
We are informed that the branch heads of the Department of National Defence (the militia, aviation and naval services) have requested that the government grant them much larger amounts than those set down in the present estimates, maintaining that those set down are far below present-day needs; that the cabinet had no way of ascertaining if these requests of the defence council members were as necessary as they claimed, and were obliged to accept without demur the statements of the various department heads with respect to their requirements. Information to this effect was given to us by the Prime Minister, in this very house, on March 14 last at page 1901.
Under such conditions, how can the members of this house decide, with full knowledge of the case, that our preparations are exclusively in view of Canada's defence? What is the real purpose prompting these department heads?
The Minister of National Defence stated to the house last year (cf. Hansard, unrevised edition, 1938, p. 1644) that there existed in this country five schools of thought, one of which, the imperialistic school, had as a slogan:
When Britain is at war Canada is at war and is bound to throw her whole weight into the conflict.
To which school of thought do they belong, those members of the defence council, those departmental heads, who want military appropriations "much higher" than $85,000,000, the necessity of which we cannot verify, as the Prime Minister has said? Do they belong to the imperialistic school, of which the Minister of National Defence was speaking, a school that would have us sacrifice our last man and our last dollar for the Empire, a school that places our first line of defence in Europe, in Africa or in Asia? Indeed, we are justified in thinking that those officials, in preparing the defence program, were not taking solely into consideration the defence of Canada in Canada, but, under the pretence of attending to Canadian interests, prepared our participation in external wrars.
As a matter of fact, all those in favour of our participation in extra-territorial wars welcomed with joy and enthusiasm the present military appropriation and asked for more, as did the departmental heads.

Supply-National Defence
The statement made by Mr. Chamberlain last February serves to confirm this belief:
Come the three corners of the world in arms, he said, and we will terrify them . . . with the aid of our army, our ships, our dominions and our loyal allies.
Nevertheless, we are still told that our preparations are for the defence of Canada, without, however, being informed as to where lies our first line of defence. The name and the thing itself are sometimes very different.
Nobody is opposed to the defence of Canada and to preparations for that purpose, but I am opposed to the defence of interests of others, at a distance of three or four thousand miles from our borders, and to preparations for such a purpose.
Was it a question of the defence of Canada when in September last the Prime Minister considered the possibility of summoning parliament with a view to taking effective and concerted action "in the event of war" breaking out in Europe because of a conflict arising in some distant country between peoples of which we knew nothing and to prevent a minority from obtaining its autonomy, according to the words of Mr. Chamberlain?
What then would have been the use of part of the preparations made during the past two years, supposedly for the defence of Canada?
Have we not double reason for suspicion this year, when our military estimates jump from thirty-four to eighty-five millions, while the old formula "When England is at war Canada is at war" is being revived? England is at present guaranteeing the boundaries of an increasing number of states, thus binding Canada to participation in their defence without the Canadian parliament having anything to say in the matter.
England, by reason of her interests and her engagements, has a thousand chances against one for Canada of being involved in war. It is therefore quite possible that our Bren machine-guns will be used for the first time on the battle-fields of Europe. After all, the possibilities of war, if any, exist in Europe or Africa, and not in America.
Last year, I rejoiced at the reduction of the estimates, compared with those of 193738; this year, we definitely enter in the armament race, which will lead us to ruin.
Mr. Chamberlain said, at the beginning of this year.
If armament expenditures continue, financial and economic ruin will follow.
Our military expenditures, already too heavy, are to be increased. Annual expenses arising out of the last war, and of our preparations, absorb nearly half of our total appropriations.
Let us give a thought to the generation of young men from twenty to thirty years who pay the price of the last war and cannot find work. I dare say that we are more secure against armed aggression than against a social crisis. Let us attend to the most urgent need. Otherwise, there will be disorder.


Howard Charles Green: The statement of the minister on Canada's defence policy made it clear that there are two danger areas in Canada from the defence point of view-the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast. Personally I think there might have been added to these two areas the St. Lawrence country in Quebec province.


Robert James Manion: And the Hudson bay.


Howard Charles Green: And, as my leader says, the Hudson bay. It is also clear that each arm of Canada's defence force is being organized with these two danger areas in mind. For example, the navy is based on our two coasts. The air force, we learn, is divided into three commands: the western command, the eastern command and the central command- the latter, if I understood the minister correctly, being the reserve command. The two fighting commands of our air force are on our two coasts. We also learned from his statement that the military forces of Canada are allotted with the same plan in mind. For example, the minister stated, at page 3263 of Hansard.'.
The coast defence units are localized in the fortress areas concerned. The reserve units are localized throughout Canada, and have been allotted in accordance with population ratios.
The defence of these coast areas is vital to Canada, not only because there are Canadians there who would be subject to attack, but also because our great export trade goes from the shores of these two areas.
This evening I intend to speak from the point of view of the Canadians on the Pacific coast, one of the groups of Canadians admittedly most subject to attack; a group of Canadians who actually see fortifications being erected, guns being installed and air stations being built and who are directly interested in, and, I may add, gravely concerned over, the problem of the defence of Canada.
The minister stated that there are two types of attack Canada might face: first of all, major attacks; and second, minor raiding attacks. As against a major attack, he stated, we must depend on the Atlantic coast upon the British navy, and on the Pacific coast upon the United States navy and the great British base at Singapore, which, as we all know, was built and is being maintained by
Supply-National Defence

Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Malay States and possibly other British territories on that side of the Pacific. But he went further and said that we must also depend upon these two fleets for the protection of our trade on the respective oceans: the British fleet on the Atlantic ocean, and the United States fleet on the Pacific ocean; and we have a great trade on the Pacific ocean going down largely from our coast to the Panama canal.
In the light of these definite statements, this government's announced policy on external affairs of "no commitments" looks remarkably like a policy of sponging. I suggest to the government that the time has come when we should hear no more about Canada having no commitments. Let us forget that policy, which was never a policy but only a bit of political camouflage. Actually the government are cooperating in defence matters to a certain extent with Great Britain and with the other dominions and the United States, but they seem afraid to admit that fact. I suggest that they adopt definitely a policy of open-I repeat that word, "open"-cooperation with these nations, two of which, according to our own Minister of National Defence, namely, Great Britain and the United States, are expected to protect us from major attacks; and I suggest that the government announce to the Canadian people this policy of open cooperation. There is too much hush-hush business about our policy on this question, and the Canadian people have been put in an unfortunate position. I illustrate that by quoting from an editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of April 14 of this year, part of which reads:
The undefended position of Canada has been a menace, not only to Canada, but to the United States.
This nation could not brook an attack upon Canada by an overseas aggressor. But it is manifestly unfair to expect Uncle Sam to guarantee emergency police service for neighbours able to bear a fair share of the cost of continental safety.
Canadians are a proud people, quite willing to do their fair share in proportion to their numbers and their wealth; and a definite policy of cooperation such as I suggest will enable them to retain not only their peace of mind, but also their self-respect, which is of vital importance to any nation. So much for major attacks against Canada.
The minister has said that there is another type of attack we might face-the minor raiding attack-and he has stated that against such attacks we cannot expect help but must depend upon ourselves. In other words we are thrown entirely upon our own resources.

Speaking again from the point of view of Canadians on the Pacific coast, I should like to make several suggestions to the minister and the government for the improvement of our Canadian defences. Let us take, first, our navy. Obviously, it should be strengthened; it is too weak for its job. On the Pacific coast we have four destroyers and two mine-sweepers. The minister the other night outlined the tasks of the navy; at page 3237 of Hansard he dealt with the need of patrolling our coasts and this is what we find, that the minister has been told by his staff, that, assuming at a particular time the danger threatened on only one coast, the minimum force adequate to maintain an effective naval patrol, to say nothing of engaging in any fighting, would be on one coast six torpedo-boat destroyers, four mine-sweepers and twelve auxiliary vessels. And it should be remembered that we have on the Pacific coast between 1,200 and 1,500 Japanese fishing vessels. We might as well face the fact that at the present time the only attack we need fear would come from Japan; and as I say, we have on that coast from 1,200 to 1,500 Japanese fishing vessels, some of which at least are manned by ex-naval men from the Japanese navy. One can imagine, therefore, what sort of protection we need there in the way of a mosquito fleet.
But the minister went on to point out other tasks of the navy. At page 3263 of Hansard he said:
The tasks of the navy 'are:
1.	In cooperation with the air force to reconnoitre coastal maritime regions, focal sea areas and their vicinities.
2.	In cooperation with the land and air forces to destroy surface craft and submarine raiders.
3.	To provide examination services at our main seaports.
4.	In cooperation with the land forces to provide anti-motor torpedo boat and antisubmarine protection for our main seaports.
5.	To keep the approaches to our main seaports clear of mines.
This would appear to call for more destroyers and motor torpedo-boats, a bigger mosquito fleet and possibly several submarines and even a cruiser; yet we are getting this year, notwithstanding the crisis we are facing, only one flotilla leader, and no one knows whether that is to be stationed at the naval station on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic coast. In connection with the naval requirements of the dominion I would refer hon. members again this year to the recommendation made by Lord Jellicoe to the Canadian government after a thorough investigation in 1919, wherein he said:

Supply-National Defence
The naval force suggested as adequate purely for the protection of Canada's trade and Canada's ports under the conditions assumed comprises:
3 light cruisers,
1 flotilla leader,
12 torpedo craft,
8 submarines with 1 parent ship
and certain auxiliary small craft for training purposes, etc.
That was immediately after the war when conditions were not as menacing as they are at the present time. I suggest that Canada should proceed as quickly as possible to obtain her requirements in ships, and that in the meantime an attempt be made to secure help from Great Britain for the establishment of a proper North Pacific squadron. The minister pointed out that it was comparatively easy to get ships in an emergency, and I assume they would come from Great Britain.
But have we any plan for the Canadian navy? Are we building or buying according to a plan? So far the government have not announced any plan in any session of this parliament. The other day the minister announced an army plan and an air plan, but it is always hush-hush with reference to a naval plan. The people of Great Britain and Australia are told year after year precisely what their governments plan in the way of naval protection, but the Canadian people are given no information whatever.
I submit that we should know at what the government are aiming.
Furthermore, we should be building smaller craft in Canada now, such as the mosquito fleet to which I referred a few minutes ago. The other night the minister said that the government were proposing during the coming year to draw up complete working plans for the building in Canada of anti-submarine vessels, motor torpedo-boats and a training schooner. I suggest that the time has come to build such boats and not to spend the whole year in drawing plans. Why should there be this delay? In fact we should be building boats for Great Britain. Last October Doctor S. F. Dorey, chief engineer surveyor of Lloyds Registry, stated publicly in Vancouver, as reported in the Vancouver Province of October 28, 1938, that small craft of the British navy, mine-sweepers and sloops, might well be built in Vancouver. I suggest that the government ascertain what can be done along that line. It would mean the development of a shipbuilding industry in Canada and would provide that much more employment. So much for the navy.
I have also certain suggestions to make with respect to the militia. On the Pacific coast, which, as I have shown, is one of Canada's
two front lines, we have not a sufficient number of men to man the forts, and my authority for that statement is Colonel H. F. G. Letson, M.C., an officer with a distinguished record both in war and in peace, the honorary adviser for British Columbia to the militia department. In a public speech delivered in Vancouver in March, about two months ago, as reported in the Vancouver Province of March 6, 1939, he said:
I estimate that we have to-day in British Columbia less than one-third of the trained personnel that is required to man our fixed defences and maintain our internal security in time of war.
He is the officer actually in command of the 14th brigade of militia in the city of Vancouver. I suggest that the units in the two coastal areas should ibe brought up to strength at once, and if necessary the government should advertise for recruits. The minister declared the other night that the turn-over in the militia was discouraging. He said that men were joining and leaving. The same complaint has been made to me in Vancouver time and time again. I was told the same thing at Easter and that recruiting was falling off instead of increasing. If we are to be able to recruit men for the Canadian militia, we must make service in the militia more attractive. For example, at the present time I understand-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that our militia men receive no pay for the time they spend in training in their barracks. There is certain pay during the time they are at camp, but no pay during the winter when they are being trained in the barracks. No provision is made for carfare going to and from the barracks. I believe that Canada has the only volunteer force in the world that is not paid for undergoing training of that kind. You cannot expect men to join the militia and give up their time if they are not treated more reasonably. With regard to the clothing, last fall I heard of one unit in Vancouver which expected to get new clothing, and after waiting for months and months, they got uniforms made during the war, in the United States of America. That sort of thing is not good enough.
Then I suggest that there should be a regular permanent force adjutant or permanent force orderly room sergeant attached to each large unit. I believe that is the practice followed in the territorial army in Great Britain. There should also, of course, be a proper supply of equipment. Apparently the minister was at a dinner in Ottawa on March 21 of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association; and I find in a report in the Ottawa Journal of March 22, 1939, the following:
Supply-National Defence

Captain H. J. Bowen of Ottawa declared that the falling off of interest in rifle shooting was due to the fact that many of the rifles issued to the militia wrere no longer serviceable. He knew of one case where out of 40 rifles issued only 8 could shoot anywhere near the target.
And I get similar reports from Vancouver.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was not present at the dinner, but I was present there in the morning.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I think the statement is correct anyway.
My next suggestion has to do with highways. At present there is no highway across the province of British Columbia; the trans-Canada highway will not be completed until next spring. Canada should maintain at least one first class military highway from Alberta to the coast, and eventually should also have such highways through to Prince Rupert and probably Stewart as well as one through the southern part of the province; first class military highways. They would, as the minister knows, be invaluable for defence purposes. For this purpose why can we not expand our Royal Canadian Engineers of the permanent force? Let them take charge of these military highways. The same idea could be adopted in the other parts of Canada where it is necessary to make arrangements for defence. In British Columbia many of our first roads were built by Royal Engineers who came out from Great Britain, and some of the roads are still in use.
Then, with regard to our forts and gun installations, this government during the last few years have spent millions on fortifications on the Pacific coast. I suggest to the minister that there should be a committee of members of parliament representative of all parties, entirely non-political in its set-up, to go over and investigate these fortifications. That is done in Great Britain. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of March 11, containing a picture of British members of parliament at Aldershot. The heading is:
British M.P's taken into army's confidence.
The article below goes on to say:
Mr. Hore-Belisha, the Minister of War, was not there himself-there was a cabinet meeting -but he had commanded a showing of the army s closest secrets, and 148 M.P's ploughed through Aldershot's yellow mud to see them.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may say to my hon. friend that we shall be only too glad at any time to arrange for any member of parliament to go and see any of these fortifications.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a matter of one member of parliament going to see them, it is a matter of a committee of this house going. 
I was long enough in the army to know that regular army men are not infallible, neither are army contractors; and a little common sense mixed in with army administration goes a long way, as the Canadian corps showed in the great war. I suggest it is absolutely unsound that we should be sitting here voting money for these fortifications and relying on- the minister alone; I suppose no other member of parliament has the slightest idea of what is going on, how this money is being spent, and whether we are getting efficient work. There are rumours on the Pacific coast about defective work. For example, there are the Stanley park guns. I asked the minister last year on May 16 about the two guns in Stanley park, when the installation would be completed, and he assured me it would be completed in June, 1938. This year on February 22 I asked again the same question. The question was:
1.	Have the fortifications in Stanley park, Vancouver, been completed and turned over to the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, on what date were they turned over?
And the answer was that the works were not yet completed, and it was expected that they would be turned over by the end of June, 1939.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The guns were installed some time ago.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, a year late. And apparently there was trouble with flooding; the guns were set on a spring, or it may have been just our Vancouver rain; at any rate there was trouble with flooding of the emplacements; the emplacements were not properly wired, and the guns cannot be fired; all pointing to the necessity for some check on these fortifications.
Then there is the question of equipment and munitions, more important now than ever before, and calling for more advanced training of troops. Yet we find from the minister's speech as reported at page 3256 of Hansard a list of equipment that Canada needs and cannot get. As the minister put it, his officers had told him that these were the proper weapons and stores of ammunition to put the militia service in a position to discharge with reasonable efficiency its share of the duty of national defence for Canada. In other words these are the materials required before the militia can function. Here is the list:
Coast Defence Armament for both East and West Coasts-
12 heavy coast defence guns 9 mountings for heavy guns 4 medium guns 3 mountings for medium guns 6 light quick firing guns

Supply-National Defence
Anti-Aircraft Armament-
123 anti-aircraft guns with equipment of four different types
Mobile Army Requirements

544 infantry mortars 60 medium howitzer equipments 20 medium gun equipments 500 field gun equipments 348 anti-tank equipments
Together with the necessary ammunition. He went on to say that we simply could not procure those supplies, that England could not spare them. Apparently the government's policy is to wring their hands and wait. Meanwhile our citizen soldiers are expected to fight with their bare hands and apparently, to date at any rate, to fight our battles in their own boots.
In my opinion there is not enough equipment in Canada to equip fully the Vancouver brigade alone, let alone the whole militia of Canada. For example, what are we to do about rifles? We have had practically none here since the war, I believe, except the rifles brought back with us from France. On March 14 of this year I asked the minister the government's policy with regard to rifles, were they to be purchased or manufactured? His answer, found on page 1896 of Hansard, was:
The government's policy in that regard will be determined in the future. At the moment I am not in a position to state definitely what it will be.
1 suggest that the government adopt a policy of extending the dominion arsenals so that they can manufacture at least a portion of all our requirements. Perhaps Great Britain would work with us in extending these arsenals; probably she would be only too glad to have some of her equipment turned out in them. The main link missing in the chain of defence Canada is preparing is the adequate extension of the dominion arsenals so that they can produce at least a portion of all types of equipment required. That is the policy followed by Great Britain and the United States. Australia, as a matter of fact, has gone much further in the public manufacture of armaments. The whole question was thoroughly investigated in England, as the minister knows, by a royal commission on the private manufacture of and trade in arms in 1935 and 1936. I should like to read one section from the recommendations of that commission. Incidentally, when the minister read this section some weeks ago, he left out a portion of it, which I think he should not have done. It may have been, a slip, but the whole paragraph should have been read; it is No. 6, and reads as follows:
We recommend that the government should assume complete responsibility for the arms industry in the United Kingdom and should organize and regulate the necessary collaboration between the government and private industry; that this responsibility should be exercised through a controlling body, presided over by a minister responsible to parliament, having executive powers in peace time and in war time, over all matters relating to the supply and manufacture of arms and munitions, costing and the authorization of orders from abroad.
Then we find this further small paragraph which the minister omitted:
We further recommend that the government's own manufacturing establishments should be fully equipped for the production in some measure of naval, military, and air armaments of all types.
Yet in Canada to-day, although we have two arsenals, one at Quebec and one at Lindsay, we are only manufacturing ammunition. We shall have to manufacture military equipment for an indefinite period, and I suggest that the sooner we get on a proper basis, with the government arsenals supplying at least a portion of all types of military equipment the sooner we shall be out of this difficulty.
My last suggestion is that an embargo should be placed on the shipment of war materials to aggressor nations, and particularly to Japan. A year or two ago we in Vancouver had the experience of seeing our small destroyer, named after the city, H.M.C.S. Vancouver, being broken up and the steel and scrap-iron placed on scows, eventually being sold to Japan, not directly by the government but by the contractors who bought the ship for junk. At the same time we saw Canada rushing her defences, obviously against Japan. These two things taken together do not make sense. There should be an embargo against the shipment of war materials to Japan, if for no other reason than that last September Japan was found by the League of Nations to be an aggressor nation, and Canada, as one of the family of nations, should see that such an embargo is imposed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend knows, of course, that the Vancouver was never owned by this government.


Howard Charles Green: It was part of the Canadian navy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On loan.


Howard Charles Green: It was defending our Pacific coast and was scrapped and sent to Japan to be made into shells and other war material.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Canadian government had no financial interest in the Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: The Canadian government did all the managing of the ship.
Supply-National Defence


Hugh John Plaxton: In what year did that occur?


Howard Charles Green: My authority for the state-mnt that Canada should take action and place an embargo against war materials going to aggressor nations is no less a personage than our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). On April 1, 1935, speaking before the last election, to an amendment moved by Mr. Bourassa reaffirming adherence to the treaty for the renunciation of war, the Prime Minister used words which I think were remarkable, in view of this government's refusal up to the present time to impose such an embargo. He said:
I think this country ought to declare that any nation which could be shown to have threatened the peace of the world by violating a pact of collective security should be denied any assistance in the shape of men or munitions, should be denied any assistance in the nature of food, should be denied any assistance through credit. Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy in that regard as expressing Canada's attitude toward any country which upon the facts being disclosed was found to be guilty of attempting to destroy what otherwise might be collective security. If that example were followed by other parts of the British empire, as I believe it would be, it would soon be followed by other parts of the world.
All one can say about that is that the Prime Minister was a great deal bolder in 1935 than he is in 1939.
In conclusion, may I say that for the first time in this twentieth century the Canadian people are forced to think of the possibility of there being invaders on Canadian soil. No longer isolated, we are being brought closer every day to potential enemies by the development of aircraft. And the Canadian people are now defence conscious, a people who can face an ugly situation with courage. But they should be told the facts. The government should tell them the whole story. Our defence policy should be a long-range policy on a permanent basis, not a rush here and then a rush back, with great excitement and great mystery, all of which upsets our people. We shall always have to defend ourselves, so we might as well get our defence forces, defence equipment, fortifications and other defence works on an efficient basis without further delay. The sooner we attain that position, the sooner we can stop worrying about the situation.
Finally I hope that in planning the defence of Canada this Canadian parliament and the Canadian people will not lose the vision of world peace, which, in my opinion, can be brought about only by some system of collective security, probably through a revitalized league of nations. These stormy days through

which we are passing will not last forever; and Canada, when the opportunity arises, should be right in the front rank of the nations trying to find the road to permanent world
peace.
Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two
Mountains) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, my attitude has not changed; I strongly object to any increase in defence appropriations. On several occasions I have set forth in this house the reasons which compel me to oppose this rearmament policy. I shall therefore confine my remarks to a reaffirmation of the principles which, in my humble opinion, should guide the government in its defence policy. Its first duty should be to amend the Militia and Naval Service Acts so as to bring them into conformity with the statute of Westminster. The existing Militia Act authorizes Canada's participation in external wars. It even contains a conscription clause which, in the event of war, would compel Canadians to participate willy-nilly in military activities not solely directed to the defence of Canadian territory. This act goes so far as to provide, in section 69, page 2790 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as follows:
The Army Act for the time being in force in Great Britain, the King's Regulations, and all other laws applicable to His Majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this act or the regulations made hereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of Canada for the government of the militia,
And so on.
Therefore, I shall as in the past, refuse to vote a single item of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. National defence, if words still have a meaning, means the protection of our territorial integrity and of our direct interests. Otherwise, it only means voluntary or compulsory participation in British and external wars. It means imperial defence, rather than national defence. It is not a question of canadianism but of imperialism. It is against that imperialistic sentiment that, as a Canadian, I must fight. It is in the name of the statute of Westminster, which was built on the ruins of the colonial status, that I still ask for necessary amendments to our Militia and Naval Service Acts, in order to ensure the exercise of the sovereign rights of our country, the protection instead of the ruin of our people, the respect for and full application of our constitution.
One more word. Let us proclaim immediately our neutrality, before it is too late. Otherwise, considering our present Militia and Naval Service Acts, I have good reason to

Supply-National Defence
fear that, one day, our country will be unjustly sacrificed on the altar of military and financial imperialism.
Referring to the speech of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Francceur), may I remind the committee that we fought military appropriations from conviction and as a matter of principle. Moved by a truly Canadian spirit and solely by a sense of my duty to the country, I have adopted an exclusively Canadian attitude. In spite of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, I remain irrevocably opposed to the policy of the government concerning military matters. However, I would ask the hon. member not to ascribe to me motives at variance with the statements I have made in this chamber. My hon. friend will have to consult with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who claims that Canadian neutrality is an impossibility, before saying that we must arm in order to protect our neutrality.
In conclusion, I may say that, in order to affirm the entity and the identity of a great country, equal in status with any other nation of the British commonwealth, a Canadian flag should float high in the magnificent setting which will greet to-morrow the arrival of our sovereigns on our soil. Such a national emblem is needed more than ever in these difficult times. In that symbol, I already see the truly Canadian aspirations of a great nation and a great country.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few general remarks in connection with the defence of Canada, which is a matter of increasingly grave and great importance to those of us who live in this dominion, and to the British family of empire.
I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the minister and other hon. members who have spoken on this subject this session. One may have sympathy with that expression of opinion which ventilates a loathing of war, a loathing of the thought of the use of force. But those of us in this country who loathe war loathe it no more than do those who live in other peace-loving countries. To be compelled by circumstances to take up arms is no more repugnant to any of us in Canada than it is to anyone else who loves peace.
We cannot listen to speeches such as that made by the minister the other day in introducing these estimates without realizing immediately that we are in a strange position, in the midst of strange days. We are compelled to a realization that the world is in a state of flux, that we are passing through
desperate times and that we ourselves in this dominion have failed to take steps adequate to that position.
As citizens of a free country, enjoying liberty and freedom under a democracy, we are compelled to view with grievous concern the events of recent months and years, with the whole of our western civilization in a chaotic state, as a result of the conduct of an unspeakable few. There are those who loathe war just as much as does the hon. member who has just spoken, and who feel that any means we may take to avoid war are justified. But when force is developed to a staggering degree and this force used to promote bestiality and barbarism, and when that force grows and grows, insensible to any appeal to reason or humanity, what can be the answer but that force must be met either by a show of force or by force itself? And thus, Mr. Chairman, if we would maintain the peace of the world, and do our part to maintain that peace, are we not compelled to do our share to help develop that show of force which will be sufficiently impressive to resist the force which has been developed on the side of aggression.
In his remarks the other day the minister, by such a citation of figures as those he placed upon Hansard, demonstrated to us that our defence forces in Canada have been permitted to sink, may I say, essentially to an all-time low. He did not tell the committee, however-and I think he might have done as much as that-that the spirit of those days in which our militia and other forces were permitted to sink to that level, was a spirit of disarmament rather than armament. In common with Great Britain, the United States and other countries we were endeavouring to live up to the spirit of the times, and to pacts such as the Kellogg-Briand pact. Those were days, yes, of disarmament, rather than armament.
And then times began to change. An unsettled world gave birth to a Hitler. An unsettled world gave a chance to such a man to rise to unprecedented power. Only a few years ago a new armament race got under way. There is not an hon. member in the committee but knows that so far as we in Canada are concerned we must rely upon our own forces to defend our own country. It may be glorious for us to proclaim that so long as the British navy is afloat we are protected. But if we assume such a cushy and soft attitude of complete reliance upon the mother country we must realize that our assumption in days such as these is without foundation. Let us face the facts. We are
Supply-National Defence

forced to the conclusion that the mother country has her hands more than full to defend her own shores and her own people.
Let me illustrate. I think I am safe in saying there never has been a time in recent Canadian history when our permanent force and our non-permanent militia have been so destitute of equipment. And why? We have passed substantial sums-some of us have felt they are not nearly adequate-in the past two sessions of this parliament, sums amounting to nearly $70,000,000. The minister in his remarks the other day reminded us that orders for modem equipment had been placed in the United Kingdom. But these orders have been placed where there has been going forward a furious and hectic race against time, a race conducted in the manufacture of armaments to resist an aggressor who at any moment might have struck or who might strike, with the result that there has been none left over for us, and accordingly our orders have remained unfilled. This position has been apparent to us in this house. It must also have been apparent to the government and to the minister in particular; but in the meantime, even though that position was so readily apparent, have we taken steps in Canada to rectify it?
We know fully well that in recent years the British territorial army has been increased enormously, and that in recent weeks under conscription hundreds of thousands of men are being called up. What chance is there of British manufacturers of arms being free to furnish us in Canada with our requirements? True, we are ready to pay for them, but the supply is limited. England needs all the armaments that she can produce.
It is staggering to some of us who sense the danger we are in, consequent upon our complete lack of preparedness to defend ourselves as a result of our hopelessly inadequate equipment here at home, that so little is being put forward to rectify this disgraceful position. And here we are, still juggling with our very national security. True, a survey has been made, so the minister tells us, of upwards of-is it 2,000 manufacturing plants-but with what results? I do not for a moment criticize this survey; in fact, I commend the minister for it. But if the survey is on paper in the Department of National Defence, and has been on paper and remains on paper, what immediate use is it to us while it remains on file?
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) in his remarks to-night drew attention to the fact that such arsenal equipment as we may have at the moment in buildings

at Lindsay and such other places is being used only in a mediocre and partial way. We have only to look to Australia to realize what the Australian has done to develop an arms industry to produce equipment to defend himself. There he has developed his pilot plants and has cooperated with industry from these pilot plants even to a fuller degree than has the United Kingdom herself. We have these plants, or what could easily be made irfto pilot plants, but we have taken no steps towards developing them as such. And here in the Department of National Defence remains this list of two thousand plants that have been surveyed, and as yet no steps taken, so far as the minister was able to tell us the other day, towards the practical operation of these plants in the production of our own military requirements.
We as a nation are ready and willing to resist invasion and to do our share to protect our heritage at home and abroad. But have we in Canada anti-aircraft guns to withstand attack from the air? There were three or four such guns ordered by the late government, and I believe eighteen guns have been ordered since, a few of which have been delivered. But surely we must realize, with the length of our shores both east and west, and with such a situation prevailing as has been drawn to the attention of this house over and over again with relation to Hudson bay and James bay, that we have no adequate protection? Have we fighting planes and bombers for the defence of our highly vulnerable points? Are the harbours of Vancouver, Halifax and Saint John equipped with adequate coastal defence? And what equipment have our infantry, artillery and other forces?
It may be readily understood, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the desire to disarm that possessed even the mother country in the days to which the minister referred, why we joined the parade and did not build up our defences. But that was years ago. Times have so completely changed that it is fatuous to compare 1939 with 1933 or 1934; for all of us who have taken an interest in what goes forward in Europe-and who is not compelled to take an interest in what goes forward in Europe these days?-know that the whole picture is completely different to-day from what it was then,
I speak to-night as a citizen of this country and as the father of a family. As surely as I speak, it is not an unfair question, and cannot possibly be construed as a political question, to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) what have we done in recent years to develop our defence forces and to maintain

Supply-National Defence
our national structure against possible attack. Over $60,000,000, yes, nearly $70,000,000, have been voted in the last two years-and with what result? This year the minister asks for an equal amount, some $63,000,000. Surely this house and this committee are entitled to know what his plans are. How is he going to develop the armament manufacturing industry in Canada? Is it to be controlled by the state or is it to be controlled by private capital? What are his plans to produce military aircraft? What are his plans to train pilots? We heard the minister the other day say that some fifty pilots are to come from Great Britain to be trained here. Here is Great Britain engaged in the production of hundreds of aircraft a week, several hundreds, running almost into thousands a month, and pilots to fly these planes being trained in the most vulnerable area, the United Kingdom, when we could be contributing so much towards that end. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not taking the part of the aggressor if we share with the United Kingdom in her effort to protect herself, which is virtually our own protection.
As I said the other day in speaking on another subject altogether, it is difficult for us to contemplate what might happen to this dominion if Great Britain herself, as the mother country, were destroyed. It is inconceivable for us to consider what our Canada might be in the event of such an extreme catastrophe as that. Surely we are prepared, if in no other way, at least to assist in the training of those who will fly the planes of the United Kingdom. We have vast areas here, certainly more secure from attack than the fields of the United Kingdom, and while we are training fifty pilots, it is true, fifty are but a drop in the bucket. So we in this chamber have the right to know the plans of the minister to assist us further, and to assist the mother country, when we can do so much to help her in her race against time to develop an armed force of sufficient strength to enable her to say "no" to the aggressor who would destroy those things which we hold most sacred and real, and in her effort to protect the little fellow.
I do not believe there is a man in this house but must recognize, if he faces the facts, that, confronted with the present ghastly situation in Europe, we cannot afford longer to sit back in smug complacency and play about with this problem of defence. If there is any matter of the moment which is above party politics it is this question. Accordingly I urge the minister, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, to recognize the inevitable situation, namely, that the armaments manufacturers of Great Britain cannot fill our orders and that we at once are compelled to take steps to develop that industry in Canada. Why should not our Canadian workmen, so many thousands of whom are unemployed, receive the benefit of such developments? Why can we not manufacture here not only for ourselves but for the fulfilment of orders for the mother country, and even from the United States if she cares to place her orders with us?
May I say in conclusion that it may be all very well to refer to the circumstances of other years, but this is 1939, and the threat of war hangs over us. I am confident that Canadian industry and Canadian workmen stand ready, awaiting the leadership of the Canadian government, to bring into being, with the efficiency and dispatch characteristic of Canadians, facilities to manufacture in this country our vitally necessary defence requirements and to assist the mother country in her efforts to become so strong that her words shall once again carry the weight of authority, thus, in our own way, contributing to the maintenance of the peace we all love.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette-
L'Assomption-Montcatm) (Translation): Mr. Chairman. I have received from the county I represent several petitions in which my electors declare themselves totally opposed to participation in foreign wars and to any joint action with London concerning European affairs, because claiming to be free from all outdated colonial spirit, they state their sons are ready to shed their blood only for the defence of their own country.
I have one of these petitions before me; the others were sent to the Prime Minister's office. This one comes from St. Jacques l'Achigan and carries about ten signatures. Attached to it is a second one entitled "Petition against conscription" and consisting of about ten pages covered with signatures. It seems therefore that my electors are in fear of two things, first, that Canada might take part in foreign wars, and, second, that such participation might eventually bring this country once more to adopt conscription. It is to the credit of my electors that, while admitting the necessity of providing for national defence, they say their sons are ready to shed their blood only for the defence of their own country.


Mr. GAUTHIER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. FERLAND:: Personally, I have always been, and will always be, opposed to the country's participation in foreign wars.
There is no doubt that all the agitation stirred up lately in the country, all the con-
Supply-National Defence

flicting statements that were made, all the curtailed and misquoted speeches of our leading statesmen which were published, have created a lot of confusion in the minds of Canadians, particularly among my compatriots.
May I be allowed to refer briefly to some important statements made by distinguished leaders of the Liberal party? First of all, at the beginning of the session, the Prime Minister made a statement which was misinterpreted, having been both wrongly and incompletely quoted. Recalling the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in regard to England's wars, the Prime Minister quoted the doctrine of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as follows:
If England is at war we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say that we shall always be attacked, neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. That is a matter that must be guided by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parliament will have to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment.
Only a part of this statement was published and it was said throughout the country, and particularly in the province of Quebec, that the doctrine of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was as follows: When England is at war, Canada is at war and must take part in all wars. That was the wrong interpretation which caused so much confusion. To say that Canada is liable to attack when England is at war is altogether different from saying that Canada must take part in all England's wars. At different times, the Prime Minister fully stated Canada's position in the British empire and as regards our relations with other countries. Has he not stated on several occasions, before the League of Nations and even in London, and time and time again on the floor of -the house, that Canada had now become a sovereign and independent state and was under no obligation to take part in any war outside its borders? Has he not stated time and time again what position parliament should take, from a truly Canadian point of view, in the event of war? Well do I know the existence of another school of thought in this country! It is the school of out and out imperialists, a school which proclaims -that should England be once more involved in war, Canada would again raise an army of
500,000	men, Canada would conscript both men and wealth, and Canada would contribute her last dollar and send her last son to England for the defence of the mother country or of the empire. But, Mr. Speaker, such is not the policy of the Liberal party, the policy of my leaders, far from it. Our leaders tell us repeatedly and have constantly stated, for the last year or two, that the military appropriations are solely intended to serve for the defence of Canada and that they are not to
[Mr. Ferland.l
be used in preparation for Canadian participation in the wars of Great Britain and the empire nor in any wars abroad.
Let us refer to what our leaders have stated on these two main points concerning which an attempt is made to create confusion in the minds of my fellow countrymen. Let us take conscription first of all. Here is what the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on March 30, 1939, said:
The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
And the great political leader making this statement is the same man who, side by side with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, fought conscription during the great war and then went down to honourable defeat in his North York riding.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear, hear.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Listen now to another right honourable member of this house, our distinguished fellow-citizen of whom we have always been so proud, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe):
I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it.
Such sentiments are truly Canadian, Mr. Chairman. Such statements come from sincere men who have remained long enough in the public service, and who have discharged their duty and responsibilities toward the nation in such a manner that no one, particularly among our fellow-citizens, has any right to doubt their -word. Some will say: We question your statements and do not know whether you are sincere and whether you are telling the truth. Well, for my part,
I am satisfied that the words of our leaders in Ottawa, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice or the other ministers who have made statements to the same effect, are as good as their bond. However, the same was not always true with the Conservative party. Was the word of their leader as good as his bond? How could he so quickly change his mind, when he violated the promise made during the war to the effect that there would be no conscription?
What is the present stand of our leaders on the question of Canadian participation in external wars? The Prime Minister said, in this chamber, on March 30, 1939:
One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the

Supply-National Defence
oceans are not likely to recur. Two years ago,
I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe. . . .
We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia.
The Minister of Justice said, for his part:
I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies. The men would be needed here; and in any event it is parliament which will decide about it.
Those words, also, should be satisfactory to the people of the province of Quebec, a people which in the past has shown that it had an enduring faith and a growing respect for the leaders of the Liberal party, for the Prime Minister and for the members of his cabinet.
Another question has to be considered concerning the increase in the defence appropriations. We should examine if these appropriations are justified by the circumstances of the hour. We are agreed on the necessity of defending our territory and I reaffirm that principle. It remains to be decided to what extent we should organize our defence. That is a technical problem about which I have not much knowledge, although I claim to possess as general a knowledge of things as most hon. members. Is Canada in danger of being attacked?
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) discussed that question this afternoon, and here are the principles he laid down as to the possible dangers of attack upon Canada and the need of preparing our national defence.
In the first place, Canada is not only threatened but is without adequate defences. The leader of the opposition, consequently, is of the opinion that the military appropriations are insufficient.
In the second place, he said that the government is neglecting the defence of the country or is not sufficiently hurrying our armaments.
In the third place, even in the absence of any immediate danger of war, it is necessary to prepare the defence of Canada in order to ensure her neutrality in the event of war
with Japan and the United States. He does not say in the case of war between Japan and England, because he expressed the opinion a few days ago that Canada cannot remain neutral when England is at war because, according to him, the British crown is indivisible and the King cannot be at war in respect of one of his dominions or one part of the empire and be neutral in respect of another part. Finally, the leader of the opposition added this:	"I suggest an increase of defence
appropriations as a means of relieving unemployment."
I shall quote another Conservative member because he comes from my province and has in his constituency a large number of Frenchspeaking electors and a certain number of English-speaking ones. I refer to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon). Speaking in this house on January 30 last, he began by vaguely criticizing the present government's defence policy, but afterwards left a wide opening for those of his constituents who are in favour of the defence of Canada by saying:
I want to make it clear before I terminate my remarks that I am not a pacifist in the narrow sense of the word. I believe it is our strict duty to make this component part of the commonwealth invulnerable to attacks and invasion. If this government has been reliably informed that some foreign power has cast a covetous eye on this territory, and if this information originates from authoritative and unimpeachable sources, then it is our immediate and sacred duty to proceed with the speediest, most complete and most efficient plan for the defence of our homeland. I do not infer that we should never take part in any war. What I say is that any war in which we do take part must be a war in which something better than sentiment actuated by prejudiced propaganda is at stake. It must be a war that threatens our very liberty, independence and existence, and the issue of which would be of immediate vital concern to all of us.
Is that not the doctrine preached by the Liberal party, Mr. Chairman? Has not the Prime Minister always said that Canada would never go to war unless her institutions were threatened and the liberty of her citizens endangered?
I continue. Is Canada in danger? Here is the answer given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on May 24, 1938:
At present, danger of attack upon Canada is minor in degree and secondhand in origin.
Only part of this statement was quoted to-day during the discussion. It is important to quote the remainder:
It is against chance shots that we need immediately to defend ourselves. What may develop no one can say.
Supply-National Defence

What is the opinion of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)? Speaking also in this house on March 24 last, he said:
Now, sir, in regard to the scale of attacks upon Canadian territory or Canadian ports or terminals, these are considered by the experts who are supposed to be qualified to offer advice to be, in the first place, minor attacks by combined sea, land and air forces, to destroy something of strategic or commercial value, or to secure an advanced base of operations, and this applies to coasts, to focal sea areas and to the preservation of Canadian neutrality; in the second place, sporadic hit and run raids by light cruisers or submarines to destroy our main ports and focal sea areas.
In order to repulse such minor attacks and isolated raids, Canada is providing for the defence of her coasts, both east and west.
Our Conservative friends are forever repeating and proclaiming the necessity of preparing the defence of Canada. They are not satisfied with what the Liberal party has done; they even contend that Canada's defence is not sufficiently advanced. To hear them speak, one would think that Canada had no defences whatever. Their speeches would lead people to believe that in spite of all the millions voted for defence purposes nothing has been done, that we have no militia, no defence, and that we are more than ever exposed to external attacks. I therefore took the time to make a list of the elements composing our national defence.
Canada has a regular army of 4,201 men of all ranks, a non-permanent active militia (which is really the militia) whose peace strength amounts to 86,500, but whose present strength is estimated at about 49,000 men, plus, on paper, a reserve militia.
Her naval power consists of 6 destroyers, four of which are stationed in the Pacific. Two of these ships were built in England for Canada in 1930. The other four were built for the Royal Navy in 1932; Canada also owns five mine-sweepers. The present strength of the Royal Canadian Navy is set officially at 137 officers and 1,582 ratings, plus a volunteer reserve, corresponding to the non-permanent active militia, of 123 officers and 1,344 ratings, and a naval reserve of 70 officers and 430 ratings. The air force consisted, at December 1, 1938, of 249 permanent officers and 1,827 men of various ratings, and of 87 officers and 791 men (non-permanent). On December 1, 1938, the air force had 217 aircraft in active service. The authorized number of permanent squadrons is set at 10, and that of non-permanent squadrons at 12. The establishing, throughout the country, of landing 
fields, parallel to the development of Trans-Canada Airways, makes possible a rapid concentration.
Let us now examine our expenditures, in connection with national defence, during the last three years. Firstly, our Canadian militia cost us, until 1935, about twenty millions a year. In a report tabled in the house by the hon. Minister of National Defence on May 10, 1939, it appears that her national defence has cost Canada, during the last three years, the following amounts:
1936-37	1937-38	1938-39Militia .. . .$11,345,751 $17,222,804 $14,780,591 Air Force ..	5,821,824	10,018,104	9.521,501Naval service	4,763,294	4,371,981	6.420,101

These figures therefore reveal, Mr. Chairman, that the honourable Minister of National Defence did not spend the entire amounts authorized by parliament and which he had at his disposal.
Since the defence of Canada must be organized in view of imminent dangers, and since, at present, there still remain threats of war on the horizon, and, moreover, seeing it is a fact that an attack was made on Canada during the great war by a German submarine which tried to assail fishing vessels in Canadian territorial waters and even sank a large ship at Halifax, it is important to establish that the government intend to increase or to reduce the militia or the military estimates according to circumstances or the needs of the moment. If it was possible, during the last three years, not to spend all the amounts authorized, it is to be hoped that, should the threats of war disappear, and I trust we shall not have a war, the government or the Minister of National Defence will not spend the entire defence appropriations but that they will find a way to reduce them as it became possible to do and was done during the last three years.
Now, before concluding, and in order that there may be no misunderstanding in the province of Quebec about the principles underlying the Liberal party's external policy,
I shall quote the basic principles which the Prime Minister himself laid down last year in this parliament:
These principles were as follows:
1.	The principle which must be followed in formulating Canada's external policy is the preservation of unity in Canada as a nation.
2.	The foreign policy of Canada, generally speaking, does not lie in her relations with the League of Nations but in her relations with the United Kingdom and the United States.
3.	Canada must, as a rule, keep in the background, in Geneva or elsewhere, whenever European or Asiatic interests are discussed.

Supply-National Defence
4. Canada is in no way bound to adopt military sanctions imposed by the League of Nations, neither is she bound to defend any other member of the Commonwealth.
5. Canada is in no way bound to apply economic sanctions imposed by the League of Nations.
6.	In future, before accepting to participate in any military or economic sanctions, or in any war, the Canadian government will have to secure the approval of parliament or the Canadian people.
Such principles are truly Canadian, and they are quite different from those which have been expounded by the supporters of the utterly imperialistic doctrine that whenever England is at war Canada is at war. Of the two doctrines, I prefer the one expounded by my leader; I prefer the one to which my party adheres, and according to which the interests of Canada shall always come before every other consideration and nothing shall be done that is not germane to Canada's interests and is not wholly in behalf of Canada.
Mr, A. J. BROOKS (Royal): The debate this evening has, I am sure, been interesting to all of us, particularly on the question of defence. Canada's defence is becoming more and more the most vital concern of our people. This is as a result of the obvious and real danger to this country in the event of war, in which Great Britain or the empire might be involved, breaking out in Europe or any other part of the world. The impossibility of Canada remaining neutral was thoroughly discussed in this house some weeks ago in the debate on external affairs. Anyone in Canada giving this matter even the minimum of serious thought would agree with the expressions that were uttered at that time by leading members of the cabinet, and more particularly the opinion expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). I should like to quote what our leader said at that time, which I think is appropriate:
I feel-and I think it is the feeling of most Canadians who have given thought to this subject-that we cannot be in and out of the empire at the same time. It seems to me that it would be just as impossible for us to be neutral in a war in which Great Britain participated as it would be for my right arm to be defending my body against an assailant wishing to take my life, while my left arm remained friendly with the assailant. It seems very clear, to me at any rate, that that is just as logical as would be the idea of neutrality for Canada while remaining in the empire. We cannot be neutral and at the same time remain part of a great empire. . . .
I believe those words express the feeling and the sentiment of every true Canadian. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), in a long and interesting speech

on April 26, outlined some of the plans for strengthening our defences. He called attention to the fact that there was no need of defence on the south. This, of course, is a self-evident fact; as the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, a war with the United States would seem like a fratricidal war. The minister spoke of our north being icebound and said there was no necessity for defence in that direction. I should like to point out to the minister, however, that there is some danger in the north. He knows, as I do, that the most direct air routes leading into Canada come across the north from Labrador.
Our main defences are required on the east and west, on the Atlantic and on the Pacific. The minister's conclusions in this connection are quite clear. If Canada is attacked in either a major or a minor way, it must be on either the Atlantic or the Pacific coast. This evening I listened with pleasure to the address of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), who clearly outlined the position on the Pacific coast and touched on many other points in connection with Canada's defence. Coming from the maritime provinces I have felt that the necessity of defending our western coast has been stressed perhaps a little more than it should, to the disadvantage of the Atlantic coast. The minister is aware that there is only one potential enemy on the western coast of Canada, namely, Japan. For the last few years Japan has been engaged in a war with China, and I think it is quite understood that she has about all she can handle in that connection. So I say this idea of the western coast needing attention first, in preference to the Atlantic coast, has been over-stressed by the minister. I am not saying the western coast should be neglected, but I contend that fortifications on both western and eastern coasts should have been commenced and carried on at the same time. I sincerely believe that if there is any danger of an attack upon Canada we have more to fear in eastern Canada than in the west.
I might point out to the minister and to hon. members generally that during the great war, as was stated by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) we had quite a number of submarines off the eastern coast. Only a few weeks ago there was a submarine reported off the southern coast of Nova Scotia. I recall that the minister denied the truth of this report, but nevertheless the rumour has persisted. Whether or not it was true, the fact remains that the people realized the possibility, and it did seem a serious matter at the time. The minister referred to the fact that in the past the British navy has been our defence, and went
Supply-National Defence

on to say that the navy is only on a defence surface of the ocean, that the airplane flies over the navy while the submarine sails under it, so we must guard against the possibility of attack from both these sources.
I do not know just how far the defence of the Atlantic coast has progressed. Last year the minister told us it was his intention to commence the fortifications at Halifax. Possibly this has been done, but the minister states in his own report that it takes three years to bring to completion fortifications such as are needed at Halifax and Saint John. I do not propose to attempt to point out to the department how the Atlantic ports of Saint John and Halifax, or the ports on the St. Lawrence river, or other focal points in the east, should be defended, but I urge upon the minister the necessity of commencing these preparations and having them carried to a conclusion as soon as possible.
In his address a few days ago the minister also told us that Canada's first line of defence was her air force. At the same time he said the British navy was Canada's defence on the Atlantic ocean. I do not think an air force in Canada can supersede the British navy as our first line of defence. That navy has been the first line of Canada's defence for over a hundred years, and it is still our defence, although we do not contribute one dollar towards the maintenance of that navy. The minister also pointed out that to-day Canada is the fourth trading nation of the world. This is a proud boast for us to make. I think it was stated that our annual export and import trade amounts to about $750,000,000, and we were told that for this reason we must be strong enough to defend our focal areas and our ports and terminals in case of trouble. Canada has been able to carry on this enormous trade because we have had the British navy as our first line of defence on the ocean; I repeat that statement, and I do not think it can be repeated too often either within or without this house.
If I may, I should like to read a few remarks delivered at a dinner in the city of New York by a United States banker, Mr. Thomas W. Lamomt, speaking on this very subject of the protection which the British navy has accorded not only to Canada but also to the United States. He said:
First, I would remind you of the fact that from 1814, we will say, until 1914, there was an era of unbroken peace in the world, so far as any world conflict was concerned. There was what has been called a Pax Britannica. Great Britain, the British empire, maintained the peace. It did so for the benefit of the empire and incidentally for the good of the whole world, including, as it turned out, America. Unless we look back over that 100 years, we can hardly realize the advantages 
which accrued to America through the fact that Great Britain threw a mantle of security over the seven seas, and made it possible for American trade to go forth unmolested and develop in mighty volume with no necessity for a far-flung navy.
Now I ask you what sort of world should we in America be facing if it came to pass that through unprovoked aggression the British empire were in the future to be gravely weakened? Can we contemplate for ourselves what that would mean to our own liberties, to our own economy? I am not proffering any suggestions whatsoever on this point. I am not proposing any pulling of chestnuts out of the fire. I am simply asking you to recall the old Pax Britannica as it was, and as it never can be again, perhaps, in the same way. What sort of world, then, should we be facing if we had a British empire of definitely lessened allaround strength.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, those are the words of a great American. And if the truth thus spoken by Mr. Lamont applies to the United States, how much more does it apply to us in Canada. The minister also pointed out the great necessity of anti-aircraft guns. This, I feel, is a fact which cannot be overlooked. Our ports and our cities are in great need of protection from the air.
I mentioned, in speaking on this subject last year, that some military experts consider the aeroplane an arm of offence rather than of defence. I think its use as an arm of offence was proven to a great extent in the Spanish war. It has been shown, however, that the great defensive weapon is the anti-aircraft gun. We have only three, I believe the minister told us, up to the present time in Canada; and the number is now being increased by fourteen more. Our requirements, at a very modest estimate, are 124 guns. The minister will agree with me that this number would be very small, indeed, to supply the requirements of the different cities and town in Canada, if we expect to have anything like adequate protection.
An anti-aircraft gun in a city like Saint John or Halifax would, in the event of an attack, keep the aeroplane high up in the air, probably some 15,000 or 17,000 feet, thus rendering it impossible for it to come down and bomb docks, railway bridges, or other important points. Thus it is that the antiaircraft gun is one of the great necessities for the protection of our ports, and I hope the minister may be able to provide this protection, which is so much needed in a time of war. I shall not speak at length about concrete emplacements for our guns, and other requisites for the defence of our ports. Those matters were discussed the other day by the minister, and I simply express the hope that they will be attended to as soon as possible.

Supply-National Defence
Hon. members who have preceded me in the discussion mentioned the great lack of equipment in Canada. For twenty years we have been using equipment which was used in the last war. It is well known that on paper we have tank battalions, but we have no tanks for their operations. We have antiaircraft units, but there are no anti-aircraft guns. We have other mechanical units, but no mechanized armaments with which to equip them. During the great war we had a striking example of an unequipped army. Russia had one of the best armies, so far as man power was concerned, that was produced during those terrible years. But we know, too, that Russia had no arms with which to equip her soldiers. Hundreds of thousands of them, when sent to war, were, because of their lack of equipment, simply slaughtered by the enemy. I do not care how brave or good the soldiers may be; if any army is without equipment it is practically useless before a well armed enemy.
There is one matter with regard to which I should like to make a few observations. I refer to the non-permanent active militia of Canada. The men in that organization have given great service to the country. Following the war it was almost impossible to get officers to undertake the training of non-permanent units. Men who had been overseas were sick and tired of uniforms, and those men had to be persuaded as a patriotic duty to take on this work. Many of them did so, and the fact that we have a non-permanent organization in Canada to-day is to a great extent as a result of the patriotism of such men at that time. There is this point I should like to place before the minister: In the estimates for the current year there is no increase in the amount voted for the nonpermanent militia, those units which I claim should have every consideration and every attention by the Department of National Defence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That will be corrected later on.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am glad to hear that the minister intends to correct it, because the men are most deserving of every consideration.
There is another matter about which I should like to speak. At the present time the non-permanent militia have only eleven days training. I shall not take the time of the committee to-night to discuss this matter in detail, further than to say that before the war the non-permanent militia received fourteen days training. There are only eleven days at the present time, despite the fact that far more training is required for a man who will 71492-252
serve in the non-permanent militia of to-day than was necessary in earlier days. In the old days, if a man were trained to march, to take part in ceremonials and handle his rifle without tripping himself, he had mastered practically all that was demanded of him. But with mechanized forces as we have them to-day, a man must be trained in many different branches of activity. To give the committee some idea of the training he must have, I would point out that first of all he must be fully trained in the handling of the rifle, the Vickers machine gun, the -5 machine gun, the Bren gun, the Boys anti-tank rifle, the pistol and the smoke generator discharger. A man must be trained in antiaircraft, anti-tank and anti-gas defence, and in elementary mechanics, sufficient to enable him to keep tanks, armour carriers, lorries, trucks and cars in action, and to carry out any first-line repairs required. He must be trained in the driving of the various vehicles. He must be an expert in map reading, field sketching and the writing of reconnaissance reports. He must be trained in camouflage and concealment and have a knowledge of elementary field engineering. He must be trained in radio-telephony and radio-telegraphy. He must also know something of sanitation, first aid and many other matters. This list shows the great difference there is in the training of a man to-day and the training of one even in 1914, at the beginning of the great war.
I would urge upon the minister the necessity of extending the length of time for the training of the men. I believe that if trouble should come-and we all hope it may not-the non-permanent active militia will be the sources from which we may draw trained officers and men who would train recruits and others needed in Canada. I say, therefore, the necessity is very great for longer and more efficient training of these men.
I was pleased to read in the speech delivered a few days ago by the minister that he intended to provide boots for the nonpermanent force. Does that apply to the infantry, or is it true only of the naval and air forces?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is for the infantry.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: For the infantry, as well?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For the whole of the militia forces.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is eleven o'clock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have only one or two observations to make and I shall have finished.

Questions


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The officers who have been commanding the non-permanent militia have out of their own pockets been paying the expenses for clerical services in the past year. I should like to ask the minister if it would be possible to make provision in the estimates to pay for clerical work which commanding officers of units of the non-permanent force must do. Would the minister keep that in mind? I believe the approximate cost of those services would be only about $31,500.
There are a few other matters I might mention, but I shall not do so at this time. I thank hon. members for the courtesy they have extended to me in permitting me to speak after the hour for adjournment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. There are more speeches to be heard.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Saturday, May 13, 1939