Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, 1st July, 1938.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. L. A. D. Cannon, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on the first of July, at one o'clock, for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to make a statement concerning the bill to amend the Penitentiaries Act which was adopted by this house unanimously but will now fail to be placed on the statutes of this session. The government is disappointed and I, personally, am sorry, indeed very sorry. When I stated in this house on my responsibility as Minister of Justice that I needed the proposed change for the proper administration of penitentiaries, the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) declared that he waived all his objections to the bill because of that statement.
What I regret more particularly is that this legislation involving a social question of momentous importance, has been rejected in another place on a straight party vote, and, if I read the reports aright, because of a question of persons.
All I may add is that this postponement of a needed reform, apart from being detrimental to public interest, and increasing to a dangerous degree the difficulties of my task, will not serve any useful purpose, not even that which seems to be at the basis of the adverse vote.
I repeat that I am very sorry and I feel that the seriousness of the situation they have created is not realized by those who have brought it about.
Dominion Day


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I think, in fairness to all parties, the minister has overlooked the fact that according to the press reports this morning the reason was also given that there had not been ample time for the study of that report or the bill itself. I think it is well to bear that in mind as one of the reasons given.



DOMINION DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):: There is a matter of importance that- I should like to bring to the attention of the house. The calendar reminds us that this is the first of July and I could not help thinking as I came up to the buildings this morning how little had been done in this capital city to commemorate the event of this day. Walking along the streets I saw scarcely a flag in evidence.


Mr. STIRLING:: Oh, yes; there were.


John Frederick Johnston: Very
few. As one turns the comer at the Rideau club he finds the flag of the great republic of the United States displayed over the main entrance in such a way that he cannot help seeing it. I think that this building, the houses of parliament, should have been decorated to-day.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Hear, hear.


John Frederick Johnston: We, as
Canadians, do too little in that regard, though we sometimes criticize other people for doing too much of that sort of thing. According to the press, in the city of Kingston the national convention of fascists is taking place to-day, and it occurs to me that perhaps we have not done enough in the past to educate our youth to a realization of exactly what this confederation means to the young people of the country. I trust that when the first of July comes around next year, there will be in this capital city more evidence of our remembrance of Canada's national birthday.

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



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Harbours and rivers - New Brunswick, $725,200.
Mr. STEWART:: Would the minister give
us some information as to the nature of the

work being done at Miramichi bay, $75,500 for dredging, and at Tracadie harbour, $40,000. As to the latter, I should like to know if that will complete the work at Tracadie harbour?


Mr. CARDIN:: This is to provide for
widening to a width of 200 feet and deepening to a depth of 22 feet at low water the present channel in the Miramichi bay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will be the complete cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The tenders which are
in amount to $63,000. That will complete the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total of to-day's
appropriation is $725,000. What will it cost to complete the undertakings mentioned in the vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As I am informed, $50,000 at the most will complete the work which is covered by these items. As regards Tracadie, this amount of $40,000, including the revote of $13,400, is required to complete the channel across the flats by dredging the channel for an approximate length of 3,750 feet to a depth of 9 feet at low water.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will this complete the channel? I know it was under consideration for some time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that we have to expect a certain amount of maintenance. I understand there is some silting.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Maintenance only' All right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every winter it drives back.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec, $2,479,150.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to speak briefly in reference to one item on this vote, namely that of $400,000 for Richelieu river improvements. Since the amount asked for this year is only $400,000, whereas the last two or three years it has been $500,000 each time, I assume that $100,000 has already been spent on these proposed-said to be-improvements. I shall speak briefly and I have no intention whatever of holding up the item, because I have no doubt it will pass readily, anyway.
What I have to say is by way of warning. I cannot help feeling that these so-called improvements on the Richelieu are akin to those which were made a number of years ago on a small river on works which were

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
afterwards called the Newmarket canal. Up there in northern Ontario you will find docks and locks out in the middle of the fields, with water more or less miles away. Of course I realize that the Richelieu river is a much finer river; it is magnificent compared with anything we have up in that part of Ontario. But I cannot forget what happened two years ago, when the United States government and the Canadian government were considering, through the International Joint Commission, a recommendation to canalize the Richelieu river so that boats of large tonnage could go down that river from lake Champlain to the St. Lawrence, and south again into the Hudson river, so that there might be an ocean seaway from New York to Montreal via the Richelieu. Apparently that is all abandoned and some other scheme is now proposed. I note from the communication which the Canadian government made to the International Joint Commission in 1937 that the scheme has been changed from one of navigation to one of flood prevention, similar to the scheme proposed in 1907, which was also one of flood prevention.
Now, what was the application of the government of Canada to the International Joint Commission with respect to Richelieu river remedial works? On page 1, paragraph 2, we read:
The parliament of Canada, at its last session, appropriated the sum of $500,000 under vote 408, S.S.E. 1936-37, as follows:
"Richelieu river-improvement of river and Chambly canal system, $500,000."
This vote is for the purpose of the construction of remedial works for the reclamation and protection of low lands in St. Johns, Iberville and Missisquoi counties, in the province of Quebec.
The International Joint Commission granted the application of the government. It is referred to on page 7 of this same report that I am reading, in paragraph 11:
This matter is, accordingly, being submitted to the commission by the government of Canada, and it is hoped that the commission, in view of the need for protection against flood conditions, will expedite matters so that construction can be commenced at an early date.
I understand that later on the International Joint Commission gave that right. What I am trying to get through my head is, how are the figures of the water levels in this report to be reconciled with those of. the water levels contained in the submission to the International Joint Commission some two years ago? The low water level of lake Champlain is 93-3, and the high, 102-6. But this report states that the work proposes to lower the water level of lake Champlain to 92-5. For it states on page 6:
It is the intention of the government of Canada that during the navigation season the water level above the dam will be maintained at or above the present ordinary minimum elevation of 92-5-
If it is to be maintained at that level, has the government obtained the consent of the United States to the lowering of the low water level of lake Champlain from 93-3 to 92-5? I have not found anything in the reports to indicate that the United States government has endorsed that low water level. Last fall, in company with an engineer and a newspaper man, I spent some time along the Richelieu river trying to find those low lands, and had great difficulty in doing so. As a matter of fact only a very small part of lake Champlain, about seventeen square miles, is in Canada. I went all around that area. The day I visited the north end of lake Champlain, at Missisquoi bay, the water level was between 95 and 96 feet above sea level, approximately three feet higher than the level proposed by the government; and on that day the water was five feet below the road level. I measured it. I asked some of the old-timers there what was the effect when the lake was at high water level, 102-6, and they told me that the road was sometimes covered to the extent of a foot or a little more, but that the water did not stay there very long.
I should like: the minister to tell us, if he can, how many square miles or acres of so called low lands are flooded by lake Champlain, and if it will be of much value to relieve these low lands of the water for two or three weeks in the spring. The land did not appear to me to be very good. The trees did not seem to be damaged at all by the high water. On the west side of the river the banks are high; on the east side there may be a little more flooding of land, but it does not last very long. According to the information I obtained at the engineer's office, the dam is to be eighteen feet high. I may not have the correct figures, but if the dam that is proposed to be built at Fryer's island is to be eighteen feet high, each side of the river at that point will be flooded. I believe the banks on the east side are about fifteen feet above the river and those on the west side about twelve feet. I should like to find out from the minister if it is proposed to build dykes along where the dam is to be built in order to keep the land, which is good at that point, from being flooded.
I have no objection whatever to the work if it is necessary and there is any value to it. I do not want the people of that community to think I am opposing it for any reason other than what my own judgment tells me.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
I know that last year all the local newspapers gave me a fairly good dressing down for opposing the vote. They should not do that. I do not talk in this house from any motive whatever other than to do the best I can for this country. If the government can say that any real service will be rendered or any worth while improvements made in that area through the erection of this dam, I will not oppose it. I do not see that it is going to be of any particular value, however, and certainly if the time comes when that magnificent river is canalized so that large ships can go up and down it, a dam of this kind will not be worth a fig anyway; a much larger dam will be required, and this money will be wasted. I do not want the minister to think I am opposing this for any other reason than what I believe to be right.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not propose in any shape or form to object to the criticism and fair observations made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I recognize that it is his absolute right to inquire about these things and inform himself as to the conditions existing, and I would be the last person in the world to criticize him for doing so.
When the matter was placed before the International Joint Commission it was not formally the question referred to in this vote. At the same time, as my hon. friend stated last year and mentioned again this year, the commission had under consideration three proposals that were made more particularly by United States interests. One of the proposals was to have a canal from lake Champlain right up to Montreal through United States territory, reaching lake St. Francis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not up to Montreal through United States territory, but from the Hudson river to one of their lakes, then connecting with the Richelieu.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, lake St. Francis. They offered another proposal also, to build a canal across Canadian territory from the town of St. Johns on the Richelieu river to Laprairie, in front of Montreal, on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Then their third proposal was to have a canal built from the foot of the present Chambly canal, at Chambly, going right up to Montreal on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, somewhere near St. Lambert. The fourth proposal, which they studied at the same time, was the canalization of the Richelieu river from lake Champlain down to the St. Lawrence. But the idea of the United States people interested in the proposals was to have a deep canal, capable of

being navigated by vessels of the type that would navigate the proposed St. Lawrence waterway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Up the Hudson river to Albany.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. They wanted to have the same depth of water in the Richelieu river, if it was canalized, that would exist in the proposed canal for the St. Lawrence. They expressed the view, I admit, that a depth of about twenty-seven feet was the only thing in which they were interested. The Canadian interests were satisfied with a depth of twelve feet, which is the present depth of the United States canals from Lake Champlain to the Hudson river. Part of the Richelieu river has a depth of twelve feet at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is eight feet for the most part, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and less. The Chambly canal has not more than five and a half or six feet. We would have been satisfied if the canalization of the Richelieu river had been carried out to provide a depth of twelve feet, but, as I have said, the Americans concerned were not interested in such a shallow depth.
In addition to the suggestions I have just indicated, the present proposal was submitted to the International Joint Commission to build a regulating dam between St. Johns and Chambly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the Richelieu river.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, bringing forward an old proposal that had been submitted to the international commission as far back as 1907. At that time parliament voted a certain amount of money to dredge the Richelieu river from the city of St. Johns up to the boundary. There are natural obstacles in that river,-a natural dam, we might call it. There is little water at that particular place, the shores of the river are very low. But when the Canadian government started the work of dredging between St. Johns and the boundary, the United States intervened and claimed that by doing away with the natural obstacles existing in the river we would cause the flow of the water to become very rapid, and as a consequence would lower the level of the water in lake Champlain. As a result of the objection raised by the United States the work which had been under contract for some time was stopped, and the representatives of the two countries discussed the possibility of building remedial works.
At that time the International Joint Commission, or the board which preceded the formation of that commission, approved of a

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
regulating dam to be built at Fryer's Island, and with that regulating dam being built they said they would have no objection to the dredging of the natural obstacles existing between St. Johns and the boundary. Although the approval of the international board was on record, we thought that so long a time had elapsed since the approval had been given that it would be advisable to renew the request to the international board. We placed the facts before them again, and made a request for the approval of a regulating dam, the dam which is contemplated by this vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For $300,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I believe it is $400,000. As contemplated a number of years ago the building of that dam would permit the dredging of the river from St. Johns to the boundary, and would relieve the situation that existed so far as flooding the land was concerned. The representation made to previous governments was that the high water of the spring would not flow rapidly enough and soon enough to allow every year the cultivation of the low land between the town of St. Johns and the boundary.
The hon. member says he has not seen any low land there. It is there, however. In fact, the Richelieu river from St. Johns to the boundary to a certain extent becomes a lake. The shores of the river are so low that one would form the idea that he was passing through a lake.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the arm of a lake.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the spring when the water flows slowly on account of the natural obstacles between St. Johns and the boundary these lands are flooded for too long a time to permit satisfactory cultivation of them. That was the reason given a number of years ago. It was urged that if dredging were done the water would flow more rapidly and the land would be ready for cultivation sooner than otherwise. We had an estimate from an engineer that each year the farmers would be saved a loss of several hundred thousand dollars if they could cultivate the low land between St. Johns and the boundary. This regulating dam therefore has for its object the cultivation of the lands by permitting a flow of water earlier in the spring and over a shorter period. When built, and when the natural obstacles between St. Johns and the boundary are disposed of, the dam would permit much freer navigation between St. Johns and lake Champlain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: twelve feet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, twelve feet at least. The building of the dam about half way between St. Johns and Chambly, where the present canal exists, would reduce the length of the Chambly canal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And help both countries.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would reduce the length by about half. Instead of boats navigating twelve miles they would have to navigate only about six miles.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is the intention to give a twelve foot canal from Fryer's island to Chambly?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not at present. We would be satisfied for the time being to have the regulating dam to reclaim the land that has ito be reclaimed to give St. Johns a twelve foot navigation channel to the United States and lake Champlain, and to reduce by half the present distance of navigation through the Chambly canal. These are the three reasons in my mind which would justify the present expenditures.
Tenders have been asked on the vote of last year, and the contract has been awarded to the Cape Construction Company of Montreal for the amount of $416,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For the dam alone?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. My information is that the land which will be flooded in the vicinity of the dam amounts to only a very small portion of the land around the dam.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the minister any idea of the value of that land?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total value of the land being expropriated would be in the vicinity of $60,000 or $70,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation the minister has given is much better than the one he gave last year. I doubt whether there could be a better exemplification of the principle the minister mentioned yesterday than the one he has just given us. He said yesterday he usually made these appropriations at the request of the member for the constituency. How did he address himself in this case?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The work is not in my
constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the expenditure at Sorel? Perhaps that is nearer home.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that is very near home. In connection with that item I would express very sincere regret that the amount is not larger. This is an expenditure of $200,000 to provide for harbour improvements.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will not make it a second Montreal, but will make it a competing port.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, in the course of a few years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $2,202,658.57.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister explain the rather large expenditures on the Grand river improvements, $300,000, and the Hamilton harbour improvements, in the same amount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Grand river project is a conservation scheme. The hon. member possibly knows better than I do the situation in connection with that river.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in cooperation with the province?


Mr. EULER:: And the municipalities.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and the municipalities. The work is to be undertaken by a commission which has been appointed by the Ontario government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any relation to the penitentiaries commission?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think not. The item for Hamilton harbour is to provide for the carrying out of work in Hamilton harbour which has been strongly urged by the harbour commission. A contract has been let to the Russell Construction Company for the construction of a steel sheet pile wall 2,000 feet long, with sand filling, this being the initial section of a large reclamation scheme proposed by the harbour commission north af Burlington street. There is some dredging to be done in the main channel in front of the wharf and plant of the Steel Company of Canada, and the reconstruction of the easterly face of the James street slip of the harbour commission.


Mr. MASSEY:: What work is to be done in Toronto harbour? Is that the extension of the western gap?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Denton Massey: That is to accommodate the new air port.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Saskatchewan, $27,000.
Mr. COLDWELL:: What dredging is to
be done at Waskesiu lake?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $12,000,
including a revote of $9,400, is for the deepen-

ing of the enclosed harbour on Waskesiu lake m the Prince Albert national park by the removal of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of material.


Mr. PERLEY:: Has the contract been let for the dredging?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. Four tenders were
submitted.


George Halsey Perley: Who got the contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract has been
awarded to Macaw and Macdonald of Winnipeg.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers 

 British Columbia, $359,435.
Mr. BARBER:: I should like an explanation of four items in this vote. The first has to do with the dredging at Harrison river, for which an amount of $16,800 is being asked. The next covers wharf repairs and improvements at Harrison lake, for which $4,500 is being asked. In this connection I should like to know if this work is being done on the government wharf or some other wharf on the lake. Then I should like an explanation of the protection work being done on Nicomen island. Is this to replace work that has gone out, or is it to be new work? Then in connection with the work at Mclvor's landing; what federal district is that in?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mclvor's landing is in
New Westminster. In connection with Harrison river, an amount of $16,800 is being provided for dredging the river channel for a distance of 3,200 feet, a width of 80 feet and to a depth of four feet below low water level, and removing bars and raising banks on dredging work done during 1937 and 1938. Also to clean out the channel connecting Harrison lake with Little Harrison lake, all on the Harrison river water course. The amount of $4,500 for wharf repairs and improvements at Harrison lake is to provide for renewal of decking on approach and substitution of level platform 42 feet by 32 feet, and inclined landing platform 112 feet by 32 feet for the existing float and gangway.


Harry James Barber: Is that in connection with
the wharf built by the government, or the old wharf that was there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The residents of Harrison
lake district requested that the site of this landing be changed to a more protected one about 1,000 feet away. The district engineer advises that a wharf can be constructed at the new site for the amount submitted in the estimates.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Harry James Barber: This is really to cover the construction of another wharf?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry James Barber: They are not moving the
old float; they are constructing a new one.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They have not gone into
the details of the matter, but it is being studied. The $7,000 being provided for protection work on Nicomen island is for the construction of a groin to protect the river bank on the south side of Nicomen island in the vicinity of McDonalds Landing. Erosion is taking place to such an extent as to endanger the main dyke. Our attention was drawn to this by the district engineer in January, 1938. He advised that a recent examination revealed that the bank is cut back to within 130 feet of the main dyke and he contends that it is essential that this erosion should be stopped.


Harry James Barber: The minister has intimated that at times members neglect to bring to the attention of the minister certain needed works in their districts. He cannot make that charge against me in connection with one particular work, namely, the landing opposite McMillan island wharf which was constructed over a year ago. It was understood at tne time that this wharf was being constructed as a ferry landing, and it was made known throughout the district that in the near future a similar landing would be constructed on the north side, somewhere in the neighbourhood of Albion. We were encouraged to believe that a ferry service would be inaugurated by the provincial government, but there is only a landing on one side of the river. I took up this matter with the minister on May 16, and I received his reply under date of June 20. He claimed in his letter that the wharf on McMillan island was constructed for the accommodation of the fishermen and small boats. If that was the sole reason for construction, then there was no reason for expending $5,284.53, because the landing on the north side was constructed for about $1,800. As I said before, the main reason for constructing this landing was for ferry use. Then the minister also pointed out that there is a small float at Albion for the use of fishermen. The intimation was given to the people of that district that this McMillan island landing was being constructed so that a ferry service could be provided, and that a similar landing would be constructed on the other side. I know the minister will contend we have nothing to do with ferries, but this government has undertaken to build a ferry landing on one side of the river and has refused to build a similar landing on the
other side. I wonder if that is due to the fact that the other side is in another district which may be considered to be not as favourable. I agree with the minister in this, that the responsibility for operation of ferries rests with the provincial government, but in this case this government constructed a ferry landing on the south side, it is only fair, I submit, that the same construction should take place on the north side. The McMillan wharf is absolutely useless unless it can be connected with similar construction on the other side.
On the north side of the river we have many industries, and a demand for the products of the south. So there is the necessity of providing a crossing. I believe there has been a promise from the provincial government that if the federal government would construct these wharves, the provincial government would consider establishing a ferry service. I trust the minister will give his further very serious consideration to this request.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Mr. Chairman, in view of the serious commitment I made yesterday and in view of the repeated requests of my hon. friend in regard to this matter, possibly we can find a few precedents and I can assure my hon. friend that I will give my best attention to his representations.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Will the minister explain the item of improvements to assembly wharf at Nanaimo, $8,000, and say when it is proposed to have these improvements finished?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is contemplated that the work will be done this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Generally-improvements, maintenance of service, repairs and additions. $500,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are two items of $500,000 under " generally." Were there similar amounts last year, or is this an extra amount of $500,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The first item, No. 591, is the ordinary general item that has been in for several years. The other one, No. 593, is to cover employment works under contemplation for this year, and this is the only one of such items that is included in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. This item 593 includes protection works generally. I am sure that my hon. friend when he was Minister of Public Works received a number of requests for work of this nature, and no doubt he tried to limit them as much as he could, as I have done. But there are certain cases where our responsibility is not much disputed. In certain districts where there is
4518	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
navigation, for example, where big boats are going up and down a river, and the main channel is not far from the river banks, erosion is caused by the waves of passing vessels and protection works are needed. This item can cover work of that kind. The vote is of a temporary nature, and is one of the proposals of the government for providing employment relief work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought this was a new item. As the minister says, there are many requests for protection works, and I am sorry I did not have this item to take care of some of the requests I received when I was in the department. The minister ought to be able to do a good bit of protection with $500,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is for the whole country.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. But once you admit liability for erosion along the banks of a river, and undertake to provide protection works, you are in for a continued and very large expenditure over a period of years. The policy of the department has been to resist so far as possible claims for such erosion, because once you get into that field it is almost unlimited. I am sure the minister can easily spend the $500,000, and I hope he will protect everybody who needs protection.
Mr. TAY'LOR (Nanaimo): Will the minister state if it is possible to do anything in connection with Ladysmith wharf this season? I understand the matter is under review.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are getting a report on that, and I seriously hope we shall be in a position to satisfy my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges-Interprovincial bridge, Campbellton, N.B., to Cross Point, Que., the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec each to pay one-third of the cost and maintenance thereof, $100,000.
Mr. BROOKS:: Is it not the usual thing, where interprovincial bridges are being constructed, for each province to make a contribution and then appeal to the federal government for a contribution?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. We are providing
under this vote for the federal government's share, and the two provinces will have to contribute a similar amount each.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have they applied to the federal government for a contribution?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have they voted their own contributions?
fMr. Cardin.]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not yet, but they have applied to us, and we are providing this amount in case the provincial governments provide a similar amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch-Saskatchewan and Alberta -telephone line from lie a la Crosse to Buffalo Narrows, $10,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this a new telephone
line?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understood the policy
of the department was not to build any more lines than were necessary. Why is this one being built?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that it is
in the class defined as pioneer lines where private companies refuse to build. But, as my hon. friend suggested with regard to protection works, we try to resist requests of this kind as much as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public works-generally-to provide for balance required to complete any projects already undertaken, no new -works to be undertaken, $200,000. '
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is this the same as last
year or is there an increase?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the same as last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National Defence-departmental administration, $425,720.
Mr. MacNEIL:: There is a matter in regard to which I wish very briefly to lodge a protest. On March 7 I moved for a return of the house, as follows:
For a copy of all orders, decisions, letters, telegrams, recommendations and recorded evidence relating to the court of enquiry held by the Department of National Defence in Quebec, August 24 to August 28, 1936, to deal with charges against officers of the Royal 22nd Regiment.
The acting minister at that time, apparently acting on the advice of the departmental officers, stated:
The proceedings of the board of inquiry are of a confidential character. The documents and memoranda relating thereto come within the category of privileged communications.
So far as I am informed with regard to the procedure and usages of this house I consider that my rights as a member of the house were infringed upon. I did not ask for privileged documents. My motion might have been accepted by the government with

Supply-National Defence
the usual reservations. I did not ask for any military secrets, but simply for information regarding ordinary matters of departmental administration. I am not going to occupy any time, but as the minister is aware, serious allegations were made in regard to this matter. Information was put in my possession, properly documented and supported by statutory declarations, indicating a very serious state of affairs in regard to the administration of the Royal 22nd Regiment, concerning serious irregularities in the expenditure of government funds and the disposition of government property, and in the general discipline of the regiment. I have, therefore, no recourse but to place on record some of these charges and ask for a statement from the minister, as to whether the charges have been investigated, and what findings were given with regard thereto; and as the matter becomes of particular importance, in view of the fact that certain of the senior officers involved have been retained in the service and since promoted, having been given responsible positions that appropriate action be taken in the matter. One junior officer who made some effort to expose these irregularities has been victimized, grossly discriminated against and dismissed from the service. His career is blighted, and generally his future is darkened. Certain specific charges were made. One was that the regimental funds of the Royal 22nd Regiment have been misappropriated and in some instances expended upon things alien not only to the regiment but also to the militia.
Officers' mess and regimental property have been irregularly disposed of by a commanding officer of the Royal 22nd Regiment. Some commanding officers of the Royal 22nd Regiment have made it a custom to delete their names from the list of debtors submitted to the district officer commanding, on the 15th of every month, although they paid their mess bills approximately biannually or whenever they could find the money.
A company commander, Royal 22nd Regiment, solicited and charged his men three dollars per month to teach them English for the educational training examinations. I am qualified to state that this officer does not know the English language well enough to teach it. The commanding officer not only tolerated but supported that officer's most unethical practice.
It has been the custom of most married officers of the Royal 22nd Regiment to draw servant allowance, although they employed soldier servants. The daily amount involved is small, being forty cents; but, spread over a period of ten years, it amounts to approximately one thousand five hundred dollars.
A commanding officer, Royal 22nd Regiment, took possession of and used, for himself and his family, not only at camp but also in town, most of the bed linen which the government supplies for the accommodation of the unmarried personnel living in barracks.
Another serious charge was that commanding officers were guilty of an indictable offence, that is to say, bootlegging, permitting the use in the officers' mess of spirits on which the excise tax was not paid, contrary to the provisions of the Liquor Control Act.
I have a number of statutory declarations of those employed in the mess in support of this charge. The junior officer concerned had certain rights as well as responsibilities. He had a right to interest himself in any such irregularities, and he did so, with the result, as I have said, that he was grossly discriminated against and dismissed from the service without a proper inquiry. I have the confidential report of his service and there is not an entry in that report on the part of the senior officers indicating that his conduct was anything but completely satisfactory. But a return was brought down into the house which I think was in very bad taste on the part of the officers of the department, because it shows a most vindictive attitude towards this gentleman, Captain Roy. It is stated:
This officer's retirement was promoted by the fact that over a period of some eight years, and notwithstanding repeated warnings to the contrary, there occurred very many instances of derelictions from duty, failure to comply with regulations, acts detrimental to discipline and to the good of his regiment, the cumulative effect of these being not only subversive to discipline in the unit but also giving a bad example to the younger officers, and tints making it essential in the general interests of the service to remove this officer.
These charges were placed on the record without this officer being granted a hearing, and I have reason to believe that this action was taken in consequence of his having made some effort to stop gross irregularities in the administration of the affairs of the Royal 22nd Regiment. I have made it my business to consult other senior officers who had knowledge of these affairs and they corroborate the statement of this officer. The conditions existing in Quebec were an open scandal throughout the force. I will not deal with the matter at length. I simply wish to bring it to the attention of the minister and to protest against the fact that I was not given the information I had the right to receive as a member of this house with regard to the administration of government funds. I have asked that proper steps be taken, if the charges have been confirmed by inquiry, to deal with the senior officers who condoned practices so vicious and irregular. I also make a definite

Supply-National Defence

appeal on behalf of a young officer of good family and good record-and this is substantiated by a number of officers who have since retired from the force. I ask that this gentleman be granted plain justice in this instance, because I feel that he has been grossly discriminated against and victimized by the very men whose conduct is in question. I hope I shall have a statement from the minister in this regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only do the conditions exist in Quebec, as indicated by the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Mae-Neil), so far as that particular regiment is concerned, but I have had occasion to bring to the attention of the minister other cases in which men have been punished, it seems to me, simply because they dared to assert themselves in favour of honest and decent administration in the units with which they are connected. I am bound to say that I think the minister in the two cases I brought to his attention has endeavoured to do everything that a minister reasonably can do, but the officers will not give effect.to what should be done and it is disturbing to think that this is going on. It happened in years gone by in this country and created considerable difficulty.
There never has been a time when there was in connection with the militia a situation such as we have to-day, and it is attributable to exactly such conditions as the hon. member has just referred to. It is believed that there is direct interference on the part of some officials with respect to what should be the orderly administration of a department, and I can only say to the minister that I believe -I want to be fair about it-that though he is a strong partisan he has been endeavouring to do something to remove the difficulty that exists. I would say to him something of the sort once said by a queen to her son-"Charles, be king!" I suggest to the minister that after all, he is minister, and not somebody else in his department, and that the conditions that exist in Quebec call for a real investigation. In connection with the Royal 22nd Regiment they cry aloud for an investigation The man who has been promoted-the story will be told to this house some day-I will not mention by name. I say that purposely, for it would not be the proper thing in view of what the minister is trying to do. At Winnipeg the condition got down to this: Is it possible because of social and other pull for any man to misappropriate money and then, because decent, honest men wish to see that sort of thing stopped, they should be punished and deprived of their positions

and treated in this way? That is what it gets down to. I will refrain at this time of day from going into the details of all this, because I have found the minister himself reasonable in his attitude of mind and in his approach to these problems. But for some strange reason action always falls just short of realization. I wrote and told the minister that I thought he had done the fair and decent thing but to my horror I discovered that after all, although he thought it had been done, it had not. That sort of thing must stop in this country. No little band in this country is going to defy either ministers or public opinion in the observance of the amenities of life, merely because they happen to be the favourites of particular individuals. The sooner that is understood, the better.
With respect to the matter to which the hon. member for Vancouver North has referred. I intended myself to speak about it, but I am not going to do so now. We have a right to these papers-and when I say "we" I mean this house. No sort of private star chamber business is going to be set up here; if I were to adopt the language of the Prime Minister with respect to a somewhat similar matter I would characterize it even more strongly, but I content myself with these observations. I still rely upon the minister carrying into effect what I believe he honestly wants to do in the interests of the service of this country, and I say to him again, in the language of the old queen, "Ian, be king I"


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: First I desire to thank
my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) for his very fair comments.
Two cases mentioned, the one by my right hon. friend and the other by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) arose before I was entrusted with the responsibility of being Minister of National Defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With respect to the Winnipeg case, I am not going to discuss the right or wrong of it, but I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to see that substantial justice was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two
different courts of inquiry were held in that case, and I trust that even further measures will be taken to see that final justice is rendered in every individual case in connection with the Winnipeg incident.

Supply-National Defence
The case mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver North was disposed of in May, 1935, after a very thorough investigation by the chief of the general staff, a board of officers, and the district officer commanding. The case was brought to the attention of my predecessor, the hon. member for Yale (Mr, Stirling), who, this committee will agree, is a gentleman of very fair and very eminent judgment. I perused all the files-I am not going to refer to any confidential documents in connection with this officer; I do not think it is necessary for me to do so-I considered the reasons for dealing with him as he was dealt with, and I am constrained to say with great regret that I agree with the action which was taken with respect to him.
My hon. friend has mentioned charges in connection with a Quebec regiment. A court of inquiry was held. As my hon. friend says, he was denied access to the proceedings of the court of inquiry. He was, however, offered private access to the proceedings of the court. If this house wishes to assert as a matter of principle that, the proceedings of courts of inquiry in the Department of National Defence shall be open to any hon. member of the house, I have not the slightest objection. The principle all through the years has been that these are confidential proceedings, and not producible, but if the house wishes to establish another principle I am entirely willing and even anxious to see that all these proceedings are brought down with reference to any of these troubles which have arisen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that in the
British parliament they bring down courts martial proceedings.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Personally I would have no objection; indeed I rather agree with my right hon. friend with reference to the proceedings of the court of inquiry he has mentioned, and I have not the slightest objection to bringing them down. I agree with the judgment of my predecessor with regard to this case. I want to say nothing reflecting on this officer. It would not be fair to use the privileges of parliament to reflect on any officer. But I do say this, that a court of inquiry was held with reference to the allegations mentioned, and honestly mentioned, by the hon. member for Vancouver North. As I have said, if the committee wishes that the proceedings of courts of inquiry in every case shall be made available, I am not only anxious but willing that these documents shall be brought down. Both these cases were left on my doorstep when I was entrusted with the responsibilities of the department. I endeavoured to do the S1952-2804
best I could in the Winnipeg case; in the Quebec case I sustained the judgment of my predecessor, and I think I was doing justice in so doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And in the Nova Scotia case also.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Were the charges against the principal officers concerned substantiated in any form, particularly with regard to dealing with funds and the misuse of government property? If they were not cleared of these charges, why have they since been granted promotion?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
informed-this is subject to further inquiry- that these charges were not substantiated. I should be very glad to bring down the proceedings of the court of inquiry for the hon. member to see.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Can the minister make any statement with reference to the proceedings against the junior officer?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I recall that it was arranged that there should be a conference in October, 1937. I instructed the deputy minister and the adjutant general to be in my office to meet with that officer. The officer, however, never turned out for that investigation or inquiry -


Grote Stirling: The minister has referred to the fact that action in the Roy case was taken during the time of his predecessor, and as I was that predecessor perhaps I should make a remark or two. As to that portion of the reference which the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has made to the Royal 22nd Regiment, dealing with Captain Roy's case, I have a general recollection of the case. I cannot be expected to remember the details, but I do recall that before making any decision I gave careful study to all the related facts and circumstances, because to take such action against any man is a serious matter. The inquiries were held consequent upon repeated instances of alleged misconduct on the part of the officer in question. That it was not one isolated incident, but a number of incidents reported over the course of years, is my recollection. Not only was the matter reported on by his commanding officer; it went to the district officer commanding, and then to the chief of the general staff. After I had considered all the reports produced by those three officers, I could come to no other conclusion than that the action should be taken which was taken.
Supply-National Defence


Charles Grant MacNeil: There is one further matter to which I wish briefly to refer, in the hope that it may bring forth a statement from the minister as to the policy regarding the construction of armouries across Canada. The people of Canada at this time are making serious sacrifices for the purposes of national defence, and I see no reason why in certain instances armouries should be constructed with a consequent diversion of funds required for purposes of coastal defence. I refer to sessional paper No. 210 of this year. I find that the total cost of armouries and barracks, including lands, and exclusive of maintenance and repairs, has been $20,103,586. That is quite apart from the lands and buildings transferred by the government of the United Kingdom. to the Dominion of Canada free of cost. The annual cost of maintenance of armouries and barracks in Canada is $994,994-approximately SI.000.000-including structural repairs, care of buildings, grounds and equipment; also heating, lighting and water services.
I have in my hand a list of the locations of armouries across Canada. In military district No. 1 there are armouries at places like Chatham, Erin. Galt, Ingersoll, Listowel, Park-hill. St. Thomas, Strathroy, Walkerton, Windsor, Elora. Forest, Guelph. Kincardine, London, Sarnia. Stratford, Watford, Wingham. Woodstock, Port Elgin.
In military district No. 2 there are armouries at places like Aurora, Brantford, Brampton, Cannington, Dundas, Georgetown, Hailey-bury. Markdale, Niagara Falls. Orillia. Paris, Simcoe, Toronto (Fort York), Whitby. Barrie, Burford, Beaverton, Clarksburg, Durham, Hagersville. Hamilton, Meaford, Norval, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Toronto (University avenue), Welland, Milton.
And so it goes on, representing not so much a plan of defence as a first class map of political expenditure. I am concerned because in the estimates just voted for public works there are included a number of items for the purpose of further construction of armouries. For instance, one at Hull, at a cost of something like


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: $260,000. It is partly rebuilt.


Charles Grant MacNeil: -and a similar expenditure in Cornwall. Quite sincerely, I can see no relation in these expenditures to defence. I oppose this expenditure because it is my belief that it is made largely for political purposes. When you consider the use that is made of these armouries, the comparatively small number of men involved, and the fact that they are dark the greater portion of the time, I consider it is a needless expenditure at this time. I urge the minister to abandon

the construction of armouries. I believe that to do so would accord with the opinion of a large number of senior officers interested in sound policies of national defence, and that such funds as may be expended in this connection should be directly related to coastal defence, which is our real problem at this time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I appreciate very much the point of view expressed by my hon. friend, but I must take issue with him at once in regard to the value of armouries in Canada. Particularly since the reorganization of the militia units and the attempts to complete the mechanization of them, I submit that armouries are absolutely indispensable for the training of our Canadian forces, especially in the winter months when they cannot possibly train outside. The only way these units in the interior and the colder portions of Canada can train throughout the year is in these armouries. As a matter of fact I must express my personal regret that the very obvious necessities for the present year with regard to more armoury accommodation in Canada have not been met, because you cannot possibly have complete training of your militia units unless you have the necessary buildings where such training can be carried on.
As I say, I appreciate my hon friend's point of view, but I must take issue with him. To-day the armouries in Canada are used not only for the training of our militia but also .to a tremendous extent for community purposes in every small community throughout the country. If this year I had been able to meet all the requests, not only of supporters of the government -but of hon. gentlemen in all quarters of this house, with reference to needed armoury accommodation, a further amount of $5,000,000 would have been required for this purpose. That is the actual situation from the defence point of view. I receive wires and letters every day asking for the loan of armouries for public functions, very often charitable functions, and at the present time these armouries are rendering magnificent service in the smaller communities throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are three matters I should like to bring to the attention of the minister on which I should like an expression of opinion before we rise. The first has to do with supplies. The minister has pointed out that he receives requests for the use of armouries for public purposes, and with what he has said as to the necessity for these buildings I absolutely agree. But we have a rule that militia supplies, with the exception - of rubber carpeting, should not be allowed out

Supply-National Defence
on loan. That rule, of course, has not been observed; I have a list, which was obtained from the proper source, of many of these applications for loans. What I put to the minister is this, that there should be no favouritism with respect to these matters.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear,
hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For instance, there is an issue of swords under loan. The rule is very, very severe; in fact, as I read it, it is almost prohibitive. There are tents loaned at times, as well as other supplies of the department. I should like the minister to satisfy himself personally as to the impartiality that is exercised in connection with these matters. The second point I desire to raise is much more serious. It has to do with whether or not we should have the private manufacture of arms in this country. The real truth is that the papers brought down, dealing with an agreement in connection with the manufacture of Bren guns, contemplates a profit of ten per cent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. That is the outside limit, but it actually works out much less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may say that the technical advice is to the contrary in regard to this particular machinery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that some people have advised that the heavy machinery, which is always useful and which never becomes obsolete until it is absolutely worn out and will not function at all, is acceptable; but that the manufacture of these arms, which is a matter of great precision, depends upon more modern machinery rather than upon old, obsolete machinery, either of this particular firm or of our own.
In that connection I think we should have some statement, because it does appear to me that we cannot justify private firms being created for the purpose of manufacturing arms unless we can give a valid reason for it concerning the interests of the country itself or of the commonwealth. It may be that it is desirable because of the large order that comes from Great Britain that we should embark upon this method of dealing with it. I should like to have the minister give as full a statement as possible as to just what were the operating causes. I am only saying that we have times without number declared against the theory of the private munition manufacturer being able to place himself in a position which permits him to influence public opinion in the manner that has been so strongly condemned, shall I say, in various parts of the world.
The third point has to do with the utilization of portions of this country for the purpose of training grounds for the training of aviators. There has been much discussion in the public press and in another place with respect to the matter. It is well known that in England there is a limitation on the training that can be carried out in connection with their aircraft, because of the density of population. That is, the limitation imposed upon them with respect to flying and training, because of the very dense population, render it essential that they should carry on their operations in some other part of the world. I believe Newfoundland was considered at one time; I believe other parts of the British Empire have been considered, and the information is that not a request but what is equivalent to it, namely an approach to this government, was made to ascertain whether or not
Supply-National Defence

there would be any objection to this being done. Obviously no member of the commonwealth is going to ask this government, and face a refusal, because that is not the way governments do business. But the information I have is that the British government was desirous of finding here an opportunity for the training of flyers and aviators, because of our climatic and other conditions that made such training possible, as compared with the limitations imposed upon them by reason of the density of their population and other matters of that kind.
What I was anxious about was whether the government would not be very greatly concerned to assist in this being done, not only because we are a part of the British commonwealth of nations but also because it would enable us to derive the benefits that would come from such an arrangement. Then there is another matter which becomes of importance. I am informed that the commission which visited the country some time ago did not go into the factories at all, but received from the department a memorandum showing what our factories in Canada were capable of producing; that they had no knowledge, for instance, that this country could produce shells of a certain type, and were ready and willing to enter into a contract for the production of shells if we were prepared to sanction it. That also becomes a matter of very considerable importance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is entirely incorrect, may I say right away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be; but certainly it is clear that the British government were willing to purchase supplies in this country, just as they were of Bren guns; and the question is whether or not they were given the opportunity to do so, as they were with respect to Bren guns. That is the only question, and I think that puts it clearly. Those two matters should be cleared up.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will deal briefly with the three points raised by my right hon. friend. In the first place, with respect to the issuance of supplies I can assure my right hon. friend that so far as I know there is not the slightest suggestion of any partisan consideration in regard to the issuance of supplies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say "partisan."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought .my right hon. friend did suggest that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, far from it. I did not .-even mention it.
(Mr. Bennett.I


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Last
week I had the pleasure of accommodating three of my good colleagues from the other side of the house with respect to supplies, and I can assure my right hon. friend it is fully a matter of supplies being available. Where we are able to accommodate the public demand we are only too pleased to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I referred to favouritism,
and did not use the word "partisan."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I accept the amendment-but I am not conscious of that, either.
With reference to the contract for Bren guns, I want to say immediately that it is a very important question. I suggested myself very early this session that all these contracts could very well be examined by either the public accounts committee or a special committee of this house. I feel it is due to myself as minister, and to the department, that there should be a complete investigation from the business point of view, because I do say this, that from the business point of view this is one of the finest contracts that was ever signed in the public interest of Canada.
I want to say in the second place that the minister cannot take the slightest credit for the contract, and the minister never sat in on any of the consultations, and never met Major Hahn until after the contract was signed. The contract was discussed by an interdepartmental committee which was formed about two years ago. I think that a subcommittee studying the terms of the contract for three months found they had various possible alternatives. One would be that once the unit basis was established with reference to the contract that they might possibly call for tenders. That suggestion was made to those who had already organized the main details in England of a complementary contract, and we were told that if any further delay occurred the arrangements could not be proceeded with. That was exactly the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If any delay ensued.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. We were told that if that suggestion was carried out the contract as had been arranged would have been impossible. Major Hahn went to England in 1936 and evidently made a favourable impression upon the British people. He also had access over there to the specifications of the Bren gun. I want to leave the idea with the committee that these are secret specifications and we had no control over them. It is quite possible they would not be available to any competitor of the firm

Supply-National Defence
which got the contract. I want to say this: Once we were informed by the war office of the attitude of the British government we went into figures with the Enfield factory in England which produces those guns at the rate of fifty a week


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is more than that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -and we established the following figures: If we produced in Canada only 7,000 guns, on the same unit price basis as in this contract, the cost would be $4,887,923.63. Under the joint arrangement the cost of the guns would be $3,515,894.11. In other words there is a saving to Canada, as a result of production being increased from 7,000 to 12,000 guns, of $1,372,029.52.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the old story of increasing the unit production and reducing the unit cost.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
increasing production and reducing the cost of production.
My right hon. friend referred to the possibility of applying the same principle in other directions. It would be of tremendous advantage to the Department of National Defence, to the government and the people of Canada if we could do that. I want to assure my right hon. friend and the committee that nothing has been done except so far as we can to encourage the placing of these orders, where we ourselves were handicapped through the impossibility of the production of orders in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Making the unit cost prohibitive.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. We cannot always ask industry to go ahead with our small orders in Canada, because they cannot do it on a satisfactory financial basis.
I want to repeat what I said. I would like to see this contract examined from a business basis, through and through. I think it is one of the finest things ever done, since we had to do it in Canada, for the dominion. I would prefer to see it done by public ownership, because I am against the principle of the private manufacture of arms.
We studied the report of the royal commission in Great Britain of the senate committee in the United States and of a distinguished committee in Ottawa under the chairmanship of Doctor Skelton which sat two and a half years ago. They considered this one problem. As the result of the recommendations of that committee we tried to combine the principle of public ownership with private management. That is exactly the principle followed out
to-day in connection with this. I realize it is capable of political attack but I do say to my right hon. friend that it is the very best thing that can be done to-day in order to expedite matters and to do a job at the cheapest possible cost for the production of the material in Canada.
With reference to the third point raised by my right hon. friend in regard to the air force may I say I looked up the files of the department on the question and I have found that in 1937 there was an editorial in the Vancouver Sun written on July 7 of that year, as follows:
The announcement that the Canadian government had refused permission to Great Britain to establish royal air force training stations in Canada, but will permit the British authorities to recruit Canadians to be trained in that service, would seem to indicate that this country has rather fumbled the issue.
I made an inquiry, and received from the senior air officer the following:
I regret I have been unable to trace the authority for the statement in question. A search of central registry has failed to reveal any request by the air ministry for authority to establish a training station in Canada. No one in this office has any recollection of having seen correspondence dealing with such a request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not expect there
would be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The other day, after certain remarks were made in another place, I made further inquiries, and the situation is still the same. As a matter of fact I want to say that in regard to the training of Canadians, and preparing them for commissions in the air force in Great Britain, we have met every request. We are sending 120 a year to Great Britain, and training some at Trenton-fifteen at the present time-who will later proceed to Great Britain and take commissions there, and then qualify after short term commissions for reserve in the Canadian air force.
This insidious campaign outside-not in the house-that there has been a lack of willingness to cooperate, I say is absolutely false in every word. There has been absolutely a full spirit of cooperation, and I would ask the Prime Minister, if he will, to read a letter which came from the British government the other day indicating their appreciation of the cooperation extended to the recent air commission in Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: First of all
I have to say that I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. the leader of the opposition in this house, and the leader of the opposition in the senate, assert that they have information with respect to conversations which
Supply-National Defence

have taken place between the British government and the Canadian government, because I am unable to gather from what source information of that kind could have come.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did my right hon. friend say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has a habit of making statements of that character. I did not say that. I said I had information that they had endeavoured to establish training schools in this country. I was sensible enough to know that they did not make any formal request to the government, but would rather ascertain through informal discussions what the attitude of the government was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my right hon. friend will tell the committee where he got his information so we may judge how authentic is its source.
of State for Dominion Affairs to convey to His Majesty's government in Canada an expression of the warm appreciation of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom for the valuable assistance rendered by the Minister of National Defence and his department to the air mission from the United Kingdom which recently visited Canada.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
mi n XT	*-'[DOT] Floud.
The Rt. Hon.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read the letter of April 16, to which that is a reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
that letter here. The letter of April 16 I think, intimated that a mission would be coming to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will be a letter from the government of Canada to Sir Francis Floud.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no intention of saying that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought not. I want, to have it understood that neither the right hon. leader of the opposition in this house nor the leader of the opposition in the senate is prepared to state the source of his information. On the other hand, they both have been prepared to have a controversy take place in the press which has misrepresented entirely the position of the present government and which I think has helped to create embarrassment in the old country as well as here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Vancouver Sun
started it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is an old Tory trick.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Vancouver Sun is a Tory paper, is it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been started at different times and in different ways. However, I think we shall clear up the matter once and for all this morning. The letter my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), has asked me to read is a communication which was received from the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom, Sir Francis Floud, and which reads:
Office of the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom Ottawa
June 21, 1938.
Sir,
With reference to your note No. 6 of the 16th April, I have the honour to inform you that I have been instructed by the Secretary [Mr. I. Mackenzie.!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It had I imagine reference to the mission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister
should not read a reply to a letter, without reading the letter to which it is in reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will send
for the letter. I think my right hon. friend knows what it would likely be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know nothing of that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is nothing in the other communication which would affect or alter in any way the significance of the present communication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The terms of that letter would determine the reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to what has been asked this morning by the right hon. leader of the opposition in this committee, and with respect to the questions asked by the leader of the Conservative opposition in the senate, I would say that the government has nothing to add to the statement made by the leader of the government in the senate in response to an inquiry by the leader of the opposition in that house, the statement then made was to the effect that no requests have been received from the British government for the establishment in Canada of training centres for aviators of the air force of the United Kingdom. Confidential and informal exploratory conversations with respect to training of British air pilots have taken place, but nothing has developed which it was felt warranted a statement of policy. As has been indicated, if any proposals are

Supply-National Defence
made by the government of the. United Kingdom, the Canadian government would , of course be prepared to discuss them with that government and to make its position known to the Canadian people and to parliament.
Possibly hon. members have noticed that this matter has been brought up in the British parliament at Westminster where replies have been made to questions asked. In the Ottawa papers of June: 30 there appeared a dispatch from London dated June 29 setting forth a reply that Sir Thomas Inskip, Minister for National Coordination, made to a question asked by Sir Percy Hurd, Conservative. Sir Percy Hurd asked what arrangements were being made to enlist Canadian cooperation in the government's rearmament plan. Sir Thomas Inskip replied:
His Majesty's government in Canada, in common with His Majesty's governments in other dominions, have been kept informed in regard to the rearmament program of this country. The possibility of placing orders in Canada is under examination, and orders have been placed in certain eases in which suitable terms, including times of delivery, can be arranged.
I think that dispatch indicates upon what the British government wishes to give in the way of information on matters which have been the subject of confidential communication between the two governments.
May I say a word with respect to the idea of having the Imperial air force set up flying schools in Canada to train their pilots; in short, a military station put down in Canada, owned, maintained and operated by the imperial government for imperial purposes. I must say that long ago Canadian governments finally settled the constitutional principle that in Canadian territory there could be no military establishments unless they were owned, maintained and controlled by the Canadian government responsible to the Canadian parliament and people. In the end the imperial naval stations and army garrisons were withdrawn and Canadian authority took over. A reversal of that principle and that historical process at this date is something the Canadian people would not for a moment entertain. Such domestic ownership, maintenance and control of all military stations and personnel is one of the really indispensable hall marks of national sovereign self government and an indispensable basis for friendly and effective cooperation between the governments of Canada and those of other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, including the government of the United Kingdom. Outside its homeland a state may have military stations and quarter military personnel in countries which it " owns," in its colonies or " possessions," or in its mandated territories
according to the trust deed, or in countries over which it has assumed or been yielded, by some arrangement, what amounts to a protectorate. But no country pretending to sovereign self control could permit such a state of affairs or its implications and consequences. I need only add that what I have said has, of course, to be sharply distinguished from the case of actual war where a country may have to permit its partners, associates or allies to maintain, operate and control military establishments and forces within its territory, forced to do so by the actual strategic or tactical necessities and for the purposes, but only for the purposes, of the actual joint war.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In the light of the statement just made by the Prime Minister, I wonder if he would clarify our position with regard to the naval bases at Halifax and Esquimalt? I hold in my hand copy of sessional paper No. 285, tabled last year. At that time the following question was asked:
What are the obligations, if any, of the government to the government of the United Kingdom in respect of the naval bases at Halifax and Esquimalt?
The answer given was as follows:
The naval bases at Halifax and Esquimalt -were taken over on conditions that the dominion government would maintain them in a state of efficiency, would provide storing accomodation for coal and other fuel for the admiralty, and dock yard facilities for his majesty's ships visiting Canadian waters.
I am not asking this question out of mischievous curiosity. As the Prime Minister is aware, this matter has been discussed at length in articles appearing in important publications. It has been stated that this commits Canada to a state of belligerency, without reference to parliament, in the event that Great Britain should be involved in a war. Is the Prime Minister prepared to make a statement with regard to our obligations in connection with the defence of these bases should the United Kingdom become involved in a war?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can only
repeat what I have said time and again, namely, that there are no commitments of any kind on the part of this government with respect to any war in which the United Kingdom may be engaged. What may be done will be done as a result of the action of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question I was about to ask has been answered by the Prime Minister. I would be derelict in my duty if I did not say at once that I wholly and entirely and utterly disagree with that statement. When
Supply-National Defence

the ancient partner upon whom we have leaned all these years is not to be permitted to provide effective means for maintaining, not her life but the life of an empire and commonwealth, then I say it is time for us to take stock of the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been no statement to the effect that effective means would not be provided, but the means that have been suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition are means that would be destructive of all effective cooperation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To say that any partner
in our commonwealth should not, if it so desired, be given every opportunity to establish training fields for the safety, not of themselves but of the commonwealth, is destructive of the whole theory of 1926 and 1930. We said that we were freely associated with one another, that we were partners, and now we are told that if we try to act as partners we will be violating some unheard of national right.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was
nothing in the statement I have made to justify any such inference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It justifies no other inference than that. It can be interpreted in only one sense. The language is clear, it is unambiguous-for a change. But, sir, I do not believe that the people of this country share that view. Every man who has read the history of modern warfare and knows what is being prepared realizes that the bombers of to-day will make the British islands the very forefront of attack in the next war. They are threatened, and where are they to prepare for their defence, which is our defence? Not in those little islands. And if they want to come here and train and prepare to send their bombers across the ocean if the occasion arises, should they not be permitted gladly to do so and be welcomed? For what they are saving is our civilization, and Canada-and Canada, I repeat. The idea of the first minister of Canada suggesting that this is a Tory trick, when the article to which reference was made by his minister sitting beside him is from the Vancouver Sun, a Liberal paper, of the seventh day of July, 1937, almost a year ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A Tory trick, just the same.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: There we have it. What a spectacle!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What a spectacle. That is what I say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The idea of the first
minister of this country, when the Liberal organ of Vancouver makes this statement and the Minister of National Defence was so impressed with it that he at once instituted proceedings for the purpose of ascertaining its origin

he so stated here this morning, and he got a report. That statement in the Vancouver Sun did not come from me. I heard of it as others did, and I was as shocked as the Vancouver Sun apparently was. I knew nothing of it. I wonder how many members of this house knew anything about its origin. I do not know yet, and the Minister of National Defence says he is unable to find out. But there it was. And to-day we are told that it is inconsistent with our national sovereignty that the Dominion of Canada should permit training fields and centres to be established here by one of our partners for the defence of our common empire, a commonwealth of nations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We establish our own.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not the facilities to establish our own to offer to them. I know something of the difficulties even with regard to these 125 men to which reference has been made. I know the clamour of Canadians to join that force. I have had them come to me, not by ones and twos but many more, asking what I could do to assist them to get across the water and join the Royal Air Force. We made provision for a few men training at Trenton and for the medical examination of Canadians going to join the air force in England and we put a quota on those who desired to join the Royal Air Force. And now we are told it would be inconsistent with national sovereignty that we should permit a partner to provide for a contingency that means our life. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about it. When Britain goes we go. Who stands if freedom fall; who dies if England lives? If it was the last word I ever uttered in this house or with the last breath in my body I would say that no Canadian is worthy of his great heritage and his great traditions and his magnificent hope of the future who would deny to the old partner who established us the right in this country to create those centres which she may not have at home to preserve her life and the life of every man who enjoys freedom and liberty under the protecting aegis of that flag.


Ernest Lapointe: I knew the flag would be the last word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly and proudly so.

Supply-National Defence


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that the course above all others which serves to unite and which serves to keep united the British Commonwealth of Nations is that which is implied in the words " complete self-government on the part of each of the self-governing dominions" and self-government means control by the government of a country over its own military establishments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Free association.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Free association but complete control of its own military establishments.
We have in Canada our Department of National Defence; we have our army and our air force and our naval service establishments as the British government have their army and navy and air force establishments under their own control and a responsible minister. You cannot have two military forces operating in individual countries responsible at one time or in part to the one government and at another time and in part to another government. We have to take complete responsibility ourselves with respect to everything we do and for everything that is done here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a military force but a training force.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want the house and the country to understand clearly what is being discussed. My reference was with regard to the idea of having the imperial air force set up a flying school somewhere in Canada to train their flying pilots. In short, a military station to be put down in Canada, owned, maintained and operated by the imperial government for imperial purposes


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for imperial purposes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is for
imperial purposes. Is it for Canadian purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, very much so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that we will look after our own defence in cooperation with other parts of the empire, just as they will look after their own defences in cooperation with other parts of the empire, but that cooperation will be most effectively maintained and carried out by each part managing its own affairs and being responsible to its own parliament for all its actions in respect thereto.
I have made this statement at this time this morning so that there can be no mistake about the attitude of the Canadian government on this question, and if at any time
m.v right hon. friend wants to go before the Canadian people and have this issue fought out, I am quite prepared at the appropriate time to' go before them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound, Mr. Chairman, to say "So am 1." I want to say, further, that his own Minister of National Defence is my authority that we are going to depend on the might of our partner, Britain, for our naval defence, and that means our life. That is not what I said, but what the Minister of National Defence said; that means, the defence of Canada by the taxpayer of England, who is denied the right to train his men in Canada for the purpose of protecting that navy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I want to take issue at once with that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are two entirely different things. This government has never at any time said that it was not prepared to give in our own establishments the opportunity to British pilots to come over here and train, but they will do it in our own establishments, controlled by our own Minister of National Defence who is responsible to this parliament. That is an entirely different thing from having a branch of the British forces establish headquarters in this country, direct their own men here and be responsible, not to this parliament for what takes place in Canada as a consequence, but only to the British parliament and the British people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And yet in Canada, sir, the road to the Yukon and Alaska-a military road-not for a partner of the empire but for an alien-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An alien.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just that. I am asking is that consistent with this discussion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who has suggested that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The premier of British Columbia, has he not? He cannot do it unless this government gives him permission, for the Yukon is under our control. And he goes to Washington and says that he does it with the approval of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not; I beg your pardon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said.
Supply-National Defence


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He himself has stated specifically to me that what he did he did entirely on his own responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I gave him no encouragement or authority, nor has he had any from any federal source so far as the Yukon road is concerned. When the question comes up for consideration by this government, this government will give its answer with respect to what is to be done.


Mr. McGEER:: Do I understand from the leader of the opposition that he is opposed to the construction of the Alaska highway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly he is.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I am glad to know that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly he is, under the conditions suggested, because the back door is as open as the front door. Always keep that in mind, and I have said so frequently. There is nothing new about it. This morning we have the Minister of National Defence leaving it to the Prime Minister to make the statement he has made, and it is the same Minister of National Defence who has told this country that it is on the British navy that we are going to depend, plus the American navy on the Pacific. There is his speech; I read from it again the other day. He did not say that we were going to have the American navy for sure, but that he felt as a matter of friendliness that they would probably see us out of our difficulties.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I never mentioned the word American.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He mentioned the word neighbour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But not the word American.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he did not mean Mexico as far as I know. Now I will put one point and leave it at that. If it is essential that we should depend upon the British navy for our national life, is it inconsistent with our position of free association with the people who provide it that they should have an opportunity to establish a training school in Canada for those who will defend, not their country, but our common heritage with their navy upon which we depend, according to the minister himself? Everybody, I think, will agree with

that, and I believe that the great mass of public opinion in this country would support that view.


Ernest Lapointe: Would my right hon. friend extend that principle even to the land forces, the militia-to have the militia of the United Kingdom use Canada as a crown colony for training purposes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No sir.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, what
is the difference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made it clear at the threshhold of my observations that aerial attack and defence are entirely different from other warlike operations. We are dealing with operations in the air. It has never been suggested that England should undertake defensive or offensive operation's in Canada, but to train their airmen where they would be free from attack, that they might protect that navy on which we depend, that navy which is to save us and our harbours and our trade and commerce east and west. The training for air service is different from that for the navy and army. I would not for a moment suggest that the militia of England or the army of England should train here. Far from it.	[DOT]


Mr. VIEN:: The principle is the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is exactly the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite different,
carrying into the air bombs with flying machines and training men to meet an enemy at our gate and to defend the navy that preserves from destruction our commerce on the open seas is quite unlike military operations. There is no similarity in the world.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say one word in conclusion. There is not a man in this parliament who believes more strongly in the British Empire and the part it is playing in the world to-day than myself. I believe that the British Empire can be kept together and made an effective instrument for peace throughout the world by effective cooperation between the self-governing dominions and the United Kingdom. But I do say that any reversal of the trend, of which we are all fully cognizant, that has taken place in the last century with respect to military establishments, whether they relate to the army or the air or to the naval service, would be a factor in dismembering the British Empire and would create all sorts of controversy and discussion in the country, serving no useful

Supply-National Defence
purpose in the end. This empire can be kept together by effective, helpful cooperation. This government is prepared to cooperate with the British government and with the governments of all the other self-governing dominions in ways which we believe will most effectively help to preserve the unity of the empire and make it a great force for peace and good will throughout the world and for the maintenance of peace. But we are not going. to take a step which we may believe might have the effect of beginning to disrupt the exceptionally happy and united relations which all parts of the empire enjoy to-day each with the other.


Mr. CAHAN:: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he seriously suggests that affording facilities, at the expense of the government of the United Kingdom for the training of men in flying, with the idea of ultimately employing them in the British air forces for the protection not only of the United Kingdom but of all the other dominions, is a retrograde step. The training of British air forces in Canada would be the first step, it seems to me, in cooperation in that direction. Such reasonable cooperation would not, I think, imply the exercise of British military authority over this country. It would not be a military force; it would not be a force under military control; it would not necessarily be a military establishment at all. It would be simply providing an establishment with ample facilities in this wide country for training men for ultimate service in the aerial defences of the empire. It seems to me the right hon. gentleman is going very far astray in his definition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend has asked the question he has. I wish to go a step further than he has gone, in his statement that this country should cooperate in a way that will be helpful to all parts of the British Empire in matters of defence by saying that whereas he proposes that we should have the British government come and pay for establishments which they are supporting in this country for the training of pilots, we ourselves are prepared to have our own establishments here and to give in those establishments facilities to British pilots to come and train here. But they must come and train in establishments which are under the control of the government of Canada and for which the Minister of National Defence will be able to answer in this parliament with respect to everything concerning them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The facilities at the present
time are utterly inadequate to attain the objects which the right hon. gentleman suggests. Will he in parliament, on behalf of his government,
ask for adequate appropriations for the purpose, so that there may be ample facilities in this country, under the supervision, direction and control of the Canadian government, for the training of adequate air forces for the United Kingdom and the other dominions? If he will do that, I will go a long way with him, but there has not been one practical step taken yet in that direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
again to my hon. friend that when we have requests from the British government for a particular purpose we shall be prepared to consider them, but we have had no requests from the government of the United Kingdom for the establishment of training stations in this country up to the present. We have had some exploratory conversations with respect to what might be desirable with a view to affording facilities for pilots to train, and we have indicated our position, as I have stated it on the floor of this house this morning, that we are quite prepared in connection with our own establishments, to help in affording facilities to British pilots if that will be of service to them. But I ask my hon. friend this question:	Does he believe
that an announcement by any government, either Liberal or Conservative, in this parliament, to the effect that the Canadian government was going to permit military establishments in Canada to be owned, controlled and operated from Great Britain, would for one minute make for peace and unity and helpful, cooperative relations between Canada and the United Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire? I am not prepared to go that far, because I believe that that kind of announcement would be prejudicial to the exceptionally happy cooperative relations that we at present enjoy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question has been
answered. No British government, after the statement made this morning by the Prime Minister of this country, will ever apply to his government for permission to establish an air training school here.


Ernest Lapointe: Well,
then, my right hon. friend has served a doubtful purpose by his exuberance this morning.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry; but I have
obtained from the Prime Minister a statement which makes it obvious that no British government will face a refusal; and we have the refusal now, before application is made.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is as clear as it is
possible to make it that we have refused, not
Supply-National Health

a military establishment, but a training ground. That is all that ever was thought of or suggested. The position is quite clear now.


Ernest Lapointe: A training ground?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A training field.


Ernest Lapointe: And that is not a military establishment? Is it, then, a plaything, a church organization, or what?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is to coordinate their activities with the navy in order that our ports may be defended. Would you not train men here for flying if they were to cooperate with the British navy to defend Canada? Atmospheric pressure, weather conditions, everything that goes with flying out to sea or across the stormy Atlantic must be considered to enable us to cooperate with the British fleet, with the submarines, with the torpedo boat destroyers-all these things are involved. Train in Canada? Of course. Where else would they be able to do what the Minister of National Defence says he is relying on that navy to do, namely to preserve our commerce from destruction. That is the reason. There is no other training place they can go to. This is the only place they can do it and do it effectively to attain the end which the Minister of National Defence says must be attained.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special-Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage. $3,500,000.
George Halsey Perley: Would the minister give us information as to the number of projects likely to be undertaken in Saskatchewan under this item?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The item is $3,500,000 made up as
follows:
Headquarters administration.. .. $ 146.050 Cultural experiments and research. 513.190
Land utilization	 1,339,860
Water development and water
storage	 1,500,000
The number of projects which will be undertaken in Saskatchewan is somewhat smaller than the number undertaken last year, and it will be proportioned to the amount expended last year. It will be impossible to give the total number for this year. The numbers undertaken and completed in 1937-38 are:
Manitoba	 696
Saskatchewan	 1,697
Alberta	 372
Total	 2,765


George Halsey Perley: Will the work be let by contracts or units of work? I understand 
that last year several of the larger projects were carried on by calling for tenders for units of work. Will this be a general contract system ?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government, of
course, pays one-half the cost of the dug-outs, and these works are usually done by the individual farmer on his own farm. The small dams are done in exactly the same way. Community projects are usually carried out by the individuals concerned. That is, if a dam is going to serve three or four or a dozen people, these three or four or a dozen people do the work, and the government assists financially as well as by giving advice. As far as the larger projects are concerned, tenders are called and the jobs are let to contractors, in most instances to the lowest bidder, unless there is some really good reason for not giving it to him; either he has so much work already that he is probably not able to carry it out, or there is some other good reason for his not getting it.


George Halsey Perley: Last year we had a statement from the minister that where there were units of work, for instance on the Cypress dam, there would be federal government inspectors. I believe the minister stated that this inspector or a representative of his department would have the say as to who should get the work on this project. I am not saying that there was not a certain purpose in view to see that the work was properly distributed to those who needed it. But I should like an understanding now that there will be no discrimination whatsoever by inspectors who will be on the job, and that all those needing any work will get it. I wish to be assured that there will be no discrimination-I would not exactly say for partisanship reasons

but that the inspectors will be fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not recollect ever having made the statement-and if I did, it was wrong-to the effect that the inspector determined who was to be employed on the work, say at Cypress lake. The facts are, that with respect to the two dams, one at each end of Cypress lake, there is also work being done there in order to run the Battle creek into Cypress lake and also again to take the water out of Cypress lake to supply irrigation projects along the Battle creek south of Cypress lake. In addition, a ditch is being put in for the purpose of carrying water out of the west end of Cypress lake into the Robstart district, in order to irrigate certain lands there. All these works are being carried out under four contractors who tendered for the work and obtained it on condition that they would take the local people on the job.

Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation
In order to make it possible for them to know where to go in order to obtain labour, an office was established in the nearest village,
I believe in Consul. A man was put in charge of the employment office; people were asked to make application for work, and the contractors go to that office for their employees. They were instructed to take them in the order that these people applied for work. I understand that this undertaking was carried out, and that persons from those communities were given employment in so far as they were able to supply the type of labour required.


Mr. FAIR:: In the case of the Bartman
dam, there were two tenders, one from the Poole Construction Company for $19,332.50, and the other from the special municipal areas board for $19,155.60. This contract was let to the Poole Construction Company. Why was that done, when there was a lower tender?


James Garfield Gardiner: The other tender in
connection with the Bartman dam was from the special areas board of the government of Alberta. The Poole Construction Company is an organization well equipped to do that kind of work. The tenders were considered somewhat late in the season, and as far as we were able to find out the board had little if any equipment with which to proceed with the work immediately. There was another reason why it was considered somewhat doubtful as to whether we should give consideration to the board's tender. At that time we had not established the principle as to whether or not we should put the government in competition with others who were tendering in connection with works of that kind, and since this was the first case we had to consider we decided to give it to the contractor, since there was a difference only of two or three hundred dollars.


Robert Fair: I do not think this was very
good business, because the dam built by the Poole Construction Company washed out. On the other hand, the special areas board built a dam six miles further along which was able to withstand the high water that wrecked the other dam. So I say it looks like a case of one being on the patronage list, perhaps, while the other was not.


George Halsey Perley: Does the project for the
water supply for the city of Moose Jaw come under this vote, and is it intended to undertake that work, which was announced by the hon. member for Moose Jaw during the provincial campaign. According to a Regina newspaper which came to hand this morning, a motion was introduced in the city council
of Moose Jaw on Monday evening last by a certain alderman-
-requesting J. Gordon Ross, M.P. for Moose Jaw. to make a public announcement regarding the Saskatchewan river water project to supply the city with an ample water supply. Announcement was made prior to the recent provincial campaign by Mr. Ross that the project would be completed this fall providing the Patterson government was returned to office.
What authority had the hon. member for Moose Jaw to make that announcement during the campaign? Has any work been done on this project and are any engineers on the job? During the campaign the hon. member stated that engineers were on the job and had been making a survey. How many engineers were there, what was their report and will the contract be let by public tender?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the minister replies I hope my right hon. friend and the committee will permit me to put a motion which will enable us to continue sitting without adjourning at one o'clock. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That there shall be no intermission at one o'clock in the sitting of the house this day.


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

[Stage Direction]
Special-Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,500,000.
James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle I may say that so far as the department, or the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act organization is concerned, we have no undertaking to place water in the city of Moose Jaw; nor have we any understanding with anyone that we shall do so. At certain places throughout the west we are undertaking to establish water storage. That is, at some future time we may store in different places water that can be used for irrigation purposes or as a water supply for people in the neighbourhood. At the moment we have under consideration the placing of water storage at Caron, Saskatchewan, which
4534	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation
I think is about twenty miles, or a little more, west of Moose Jaw. At present the city of Moose Jaw gets its water from the supplies that are to be found in the sand areas in the vicinity of Caron. By establishing water storage in that sand area, Moose Jaw in the end might be able to obtain better supplies of water than they are able to obtain from that district at the present time, and to that extent we may be assisting Moose Jaw. But any arrangements that may be made by that city to improve their water supply will concern the area between Caron and Moose Jaw. So far as we are concerned we are taking no part whatever in that. My understanding of the statement made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw during the election campaign in Saskatchewan is that he discussed the possibility of the Saskatchewan government doing something to assist the city of Moose Jaw in bringing water from Caron to that city, and that he made some statement in regard to the matter. Of course that does not concern us here; that is a matter between the constituency which he represents and the provincial government. It does not come under this vote except in this way, that we are providing water storage at Caron, and Moose Jaw may go there in order to obtain water. With regard to the engineering, we have had our own engineer report to us on the possibilities of establishing water storage at Caron, and the reports are to the effect that this can be done satisfactorily.


George Halsey Perley: That is, bringing it from the Saskatchewan river down Thunder creek?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Are any engineers working on the project at present?


James Garfield Gardiner: The engineers are not actually working at the moment, but engineers have been over the route that a ditch would follow in order to bring water from the Saskatchewan river to the Caron area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are just two questions I should like to ask the minister. The first is, in view of our desire to hasten prorogation would he give us the assurance that public tenders will be called in connection with all these undertakings except those he described as dug-outs? The second is, will all contracts contain the provision which is now inserted in contracts of the labour department, that there will be no discrimination because of politics, religion or race?


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give the right hon. leader of the opposition the assurance that tenders will be called for on all contracts of the type for which tenders properly can be

called. I would vary that only to this extent, that there may be some eases similar to that of the Cypress dam, for example, where it would be necessary to limit the number bidding on the contract because of the fact that we want to get the type of equipment which will put to work the people in the particular community.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The maximum number of local people?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. Of course, in
connection with these works these people are really selected by the contractors themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I realize that, and that
is the reason why I ask the minister if he would see that there is inserted in the contract those provisions now inserted in contracts of the Department of Labour. In fact, I thought those clauses were inserted in some of the contracts, but I now understand they were not. It does seem to me that having regard to the fact that through an act of God this condition has arisen, and because we are all interested in it, the same provision should be incorporated in these contracts as in those of the Department of Labour. That is, there should be no discrimination. The Minister of Agriculture will recall the general sense of the clause.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand there is
a clause to that effect in our agreements. I am not sure that there is one in the contracts entered into with the individual contractors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there should be.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will see that something to that effect is put in. So far as wages are concerned, I would point out that we have in the contract a clause which requires the payment of the prevailing wage in a community. The leader of the opposition will understand the reason for that. Much of the work is done by farm labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am familiar with the
operations which have been carried on. Now that Mr. Spence has left the Saskatchewan government, he has become charged with the responsibility for the administration of the whole undertaking. I think the assurance the minister has given with respect to public tenders is quite satisfactory, from my standpoint. Do I understand that in tenders the bids are limited to particular people, or that there is a strictly public tender? It is thought that there should be public tenders, except in exceptional cases about which we might agree that this condition should not apply.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been very
few exceptions to this general rule. There is

Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation
only one I can recall. Tenders have been called for through public advertisement in the press, and the tender of each tenderer has been considered. Unless there has been some special reason to the contrary, the job has always gone to the lowest public tenderer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From my standpoint that is satisfactory. On the second point I would like the assurance of the minister, if he can give it, that a similar clause to that appearing in Department of Labour contracts should appear in these contracts. I believe that would be desirable, because it would prevent trouble for the department itself and for Mr. Spence. I believe it would be helpful to everybody, and would restore a measure of confidence; because, I must say that if I brought down the letters I have in connection with the administration of relief, for which the minister says Saskatchewan is wholly responsible, I think he would be somewhat surprised. Some of them are pathetic in their descriptions of what they were compelled to do in recent weeks. I should like, if possible, to avoid bringing that information down, and if we could have an assurance that a clause similar to that placed in labour. contracts providing against discrimination, will appear in these contracts, I believe it would be satisfactory. I think the clause refers to political and religious belief.


Mr. ROGERS:: Race, religious or political
belief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that is right.
My mind was somewhat confused as to the exact words, but I knew they were to that effect. If some such clause were inserted, I believe it would serve an extremely useful purpose in restoring some measure of confidence, because we must realize that three and a half million dollars is a great deal of money.


James Garfield Gardiner: There can be no objection to inserting it. Of course in the contracts which are only half way through-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that.


James Garfield Gardiner: -we may not be able to change the wording. But I have no objection to accepting the suggestion, and will give the assurance that it will be carried out.


Mr. HANSELL:: With regard to the proposed irrigation project at Enchant, Alberta, many hopes were raised in the people's minds. Evidently the project was quite agreeable to the rehabilitation officer at Regina; but, eventually, as the minister is aware, the scheme was turned down. I believe the only reason why the project was turned down was that the water rates from the irrigation corn-51952-287
pany were high. I believe the farmers are prepared to pay that sum, and would ask the minister to reconsider the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Enchant area is alongside an area now irrigated by the Canada Land and Irrigation people. There are farmers in that district who have been dry farming, and my memory is that at one time they had an opportunity of joining the Canada Land and Irrigation project. I have not the details before me, but I know that the question of providing them with water from the Canada Land and Irrigation ditch was reviewed. Arrangements had gone so far as to. have the contract prepared to supply water to these people a year ago. But that contract provided for water at a cost of $2.95 an acre, and all the advice we can get is to the effect that a farmer cannot succeed in farming land carrying a water cost of $2.95 an acre. It is all very well for a farmer to come along and say to the Canadian government, "You put the water in, anyway; we will be prepared to pay that rate." But if we were to take the responsibility of developing a project to put in water, knowing that the farmer would have to pay the rate, I believe we would be assuming a responsibility which we should not assume. We have said to them simply that we think a new plan should be worked out, and that it should be possible for them to secure water from that ditch at a cost lower than the charge proposed.


Ernest George Hansell: Was the figure of $2.95 the latest one given?	.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; that is the figure in the contract which came to me for signature. That was the last contract I saw.
There is this further fact to be considered: The government has already put $70,000 on one occasion and $80,000 on another occasion into making water available to the Canada Land and Irrigation Company itself. We spent $80,000 two years ago to put in a flume. If the flume had not been put in, we were told that even the Canada Land and Irrigation people would have been without water. If there were slackness at any time, then I say it was on our part at that time for not securing an undertaking from the Canada Land and Irrigation Company to the effect that when we required water, as a result of that expenditure of money we would get it at special rates. I have indicated to the Canada Land and Irrigation Company that if they expect further assistance from the government of Canada in connection with these activ-

4536	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation
ities, they can expect that we shall require that kind of clause in any arrangement we may make with them.
We think water should be supplied to the Enchant people at a lower rate than could be provided under any contract which has been considered up to the present, and we think it would be better to wait a year or two to get a proper kind of contract, rather than have these people sign something which will place upon them for the next twenty years a charge which they cannot pay.


Ernest George Hansell: May we assume from
the minister's reply that if a satisfactory rate can be secured from the Canada Land and Irrigation Company, everything else will be in order to go ahead.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would say that if a
satisfactory arrangement can be made with regard to the whole project, we are prepared to give consideration to it.


George Halsey Perley: I had several matters I
should have liked to bring to the attention of the minister, but I realize that we are anxious to get on. Some of them will have to stand until another time. I take great exception, however, to the attitude of the minister as indicated at page 4012 of Hansard, when he was making the comparison between the cost of handling relief under the present system and under the relief commission which operated between 1930 and 1935. However, that pan stand.
What amount of this vote will be spent on roads in Saskatchewan? Has the minister approved expenditures being made on the highway from the boundary through Regina, Humboldt and on to Melfort? Has the government approved expenditures on the western highway from the boundary, through Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and on to Prince Albert?


James Garfield Gardiner: No expenditures for
any of those projects are involved in this item. They would be all under the Department of Mines and Resources.


George Halsey Perley: I understand the promise
was made during the last campaign that part of this vote would be used in the construction of highways.


James Garfield Gardiner: There was no discussion of this vote at all.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) evidently was out of order when he was promising the electors that expenditures would be made on a highway from the boundary' through Humboldt on to Melfort.
[Mr. Gardiner.)


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: On a question
of privilege, that statement was never made, suggested or hinted at in any manner, shape or form.


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry the reports of
the speeches of the hon. member were so grossly exaggerated. I understand he referred to a certain letter he had received from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the effect that that road would be completed this year.


Malcolm McLean: That is entirely
wrong.


Ernest George Hansell: What would the minister consider to be a fair and proper water rate to the farmer?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would depend a great deal upon the type of development and what crop was to be grown on the irrigated lands. If my memory serves me aright, the rate under the Brooks scheme, which is similar to this one, was $1.75. The hon. member can see that S2.95 is considerably above that.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the cost of the most expensive project being carried on under this act?


James Garfield Gardiner: The largest project,
which is not yet completed, is the Cypress lake project. The total cost of this will eventually be in the neighbourhood of $300,000. This is to provide storage for five or six smaller projects. Cypress lake is the source of Frenchman river, which in turn forms part -of the Missouri river system. The water flows south to the Missouri river and on to the gulf of Mexico. Along the Frenchman river we have two irrigation projects developed up to the present, with a possible irrigation of in the neighbourhood of 30,000 acres along the valley. Then along Battle creek, which is fed from Cypress lake, there is a project which will irrigate 10.000 or 13,000 acres. Between 40,000 and 45,000 acres will be irrigated as a result of this expenditure. It can hardly be said that this is one project by itself, but that is the expenditure which will be involved.


John Horne Blackmore: I have on several occasions indicated to the minister that I consider this to be one of the most important acts that have been passed in the history of the west. There is one matter to which I should like to direct the minister's attention with as much brevity as possible, but with sufficient detail to make him realize what is in my mind. I refer to the importance of considering the type of crop which can be raised to advantage on irrigated lands. I have the

Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation
growing of sugar beets particularly in mind. About 14,000 acres of irrigated land will provide enough sugar beets for one year's run of a factory. It will be seen, therefore, that the prairie farm rehabilitation projects are rapidly reaching a size where they can support sugar beet factories.
I should like to draw to the attention of the committee in as short a time as possible what I consider to be an important matter which has been overlooked in Canada's development. There has been too great a tendency to look upon the sugar beet industry with scorn and contempt as being a matter of little concern. In developing irrigated lands the farmers are confronted with the problem of cleaning their land. They must have something to take the place of the summer fallow, and they might well be at a loss to know what crop to use. For example, in the Enchant area the farmers could raise com to good advantage if they had a cash market, or if there were a suitable processing plant. However, it might be rather difficult to establish one in that area. The farmers might raise sunflowers if a profit could be made in converting them into ensilage. However, there is no possible profit, as they cannot sell to advantage the ultimate products of butter, milk and cream. There is going to be considerable difficulty as we go forward with these irrigation projects. I speak from considerable experience because we have had irrigation farming in my constituency for some time. There are four distinct irrigation projects, in whole or in part, in my constituency which have been in operation more or less since 1902. The result is that there is to be found in that area an accumulated store of wisdom of which I wish the minister to have the benefit. I am particularly concerned about this because it was reported to me last year that a commitment had been made by the dominion government to the effect that it would not encourage further the development of sugar beet growing in Canada.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know anything of that.


John Horne Blackmore: Let me quote from a statement made by the Canadian representative at the London sugar conference, held in May, 1937. He is reported as saying:
At the same time the government of Canada reiterate the assurance already given that they do not propose to stimulate the production of sugar in Canada during the term of this agreement by subsidy, increased protection, special remission of taxes or by any other similar measure.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is a little different. I do not know of any branch of agriculture 51952-287J
that is stimulated by those methods. There is just a possibility that it might be a mistake to start in to stimulate the sugar beet industry by paying bonuses or doing other things of that kind. Making it possible for people to grow sugar beets in irrigated areas is a different matter.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to have
the minister's statement on that because it indicates that he is rather in sympathy with the development of the beet sugar industry, which is of great importance to western Canada. When you remember that there has already been expended in Alberta in irrigation projects $35,000,000, and that the soil and climate of that province is particularly adapted to the production of sugar, and that this industry has been singularly successful in Alberta for years, you can realize that it is an industry which ought not to be disparaged.
To be very brief, this year, for example, there was produced in the harvested sugar beet area where the two beet sugar factories are located in my constituency 3,813 pounds of refined sugar per acre. All one has to do to realize the volume of that production is to imagine thirty sacks of sugar piled on this floor, and remember that that was produced from one acre. It shows the tremendous potentialities of production from irrigated land in raising sugar beets. There was a gross return of $155 per acre, $77.50 of which went to the farmer and $77.50 to the manufacturer, $25 going to labour. That indicates how important and how deserving of serious consideration this industiy is.
I notice the Minister of Labour has been following with close attention, and I am sure he will be deeply interested when I again bring to his notice the fact that one sugar factory in my constitutency with a slicing capacity per day of 1,200 tons will support, according to United States figures, ten thousand people. These people are not all, of course, directly engaged in raising or processing sugar beets, but in the allied industries as well, in the production of coal and coke, sacks and a great number of other things used in the production of sugar. Some are engaged on the railways and others in other transportation activities as a result of this sugar production.
I know we are all anxious to get the business of the session closed so I shall just say in conclusion that there is a great possibility in Canada for the development of the sugar industry. The sugar industry is not by any means the ten-cent affair which a number of people have been for some reason or other considering it. It is, on the contrary, a going concern. It has already proven itself beyond
4538	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation
question a success. There are people in Canada who say that it cannot compete. But the price of sugar in Canada to-day is as low, I understand, as it is in any first class country, five cents a pound, while the price in some other countries runs as high as thirteen and fourteen cents per pound. Now if the beet sugar industry can compete successfully with other sugar refineries with prices as low as they are in this country to-day, that is good evidence that we have in our native sugar industry a successful business, a going concern. When you remember that Alberta at the present time could support seven sugar factories of the size of the Raymond sugar factory, and that by so doing she would be able to produce thirty-five per cent of the sugar requirements of Canada, you can realize what a tremendous difference the development of this industry would make to the dominion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where would you sell it?


John Horne Blackmore: We are using that
sugar in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How would you move it
as against competition from the seaboard?


John Horne Blackmore: 
James Garfield Gardiner: That has nothing to dc with this vote.


John Horne Blackmore: No, not directly, but it has to do with it in one sense, in connection with the development of irrigation projects.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that we are not discussing the tariff or duties. His remarks are out of order.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but this is an important thing. If you are going to put people on the land with irrigation and water supplied to them you must be sure that conditions are such that through the adoption of irrigation they can make a success of their farming. Otherwise you reduce them to a condition of despair.


James Garfield Gardiner: Lamb prices are better this year than they have been for many years.


John Horne Blackmore: That may be true; nevertheless the people who are directly concerned in my constituency had put 55,000 lambs into the feed lots at prices which they thought would be safe before the reduction in duty, but then prices suddenly dropped, much to their disadvantage.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price is up now.


John Horne Blackmore: I wanted to draw the situation to the minister's attention as a word direct from my constituency with regard to the effect of the reduction of the duty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Labour-Special-To provide for commitments and completion of works in connection with federal contributions to provincial and municipal projects, $1,075,000.
Charles Grant MacNeil: I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to a telegram 1 received yesterday from the secretary of the single unemployed committee at Vancouver, reading as follows:

Supply-Labour-C ommitments
No truth in emergency relief for single unemployed men. Only those with home taking transportation offered food. Such are few. Great majority homeless. Situation just as desperate. Need emergency relief. Home question could be settled after. Single unemployed refused work on federal and provincial projects. Investigate.
I	wish briefly to refer again to the sessional paper recently tabled, wherein it is shown that the Hon. .Mr. Clubb of Manitoba protested against the issuance of transportation to these men on the basis that they designated no particular point, and he asked that they indicate their home. That same basis is now being applied to the situation in Vancouver which makes it impossible for these men to qualify for either relief or transportation. They have been rendered homeless through no fault of their own, and so cannot designate their homes.
Second, I wish to make the point that was dealt with last night that these men have to some extent been blacklisted, I am informed from Vancouver, and are not being considered eligible to work on projects which are now being opened up by reason of federal contributions. I would appreciate a statement from the minister to clarify the situation.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	I do not think the committee
would want me to retrace ground I have already covered in this connection. So far as emergency relief is concerned, the dominion government has offered to assume complete financial responsibility for emergency relief extended to those non-resident single unemployed men who were formerly in the forestry conservation camps. If such emergency relief is not being given at the present time, it can be only for the reason that these men have declined to accept the offer of transportation as made in the original proposal by the minister of labour of British Columbia.' Certainly the dominion government has given the requisite authority that the emergency relief shall be extended to those men, non-resident transients formerly in the forestry conservation camps, upon their acceptance of transportation to their homes.
As to discrimination against those men in public works, that question was raised yesterday in another connection and I gave my hon. friend the assurance that in any joint works done in British Columbia, provision would be made for the employment of at least a number of single unemployed. That is fully in accord with the undertaking previously given that these men will be placed on the same footing as other groups of unemployed with respect to eligibility for employment on public works.
So far as federal public works are concerned, provision has already been made that in connection with certain public works which are now either actually in progress or immediately in prospect some of those unemployed men will be taken care of through the employment service of Canada.


Mr. HEAPS:: There is one matter I wish to raise, not in connection with this item but in a general way. Every member of the committee realizes that the manner in which we have been discussing the estimates in the past few days has been entirely unsatisfactory. Very important items come under discussion, and in the rush to get through they do not receive just consideration. Important questions of administration and government policy are involved, but in the general desire to get through the business of the house members are not afforded an adequate opportunity to discuss these matters as they should. My remarks are not directed particularly to the Minister of Labour. What we have been doing this session has been done in a similar way in previous sessions. I am directing my remarks more particularly to the Prime Minister and in general to the members of the government.
On many occasions in the past we have considered the question of referring estimates to committees of the house, and there is no reason why that principle should not extend further than it does at the present time. Let me illustrate. The estimates of the Canadian National Railways, amounting to many millions of dollars, are considered each year by a committee of the house, and when they come back to this chamber they do not provoke very much discussion because members are usually satisfied with what that committee has done. I suggest to the Prime Minister that many of these estimates which we are now considering might be referred to a committee which would go into the question at far greater length and in far greater detail than we do in this house, and that would serve a much better purpose. The people would be satisfied that the estimates were receiving more careful consideration than they do under present circumstances. There is no good reason why the estimates of the Department of Labour should not be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations, the estimates of agriculture to the committee on agriculture, the fisheries estimates to the committee on fisheries, and the post office estimates to the committee that deals with Canadian National affairs. If that were done, a good deal of difficulty would be avoided and we would not find ourselves each session in the position in which we are at the moment.
Supply-Labour-C ommitments

The Prime Minister and the government should take into serious consideration the proposal that when the next session comes around some of these estimates that are being considered in the house might reasonably be sent to various committees where they might receive more detailed study.
There are many matters that I should like to discuss on the question now before the committee; but knowing the desire of the members to wind up the proceedings of the house and in view of the scant attention which the deliberations are receiving at this juncture, I content myself with the suggestion to the Prime Minister that he take into favourable and serious consideration the proposal I have now made for submitting to the various committees of the house estimates that are now discussed in this chamber where they do not receive the best consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has made this suggestion on previous occasions, and I believe I have expressed my sympathy with it. So far as the government is concerned, we should be glad of any step that would help to expedite the business of the house. When the matter has been discussed among members generally, there has been a feeling that in supply members get an opportunity to deal with many matters which they would never be able to discuss otherwise, and some are rather fearful of any change in the present method which would, as they think, somewhat restrict their possible discussion of affairs. I do not myself share that view, and probably, as the matter receives further consideration, we shall get more unanimity of feeling on it. However, during the recess the government will be glad to consider further the suggestion which the hon. gentleman has made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suggest to the Prime Minister that during the next session he might try the proposal with the estimates of two departments. We could see how it worked, and the house could then determine whether it was a proper course to follow.


Major James William Coldwell: Before discussing the item before the committee I would associate myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I cannot help thinking that this rush of business in the past few days-


Frederick George Sanderson: In the last minute or two the discussion has been out of order, but I did not interrupt it. I would, however, ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be glad to do so. The item under consideration is a labour tMr. Heaps.]
item, and I feel that parliament is proroguing at the present time with a very grave condition facing the country. We have heard of the difficulties at Vancouver and of the single, transient men there. Although much has been made of the Vancouver situation because of the regrettable incidents which occurred there recently, it is a condition that is to be found in almost every centre of Canada. Yesterday I received from a gentleman in Saskatoon, a former moderator of the Presbyterian church, a letter in which, in discussing another matter, he remarked that he had just come from meeting a group of some fifty single, homeless, transient men whose condition he described as pitiable because there was provision for neither food nor shelter. He remarked how tragic it was that these youths throughout the country were being consigned to a more or less aimless wandering. I had hoped when the minister accepted the portfolio of labour that, while he might not solve the problem-I did not expect that he would-he would be able at least to bring before the house some measures which would meet it in part. Here we are rising at the end of the third session of parliament, with literally thousands of these young men roaming the country without any place to stay in and without provision for food. I feel that at the close of the session this parliament has not done its duty in this particular matter to the young people of Canada.
There are many who think that we can afford to let this problem ride for a little while; that if we have the good crop which is promised in western Canada, a great deal of this transient labour will be absorbed. I do not think so. I believe that if we have a good crop, it will help conditions in Canada quite materially; but, with the high powered machines \yhich now operate on the prairie, very little additional labour will be required for any length of time, and these young men, particularly,-and there are, of course, young women in the same condition-will not be able to earn a sufficient amount of money to look after themselves during the winter months. In my opinion we shall be faced with young men congregating in our centres all across Canada, and the government will face a quite serious situation before the house reassembles. I do not see any really adequate provision to meet this condition. I would urge the Minister of Labour to suggest to the committee, if he is in a position to do so, ways and means of grappling with this problem between now and the time when parliament meets again. I regret that we are rising without having dealt

adequately with this problem, which in my opinion is one of two of the gravest problems which this country faces at the present time.


Ernest George Hansell: I wish to ask the minister
a question relative to this item and to one or two others. Members of parliament are sometimes uninformed when agreements are entered into with the provinces. Could the minister extend the courtesy which he accorded members last year when he sent them a copy of the youth training agreements? That facilitated tremendously my work. Young men were asking me for information, and I had it because I had a copy of the agreement. Such a facility could be extended in connection with other agreements. I dio not mean that members of parliament want to know the details of everything which is going on throughout the whole country; but if, for instance, there is an agreement with the Alberta government concerning something of this kind, it seems to me that the members from Alberta might have the details. The same applies to hon. members in other provinces. I would offer the same suggestion also to the Minister of Agriculture. Very often we are not supplied with the information we should have. Would the minister consider the matter?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be very glad to consider it, and at the present time I can see no reason why I cannot comply with the request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-To provide for outstanding claims for direct relief under the Relief Act, 1935, $33,000.
Norman McLeod Rogers: I have a slight amendment
to make to this. The wording in the supplementary estimates is incorrect, due to a typographical error. It should read "To provide for outstanding claims for drought area relief under the Relief Act, 1935."


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall item No. 519 as amended carry?
Item as amended agreed to.
Special-To provide for federal contributions to farm employment and supplementary plans, $1,870,000.


Denton Massey: When we were discussing
a matter which now comes under this vote No. 520 in the supplementary estimates, the minister told the house that the province of Ontario had not participated and was not prepared to participate in this scheme, but he had some hopes that this situation might be remedied. I should be very much interested to learn whether any progress has been made with the government of Ontario in regard to this matter.
, 1938	4541
Supply-Labour-Youthful Unemployed


Norman McLeod Rogers: This item is intended to provide for the special plans designed to meet the needs of single unemployed men during the winter months. Obviously it is too soon as yet to make approaches to the provinces with regard to their cooperation in such plans. Last year the eastern provinces did not feel that the transient problem or the problem of the single unemployed men within their borders was sufficiently acute to require their cooperation in these plans. The farm employment plans were confined to the prairie provinces, and the forestry conservation plans to the province of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-To provide for development and training projects for unemployed young people, $1,750,000.
Denton Massey: It is to be regretted beyond all measure of ability to state the matter that this vote should come up at this stage of the session. We were prepared to spend in the last stage of the session an hour or two hours on the discussion 6f wheat, the life-blood of our agriculture. Now we come to an item which virtually deals with the life-blood of our Canadian people; that is, our Canadian youth; and I am sure one could not be accused of indecent delay if he were to spend a few minutes at least in discussing this item. The minister cannot be blamed for the fact that the item has not come before the committee until this time. At the same time I think we should have some discussion of this matter. I have no intention of making any protracted remarks with respect to it. I have already made my position clear in connection with such a vote as this. But I do think that it would be valuable to the committee if the minister made a statement as to the progress which has been made as a result of the setting up of the youth committee under the employment commission: first what steps have been taken since and how the moneys expended last year were spent. It might save the time of the committee and avoid many questions if the minister were to make such a statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should like to point out first of all to my hon. friend, while fully agreeing with him on the importance of this item, that under the relief bill and in the debate on the address there was a previous opportunity to discuss this matter. That is to say, he and others have not been confined to this item in discussing the importance of youth training. I have here all the information which he desires. It would take up some time oFthe committee to give it in tabular form.
*542	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Youthful Unemployed


Denton Massey: Can it be put on Hansard in that form?


Norman McLeod Rogers: With the consent of the committee I can place on Hansard a statement: first, a statistical summary of the numbers given training in the various provinces and the type of training received; also, a statement of the amounts allocated to the various provinces:
Dominion-Provincial Youth Training Program 1937-38
Allocations by Provinces
Prince Edward Island	$ 15,000 00
Nova Scotia	
60.000	00New Brunswick	
50,000	00Quebec	
220,000	00Ontario	
240,000	00Manitoba	
100,808	60Saskatchewan	
80,000	00Alberta	
80,000	00British Columbia	
100.000	00
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
' Approximately.
Provincial	Youth	Training	Program, 1937-	Forestry	Mines	Household	Rural	coursesworkers	Men	Women. 22	258	460408	209	72	91	6027	158	291255	U	100*	11,869	2,886581	50	427	584563	69	318	27561	65*	4,030	2,464133	1,542	1,177585	262	75*	151	402,475	533	968	18,417	7,237
Physical education and leisure-time activities
Men Women
2,213
5,210
2,747	5,6H

Youth Training Programme, 1937-38 Dominion Statistical Summary to March 31st, 1938
-	Given Training	On Relief	Discontinued Training	Found Employment	Days Work3	Hours Class Instruction	Days Class Instruction4	ClassesMen	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Men	Women	Men	Women	457	400	9	7,520	5,225	22Nova Scotia	300	132	74	23	67	26	104	32	20,321	855	3,690	11-i	770	361	202	19	139	7	14,228	9,103	8,236	2913 542	6,853	249	67	315	*1,401	25	15,944	247,852	66,182	626Ontario	1,586	1,330	258	157	346	120	869	342	33,022	14,554	33,493	70Manitoba	3,893	3,255	*121	55	"1,659	21,337	303	456	32,581	16,562	18,847	311,847	2655,471	3,468	3,497	806	386	258	99	104	43,126	17,327	233,575	283A lberta	2,589	1,568	663	369	296	97	55	62	8,301	52,679	21,536	6,685	41British Columbia	3,693	5,729	*397	30	371	95	470	215	51,348	22,655	19,068	200,000	127Dominion Totals	32,301	23,156	5,259	1,507	3,651	3,353	2,064	1,218	175,748	414,906	193,604	752,107	1,474
* Figures incomplete for Manitoba and British Columbia.
1	Mostly from Urban Courses.
2	Mostly from Technical Evening Classes.
3	In Forestry and Mining Projects.	....	.	,,	,	,
3 Represents projects where training was only given for a limited number of hours each week.
Total of days work or instruction	903,609
14,649 young people finished courses designed to train for employment and of these 3,282 or 22-4% found work.
Supply-Labour-Youthful Unemployed

Supply-Labour-Youthful Unemployed
I might say further that, from present indications, all provinces will continue to cooperate during the coming year in the youth training plans.


Denton Massey: I appreciate that. The questions I had in mind were essentially: How many projects have been started under the vote; what are those projects and in what provinces; a detailed statement in regard to the projects of each province and the number registered therein; what organization was required to administer the vote last year; what was its cost, and how were those registered selected?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The statement I would place on Hansard would be quite comprehensive. Anything that is not included and that the hon. member desires, I shall be glad to send to him personally.


Denton Massey: I realize that. There is one further point, which might not be covered completely by the minister's statement in Hansard and which is very important, namely, in regard to apprenticeship. I realize that there are plans under way, in Ontario particularly, with regard to apprenticeship courses. Would the minister give a statement as to the progress of those particular courses and what are under way for next year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can say to my hon. friend that urban occupational training, which covers apprenticeship and shorter learnership courses, has been adopted in most provinces, but in varying degree. In the large industrial provinces, of course, there is a greater opportunity for this type of work, and we shall do whatever is possible to extend it during the coming year.


Denton Massey: Has the minister found the experience to date satisfactory? In other words, has the employer been ready to cooperate?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should say the readiness of employers to cooperate has increased, and on the basis of the experience of last year we believe we will obtain greater cooperation during the coming year.


Denton Massey: Has the minister any plans in connection with those who complete these learnership or apprenticeship courses or whatever projects they may be engaged in, to aid them in securing employment wherever it mav offer?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In some provinces before young men and women are registered in these special courses ultimate employment is found for them on the completion of such courses. We do believe that it will be wise to appoint

at least one placement officer, and possibly more in the various provinces, certainly in the larger ones, who will give full time to-assisting these young men and women to find their way into employment on the completion of their courses.


Denton Massey: How are those selected who register in these courses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They are selected through the Employment Service of Canada, where possible, and there is provision for ultimate approval of men or women in higher age groups, even if they have not come within the original qualification as to age.


Denton Massey: Must they be unemployed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not necessarily unemployed, but the preference is given to those who have been unemployed or whose families have been on relief. The phrase also used is "in necessitous circumstances."


Denton Massey: What is the name of the committee that is operating?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is an advisory committee.


Denton Massey: What are the administration expenses of this committee?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That committee was not actually in operation last year as such; it has been set up only within the present fiscal year. Some of those now serving on this committee were formerly members of the youth employment committee and the women's employment committee, and in future they will serve without remuneration, receiving only their actual travelling expenses. That is all that has been paid so far.


Denton Massey: This vote amounts to $1,750,000. and I was wondering what part of that would apply directly to the training of young people and how much would be expended in administration, travelling expenses, and so on.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Practically all of it will go for the training of unemployed young people. The administration costs have been very small.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Will the statement the minister is going to place on Hansard include the expenditures made by the provinces in connection with these schemes, or has he that information?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will see that it includes the amounts allocated to the different provinces.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I believe this is on a dollar for dollar basis between the provinces and the dominion?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Orvis A. Kennedy: I believe the dominion is paying only dollar for dollar for the actual training, while the provinces have to pay the expenses of transporting the young people to the various training centres. Can the minister tell us the amount expended by each province under this scheme? I should think there would be more expended by the provinces than by the dominion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Actually the province assumes certain administrative costs which are not shared by the dominion, but apart from that the costs of the projects are divided equally between the dominion and the provinces?


Orvis A. Kennedy: Including the cost of transportation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In certain cases it includes the cost of transportation.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Has the minister any record of the number of young persons who, having taken these courses, have found employment afterwards in the work in which they were trained?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Our present figure is twenty-two per cent of those who were actually engaged in occupational training, forestry or mining. Of course that does not apply to the special rural training courses.


Thomas Miller Bell: That is rather a dismal picture.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would not consider it so.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, that leaves 78 per cent, and I understand those figures do not include the rural training.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then I think the picture is rather dark, if onl}r 22 per c-ent, after taking the training, are able to get positions. That emphasizes the point I made earlier, that we have made no adequate provision for the employment of these young unemployed people. I want to press that upon the minister and the committee.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Those I have mentioned, of course, are those who have gone direct from training to employment. Certainly I would not consider that for the first year twenty-two per cent was a disappointing figure. Naturally I would wish that it were larger, but we hope to have better results this year.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it not be well
for the department to keep a record of the persons who take this training and have them, within six months or a year, notify the depart-
, 1938	4545
Supply-Labour-Youthful Unemployed
ment if employment has been found, in order that we may have an adequate picture?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That will be given consideration.


Mr. GREEN:: Are the younger men among the single transient unemployed in^ British Columbia being given an opportunity now to go into the forestry training camps and the placer mining camps in that province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe my hon. friend
raised that question before, and I have taken it up with the minister of labour of British Columbia. Actually, following their practice in previous years, they have not admitted to their forestry training projects men who were in the forestry conservation projects during the winter months. That is the position in British Columbia. However, in our agreements with all the provinces, which will be concluded as soon as these estimates pass, we are inserting a clause which will provide that there shall not be discrimination against nonresident transients; in other words, that they shall be given at least some opportunity to secure training under these plans.


Howard Charles Green: We have these younger men in British Columbia among the single transient group, and is the minister going to insist that they be given an opportunity to go into, or that they be placed in, these camps, or is it all going to be left to the province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That question is still under
consideration between the dominion and the provincial governments.


Howard Charles Green: Are the men registered?
I notice, according to the press, that a registration was to be carried out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The registration has not
proceeded as quickly as was hoped originally. That has been due not to a lack of facilities but apparently to reluctance on the part of some of the leaders of the relief project workers' union to expedite the registration.


Howard Charles Green: Attempts are being made to
register them?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Denton Massey: Have all the provinces already indicated their willingness to cooperate during the coming year, and particularly during the coming winter?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already stated that
all the provinces have indicated their willingness to cooperate. *


Denton Massey: How many young persons
between the ages of sixteen and thirty, say. are unemployed at the moment?
Supply-Labour-Unemployment

Relief


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information available at the moment. I shall be glad to secure it and send it to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Speeial-To provide, in cooperation with the provinces, for rehabilitation of unemployed persons, $500,000.
Howard Charles Green: This is something new. Apparently it is carrying out one of the recommendations of the Purvis commission. What type of rehabilitation is to be carried on?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are following the same course here that we did with the youth training projects. That is to say, we are asking the provinces to submit training projects for older unemployed men, which will be most likely to bring about their reestablishment in the particular province. We are asking the provinces to submit these projects to us for study and approval before .they are adopted.


Howard Charles Green: Have no projects been submitted yet?	.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, from one province there have been. But the hon. member will understand that the vote itself has not 'been passed. Letters have gone out to all the provinces asking them to submit proposals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
tion was that the time for the writs had expired, and as the now Prime Minister had been criticizing the action of the government in entering into contracts, contracts entered into after that date contained the provision that no further commitments should be made after the election, and that they could then be the subject matter of further consideration.
Lastly, it is wholly in violation of all the rules that govern that a personal and private letter marked "personal and confidential" should be submitted to- parliament; for the privilege is not the privilege of the receiver but that of the sender. When Hon. Vincent Massey wrote a letter to Hon. Arthur Meighen marked "personal," even after he had gone into the government, and Mr. Meighen asked him to release the privilege, he declined to do so. It was recognized in all quarters that that was the privilege of the sender or the writer of a letter, and not of the receiver or addressee. Upon that we have acted continuously, including shall I say the case in which Mr. Abramsky says he had a personal letter from the minister. Whether he has or not I cannot say. But the privilege is the privilege of the minister, and not of the receiver of the letter. I say this in view of the definite knowledge I have, and which can be further supported when occasion necessitates.
Amount required to provide for administration expenses generally, including salaries and 'ravelling expenses; unemployment relief branch, SfJll.oOO; national registration, $110,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This would seem to be the appropriate place for me to say that since we last had under discussion the conditions of unemployment I have seen the Hon. Wesley Gordon, former minister of labour, and he informs me that the copy of a letter attached to a public file and marked "personal" from Ralph Webb was not to the best of his belief and knowledge on the file when he left the office. Secondly, I have looked in my own personal files, and I find no trace of any such document being received from Mr. Webb. But I assume it did come to the office. He was advised. I notice, that the Hon. Mr. Murphy, then Minister of the Interior, would go to Manitoba and investigate the whole situation there, that he did so, that the very persons who were discussing the matter in this house were publicly in favour of the work being done, and that after conferences with the provincial government the Minister of the Interior did so advise, and that action was taken.
Further, Mr. Gordon informs me that the reason it was determined that no further work should be carried on after the date of the elec-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I should add first of all that the letter to which my right hon. friend has referred was on the file. I was not aware that it was on the file until the file was requested. But there is no question whatsoever as to the letter having been on the file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was it put there?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assume it was there from the beginning; I have no reason to assume otherwise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have, and so has Mr. Gordon.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the question with respect to the termination of the work, as I recall it that was not a point at issue. The particular agreement to which the right hon. gentleman refers called for the beginning of the work-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that the work should not proceed beyond October 10.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was required that the work should begin as of a certain date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: October 10.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, October 10. That had occurred on rare occasions before, but not to
my knowledge during the last three years_
certainly not under any agreement.

Supply-Labour-Unemployment Relief


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; I say Mr. Gordon tells me that it was limited entirely to the work that arose after the date of the return of the writs. Instructions were issued that such provision should be made with respect to all expenditures. In other words, if the government was defeated, the new incoming administration should not be bound to pay any commitments for expenditures after the date of the return of the writs.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not wish to labour the point, but the agreement actually contained a clause requiring that the work should begin on October 10.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No-


Norman McLeod Rogers: That it must begin at least before October 10.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Copies 'of that letter were sent to Hon. R. J. Manion and Hon. Mr. Lawson. Once a letter is sent to four or five people, surely, taking my right hon. friend's . own view, the letter ceases to be private and confidential, and this was a copy. The copy has been circulated all over the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The copies were each marked " personal and confidential."


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But when a man writes a personal and confidential letter, has he the right to send a copy to everybody?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point is that the letter which was addressed to Mr. Gordon making a request was not marked personal, confidential or private. It was a public letter signed by Mr. Webb and appeared on the files as such. It would have been improper that it should not be there. That letter contained a reference to an enclosure, which the original letter said was of importance as giving the reasons why the request made in the original letter should be carried out. That letter was attached to the formal public letter, and I submit the minister or anyone in his department would have been violating every sound rule if he had detached from a letter, which was a public letter, any part of the communication which was referred to in it as an enclosure, and which was intended to explain the letter itself.
May I say something in regard to what my right hon. friend has just said with respect to publicity to be given letters marked " private and confidential." He himself made a statement on the subject on May 30 of this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He certainly did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I should like to read it. Speaking on May 30, the right hon. gentleman is reported at page 3337 of Hansard in these words:
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, the issue is far
larger than a controversy between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and an hon. member of the house. It is a matter of extraordinary importance. I do not think any words I could use would be language too strong to employ in dealing with the matter.
A member of a public tribunal created by this parliament has seen fit to write a letter to a member of a firm which does business with this country. There cannot be anything personal about that, if it touches public business.
This letter touched public business. It was wholly and solely concerned with public business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it was not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then it was concerned with political organization, I suppose; that is the only other thing. But the one was inseparable from the other.
There cannot be anything personal about that, if it touches public business. He can write about visiting the city, or he can write about social engagements, but the minute he touches upon public business he has no privacy.
That was the position taken by my right hon. friend, namely that he may talk about anything, such as visiting the city, or social engagements


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or political organization.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He said:
-but the minute he touches upon public business he has no privacy. He cannot protect himself by putting "personal" on the letter, and the rights of the House of Commons so much transcend that that I trust the minister will not arrive at a hasty conclusion with respect to it.
I wonder if he realizes just wThat is involved. I had occasion to traverse this matter with a great deal of care some years ago when I -was leader of the opposition, as I still am. I had difficulty in dealing with a matter in which certain correspondence was marked " private." The minister properly took the view that it had to be introduced and was on the file.
That was the statement of my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because it was on the file. And this was not on the file.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The leader of the opposition has suggested that this letter was not on the file. That is an extraordinary suggestion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the minister's suggestion. I say.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is an extraordinary suggestion.
[DOT]1548	COMMONS
Supply-Labour*-Unemployment Relief


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not at all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the leader of the opposition has received any information which would indicate that any members of the Department of Labour altered the files in any way, I wish he would give it to me here and now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with the first question first. The Prime Minister read my statements with respect to the Minister of Transport. That represents my considered opinion with respect to a matter which was discussed with the right hon. the leader of the government, and it referred to a file which had to do with post office matters. We came to the conclusion that when you deal with public business you cannot escape the publication of it by merely putting "personal" on it. It also had to do with questions raised in connection with pensions. But the present letter, dealing with a political matter, marked "personal and confidential," is a privileged communication, and always has been in this house, unless the writer of the letter removes the privilege. That is his privilege, not somebody else's. I think the most striking case of this kind was that concerning a letter written by Hon. Vincent Massey to the present Conservative leader in the senate, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.	He marked that letter
"personal," and in view of the fact that he had become a political factor in the life of the country, Mr. Meighen desired that Mr. Massey should remove that privilege. He declined to do so, and after careful investigation Mr. Meighen was satisfied that he could not use or publish that letter unless he had the consent of the writer. That is his privilege, not somebody else's. So far as the other feature of it it is concerned, it is the considered opinion of the former minister that he did not leave that letter on that file.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where could it come from?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what he would
like to know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was attached to his
letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was there in 1936
and 1937 but it was never produced in this house. The motion was made on the sixth and acceded to on the ninth. The return was made so hurriedly that it was signed by the Minister of Labour for the Secretary of State. The return had to do with correspondence between two dates, one in August and one in October. The former Minister of Labour has no detailed recollection of it; all he says is that to the best of his belief and knowledge that letter was not on the file when he left that office. That is his view.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The only answer to that
is that the letter was there when the file was examined. I have said already that I had no knowledge that the letter was there until the file was requested. The file was requested by a member of this house who was particularly interested in the construction of those roads.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently he had knowledge of the fact that the letter was there.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I deny that I had any
knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We know differently.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My right hon. friend
knows that if he looks through his files he will find a copy of that letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have had my files
searched carefully, and I took the trouble myself to do it. There is no letter or copy of that letter- on my personal file. But in my opinion some such letter was received from Mr. Webb, for he was advised in four lines that Hon. Mr. Murphy, then Minister of the Interior, was going to western Canada and would investigate the whole question in connection with rust and drought. Those matters were mentioned separately. He did so, and the very hon. member who has just spoken was one of those who urged that the work should be done. The work was continued after October, but has not yet been completed.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My right hon. friend
cannot deny that the work was started with the object of winning three seats and not to give work to those who needed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say no such thingjust the opposite.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I cannot allow this vote
to pass without a brief reference to the unfortunate disturbance that occurred in Vancouver on June 19. I have already stated my views with regard to that situation. I regard it as a terrible blot on the record of this administration. Since this matter was last discussed in the house several points have come into view which I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. We have had an opportunity to examine the sessional paper containing the correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the department and the departmental representative in Vancouver and the department of labour in Victoria. I cannot condemn too definitely the incompetence of the departmental representative in Vancouver, Mr. Mitchell. I have carefully read his communications to the minister, and in my opinion he made no attempt, while staying at the hotel Vancouver in Vancouver

Supply-Labour-Unemployment Relief
or the Empress hotel in Victoria, to do anything more than send clippings and quotations to the minister. There is no indication that he made any effort to effect a conciliation or to ease the continuation of the situation. On the contrary he definitely minimized the gravity of the situation and emphasized what he termed to be the subversive character of the leadership. He told the minister that the patience of the men would be worn down and they would disperse.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already pointed out that Mr. Mitchell, whom I have found to be a most competent officer of the Department of Labour and who was a former member of this house, was sent to Vancouver to keep me advised of any developments in that situation and to serve as a medium of communication with the provincial government, if that should appear desirable. Mr. Mitchell carried out both of those orders. He was not authorized to deal directly with the single unemployed men, for the simple reason that the provincial government was dealing with the matter.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The sessional papers disclose that Mr. Mitchell entered into frequent consultation with Mr. Pearson and with the mayor of Vancouver. Such influence as he may have had on the situation was exercised in the wrong direction. I have before me a copy of his telegram to the minister under date of June 17, from which I quote:
John Stanton, president, youth council, on return from Victoria to-day said, "Premier Pattullo and Hon. G. S. Pearson made it clear the government would do nothing for the unemployed in the post office."
Then follow what are apparently Mr. Mitchell's own words:
We hope to prevent the trip to Victoria on Sunday. Now I suppose they will go anyway but 1 don't believe they will get anywhere.
As an answer to his emphasis on the subversive leadership, I should like to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province of June 24, reading as follows: The public knows, unquestionably, if Mr. Pearson does not, that the subversive element among the transient unemployed, though present, has been numerically small and that is the reason for public sympathy for the unemployed and public criticism of the governments at Victoria and Ottawa.
The public knows that the men who immured themselves for a month in two of Vancouver's public buildings were neither reds nor scalawags nor hoodlums, but of the fair average type of young Canadians

men who want work, and would be happy to get it. men who want to get on in the world but find themselves frustrated by the turn of events.
If these men have yielded to so-called subversive influences, they have, of course, made a mistake. But the mistake is entirely understandable-much more understandable than the
government's harsh and narrow and immutable policy. The subversive influences at least seemed to offer a hope. The governments to which the men had a right to turn in their distress offered nothing but insults and flouts and starvation.
There is one further point I desire to make. The photographs taken prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that inexcusable brutality was used to evict the men from the post office and that the officers and the police, acting as we understand on the orders of the federal government, as is indicated by the sessional papers, singled out the leaders of the men and used clubs and lengths of water hose upon them until they were insensible. These men are at present in the hospital in Vancouver. That is something that should not be condoned by this government. That day is rightly called "bloody Sunday" in Vancouver because of the inexcusable brutality used upon these men who are properly described by the words I have just quoted.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is one other point arising from an item which was passed previously by the committee. The leader of the opposition drew the attention of the committee to some direct charges that had been made against the superintendent of the employment office in Kingston, Ontario. I said I would bring these charges to the immediate attention of the superintendent of the employment services in the Ontario government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were investigated.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They were investigated, yes. I wish to 'plaoe on the table of the house a letter from Mr. Rigg, director of unemployment, to Mr. Hudson, general superintendent for Ontario, and a copy of a report made by Mr. Hudson to the minister of labour of the Ontario government. My right hon. friend fully acknowledged at the time that the superintendent of the employment office in Kingston was a provincial official.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All of them are.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Therefore the report was properly made to the minister of labour of Ontario. I should like to refer to it very briefly. One charge was that Mr. Mooers had given his services to those who had offered to do him special favours. The basis of that charge was a statement made by Mr. Leggatt before the magistrate's court in Kingston.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were others as well.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Hudson interviewed Mr. Leggatt, and Mr. Hudson says in his report:
When I interviewed Mr. Leggatt he was absolutely unable to provide me with the name

Supply-Labour-Provincial Grants
of one individual whom he knew, from his personal knowledge, had obtained employment by adopting the course of action indicated in his remarks, namely, by the purchase of beer for the Kingston office superintendent.
I cross-examined him carefully on this point for at least five minutes, offering to take him anywhere in Kingston or to go to any address however remote where substantiation of his charges might possibly be obtained. He could not even give me the name of anyone who might have definite information, and I am submitting for your consideration my conclusion therefore, that the statement made in court was without adequate foundation in fact.
The second charge was that the superintendent was not performing his duties properly because of drunkenness. On that point Mr. Hudson states:
A very thorough investigation in Kingston convinces me that the word "drunken" is too strong an adjective to apply to Mr. Mooers, although it is admitted that he is not a teetotaller. I have made unannounced visits to Kingston at least twenty times during the past four years, and never once have I found Mr. Mooers absent from duty during office hours, and never once has there been the slightest evidence of his having indulged in beer or any other intoxicating beverage during business hours.
I am sorry to take up time with this matter; but on the other hand it was raised before, and as the investigation was made by Mr. Hudson, I felt I ought to provide the information, which I now lay on the table of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would regard the investigation as wholly inadequate. It is general knowledge in Kingston that the last finding cannot be justified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants-in-aid-Amount required to provide for monthly grants-in-aid to the provinces, $17,500,000.
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The gross expenditure for relief in Toronto in the first five months of this year was reduced from $3,591,420 to $3,481,159, a reduction of $110,461. That is the gross expenditure. The estimated amount of the government contribution to that city has been reduced from $2,430,000 to $2,106,601, a reduction of $323,399. There has been a net increase in the cost of relief in Toronto of $213,138 for the first five months of the year, which on a yearly basis would be about $500,000. In other words, that city is bearing about one-fourth of the total reduction in this vote. I want to protest against the reduction in the government's contribution to relief because the taxpayers of Toronto are burdened just about as heavily as they can stand at the present time. What is the use of trying 
to do something about housing when taxes are so high? Why was that reduction made?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Actually there has been no reduction in recent months. As my hon. friend is aware, the amount paid monthly during the winter months was $465,000 to Ontario in the last quarter, or 30 per cent of the actual costs, whichever sum was the lower. There has been no reduction since then. The amount of $465,000 per month is being continued to Ontario, governed by the 30 per cent principle, namely, that the amount paid shall be either $465,000 or 30 per cent of the total cost, whichever sum is the lower.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Air Service-Civil Aviation division-Airways and airports-Operation and maintenance including lighting, radio and meteorological services-further amount required, $50,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the present position with regard to trans-Canada airways, when are operations expected to commence and over what portion of the route?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Since March 1, the mail service has been operated between Winnipeg and Vancouver. On the first of July a day and night mail service, that is two services a day, will be operated over that part of the route. Experimental flying is being conducted from Winnipeg to, Kapuskasing, and I believe, although I am not sure, that mail is being carried over part of that distance. Facilities at the eastern end are nearing completion. The Malton airport at Toronto we expect to be ready about the first of August, and the same with regard to North Bay. It is expected by that time a mail service can be carried from coast to coast. The carriage of passengers has 'been held back to some extent on account of shortage of equipment, but the balance of our equipment will be delivered in August, and I sincerely trust that the route from Vancouver to Montreal and Toronto will be in full operation not later than September 1, for mail, passengers and express.


Howard Charles Green: This year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The services conducted to date indicate that a very high operating efficiency has been maintained which has been entirely satisfactory to the Post Office Department, and there has been no accident of any kind to life or property.


Howard Charles Green: We hear very little of the transatlantic service. What progress is being made with that?

Supply-Transport-Air Service


Clarence Decatur Howe: My understanding is that the first flight will be made between the tenth and fourteenth of July. It is a flight on an experimental basis, trying out a type of equipment not previously used over this route.


Howard Charles Green: There will be nothing but experimental flights this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many men were
brought in from the United States to assist in managing our airways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Five.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are their relative positions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: One is Mr. Johnson, vicepresident in charge of operations, with his assistant, Mr. Collyer, stationed in Winnipeg. We have one man in charge of radio training, Mr. Stevens, and then we have Mr. Snaith, who was born in Canada, naturalized in the United States, and is now being repatriated. We count him one of the five. He is chief pilot. Then Mr. Lee is in charge of the technical training of pilots.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were any of them British
subjects?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Snaith was born in
Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are any of them British
subjects?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None of those five. They are the only ones on the line who are not British subjects.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-Construction and improvements including lighting and radio facilities (capital) - further amount required, $800,000.
Harry James Barber: It was my intention to take up at some length under this item the question of airports in the lower Fraser valley, but I shall not do so at this stage. Since this matter was last discussed in the house, I have received a return which bears out what I said in regard to influence being used in the selection of landing fields. When this matter was under discussion before, the minister stated that he would investigate the Chilliwack field and the Langley field, and that he might possibly make a trip out there this summer. If I could receive an assurance from the minister that he will look into this matter and give it his careful personal attention, I should be satisfied to let the item pass.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad to give that assurance. The fields that are being fully developed to-day are the one hundred mile fields that are essential to the operation of trans-Canada. The matter of Secondary fields has been entirely suspended until the necessary fields for the operation of the trans-Canada line are completed. However, I shall be in Vancouver this summer and shall be pleased to drop in at both sites.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will take the file with him, he will see that there is direct interference with respect to the acquisition of the field. I took some part in the debate that occurred, and the minister said that he would look into the matter. I have gone over the file, and I have the letters. It is clear that orders were given to clean it up by direct instructions of the minister, and it would seem that action was not taken. If he says he will look into it, that covers the matter, but he should see the file.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All this happened before I had anything to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Harry James Barber: I wish to make it clear that the present minister is not to blame. This took place under the department as it was before, and I absolve the present minister of any blame in regard to the development or non-development of any of these fields. I shall be pleased to meet him this summer or arrange for him to see the property.


Mr.   BOSS@St. Paul's: When will the island airport be completed, and what percentage of the service will operate therefrom? What arrangement has been made for connecting the island with the city of Toronto?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The island airport and the
Malton airport are really matters for the city of Toronto. They are both municipal fields. All we had to do with the situation there was to examine the fields chosen by the city of Toronto, give approval for flying purposes and contribute roughly one-quarter towards the development of the fields. Any arrangements made for the use of the field are made by those desiring to use it, and they are made direct with the managers of the airport. Trans-Canada Air Lines has made an arrangement for the use of both fields. I have not seen the details of the arrangement, and therefore I am not familiar with the matter. I assume that whenever weather conditions permit, the island airport will be used, and whenO'ver the weather is difficult, Malton will be resorted to.

4552	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Railway Service


Douglas Gooderham Ross: If the air lines
use the island airport what arrangement will be made to take passengers to the city?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no knowledge of that. I have heard the suggestion that there will be a ferry across, but it will be entirely up to the municipality and the users.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for assisting municipalities to improve existing airports or to provide new airports-further amount required, $500,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I was asked whether or
not some were favoured as against others, and I said I understood that there was a fixed rule established from which there was no departure. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not altogether correct. In budding the line it has been found impossible always to get the necessary facilities. In Calgary, for example, we needed an airport, and the city was unable to provide it. In that instance we made the only arrangement that was workable. We said that if the city provided the land and undertook to operate the airport, we would build it. In Lethbridge we had to go beyond the proportion simply in order to get the field into condition to operate. That, however, was done because they needed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Public necessity.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. There are no others
treated in that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway service-specials-Amount to be applied towards the actual cost of construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of highway crossings of railways as the governor in council may from time to time determine, $1,000,000.
Major James William Coldwell: I would impress upon
the minister the extreme need for proper protection at railway crossings. A large number of accidents are occurring, and I believe it is at times impossible on account of drainage and other conditions to build subways or bridges. Does the minister contemplate a large expenditure this year on the installation of safety devices? If so, would he consider looking into Canadian devices, of which I believe there are some. The majority of those now in use for the protection of crossings, are, I understand, of United States origin.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister has absolutely
nothing to do with the expenditure of the fund, which is administered entirely by the board of railway commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On public application
made by the municipality.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The application comes from interested parties.


Major James William Coldwell: But this is public
money, and perhaps the minister, if it is at all possible, will see to it that Canadian equipment is used.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In so far as I have anything
to do with the matter, I shall be glad to consider the suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-To provide for contribution to cost of railway projects now needed but which have been deferred under present conditions, $850,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This looks like a deferred
maintenance item which should be in another place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is similar to the vote put through in the first session of this parliament. The purpose is for cooperation with the railways to absorb unemployment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, that is what it is for.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The contribution that we shall make will not be more than the actual labour involved in the project.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is sufficient to
identify it. It did not indicate on the face of it what it was.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government Owned Enterprises (Non-active Accounts)
Canadian National Railway Company
Amount not exceeding $42,000,000 to be paid from time to time, under such conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called "the national company") and to be applied by the national company in payment of the deficit arising in the calendar year 1938, including such supplementary contribution to the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway employees' provident fund as may be necessary to provide for payment in full of monthly allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act notwithstanding, the limitation contained in section four of the said act, and including such supplementary contribution to the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada superannuation and provident fund as may be necessary to enable payment to be made of monthly allowances under the rules and regulations of the fund, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section thirteen of chapter sixty-five of the Statutes of Canada, 1874, but not including amounts charged to proprietor's equity of the national railway system as defined in chapter twenty-two of the Statutes of Canada, 1937-
Canadian National Railways, exclusive of eastern lines, $39,900,000.
Eastern lines, $2,100,000.

Right Hon. R. B. Bennett
Richard Bedford Bennett: These amounts have been considered by the special committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


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

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting Minister of Finance) moved:: That the reports of the committee of supply made to this house on February 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, March 3, 4, 11, 17, April 25, 26, May 4, 6, 12. 13, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20, 23, 25, 26. 27, 31, June 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, less amounts voted in interim supply, be now received, read a second time and concurred in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And to-day-July 1.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That has been covered previously.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Acting 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.
James Lorimer Ilsley: 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 sums of $156,230,497.94 and $88,757,863.42 respectively, be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 176, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1939.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: This concludes the work of the present session so far as the sitting of this house is concerned. As hon. members are aware, my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has indicated
that he does not intend to continue in the office of leader of the Conservative party, and therefore may not be sitting where he is to-day when the house resumes at its next session. We have sat opposite each other for some eleven years in our capacity as leaders of our respective political parties, and I should not like to allow this moment to go by without just a parting word to my right hon. friend. He has indicated, as I have said, his desire to retire from the leadership of his party for reasons that are known to all of us. However, since his first intimation was given there have been persistent rumours to the effect that my right hon. friend might still be persuaded to continue in the position which he now holds. The last announcement we have had on the subject which I have regarded as at all authoritative were his words, as reported, that he had no desire to succeed himself as leader of his party. That may be his personal desire, but desires may be overruled by the persuasion of the coming Conservative convention. Not being too sure what the outcome of the convention may be, I do not think I should attempt at this moment to go too far in the way of pronouncing a eulogy upon my right hon. friend. For that reason I shall simply content myself by saying to him, "Au revoir, but not good-bye."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I cannot find terms adequately to express my grateful appreciation of the observations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). We have sat. opposite one another for eleven years. Sometimes our relations have been very cordial, and other times they were not. We have both given and taken. I should think that probably I have given as much as I have taken, and taken as much as I have given. It is all part of the rough and tumble of public life. It is a tiresome task. It is a wearying task. It is an ungrateful task. Yet someone must discharge public duties. Sometimes the lot falls on one and sometimes on another.
In a country like this, where we have so few accumulations, it is almost impossible for a man to adopt public life as a career. I wish we had provision in our universities for endowments which would enable young men to undertake great public service to the state. Whether they be in office or out of office is not a matter of importance. Sometimes one is able out of office to render as useful service to the state as if he were in office. The only thing is to endeavour to keep in mind always some thought of the nation as a whole. Here it is the first day of July, 1938. He would be a bold man indeed who would say that the sense of Canadian unity is anything like
Right Han. R. B. Bennett

as great as we should like to have it; and he would be a bold man who would say that there are not in operation forces that we fain would destroy, that do not conduce to that unity of thought, of purpose and of action which is essential to the development of a national outlook in this dominion.
I have tried to keep that thought in mind. I think perhaps I had better say to my colleagues in the house that this is not the time to deliver a valedictory; and while I have expressed myself as clearly as I can as to what is my own position, I shall never forget your kindness at times or your cruelty at others, and I again thank the Prime Minister.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as the oldest member of this house in point of service, and representing more particularly a certain section and element of the population of Canada, I wish to pay a tribute to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). We have fought many battles; we have differed, at times violently; but 1 must say that my association with the right hon. gentleman has always been of the finest kind. I am pleased to have been associated with him, and personally, as well as in his capacity in the public life of the country, I am pleased to render him my warmest tribute and homage. At the first session after he was selected as the leader of his party, I said he was a fine type of Canadian manhood, and I wish to repeat those words on this, his last day as leader of his party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry that the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had not spoken before I said what I had to say, because two speeches in the form of valedictories are too much for this assembly to listen to in one day. I should like to say this, however. I went to the province of Quebec a stranger. I went into the small communities, and I shall never forget as long as I live the kindness, the hospitality and the courtesy that I was shown there on every occasion. It has always been a matter of regret to me that I have not been able to see more of the people of that province. Certainly the relations between the Minister of Justice and myself, strained though at times they were, have always been characterized by courtesy and kindness when we removed that veneer which sometimes is the result of political associations and partisan views. At heart we have never had any differences. We belong to the same profession; we have been members of the same associations; we know some of the vicissitudes of

public life, and I shall never forget his rising in his place to-day and, in the face of many political differences, expressing himself in such a kindly manner.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge)': Mr. Speaker, as one of the representatives of Alberta I should like to take this opportunity to express our happiness and satisfaction that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is an Alberta product. His heart and soul were in that province. I think we have always been proud of his stalwart defence of Canadian and British unity and greatness. There are those who do not understand the social credit movement which I represent. Let me take this occasion to state this: that man is deliberately deluding himself who persists in believing that the movement which to-day is outstanding in Alberta is any less enthusiastic for Canadian and British unity and greatness than is the illustrious right hon. leader of the opposition. If at times it seems that this is not so it is simply because we are not understood.
I rejoice greatly in tendering to the right hon. gentleman the tribute of respect which I think we all feel for him, whether or not we agree with his political and economic ideas. Throughout Canada it is believed, I think, that to the extent of his ability all during his public life he has honestly and sincerely discharged his duties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the right hon. leader of the opposition and other hon. members of the house will excuse me if I leave at this time. It is part of my official duties to meet the deputy of the governor general when he arrives for prorogation, and I shall have to leave the house for that purpose.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I feel sure that if the leader of our group had been in his seat at this time he would have been extremely happy to associate himself with the sentiments that have been expressed to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). It may be true that the right hon. gentlemen has had his heart and soul in the province of Alberta, but I think his real heart and soul have been in the work carried on in this chamber. I can think of no one in this house who has given more time and attention to the work carried on here than has the right hon. leader of the opposition. If I were to be asked who was the hardest working member of this house I think I would give first place to him. I believe many of us who try to follow the work done here, who give as much time to it as we possibly can, often sit

Prorogation
and marvel at the way the right hon. gentleman attends here day after day, week after week, concentrating upon his work, and at the wealth of information which he has drawn upon in connection with many of the important questions that have come before us from time to time. Whether he continues to be leader of the opposition or whether he remains in this house as a private member, I feel sure that to those of us who have been associated with him the work he has done in this chamber in the past will always be worthy of the highest traditions of this parliament. I am sure many of us would exceedingly regret it if the right hon. gentleman should cease to be a member of this chamber, because it is difficult to think of this house without him. However, whether he retains the leadership of his party or whether he becomes a private member of the house, we wish him all good health and happiness.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. members who have paid such eloquent tribute to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) will not leave this chamber this afternoon with an entirely erroneous impression as to his retirement from public service.
I have known the leader of the opposition for very many years, ever since, in the autumn of 1890, he commenced his law studies at the Dalhousie School of Law at Halifax. He was then a young man, avid for information. In his second year he received an appointment as assistant law librarian of the law school, in order that he might successfully complete his law studies, as he did in 1893. I have been associated with him more or less closely ever since. He then started out on a great career, with high aspirations for Canada and for the empire of which Canada forms a part. Never throughout his public career has there been any wavering from that high ideal which inspired him when I first heard him delivering addresses in the old Sodales Club of Dalhousie University.
But do not rest under any misapprehension. Though the present leader of the opposition may possibly leave this chamber, he certainly cannot altogether retire from political life, and he will not, I think, cease to exercise a very powerful influence upon the public opinion of this country, and I trust a still more powerful influence upon the public life of the empire of which we form a part.


PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson. Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber His Honour the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Frank Roy Hedges.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Fields Chambers Henry.
An Act for the relief of Marguerite Oldham Jamieson Macdonald.
An Act for the relief of Ida Hillman Livermore Woodall.
An Act for the relief of Gabrielle Rachel Cecile Pelissier de Kermeno de Gouzillon.
An Act for the relief of Millicent Barbeau Edmondson.	,
An Art. for the relief of Theodore Charles
Grotlie.
An Act for the relief of Stella Maude Lash
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Dubnitsky, otherwise known as Elizabeth Dubney.
An Act for the relief of Harry Roth.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Ruth Nicholson Lowe.
An Act for the relief of Anna Vereszczak
Finchuk.
An Act for the relief of Aldege Nault.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Gladys Jones Roberts.
An Act for the relief of Virginia Amelia Loomis Wadsworth.
An Act for the relief of Jennie Erdrich Ettenberg.
An Act for the relief of Thomas McDade.
An Act for the relief of Isabel Bovill Clarke. An Act for the relief of Bessie Goldberg
An Act to amend The Seeds Act. 1937.
An Act to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain expenditures made and indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways System during the calendar year 1938. and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Franchise of Electors and the Election of Members of the House of Commons.
An Act to establish a Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, with authority in respect of transport by railways, ships and aircraft.
An Act respecting Radio in Canada.
An Act to assist in the Construction of Houses.
An Act to amend The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
An Act to amend The Criminal Code.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1939.
Governor General's Speech
[Stage Direction]
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name the Honourable the Deputy Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Honourable the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1939.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which His Honour the Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the third session of the eighteenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In bringing the present session to a close, I desire to express my appreciation of the careful attention given the many measures submitted for your consideration.
International relations and domestic conditions continue to be affected by conflict, disorders and tensions in different parts of the world. The disturbed situation abroad, and prolonged and unprecedented drought in western Canada, have, unfortunately, somewhat retarded recovery. Improvement in economic conditions has, however, been more steadily maintained in Canada than in many other countries. Gratifying factors in the situation are the further diminution in the numbers on relief, and the progressive and substantial reductions in the deficits in the national accounts. The outlook for agriculture in the west is more hopeful than it has been for some years.
An outstanding feature of the session has been the adoption of measures constituting a long-range nation-wide program of conservation and development, designed to stimulate employment and enlarge the national income. They include a comprehensive housing scheme, under which special assistance will be afforded in the _ construction _ of houses to be owned by families of _ limited means, and of housing accommodation in urban centres to be leased at less than economic rentals.
The dominion has undertaken to pay a substantial proportion of municipal real estate taxes, over a three-year period, on new houses
erected before the end of 1940, and to make loans, at low interest rates, to municipalities to enable them to undertake projects of a self-liquidating character.
The housing program has been further aided, and increased activity in the construction industry fostered by the exemption from sales tax of materials entering into the construction
of houses and other buildings.
Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, further progress has been made, in the development and conservation of water supplies, and the formation of community pasture areas where lands are not suitable for cultivation.
Appropriations have been made for the continuation, on a broader scale, of the youth training program, and for its extension to include persons of older age.
Provision has been made for the complete nationalization of the Bank of Canada through the acquisition by the government of the ownership, in its entirety, of the capital stock of the bank.
The Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada has been superseded by a Board of Transport Commissioners, with authority in respect of transport by air and water, as well as by rail.
The trans-Canada air service is now operating a regular air mail schedule over a considerable area of the dominion. It is expected that, at an early date, a coast to coast service will be in operation.
The provisions of the criminal code relating to the improper driving of motor vehicles have been made more stringent. Other important amendments have been adopted.
The War Veterans' Allowance Act has been amended to provide for veterans who, although not totally incapacitated, are incapable of maintaining themselves, and for those who served in South Africa and were domiciled in Canada at the time of their enlistment.
The _ registration of shop cards has been authorized, a measure which has been advocated for many years by labour unions in Canada.
The special committee of the House of Commons on Elections and Franchise Acts has given careful study to the means employed to effect redistribution in Canada and other countries, and to proposals with respect to political expenditures. A new Dominion Elections Act has been enacted.
Considerable progress has been made in the negotiations which, for several months past, have been carried on with the government of the United States, with a view to revising and extending the trade agreement concluded in 1935. It is hoped the negotiations will result in a comprehensive Agreement, which will facilitate the further development of trade between the two countries.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the public sevice.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In taking leave of you at this time, I pray that the blessing of Divine Providence may rest upon your labours.
This concluded the third session of the eighteenth parliament.