[Stage Direction]
Third report, and fourth and final report, of standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Sir Eugene Fiset.
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. McPhee.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: I move that the petition I laid on the table of the house the day before yesterday be now read.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am informed that this is the same petition that was presented by the hon. member last week. I believe it was read previously.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That items 633, 634 and 635 of the supplementary estimates, referred to and approved of in the third report of -the standing committee
Member for Beauce
[Stage Direction]
on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: In view of the fact that there will be no mail delivery in the province of Quebec to-day, and as it as a statutory holiday in that province, why was there one full letter carrier delivery in Hamilton, Ontario, on May 24, which was also a statutory holiday?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Acting Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is no doubt based on a reply I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix). I had not had notice of the question asked yesterday, and I stated I was not quite sure of the facts. I should have said, however, that to-day there will be no carrier delivery in Quebec city, that there would be full delivery in the cities of Montreal and St. John, and a partial or no delivery whatsoever in other places, according to the discretion to be exercised by the postmasters at those various points.
_ With regard to the one delivery on May 24 in the city of Hamilton may I say that the course taken there was the one followed generally throughout the whole of Canada. Ascension day is not a statutory or legal holiday, but it is observed generally as a religious day in the province of Quebec. For that reason discretion was given the postmasters as indicated in my reply of yesterday.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. CHURCH



REFERENCE TO STATEMENT OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE ON MAY 25

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Rroadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction in connection with the report appearing at page 3233 of Hansard. I had intended calling the attention of the house to the point yesterday, but was prevented from doing so just when the message was received from the Senate. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported to have said:
I well remember that on one occasion the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply which took up all that evening, so that it was not possible to get my estimates before the house.

That is not correct. I never at any time made a motion upon going into supply; it was the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross).



MEMBER FOR BEAUCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) advised the house he would investigate certain charges made by Premier Duplessis of Quebec to the effect that an hon. member of this House of Commons, namely, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) had defrauded the Department of National Revenue by bringing goods into Canada without paying duty. Has an investigation been made, has the minister communicated with Premier Duplessis of Quebec concerning the matter, and what have been the results of such investigation?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: I wrote the premier of Quebec
shortly after I stated an investigation would be made, asked him to furnish me with details of the charge, and to let me know during what period it was alleged the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) imported the trucks in question. I asked the premier to give me the source of his information and the names of any persons who could give any evidence concerning the transactions in question, and any other information which would be of assistance in investigating the charge.
I have never received a reply to that letter, which was written on May 3. A little more than two weeks after I wrote the letter, finding that apparently I was not to receive a reply I instructed the Commissioner of Customs to institute an investigation into the charge and to obtain such information as he could from the files and from any other sources which might be available.
The Commissioner of Customs has investigated the charge and his report dated May 25, 1938, together with appended material, is before me. I may say that so far as can be ascertained there have been no duties either unpaid or underpaid by Mr. Lacroix or by the companies in which he is interested. With the leave of the house I will table copies of my letter to Premier Duplessis and my instructions to the Commissioner of Customs, and I shall table with those communications the original report and annexed material from the Commissioner of Customs.

Privilege-Mr, Cahan



PRIVILEGE-MR. CAHAN IMPERIAL CONFERENCE OF 1926    DESCRIPTION AS SEPARATIST MOVEMENT FROM BRITISH COMMONWEALTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["It is eleven o'clock anyway. Item stands.\nProgress reported."]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer briefly to a remark made on the evening of May 24, by the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The right hon. gentleman stated that during the debate on the imperial conference resolutions of 1926 the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was one of those who described the work of that conference as-
-a sort of separatist movement from the British Commonwealth, and far from being a bond of association, as my right hon. friend-
-referring to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)-

has described it to-day.
I believe that remark has gone out to the press and has been noted. I think it is an entire misapprehension of the attitude I took at that time. Without entering upon a lengthy discussion I should like to read the exact words I uttered on that occasion, and for that purpose I would refer hon. members to the debates of December 14, 1926, at page 54, in which, in discussing the imperial conference resolutions, I said:
For do not such clauses as those implicitly, and yet emphatically, declare that we are partners in the empire, equal in status, if you will, participating as citizens of that empire in the advantages and privileges-world-extended privileges-which accrue to the position and power of membership in the empire; yet, they express by implication that by moral obligation, by the precepts of common and equity law, we, as such partners, equal in status, are in fact morally bound, by the very implications of the contract, to share in the international obligations of the empire and in the liabilities imposed by such obligations to the extent of our resources; and though, as it is stated in another clause, we are the sole judges of the nature and extent of our cooperation, yet the declaration as to our status is made by the representatives of Great Britain, I believe, in the abiding faith and confidence that no common cause will be imperilled by the lack of our support.
The matter came up in a later discussion in the House of Commons on May 29, 1928. This is what I said at that time:
I assume from the position which the Prime Minister took at the recent imperial conference that he realizes the absolute necessity, if we are to preserve the existing unity of the empire,
of consultation and concurrence wherever possible between the governments of the dominions and that of the united Kingdom with respect to matters which appertain to the whole empire to which we belong.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cahan:	I have noticed that certain
gentlemen in this country who are admittedly in favour of the early independence of Canada and of breaking the light ties of association which bind us to Great Britain and the other dominions, speak of Canada having become in fact though not in name an independent and practically sovereign state. The imperial conference of 1926 took an entirely different view; as I read it, and I have read it time and again, it seems to me that those who directed the drafting of that report were insisting that all matters which relate solely and exclusively to this dominion should be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament and the administration of this country. So, in the negotiation of treaties, our minister or representative abroad, in those matters which relate solely and exclusively to our interests and to our wellbeing, would have exclusive jurisdiction, but when our interests also become matters of interest to the other dominions, to the United Kingdom and to the empire as a whole, it is implied in the imperial conference report that as far as it is possible for honourable and intelligent men so to do, those representing the various parts of this empire, should strive to reach a concurrent view by consultation and concession, so long as they make no sacrifice of the vital interests of any part, in order to promote the general interests of the autonomous dominions and of Great Britain.
I made several emphatic statements to that effect. Perhaps I might read one more, which appears on page 3503 of Hansard of the same date:
Therefore I feel persuaded that the government of Canada-
That was the government of the day, of which the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was also the Prime Minister-
-looking at the whole matter, though determined to preserve our autonomous rights, will always be equally determined to preserve the political unity of this empire to which we belong, believing that under present conditions and as far as human minds can see into the future, it is in the paramount interests of Canada that we should preserve that association with Great Britain and the other dominions.
I think these quotations from those two addresses indicate clearly that during the debates on the 1926 resolutions I was not suggesting that they implied a separatist movement from the British commonwealth.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon.
friend that the passages which he has just quoted certainly do not bear out the inferences to which he has referred. Of course,
Supply-External Affairs

I am unable to say whether they are the passages which the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had in mind in the observations which he made. It may well be it was some other reference which my hon. friend made that the Minister of Justice had in his thoughts at the time. However, were the minister here to-day he would, I am sure, be the first to accept my hon. friend's statement that in the course of the debate referred to he had no intention of conveying the impression which apparently the Minister of Justice gained at the time. As my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Justice is absent to-day owing to the fact that he is being honoured by McGill university with the degree of doctor of laws, honoris causa. He will, I am sure, be quick to take notice of what my hon. friend, the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, has said.
'	SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $184,575.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday last the house listened with rapt attention to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) explaining and defending Canada's foreign policy. It was my intention to say something on that occasion, but time did not permit. There are many points in the Prime Minister's speech and there are many phases of Canada's international relations in connection with which I should like to say something, but at this time I am going to confine my remarks to one aspect of our foreign policy which seems to me to transcend all other aspects, even at this time when we are beset on all sides with questions of very great import. I refer to our policy with regard to Spain. To me our policy in connection with the Spanish situation has been and is devoid of every semblance of equity, justice, fairness or the application of international law. What is true of Canada's policy in respect to Spain is equally true of the policies of those nations which took part in the world's greatest international farce, the non-intervention committee. However, it is with Canada's policy that I am concerned.
To my mind a change of policy on the part of the democratic nations of the world towards Spain is absolutely essential even to a beginning of a settlement of the world's

troubles on the basis of international law and international equity and justice. All our prating about peace, all our boasted love for democracy, all our detestation of dictatorships, is just so much piffle unless we rightabout face in our attitude towards Spain. To me the Spanish situation is fundamental. The policy of the nations of the world towards war-tom Spain is immoral to say the least. It constitutes a canker that is eating at the heart of all that is left of world democracy. It cannot be defended on any basis whatsoever except that of cowardice and the saving of our own skins at the expense of the blood of the Spanish people.
I wish to pass very quickly over the events in Spain from February, 1936, to the present time. In the Spanish elections in February, 1936, what is generally called a Popular Front government was elected. This government was elected according to the laws and customs prevailing in Spain at that time. It was elected just as legally as the government of this country, as the government of Great Britain or France, or the government of any other country where government is elected by the vote of the people. After the elections the new premier, Senor Azana, outlined the policy of his government in the following words:
We are not out to persecute, but to apply the constitution and the laws of the land in a spirit of liberality and liberty of conscience. We are persecuting nobody-neither Roman Catholics, Protestants nor Moslems. The people are eager to take part themselves in the work of national reform and progress. Everybody is interested and anxious to help. We are at the beginning of a time of great advance in many directions-cultural, educational, economic, political, spiritual and material.
I am sure that these are sentiments as fine as those uttered by our Prime Minister in October, 1935. But trouble soon developed. A well prepared rebellion broke out on July 18 of that same year. A few days afterwards, on July 25, the first violation, in my opinion, of international law took place. The French government, despite the fact that the "Frente Popular" was the legal government in Spain and that the French government had an agreement to supply the Spanish government with war materials, decided to prohibit the export of war materials to Spain. The general impression, an impression amounting to a conviction, was that Great Britain brought pressure on France which had something to do with her decision not to fulfil her obligations to Spain. On August 2, a week later, the French government addressed an appeal to the principal governments of Europe to organize for the purpose of preventing inter-

Supply-External Affairs
vention by the nations of Europe in Spanish affairs. In its appeal the French government said that its purpose was "for the rapid adoption and rigorous observance in regard to Spain of the common rules of non-intervention." But even at that time the French government was well aware that the Spanish rebels were being armed from the outside, and so at the end of its appeal it made it perfectly clear that it was reserving to itself the right of application in regard to the decision.
The farce of non-intervention dragged on month after month, with Germany and Italy, and their ally Portugal, stalling and hedging on every proposal to make the non-intervention pact effective. On July 30, 1937, a year after the non-intervention pact was formed, a year in which the government of Canada had had ample opportunity to see quite clearly that the non-intervention pact was in reality a screen for intervention on the side of the rebels by Italy and Germany, a year in which Canada's delegates to Geneva had every opportunity to hear the plea of the Spanish delegates for the right of their government to buy military supplies to put down rebellion against constituted authority according to the commonly accepted rules of international law. A year after our government had had the opportunity to see all this and did see all this, an embargo was placed by Canada on the export of arms and munitions to Spain. The government of Canada knew that Germany and Italy were supplying the Spanish rebels with arms and men, but there was no embargo placed on arms to Italy and Germany.
Let us contrast the action of the Canadian government in this affair with its action in another affair. In the Abyssinian affair this government objected to oil sanctions being imposed against Italy for fear they might lead to reprisals or to war, but this government was not afraid that our arms embargo against Spain might lead to war. Why? Because Spain is a weak nation. The conclusions which we can draw, then, from the difference in the policy of the Canadian government upon these two occasions is that if a nation is strong enough to retaliate it can carry on all the aggression it likes against weak nations; but if a nation is weak, if there is no danger of retaliation, the government of Canada will refuse it an opportunity even to defend itself. In the case of Spain it does not seem to have made any difference to the Canadian government that the Spanish people were and are defending their homes, defending their families, their institutions, and everything that they as well as we hold dear.
I have said that the government of Canada had an opportunity to hear the plea of the Spanish delegates to the League of Nations Assembly at Geneva. The Spanish government laid its case before the league in September, 1936, very shortly after the trouble started; again in December, 1936, again in May, 1937, and again in September, 1937. It may have taken its case to Geneva on other occasions, but I did not take the time to look them all up.
Now I should like to put before this committee the proposals made by the Spanish government to the assembly of the League of Nations; the report of the committee which examined the Spanish proposals, and the League of Nations' decision in the matter. The report of the committee failed to pass the league assembly by two votes, and I shall show where those two votes came from.
I quote from the Monthly Summary of the League of Nations for September, 1937:
In the assembly on September 18th, the president of the Spanish council of ministers, M. Negrin, at the end of his speech on international problems arising out of the conflict in Spain, made the following declaration:
"The government of the Republic considers that it has the right to make the following requests:
(1)	that the aggression of Germany and Italy in Spain be recognized as such.
(2)	That, in consequence of this recognition, the league examine as rapidly as possible the means by which that aggression may be brought to an end.
(3)	That full rights once more be given to the Spanish government freely to acquire all the war material it may consider necessary.
(4)	That the non-Spanish combatants be withdrawn from Spanish territory.
(5)	That the measures to be adopted for security in the Mediterranean be extended to Spain, and that Spain be granted her legitimate share in them.
In conclusion, having summed up the declarations of the Spanish government, their representative asked that the part of the secretary-general's report on the work of the league which dealt with the situation in Spain and allied questions should be referred to the sixth committee. This was done, and the committee reported to the assembly to this effect: The Assembly:
(1)	Associates itself with the council in recalling that it is the duty of every state to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other states-a duty which, for members of the League of Nations, has been recognized by the covenant;
(2)	Affirms that every state is under an obligation to refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of another state;
(3)	Recalls the special undertakings entered into by the European governments, and the London non-intervention committee which, in
Supply-External Affairs

the intention of the countries to whose initiative it owes it origin, was set up for the purpose of restricting the Spanish conflict and thereby safeguarding peace in the rest of the world;
I wish the committee to pay particular attention to No. 4.
(4)	Regrets that not merely has the London non-intervention committee failed, despite the efforts of the majority of its members-
Note, "despite the efforts of the majority of its members."
-of which the assembly expresses its appreciation, to secure the withdrawal of nonSpanish combatants taking part in the struggle in Spain, but that it must to-day be recognized that there are veritable foreign army corps on Spanish soil, which represents foreign intervention in Spanish affairs;
. (5) Observes that the council in its resolu-tmn of May 29th last, justly described this withdrawal as "the most effective remedy for a situation, the great gravity of which, from the standpoint of the general peace, it feels bound to emphasize, and the most certain means of ensuring the full application of the policy of non-intervention";
(6)	Sincerely trusts that the diplomatic action recently^ initiated by certain powers will be successful in securing the immediate and complete withdrawal of the non-Spanish combatants taking part in the struggle in Spain;
(7)	Appeals to the governments, which must be all animated by the desire to see. peace maintained in Europe, to undertake a new and earnest effort in this direction;
And I wish the committee to note the next part of this section.
And notes that, if such a result cannot be obtained in the near future, the members of the league which are parties to the non-intervention agreement will consider ending the policy of non-intervention;
(8)	Requests the council, in view of the provisions of article 11 of the covenant of the league, to follow attentively the development of the situation in Spain and to seize any opportunity that may arise for seeking a basis for a pacific solution of the conflict.
Thirty-two delegations voted in favour of this report. The report however failed to obtain the necessary unanimity and was not adopted. But it failed of adoption because it was opposed by Albania and Portugal, two countries that were acting merely as "stooges" for Italy. Let it be noted that Canada was among the thirty-two nations voting-for what? Voting for this:
That it must to-day be recognized that there are veritable foreign army corps on Spanish soil, which represents foreign intervention in Spanish affairs.
That is what our delegation voted for in September a month and a half after this government imposed an embargo on Spain the purpose of which was to hinder Spain from 
helping herself either to put down rebellion within her borders or to free herself from foreign aggression.
There is no question in anyone's mind today that the war in Spain has ceased to be a civil war and is now a war of invasion by Italy and Germany. Everything that has happened in the last few months has emphasized that, time and time again. The assembly of the League of Nations accepted the situation, as I have just read, although the recommendation failed technically to pass the assembly. In view of these circumstances I think this parliament would be justified in instructing the government to rescind the order in council which imposed an embargo on arms and munitions to Spain.
During this session, on March 17, in reply to a question by myself, reported at page 1407 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said as part of his reply;
May I add to what I have said in the way of a formal reply to my hon. friend that at this time we are witnessing momentous events on the continent of Europe. We are witnessing also momentous events on the continent of Asia. Canada is a part of the continent of North America. Unless it is the desire to have it appear that our country is anxious to participate in these events, to become a party to or a part of what is happening on the continents of Europe and Asia, it is desirable, I believe, that all persons in positions of authority and responsibility in this country and who have anything to do with the shaping and moulding of public opinion, whether in parliament or in the press, should refrain from taking any steps or making any representations which would appear to have a contrary aim and purpose.
Spain is in the continent of Europe, and as the League of Nations had not taken action in regard to Spain, if we were brought into this situation we were brought into it by the action of the Prime Minister and his government. If the government of this country has the right to bring Canada into the affairs of foreign countries without even asking parliament, without the consent of parliament, surely we have the right to question the action of the government in that regard. If we are now involved-and we are involved by non-intervention-in the Spanish affair, we have been involved by the present government. Either that or, if we can remain neutral only by placing embargoes, we should immediately place an embargo upon the shipment of supplies to Japan. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. So, I think that, in order to put ourselves right with the legally elected government of Spain, we should immediately rescind the order in council of July 30, 1937.
We have heard a great deal in this house and in speeches in the country about the necessity of maintaining democracy. I have

Supply-External Affairs
now before me a statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who I regret is not in his seat at the moment, during the debate on a resolution proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) on February 4 of last year. I am quoting from Hansard, page 550. The Minister of Justice said:
But we must be able to defend our citizens against the madness of some present day rulers. If international chiefs or gangsters ever come to assail us in a mad impulse-because the world is mad at the present time-we cannot meet them with a declaration of neutrality.
What about Spain? When Spain was assailed by these chiefs and gangsters how did the Dominion of Canada meet the situation? By imposing an embargo on the means by which Spain could defend herself. If the people of Canada have the right to defend themselves from international chiefs, from gangsters, how can this country deny the right to any other nation to do the same? I think we all agree with the Minister of Justice in the statement I have quoted; but, as I have done, let us compare these fine sentiments with the actions of the government of which the minister is so important and influential a member. As I have already said, Spain is to-day assailed by the international chiefs and gangsters of Europe, and was assailed by the same gangsters in 1937 when the minister made that statement, and the reply of his government to the gangsters was to impose an embargo on munitions to Spain on the means by which she might defend herself.
The Prime Minister on March 17 said that no exports of munitions had been made from Canada to Germany and Italy. That may be true, but the point I wish to make is that so far as this government is concerned, so far as the laws of Canada are concerned, Germany and Italy could buy all the munitions and arms that they wanted to. But there was no reason why Germany and Italy should buy arms and munitions in Canada, because we were shipping to Germany and Italy the supplies from which they could manufacture these things for themselves, and they can do it far cheaper than we can. Germany and Italy may not have purchased arms and munitions, but as far as I know there were no legal restrictions on their doing so. I should like to quote another statement in the speech delivered by the Minister of Justice on February 4, 1937. This quotation will be found at page 547 of Hansard of that date. He was referring to the obligations of members of the League of Nations to help fellow members if attacked, and with reference to the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre he said:
If this motion is adopted, we go out entirely from the concert of nations, and mind you, Mr. Speaker, it is not only to the League of Nations that we as a country have given pledges. When we signed the pact of Paris we pledged ourselves to consider as a criminal any nation which would try to effect the settlement of an international conflict by means of war or which would accept war as a national policy in solving disputes. In that pact of Paris which we signed and which was accepted here unanimously we declared that any nation taking that position wrould be an enemy of Canada. That is what is really stated in the pact of Paris, but my hon. friend brushes that aside together with the pact of the League of Nations.
I ask again, how did we come to the assistance of a fellow member of the league? Spain is a fellow member of the League of Nations. Germany is not, nor, technically, is Italy a member of the League of Nations. How have we come to the assistance of Spain? By imposing an embargo upon her and by allowing her aggressors to buy freely of everything they require which we can supply. And then we prate about international law and order and give lip service to democracy, and the Prime Minister says that we must be careful not to say or do anything which might embarrass the countries of Europe which are facing difficulties. He forgets altogether that Spain is the country in Europe to-day which has been facing the greatest difficulties during the past two years and that the action of his own government tended to add to those difficulties, to give encouragement and support and comfort to the aggressor nations, which we, according to our solemn pledges when we signed the League of Nations pact and the pact of Paris, are supposed to consider criminal. Let me say again that Spain is a sister member of the league, to which according to the statement of the Minister of Justice we have given pledges. Instead of denouncing Germany and Italy as criminals, we have acted toward Spain as if she were the criminal in this affair. Let us face the fact that we have made a mistake in imposing an embargo upon Spain, and let that mistake be rectified by the removal of the embargo. In the early days of the non-intervention committee, many thought that it might be used as a means if not of furthering peace at least of preventing the spread of war. A great many people had that feeling and many of them have now admitted their mistake.
Let me refer to a statement made by Sir Archibald Sinclair, the leader of the Liberal party in the British House of Commons, in a
Supply-External Affairs

recent debate on the Spanish situation. I am quoting from the British Hansard of Wednesday, March 16, 1938. Sir Archibald Sinclair said:
At the same time, I have never disguised the fact that I sympathize with the Spanish government. I know that other hon. members who are just as patriotic citizens as I am sympathize with General Franco. My sympathies with the Spanish government are due mainly to three reasons: first, that they are fighting for the cause of freedom against a Fascist form of government; secondly, as it seems to me, that the intervention by Italy and Germany in the affairs of Spain is contrary to the efforts which the democratic nations of the world are making to place the relationships between nations on the basis of the rule of law instead of force; and thirdly, that I believe the occupation of Spain by Italian and German forces would be the gravest threat to the national and imperial interests of this country.


Mr. MARTIN:: And he might have added, by Russian forces.


Angus MacInnis: You are not going to lead me off by a statement of that kind. Russia joined the non-intervention committee, as she stated at the league assembly in 1936, simply because she thought it might help maintain peace. She was willing to observe the non-intervention pact provided the other members of the committee would do so, and there has been no occasion in that connection in which the contrary has been proved with regard to Russia.
Further on Sir Archibald Sinclair states that at one time he felt that a non-intervention agreement by the nations of Europe might help bring about a speedy conclusion of the trouble in Spain and might prevent war, but he says he now realizes that this cannot be done. Let me say again, let us concede our mistake. Let us rectify it at the earliest moment possible. Let it be granted that we were actuated by the best possible motives. Let it be granted that the failure of our good intentions was not our fault. This point has seemed clear to me for a long time. I have watched the Spanish situation I think as closely as anyone could possibly watch it at this distance, and it seemed to me very soon after the trouble started that the policy of the democratic countries towards Spain could only end in one of two ways, by either forcing a fascist dictatorship or a communist dictatorship on the Spanish people. If Franco wins, Spain will be fascist and the forces of fascism will be that much stronger. If the Loyalist forces win, as the situation is to-day, communism will have received an enormous boost, and to that extent the forces of democracy-that democracy we say we uphold-will lose. Those 
who favour communism in Spain will be able to say, if the Loyalists win-which is not very likely under present circumstances-
You were forsaken by the democratic countries," and they will be right. "They tried to foist upon you the yoke of fascism," and it seems to me they will be right also in saying that. "Democracy is your enemy." Under the present situation what can those of us who favour democracy say? What can we in Canada say or do, except to bow our heads in shame and admit the truth of such statements? Let me again ask the members of this committee, as members of the Canadian House of Commons, to assert their right and make clear their belief in democracy, in justice and equity as between nations, and ask the government to rescind the order in council which imposed this embargo against the legally elected government of Spain.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of following what the last speaker (Mr. Maclnnis) has said. We have heard these pacifist speeches in the house before. At last parliament has an opportunity of considering the external affairs of this country, which are a trust administered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Last Tuesday he brought down his message. I have no quarrel whatever with what he said; my objection is to what he did not say. At no time in the history of this empire has it been more necessary for the Dominion of Canada to give support, even if it is only moral support, to the motherland.
The main statement made by the Prime Minister was that parliament would decide in future, if trouble came, as the circumstances of the case required. In his address there was no such reference as I believe a large majority of the people of Canada would like to have heard, following the imperial conference of last year and the visits of the Prime Minister to Hitler, to France and other places, that we owed the mother country something for what it has done to protect our shores in season and out. I was surprised that something was not said along the line of what Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated, that when England is at war Canada is at war also. I believe if ever the time comes again this country will do its duty towards the motherland, as it has always done it in the past.
The Prime Minister talks about parliament deciding the matter. Why, before parliament could be called together the enemy could have sent an air fleet up the St. Lawrence

Supply-External Affairs
which in one hour could have bombed and destroyed all the public buildings in central Canada, probably including this house. Before notice could be sent out convening parliament our country could be invaded. There is not only the possibility; there is a very strong probability. The idea of calling parliament together to decide these questions of policy does not appeal to any practical person in Canada. It is impossible. In 1914 Mr. Borden's action was prompt and the country backed him up. In my opinion it will do so again when any responsible government has the courage to assert itself. This question came up nearly thirty years ago in connection with the Laurier naval bill of 1909, and at that time this house practically decided that when Britain was at war Canada was at war. A resolution was adopted by this house expressing the opinion that the Canadian people were ready and willing to make any sacrifice necessary to maintain the integrity, dignity and honour of the empire.
Again I ask: Has Canada a foreign policy, and whither is Canada drifting? If you read the message given to the house the other day by the Prime Minister you will find that Canada has no foreign policy. An enemy invading this country will not care a farthing about the Statute of Westminster, which was passed to please Ireland and South Africa. That statute speaks of consultation, cooperation and understanding. These dictators care nothing at all for that. In the Prime Minister's speech I have not read one word of encouragement to the motherland in regard to the huge burden of debt she has placed on her shoulders in order to look after the dominions, and give them protection, or in regard to what she is doing for democracy and world peace. We are told that Canada has no commitments, and that seems to be our foreign policy; in other words the pen is mightier than the sword. We are a nation only in the mythical sense. We are back to where we were over a hundred years ago, in 1812. We have no army, no navy and no air force. We are completely dependent upon the motherland for our defence on land, on sea and in the air. We saw that the other day when a bill was presented by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) in connection with Japan. Japan has been operating outside the three mile limit in violation of international law. The piracy they have been conducting through their ships which operate beyond the three mile rule is against all known international agreements. They have broken the fisheries laws, the
coastal laws and many other laws of the dominion. What do they care for peace pacts or anything of the kind?
What about that glorious French nation towards which the eyes of the civilized world were turned at the time of the great war? We remember the awful privations, the human trials and suffering and the tribulations the French people went through. But they have a policy. They are willing to make commitments. And they will make them with whom? -with Great Britain. If Canada is not content to make commitments she had better get out of the British Empire, and the quicker she gets out the better. If we will make no commitments we are outside the empire. That glorious French nation has made commitments with foreign countries. She has announced that she will defend herself and stand or fall with England. Europe must pay attention to the dictators while Canada stands aloof with a policy of isolation-that is all it is, just a policy of isolation.
The Minister of Justice was more succinct in what he said. His statement was that the foreign policy of Canada was that of keeping Canada out of war, of trying to keep Canada at peace, of acting in a peaceful manner towards all countries of the world, and to have those family relationships with other members of the commonwealth. He said it was a policy of avoiding offensive language aginst other countries, and to save Canada for those days which aTe ahead of it. Well, if that is the best policy the minister has to offer he will have a rude awakening some day if and when the enemy comes up the St. Lawrence raver.
The government seems to have a different policy for all the provinces, so far as foreign affairs are concerned. If we are to read the statement on foreign affairs which has been made we must conclude that our foreign policy consists of nothing but platitudes and high sounding phrases. I feel sure people in England and in Canada hate the very mention of war. The idea of war is detested by all the people in those countries. Nevertheless preparation is necessary. You do not hear a word in favour of war in England or in Canada. But in England it is recognized that questions of defence and the liberty of civilization are at stake. England may have been slow to get started but she recognizes the mistake she made in disarmament. They are now rearming. The Norwich labour union by a vote of 2,500,000 voted in favour of rearmament. That policy has been
Supply-External Affairs

forced upon England. Neither the government nor the opposition wants a policy of that kind; it has been forced upon them.
We know the terms of the Militia Act, as they are contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of chapter 132 of the statutes, where the manner in which the militia can be called out for military purposes is described. Then, under section 66 it is provided that if parliament is separated by an adjournment or prorogation which will not expire within ten days, proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days. But before that could be done the country would be invaded.
As was pointed out by my right hon. leader in an address delivered in Chalmers church, this country owes the motherland a great deal for all she has done and is doing. What are we doing in Canada? We have no foreign policy, and we are depending entirely upon the mother country. Our representatives went to the imperial conference last year and took part in the coronation ceremonies. Our troops were in the line. It is true that an imperial conference was held, but in my opinion it was a complete failure. It failed to solve any problem from which we suffer to-day in respect of trade, defence or migration. It failed to solve the shipping problem. The empire has 2,000 less ships than it had before the war. Yet we are willing as a dominion to sponge on the mother country for land defence, and for the air force and a fleet to protect our shores. We were content to have our contingents go to London and to take their place in the ceremonial parade through London's streets; we were prepared to let our ministers take a trip over there. They made many speeches at banquets, and all that sort of thing-even the Minister of Justice made some of them. They proceed to tell what grand fellows we are in Canada, and yet they are not willing to contribute anything to help the mother country in her hour of trouble.
The speech of the Prime Minister is one of isolation. That is the policy of isolation followed by Ireland and South Africa. We have been told that Canada has been advised but not consulted. In my opinion that is a distinction without a difference. If it were not for the mother country to-day we would be neither advised nor consulted by the dictators; they would just drop in by aeroplane, and we would soon learn what our policy of isolation would amount to.
We have nothing with which to back up any foreign policy-nothing but talk and platitudes. Our policy is negative; certainly it 
is not positive. It is a policy which has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. It was a cold answer in my opinion given by the government to the questions asked last February. At that time an official or semiofficial announcement was made in the house, after a statement was made in London, to the effect that the dominion had been consulted last February concerning critical affairs. Ottawa declared at that time that the Dominion of Canada had not been consulted by the government of Great Britain with regard to foreign policy, and did not want to be consulted. No more cold-hearted or icy words could have been pronounced to the people of Canada by a government. The mother country's back is to the wall, fighting dictators. She is confronted by dictators on all sides-by Hitlers and Mussolinis. We let London minister to our curiosity, but that is the extent of our interest in looking after the clash between dictatorships and democracies.
Canada's foreign policy is a myth, because she has no policy. It boils down to consultation, understanding and cooperation, but with whom it does not say. We used to depend upon the league. Canada followed the league and did everything it could. The last two or three governments have cooperated with the league, but what has happened to it? It led the mother country to disarmament, and the result was that Germany crossed the Rhine and invaded Austria; Italy captured Ethiopia; Japan annexed Manchuria and is now capturing China. The government has shifted its position and is now depending upon the Monroe doctrine and pan-Americanism. That seems to be the popular cry to-day in the continent of America, the continent to which we belong, in connection with foreign policy.
If this is all the foreign policy Canada has, then I say the government should defend itself at the polls, and if it does it will not have the majority it has to-day. I condemn this secrecy and this hush, hush policy regarding foreign affairs. This is not only the affair of the officers in the Department of National Defence or the Department of External Affairs. It is a matter which is of importance to and belongs to all the people of Canada, and one in which they are deeply interested. The public should be taken into the confidence of the government, and the matter should not be kept strictly to departmental officials.
Great Britain was wise to forget the past and to make friends with Italy. It was a stupid quarrel in the first place, when the

Supply-External Affairs
conflict in Ethiopia brought about a strained condition. Mussolini is favourably disposed to a renewal of friendly relations, and that will be a contribution towards the peace of Europe. How did Canada, a country which is supposed to have a foreign affairs department, act regarding Italy? She passed sanctions. When the Prime Minister was away the Minister of Justice had to tell the country that those sanctions had been abrogated and cancelled. It was well that be did cancel them, because certainly we have no force with which to back up sanctions. If the empire or Great Britain fails, our country will no longer exist as a dominion. In my opinion the empire stands to-day as a bulwark of peace and freedom which it is our duty to try to maintain for all time to come. Mr. Chamberlain said the other day that he would fight himself for the preservation of democracy, which means liberty.
As a result of the Statute of Westminster each part of the British Empire has its own foreign policy and its own defence policy. Look at what has happened in connection with Ireland and South Africa. Those countries have been completely out of the empire since that statute was passed. They have abolished the office of governor general, they have abolished God Save the King as their anthem, and they have eliminated the king's head from their coinage. Appeals to the privy council no longer are made by these countries. They are separate sovereign states just like Mexico or Italy. They are free to set up as republics with their own presidents and give no allegiance whatsoever to the mother country. General Hertzog refuses to take the privy councillor's oath. He has announced that no longer will the king's name appear in the statutes of that country. That is the way they have acted.
During the last hundred years we have been completely dependent upon the motherland. I do not believe in this policy of secrecy. As I said the other day I can remember in 1914 when the late Lord Roberts was laughed at because he predicted that a war was coming. A number of public men in Great Britain like Asquith and Haldane and Runciman said that there would be no war. Yet three days before it actually did come, Lord Roberts predicted that it would come. In my opinion, silence in connection with foreign affairs is a mistake. It would be far better if the government took the country into its confidence. We should have had information long ago as to what is Canada's defence policy and what is Canada's foreign 51952-208
policy. I have been trying to find out for the last three or four sessions what our foreign policy is. It seems impossible to get answers to these questions.
Our foreign policy should be wrapped up with that of the mother country. Never has it been more necessary that this should be done than now. There is no use in saying that we can depend upon pan-Americanism and the Monroe doctrine. We depended upon them in the past and they were found wanting. We are entirely dependent upon the mother country for our liberty and freedom. It has been stated that an army, an air force and a fleet is unnecessary. The pacifists in England persuaded the British government to disarm. They carried on this agitation and the motherland threw away the finest navy, army and air force in the world. Such defences are not built up in a day, they cannot be got together in a generation. In my opinion, the people of Canada would like to see this government give some recognition and credit to the motherland for our dependency upon her for the freedom we enjoy. It has been said that we have been given no information. For the past four months this house has been practically tongue-tied as far as Canada's affairs and foreign policy are concerned. We now realize that we are absolutely undefended except for what help might come from the motherland. The people have lost all confidence in the organization of the league.
The mother country has spent $618,000,000 in building up a navy to protect Canada's shores. Great Britain is our only hope, but she has to make up the ground she has lost since 1922 when she threw away all her agencies for defence. Since 1922 we have not only thrown away our defences, we have lost our friends. We parted with our Japanese allies at the conference in Washington. We see the result in Shanghai where we were the helpless witnesses of the destruction of our prestige and wealth. We have quarrelled with Italy, one of our best friends, and have driven her into the camp of our enemies. Not content with these terrible blunders, we have loosened the structure of our empire until the ties that bind us to southern Ireland have disappeared wholly, while those that held us to South Africa are attenuated to a thread held in the hands of a few British and Dutch in that country. Further, our government is coquetting with an American trade agreement which, if successful, will create a permanent wedge between us and the other dominions. They will be encouraged to look elsewhere for support.

Supply-External Affairs

The minister of external affairs has a great public trust in his hands. Not only have we assisted the mother country in throwing away her means of defence, but we have thrown over our friends. Canada was represented at the Brussels conference, but it was a complete failure. The speech that President Roosevelt made at Chicago was filled with platitudes. When Sir Ronald Lindsay, the British ambassador at Washington, went to see Mr. Hull to ask if the United States would join in sending a note to Japan, he was told that the United States would act alone. The policy of that country has been isolationist since the days of Washington. The people of Canada are now becoming alarmed.
War will never be abolished until we make a much better job of peace than we have in the past. War would be further off if all the sham in Geneva was eliminated. When men are ready to do their duty by their neighbours, war will go. What is the use of talking, as they do at Geneva, about the mete in war's eye and the beam in the eyes of Geneva and peace? Did we not say in 1014 that it was a war to end war? Let us look at the economic aspects of peace and war. Peace as we have it with all its suffering, all its unemployment and misery, is as dreadful as war in many ways. Those things which are as terrible and evil as war in times of peace are social wars, unemployment, fratricidal wars, every form of racketeering, whether industrial, political or in lines of trade, and other conflicts which are a part of human life. Wars are generally started as the last means of settling a dispute. The League of Nations was formed to avert war; it provoked it. If war could be abolished by a simple formula, it would have been abolished two thousand years ago. Similar leagues in history have failed before.
I have asked in vain: Has Canada a defence policy? Has Canada a foreign policy? Is Canada a member of the league? Is the league still in existence? If so, for what purpose? We have spent nearly 84,000,000 on the league and have got nowhere. I should like to quote from a dispatch from Douglas Oliver when he interviewed the Prime Minister on his arrival at Quebec, returning from the coronation. This dispatch is dated July 8, and reads in part:
Canada's defence policy has not apparently changed one bit as a result of all the recent imperial conference deliberation over the serious international situation, Prime Minister Mackenzie King indicated to-day.
In Germany, he had an interview with Chancellor Hitler.

It is said that it is intended to extend our diplomatic corps abroad. I think the best thing that could be done would be to close up this service altogether. Adequate armaments in this country are necessary, but adequate armaments without adequate man power are ineffective. As the Secretary of State for war in Great Britain said, every gun and every soldier to man a gun bring closer not war but peace. Canada's policy in foreign affairs should be cooperation and coordination with the mother country and with the mother country alone, and should fit in with the policy of the mother country on land and sea and in the air as a distinct unit correlated and interwoven.
We have been told that as a country we shall have to depend for our defence in the future on the people of the United States. That is some of the advice that has been given in the house. There is such a division among Quebec members supporting the government that two of them even read us out of the empire altogether, and one wanted us to cooperate with the United States in a joint defence policy.
I have already said that the policies of Washington have been reasserted by Mr. Hull. That policy is: No entangling alliances. The American people feel that the leaders in Washington may have been listening to war propaganda, and the ex-Secretary of State said that the United States has no such alliances, that their policy is, as it has been in the past from the days of Washington, to go it alone.
Let us look for a moment or two at how the people of the mother country have depended on the United States, and see what it has cost the motherland to have surrendered its own view on national problems and on the peace of the world to the views of the United States. It is well to remember this. It is no criticism of the great people to the south of us. They are thinking only of America first. They are our own kith and kin. But they have an isolation policy, and there are many people in the United States, millions of foreign origin, who think that the policy of the United States has been wrong since Washington laid down the principle that the United States should keep out of European troubles. Let us see how Great Britain has surrendered its views for the benefit of the people of the United States.
The first occasion since the war was the establishment of the League of Nations as part of the treaty of Versailles. Great Britain agreed to this at the behest of President Wilson. France would consent only if Britain

Supply-External Affairs
and the United States gave her a joint guarantee of security. The league was established, but the ink was hardly dry on the parchment when the United States congress refused to honour President Wilson's word, and they also repudiated the Versailles treaty.
The next thing to please the Americans was done at Washington in 1922, when we renounced our alliance with Japan who had been such an invaluable and faithful ally for twenty years. The result was that we lost Japanese support and gained no other benefits to make up for it.
Then there was the treaty with the Irish. We were told by British people who came over to this side that only by such a treaty would the last resentment of America against England die away. Britain gave way, and the result was that the United States became more embittered than ever, instead of more friendly.
There was another proposal which some people are of the opinion is likely to damage this country. America wants to buy gold. South Africa produces it in large quantities, and Canada and Russia are also gold producers. The motive force behind it is that they want to buy our gold so that we will buy American goods.
There has always been conflict between the United States congress and the administration in Washington. We were told by a French prime minister four years ago that Great Britain was the hardest country in the world to make a treaty with or have an understanding with owing to the dominions having so much to say, and there being so many different views to consult. It is the same in the United States. The president is called the administration, and he makes speeches and has his views, but it is only talk; there is no power over the senate to act. The power is in the senate and congress of the United States. So we have two forces in the United States in foreign affairs working in opposite directions, the administration and congressional sides. The result is that conflict often occurs. We saw it in the Abyssinian crisis, when the administration was hampered by the lack of congressional support, and its proposals met with clear defeat. I am reading three or four comments from the May number of the National Review, which after criticizing the new Anglo-American treaty, goes on to say:
The new policy will be as fruitless as the former policy.
It goes on to say:
The administration met with two clear defeats -the first when congress refused to make any change in the temporary "impartial" Neutrality Act then on the statute books, the second when the senate rejected a proposal to join the world 51952-2061
court-and suffered throughout from constant opposition. Though the administration were prevented by the Neutrality Act from bringing economic pressure to bear on Italy in cooperation with the league, they attempted during October and November of 1935 to persuade Americans voluntarily to forego "tempting trade opportunities" and not to seek profits "at the expense of human lives and human misery."
A fortnight after these official exhortations the Secretary of State had to admit that American trade with Italy in such war materials as oil, copper, trucks and scraps was increasing. The attitude of congress made it clear that nothing could be done about it.
During the crisis, as during the present crisis, the attitude of the congressional isolationist towards Great Britain was one of continued hostility. While the administration were attempting, within political limits, ts-embarrass the league as little as possible, the congressional spokesmen were accusing England of using the league for imperialistic ends.
That is what they said in congress the other day.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must inform the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) that he has spoken forty minutes.


Thomas Langton Church: I was just referring-


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member can proceed only by unanimous consent.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member for
Greenwood (Mr. Massey) was given forty minutes more. I have not quite finished, and I have never asked for any such privilege before. As a matter of fact, I think I have been speaking for only thirty minutes, but I shall take another opportunity. It is all right; I am not objecting to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. BENNETT:: I suggest that the hon-member be allowed to speak a bit further Mr. Chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall not break any of the rules of the house. I do not want any favours.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not a favour. It is a right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are not breaking any rules. I have spoken in between. Go on.


Thomas Langton Church: I was trying to show the futility of this country depending on the United States for our freedom and protection, or on the Monroe doctrine or pan-Americanism instead of, as always before, on the motherland. In the late war the United States could not have transported any munitions or a single soldier abroad without the assistance of the British fleet. And here we
Supply-External Affairs

are to-day, after the statement made by the Prime Minister, afraid to give one word of moral support, and no material support, to the motherland in this great emergency. We are depending on Washington, where they play politics every time.
Reference has been made in the congressional side at Washington to British propagandists, including the Archbishop of York and Mr. George Lansbury, as being sent to the United States to drag America into a war on England's side. As I said before, I believe the time is coming in this country when we shall have to decide sooner or later where Canada is drifting. In my opinion we made a mistake when we broke our alliance with the Japanese. The year 1937 has seen us with a policy of drift in this country. I asked certain questions about our foreign affairs, and when the Prime Minister came home this was the answer I received:
It had been my intention to pay a visit to Germany at the conclusion of the assembly of the League of Nations, at which I represented Canada, in the autumn of 1936. This, however, did not prove possible at that time. Following the imperial conference of 1937 I was able to carry out the deferred visit.
As I have already indicated in public statements, the purpose of the visit was to obtain at first hand, as intimate a knowledge of conditions in Europe as the time at my disposal permitted. After leaving Great Britain I paid brief visits to France and Belgium, as well as to Germany. The British government were fully aware of the intention to pay the visit to Berlin, which occurred on June 27 to 30 inclusive. The interchange of views and information which took place was of a nature which it is not the practice to disclose.
I cannot see any reason for the Prime Minister going there. It was not, in my opinion, the visit of a private individual. He was Prime Minister of Canada, and as such, and as head of the Department of External Affairs, he had obligations to the Canadian people. In my opinion it was not diplomatic on his part to go upon such a visit, and I do not believe this country approved of it; we stand for democracy, not for what that government stands for.
In this connection the Prime Minister answered some further questions, regarding the Pacific. Why was Canada not represented at the opening of the Singapore base?- with British Columbia clamouring for protection, and all this money being spent for defence on the Pacific coast, although it might as well be thrown into the Pacific so far as the protection it will give the people of British Columbia is concerned. Our contributions could better have been made to that great Singapore base. When it was opened

the United States, New Zealand and Australia were represented, but Canada did not have even its good-will joy-riding fleet to join the other nations in the opening of that great base for the protection of maritime freedom. Then other questions were asked, regarding our participation at Brussels and many other places, and the same answer is given. In my opinion the people are becoming tired of all this business of legations. Here is Sir Herbert Marler going away down to Houston, Texas, as the representative of Canada, and giving interviews on trade, defence, foreign affairs and treaties. He speaks of Canada selling to the United States millions of dollars' worth of newsprint, and says that no longer is Canada dependent on wheat for a livelihood, and then he gives his views on foreign affairs.
The time is coming when we shall have a rude awakening in this country. It may be soon or it may be later, but in my opinion the day is not far distant when we shall have to face invasion. Not only the possibility but the probability is very strong. The preceding speaker has been referring to the league. Well, the league is dead, and to our sorrow we have seen the British Empire almost dismembered. The finest army, navy and air force in the world have been scrapped for the league's folly and it will cost millions to build them up again. We are to spend thirty-six million dollars this year, and we might as well throw the money away, with a defence force of that size; it will be a mere trifle as a defence policy of any merit.
I am sorry that this country, which did its duty in the late war, is pursuing such an isolationist policy. It will get us nowhere. We are simply following in the footsteps of Ireland and South Africa instead of standing side by side with our sister dominions of New Zealand and Australia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Representation abroad, including salaries of high commissioner, ministers plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $434,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the increase to provide for another minister?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. That comes in in another place. This increase arises in the high commissioner's office. The intention is hereafter to vote the high commissioner's salary in each year's supply. Heretofore, as my right hon. friend knows, the salary of the high coprmissioner has been appropriated under statute. We shall have

Supply-External Affairs
to amend the statute respecting the office of the high commissioner by deleting the provision respecting the high commissioner's salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did we not vote it last year? My memory is that we did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We voted
S2,000 only, which were in addition to the amount set forth in the act as originally passed.


Mr. GREEN:: Has the Prime Minister yet had a report from the committee inquiring into the illegal entry of Japanese into British Columbia? It was headed by a member of the Department of External Affairs, and, I believe, completed its sittings almost a month ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Within the last day or two the committee presented an interim report, but they have not yet completed their inquiry.


Howard Charles Green: Could the interim report be made available now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it
would be inadvisable to present that report at the present time, inasmuch as it discloses the proceedings of the committee in ways that might affect subsequent inquiries.


Howard Charles Green: When may we expect the final report?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report as given by the committee is very largely a confidential report for the information of the government. Undoubtedly a statement will be made by the government, based on the report. I cannot say at the moment when the final report will be made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for hospitality in connection with visitors from abroad, $15,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of that was used last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Out of $15,000, $13,543.18 was used.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly, conference and commissions of the League of Nations, $14,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: No change in that, either?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to meet loss on exchange,
Richard Bedford Bennett: What did it cost us last year for exchange? The rate was down a little, I think; it improved somewhat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The amount submitted in the 1938-39 estimate is $120,000. The amount voted in 1937-38 was $135,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know. I wanted to know what was spent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an improvement. I suppose the larger proportion of that is in connection with our contributions to the League of Nations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The itemized
statement is as follows:
League of Nations	$106,253	37Wheat advisory committee.. ..	1,363	38
International commission for
air navigation	
691	01Paris: salaries and allowances.	1,595	47Geneva: salaries and allowances	4,224	67


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To authorize payment from the consolidated revenue fund to the Honourable Philippe Roy, present 'Canadian Minister to Prance, of an annuity at the rate of $5,000 to commence on his retirement and to continue during his lifetime, $5,000.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is there any regular scale of annuities which the government follows; and if so, would the Prime Minister give us the basis on which such annuities are arranged?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend doubtless knows, the present minister in France was appointed some twenty-seven years ago as a commissioner from Canada to France; and at the time that the legations were opened, some ten years ago, Mr. Roy was appointed the first Canadian minister to France. No arrangement was made at the time with respect to any retiring allowance or any annuity. As a matter of fact nothing of the kind has thus far been arranged with respect to the ministers in the diplomatic service. The government has under consideration at the present time the advisability of adopting a plan whereby those who go into the diplomatic service or who may be in the service and are not already in the civil service will be given the privilege of contributing to the superannuation fund and will be entitled to draw proportionately from the fund at the time of their retirement. If they do
325S
Supply-External Affairs

not wish to contribute to the superannuation fund it is proposed that they will not receive anything in the way of retiring allowance. Those members of the diplomatic service who are members of the civil service do contribute to the superannuation fund and will continue to do so as at present.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is desirable that there should be some regular arrangement, and I think that the Prime Minister is quite correct, that, if the ordinary civil servant is required to contribute, some such law should apply to people who have not been in the service; and further than that, I think that there should be some relationship between the amount granted and the sort of service rendered as well as the length of time in the service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what the government has had in mind with respect to the amount proposed in the estimates in recognition of the Hon. Mr. Roy's services in Paris. Mr. Roy was in Paris representing the government of Canada for some time before and at the time of the great war. Throughout the latter period and subsequently he rendered very great service, not only to our own citizens, but also to many who came from Great Britain and other countries allied with Great Britain in the war. In the long period of time that he has been in France he has been exceptionally generous in the hospitality and service that he has extended to Canadians visiting France. He has not spared himself in any activities which it was possible for him to interest himself in, and which were likely to be of service to Canada. The government has felt, now that he has reached the age of seventy and is retiring, that this recognition is one which the people of Canada generally will regard as well merited.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was endeavouring to point out that there should be some basis on which matters of this kind should be decided. We give pensions to various types of civil servants and the amount given bears some proportion to the amount of salary previously paid. Under what classification does this item come, or is it to be dealt with altogether regardless of other items of this kind?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A deputy
minister in the public service, who had been in the service twenty-five years, would receive upon retirement a pension of, say, $5,000, or at least half of his salary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For which he had paid.
'Mr. Mackenzie King.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, from a
fund to which he had made contributions, certainly. But the position of a minister in a foreign country would correspond, I should think, more to the position of a member of the government in the importance and responsibilities of the duties he discharges; and certainly in addition there would be obligations upon a minister in the diplomatic service which there would not be in the case of deputy ministers in the public service. If my hon. friend makes such a comparison he will find that what is suggested here in the way of annuity is on a sound and fair basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difference between the government and myself with respect to this matter is in the amount that is appropriated. Three years ago I was led. to believe that the minister had decided to retire, and I believed, after the most careful consideration with my colleagues, that $4,000 was a fair payment to make. The reason was this. Mr. Roy was a senator. His indemnity would be $4,000; had he continued as a senator he would have received $4,000 during the rest of his life, that being the present rate, though it was not the rate when he left the senate. Now he has made no contribution to the civil service fund, nor for any pension to be paid, nothing whatever, and I think the people of the country in these days would regard $4,000 -certainly I so believed-as reasonable compensation in the way of annuity to one who had rendered twenty-five years of service. The maximum that a civil servant can receive is thirty-five fiftieths of his average salary for a three year period, that is, seven-tenths; and there are very few civil servants who live out the thirty-five years nowadays, because they are retired at the age of sixty or sixty-five, and usually they retire at sixty if they can. Those who get the larger salaries hardly come in before they are twenty-five years of age.
I have no desire to do other than say what I said a few years ago, namely, that I am not unmindful of the service rendered by Mr. Roy. He was rather an extreme partisan, which is something that cannot be readily avoided at times; it is a state of mind rather than anything else at times. But Mr. Roy's contacts with the world in Paris have been of great value to the country, and not entirely lacking in value to himself. I rather think, however, that $5,000 would be regarded by the average taxpayer of the country as a larger pension than one should receive who has made no contribution at all and for whom

Supply-External Affairs
no provision was made-when he entered the service. He did so with the clear view that there was no pension in sight at all.
I do share the view of the Prime Minister that payments should be made by our ministers if they so desire, and if they do not sc desire, then they should be without pension from the state. I am inclined to think that the same principle should be extended to our judges and that we should increase their compensation. I have expressed that view on more than one occasion. We provide pensions for our judges, making it conditional upon certain things happening. It seems to me it would be better if we also provided that the state itself should furnish ministers with an annuity if they paid for it and desired to so provide for, and that this should be part of the contract of service when they enter their employment, and if they did not desire to make a contribution from their monthly cheque to the superannuation fund, then we would have no trouble such as we sometimes have in connection with matters arising out of judicial services.
There is just one matter here that is worthy of very careful consideration. If we select persons who have not been in the service and appoint them to positions of ministers, usually it will be found that their tenure of office is not long. Por instance had the course been followed which the minister expected, namely, had he in 1930 been removed from office, or recalled-and it will be remembered that the Minister of Justice made some observations regarding that matter three years ago. Then one realizes how difficult the whole problem is, of providing for retiring allowances for ministers. We appoint untrained, unskilled persons-persons untrained and unskilled in matters connected with departmental work -men who have not been councillors or second in command-usually they enter the diplomatic service of the country at an age past thirty or forty years. It would not seem to me, therefore, possible to provide for such cases by any contributions to a superannuation fund. In the very nature of things they would not expect to remain in office, they would not want to remain in office longer than eight or ten years, or whatever length of time the government that appointed them might remain in office. In my judgment it would be unfair to expect the state to provide them with pensions because their very selection for the post in question involves their being willing to accept it without pension or expectation of pension. That was so in this case, because the office to which the present minister was!
appointed was the office which had been held for many years by Mr. Fabre, and Sir Charles Tupper held a similar position in London for a number of years. No question of pension as such ever arose, because the office of high commissioner, both in London and in Paris, was regarded as a political one. It was never suggested that the late Lord Strathcona was in any sense qualifying for a pension during his term of service.
The difficulty that arises is also very real if you take the question of appointments within the service itself. In Great Britain it is firmly established; pension is provided for. A man who enters the foreign service of his country knows just what he may expect. He rises from one post to another, and when the time comes for retirement he knows he will receive a definite pension. The limits are prescribed and he knows just where he is, just as much as does the civil servant in the treasury department or any other branch of the public service. As I think the Prime Minister knows, this question has engaged the attention of the permanent officers of the department, and I believe I am within the facts when I state that the view is that all persons connected with the service should make contributions if they expect to receive pensions. I think that is not an unfair statement of the general view held by the permanent officials in this as well as other countries.
I do think the amount is at least $1,000 beyond what it should be, having regard to the conditions to which I refer. It was after much consideration, and with no desire to be niggardly with public money, but with a sense of real responsibility, that the late government concluded that $4,000 was an ample proposal, having regard to the services rendered and to the fact that after all it is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, namely the determination by the government of the day of the sum they think adequate. It bears no relation to anything but the government's view as to what is an adequate payment having regard to the services rendered and the extent of those services.
This might be the appropriate place to speak about a matter that is engaging a good deal of public attention, that is, the question of his successor. It is quite clear on the part of everybody that Mr. Roy, having reached the age of seventy, will retire. Nothing could be more fatal to the maintenance of our institutions on a sound basis than what you hear, for instance, in travelling over
Supply-External Affairs

the country. Mr. Justice Turgeon is suggested as a likely appointee to that post. He last discharged his judicial functions in Canada in November, 1935; he has not sat in the courts since. He has been engaged in political work-and I say political in the large, proper use of that word-and it is suggested that he is to be appointed to Paris or, if not, to Belgium. There you have a position which I regard as one of extreme gravity. I am not saying that I attach any credence to these reports, but this is in the minds of people who write me and say "It is your duty to direct attention to these matters." Sometimes one has to speak of these matters as a public duty when it is not the most pleasant thing in the world to do so.
Nevertheless, this foreign or external affairs service of ours is of very great importance ; we are at the threshold of the work in all its activities and all its branches, and it does seem to me that we should try to follow, as far as may be possible, a general idea of a measure of permanency. I am quite sure that if conditions had been reversed in 1930 the minister to France and the minister to Japan both would have been recalled, judging by what the Minister of Justice said in 1935. I took the other view. I believed, as I still do, that notwithstanding the known political views of those who held those offices, it was highly desirable, especially when we were just at the beginning of our new experience in appointing ministers, that we should endeavour to do the best we could. I am not unmindful of the censure I received from my own friends, and I sometimes wonder whether or not I was right in taking the view I did. Nevertheless they remained and discharged their duties I think in the main satisfactorily, so far as I know. Certainly me difficult position in one of the countries could be met only by one with a considerable and extended experience there. In Paris I think the situation never was very onerous as far as hard work was concerned. We negotiated a trade treaty, which was largely the work of the commercial side of the legation as well as of the minister of France to Canada and our own people here. But the idea of permanency, the idea of promotion, the idea that men who enter the service in a junior capacity may one day find themselves occupying positions of great authority and importance, I think should be encouraged by every means possible.
I say that veiy frankly; I say it having endeavoured to practise it. I know how earnestly some of these younger men have striven

to do their work, looking and hoping for promotion. In the very nature of things promotion is naturally slow, because we have a very small service, but I could name-I shall not do it this afternoon-numbers of men who are now ministers of Great Britain, some of whom are ambassadors, who started in a very small way. It has not been unusual to go outside the service in that country, of course. There was the case, for instance, of Lord Bryce at Washington; the special mission of Lord Reading for a very few months and the case of Sir Auckland Geddes. These were exceptions that were made because of very exceptional circumstances, and I believe the service itself did not raise any objections. But the general theory of the British diplomatic service is that the man who enters as a junior may look forward to finding himself in the position of minister or ambassador; or sometimes, and not infrequently, they are called to the foreign office itself, where they undertake great responsibilities. My attention was directed, for instance, to the fact that the present minister from Great Britain to Japan went directly from the foreign office, while the minister he succeeded at Tokyo was transferred to Belgium because he had had exceptional opportunities to acquire knowledge of conditions in that part of the world when he was not an ambassador or minister. I think there is no branch of the public service in which there should be greater endeavour, and particularly as it is a new branch, at least to leave the idea in the minds of those entering the service as a career, that there is an opportunity of promotion which may lead them to occupy positions of importance. It should be understood that those positions are not reserved for those who have rendered services, politically or otherwise, but that they would be the meritorious right of those who have really rendered service in the department. Such promotion I believe wiill ensure a better service, and certainly a more contented one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With most,
in fact practically all of what my right hon. friend has said I entirely agree. But when he speaks of Mr. Roy's services as having been of a partisan nature I am afraid we must part company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say, at the start.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend may have forgotten the fact that Mr. Roy was appointed at the beginning of 1909, and that Sir Robert Borden took office in 1911. Mr. Roy's services had already apparently been of such a character that Sir Robert felt it was desirable to continue him in a

Supply-External Affairs
position which, as the leader of the opposition has said, corresponded with that of high commissioner in London. Mr. Roy was continued through the period of the great war, and after so long as Sir Robert continued in office. When Mr. Meighen succeeded Sir Robert as Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, he, too, retained Mr. Roy in that position.
My recollection is that after the Conservative government was formed in 1911, the late Sir George Foster went to France on an important mission. Sir George had been strongly prejudiced against Mr. Roy, possibly because he believed there must necessarily be partisanship inasmuch as Mr. Roy was an appointee of a Liberal government, but Sir George came back from Paris feeling very strongly the other way. He had found Mr. Roy's services invaluable, and also that Mr. Roy himself held the confidence of the French ministers to a remarkable degree. I believe at that time it was in large part Sir George's influence which was responsible for Mr. Roy's continuance in office. Sir George was there, and saw and appreciated the nature of the work accomplished. When the Liberal administration took office Mr. Roy was continued, and my right hon. friend retained his services when he took office. I believe Mr. Roy has endeavoured to serve all governments conscientiously and faithfully. There may be some evidences of partisanship which may be in the mind of my right hon. friend, with which I am not familiar.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest the long record of a service of twenty-seven years under different governments and through most critical times distinguishes Mr. Roy as a faithful public servant, and one whose exceptional as well as long services to the state are deserving of every recognition.
In regard to the desirability of having a diplomatic service so constituted that men entering the service may look forward to a permanent career therein and to recognition by way of promotion for merit, I am in entire agreement with my right hon. friend. As he has pointed out, however, the service up to the present time is small, and the responsibilities of a minister are great. A -minister in Europe to-day is in about as important a relation to his country as a man can possibly be. While it is certainly desirable to find among -the younger members of the service those who merit promotion to higher positions, I submit that with world conditions what they are to-day a great responsibility
rests upon a government with respect to the character, capacity, experience and particularly the sound judgment of the men to be appointed to the post of minister abroad.
Mention has been made of the name of Mr. Justice Turgeon. I think it is only natural that he should have been thought of. Certainly were he appointed to a position of the kind it would not be as a reward for political service in any way, but because of qualities of exceptional judgment and ability, which are recognized I believe on all sides of the house. As hon. members know, however, it is not possible, until provision has been made for the office, and until the name of whoever is suggested has been approved by the government of the country to which he is to be sent, to say anything about the person likely to receive appointment. All I can say is that in any appointment to be made the government will endeavour to make a selection which will commend itself to the country, irrespective of the political affiliation indicated.


Mr. THOMPSON:: What was Mr. Roy's annual salary while he was minister to France?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: And living and automobile allowances.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Then I must register a protest against payment of the amount indicated in the vote. I protest against the payment of these moneys to a man who has been drawing during that time $12,000 a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just in the years he was minister.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Drawing $12,000 a year during the years he was minister he should have saved enough to look after himself for the rest of his life. I farmed during my lifetime; I worked hard and saved. Had I not saved something for my old age I would have to go to the poor house. That is all there would be ahead of me. I am decidedly opposed to pensions being paid by the government to people who have not contributed towards them. This pension is to be paid by the already over-burdened taxpayers of Canada, It appears that $5,000 per year is to be given to a man who since 1909-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should have said 1911.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: -a man who since 1911 has been drawing $12,000 a year and allowances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has not been drawing $12,000 since 1911; he drew that amount in the last ten years.
Supply-External Affairs


Thomas Alfred Thompson: And that makes $120,000. What were his allowances?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand they were $13,000 a year.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: His allowance amounted to $13,000 a year and his salary to $12,000. If you go out into the country and tell the people that a man who has been drawing $12,000 salary and $13,000 allowances for the past ten years is to be given $5,000 a year for the rest of his life you know what will be said about it. I would ask that the item be struck out altogether.


Mr. DUPUIS:: What are his annual expenditures due to his functions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe if I were to go into detail it would be found that his expenditures took up most of, if not in some years more than his salary and allowances.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since I have tried to get some answer to the question as to how the sum was arrived at, perhaps I might be permitted more or less to endorse the view just expressed. I have nothing whatever to say personally against Mr. Roy or his service to the country; I want that clearly understood. Further than that I know there are many people in one way or another connected with the government service whose salaries seem very high in comparison with those of ordinary Canadians. I recognize that. At the same time I do not see any way of bringing the matter to the attention of the house other than by taking it up on a particular instance of this kind. That is the reason I speak at this time. If any one else were involved I would proceed in the same manner.
When I think of the niggardly allowances we give to people on old age pensions, when I think of $20 a month in some provinces being cut down to $15, and when I consider the large numbers of people who to-day are striving desperately to maintain themselves and to educate their children on very small means, I feel the country is not in a position to give large salaries, large allowances or large annuities to any one group, even though that group may be associated with the government. After all, those of us who as members of the House of Commons, or of the civil service, or who serve the country in some other capacity, are drawing public funds must remember that those sums are paid by the ordinary people. The people on the public payrolls are not in a higher position than the citizens at large. Since the great majority of our citizens are not receiving anything like 
these salaries, I think it is high time that there should be a revision in the whole scale of payment to those who receive their living from government sources.
For example while the internal arrangements of the old post office near this building may have been far from modern, I never go out and see the efforts being made to tear down its walls without feeling that it is wrong that we should act in that way when all over the country there are hundreds of thousands of people with hardly a roof over their heads. We have hesitated to go into a housing scheme yet we do not need to go any further than to lower town in Ottawa to see the wretched housing conditions that exist. I am not oblivious to the need for beautifying the capital. I recognize it should be a beautiful place; these institutions belong to all the people, but we must not forget that in our ordinary affairs we try to place necessities before luxuries. This government ought to be made to understand that the vast majority of the people of Canada are to-day in necessitous circumstances. Hardly a day goes by that I have, not only correspondence but interviews with people who come to me to explain the difficult-yes, almost desperate- situation in which they find themselves. I am frankly taking advantage of this opportunity to bring this aspect of the case before the government. We must take advantage of opportunities like this to drive home a position that is held, not only by some of us as individuals but I am sure by the whole of the people whom we are sent here to represent.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Would the Prime Minister explain Canada's position in relation to Mexico, in view of the withdrawal of the British ambassador from that country? In what manner are our interests being represented at the present time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have a trade commissioner in Mexico who looks after our interests so far as trade is concerned. I doubt if we have sufficient political interests to require special representation in that country at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking for myself and for many others I say frankly that the appointment of Mr. Justice Turgeon to Paris would be looked upon as -an affront to the Canadian people. Since November, 1935, Mr. Justice Turgeon has not sat on the bench, but he has drawn his salary as a justice together with other moneys as well. If he were to be appointed now to represent us in Paris it would have a most serious and detrimental

Supply-External Affairs
effect upon our institutions and the respect that the people of Canada have for the judiciary of Canada. I want to make that very clear.


Howard Charles Green: What arrangements are made to look after the interests of Canadians abroad, such as in the recent troubles in Shanghai? Refugees have arrived on the Pacific coast from that troubled area and many have complained bitterly of the lack of help and protection given to them by any Canadian officials in Shanghai. If they wanted any help they had to go to the British. Such a situation does not seem right and I should like to know what arrangements are made to look after Canadians who are in distress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement just made by my hon. friend would imply that Canada should have either a legation or a consular service in every country of the world. If we are to look after our Canadian citizens everywhere, as the great powers seek to do, that would be the proper course to follow. I believe the time will come when Canada will have ministers and consuls general in all parts of the world, but I question very much if the Canadian people would approve of the government taking so far-reaching a step at the present time. So far as Shanghai is concerned, we have no minister, nor have we a consular service in China. We have a fund which is used to help in the repatriation of Canadian citizens in different parts of the world where situations arise such as the serious bombardment which took place in Shanghai. We sought to get as full information as possible about Canadian citizens in China and in that port in particular. We gathered such information as we could from bodies and corporations in this country that had representatives in China. We also communicated with the British authorities who were entirely ready to render any assistance that they could to any British subject in China, whether he came from Australia, South Africa or any other part of the empire. Our own citizens who were there in a business capacity rendered what help they could, but no assistance was received from any Canadian minister or any consul general because there was not one there.


Howard Charles Green: Did the Canadian government take any steps to help Canadians get away from Shanghai?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Had we received any communication indicating the necessity for so doing, we would have endeavoured to make some response, but we were not requested to take any steps to that end.


Howard Charles Green: If a Canadian became destitute because of the trouble occurring there, would this government help him to evacuate his family? Is there a fund for that purpose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
limited fund that is available for repatriating Canadian citizens who are in distress. Each case has to be more or less carefully examined and the help given would depend upon the circumstances. I would not like to make the general statement that everyone would be assisted; it would depend entirely upon the circumstances.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I would appreciate a
statement from the Prime Minister as to our relationships with those great powers whose policies may not always be in accord with those of the United Kingdom. In many countries our interests are handled by the British ambassador and there is some concern that should occasion arise to withdraw the British ambassador, it might be considered that Canada was automatically a belligerent nation. Has the government considered the desirability of extending our consular service to certain great European and Asiatic countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question of having a consular service of our own has been under consideration. We have our trade commissioners who perform in considerable degree the duties that consuls general perform. So far as Europe is concerned I question very much whether this would be the best moment in which to institute a consular service. There are times and seasons for all things. I agree with my hon. friend that it is desirable that we should have our own consular service. I have no doubt that we shall soon begin in a small way, as we have with our legations, to have consular representation in different countries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant for expenses of Canadian committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in connection with summer meeting to be held in Ottawa in 1938, $3,500.
Mr. McCANN:: I notice this is a grant for $3,500. Last year when a purely Canadian institute, the Canadian Medical Association, was meeting in the city of Ottawa, the grant was but $1,000, although it is an organization of ten thousand members. I should like to know upon what basis these grants are made from time to time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This gathering will be international in its character. Where similar gatherings have been held in the
Supply-External Affairs

United States generous provision has been made for the work of such associations. This grant is based on seeking to do what we regard as right and proper in the circumstances of an international gathering of one of the most important scientific bodies on the continent at a time of its meeting in the capital of Canada. So far as the medical association is concerned, I think my hon. friend said it was a Canadian association being entirely composed of our own citizens. In this case the grant is in part the exchange of an international courtesy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's contributions to maintenance of external organizations-To the expenses of the League of Nations for 1938, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $150,565.
Thomas Alfred Thompson: What amount of last
year's grant of $155,000 was expended for this purpose?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The whole amount.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, there is a matter I should like to bring up which does not come strictly under this item, but I do not know that there is any other under which I can raise it. I asked the Prime Minister the other day with regard to the prospective sale of Anticosti island, and- he informed me that the matter was being watched by the government and that he thought the interests of Canada were being safeguarded. Perhaps we might have a little fuller information. It is certainly a matter pertaining to external affairs. From my standpoint, whether or not Anticosti island is going to a German company under whose ownership it might possibly be used for some purpose not for the welfare of Canada, it is highly undesirable in any event that a large piece of territory in Canada should pass into the hands of foreign interests, any foreign interests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggested the other day that there were possibly dangers because of the strategic position the island occupies.
I do not know whether it might be made the base of operations or whether certain preparations might be made there that would render the island valuable in time of trouble; but if the right hon. leader of the opposition was right when he said a day or so ago that during the great war mines were laid off our own coast, I think it would be highly undesirable

that any foreign government should have a base somewhere near our coast. I do not think the members of this house will accuse me of being in any sense an alarmist; but war is war, and here is an island situated right within our doors and right beside the great United States republic to the south of us. That is one aspect of the case.
Again, if any foreign interests get hold of the resources of that island, they might desire to export them whether or not it was in the interests of this country, and it might be extremely difficult for us to enforce our own regulations under those circumstances. While primarily this is a matter that concerns the province of Quebec, there is a larger question involved. If there is any danger of the island passing into foreign hands, the dominion government should take it over as public property. I do not know if it can be turned into a park; but let it be turned into any sort of asset you please rather than have it pass into foreign hands. The island is too important to pass into foreign hands and under foreign management. Would the Prime Minister inform us a little more definitely on this matter than he did a few days ago in answer to the question I ,put on the orders of the day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: ' May I say to my hon. friend that I think the question he has raised is quite a proper one to raise at this time. As I informed him, the government has been watching the situation as far as Anticosti island is concerned from the time there were rumours that certain foreign interests might seek to acquire the island. Not only has the federal government been watching the situation carefully but also the government of the province of Quebec, of which province Anticosti island is a part. Our two governments have been in correspondence with each other, and I think I may say that we are now of the opinion that because of misunderstandings to which it might give rise it would not be in the interests of Canada to have Anticosti island at this time pass into the hands of a foreign corporation. I think my hon. friend and the house may be assured that such will not be permitted to take place.
I should however like my hon. friend to consider for a moment to what his suggestion might lead if the government were to begin buying up and expropriating properties that corporations were seeking to dispose of to foreigners. Instead of having a possible base established at Anticosti we would be having

Supply-External Affairs
possible bases established at many points throughout the country. I remember hearing many years ago that the emperor of Korea who had a great dislike for tall buildings, began to buy up all buildings over a certain height. Some of the servants in one of the legations got on to this and combined to build a tall building near the Emperor's palace with the result that the emperor was put to all kinds of trouble as well as expense in acquiring the property. I do not put that forward as a serious example but just to illustrate, certain traits of human nature being much the same in all lands, what might take place in Canada if the government were to expropriate properties because it was thought foreigners were seeking to take possession of them. For many reasons we have to view with great care the acquisition in a large way by the state of great properties in different parts of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the Prime Minister said that he did not put forward that illustration of tall buildings as a very serious argument.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Only as illustrating human nature.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may have been human nature; but there are ways of overcoming the vagaries of human nature, and the government should see that this is done. This is what was reported at the last annual meeting of the Consolidated Paper Corporation. The president, Mr. L. J. Belnap, referred to the prospective sale of Anticosti island to parties in Holland who several months ago had secured an option.


Vincent Dupuis: What was the date?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was at the last annual meeting of the corporation, and it was reported in the Montreal Star, but I have not the exact date of the meeting. That is something pretty definite. I think we must recognize that there is not a very large number of Anticosti islands or anything of corresponding size that would be likely to be bought up by foreign interests, with the view of forcing the government into the awkward position of having to buy them. Anticosti island is in a unique position.
Further than that, the Prime Minister said just now that he has been in negotiation in regard to this matter with the premier of Quebec. 1 think we have a right to know what that negotiation involves. Is the Prime Minister prepared to state definitely that this sale will not be allowed to go on?


Vincent Dupuis: He just said so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; he did not
just say so. There is another matter involved. The Belnap paper corporation suggests that to the foreign company there should be added some Canadian directors. In that way, I fancy, it would be quite possible to camouflage the whole situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like the Prime Minister to tell us definitely as a matter of governmental policy whether this government will allow Anticosti island to be sold to any foreign corporation. I want to get an assurance on that. I do not think that is unreasonable. Otherwise the matter is just going to drift and drift, and then possibly some very interested party will bring very great pressure to bear on Quebec, and Quebec, thinking in provincial terms, might very readily allow the transaction to go through. I introduced the matter first on the orders of the day, because I felt that this was not solely a provincial matter, but rather a matter of dominion importance. I think we are entitled to receive an assurance from the Prime Minister.


Vincent Dupuis: Did the hon. member ever protest when the same island was for many years the property of a Frenchman, Monsieur Menier.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No,


Vincent Dupuis: Was not the hon. member then a member of this house?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was not a member for most of the time that Monsieur Menier held the island, and I think the Prime Minister, at least, will agree that the situation to-day is very different from what it was when this property was owned by a Frenchman. It is now owned by a Canadian corporation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In common, I suppose,
with other members of the committee I have received many communications regarding Anticosti island. I treated them at first as being the rather extreme views of people who might be regarded as extreme in their attitude of mind towards the transaction, and I awaited further information. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am going to give you and this committee the benefit of the information I have. While possibly some of it may be inaccurate, in the main I think it can be relied upon.
First, there is outstanding an option for the sale of that island. Second, that option was given nominally to a Hollander. Third, a committee of foreigners came to this country
Supply-External Affairs

to inspect that island. Fourth, the investigations made it quite clear that they were men of very great eminence in Germany. When I say " eminence " I mean eminent as militarists, as naval experts rather than as foresters, only one of them, I believe, could be described as a man who had any really high reputation in connection with forestry. The number of these men was very considerable. It was announced in a Montreal daily newspaper that they had arrived. The work they did is well known. The declaration made by the president of the Consolidated Paper company the other day as to the outstanding option removed any doubt, of course, which there might be in the mind of any person as to the possibility of the acquisition of this island by foreigners. I have never thought it was a very serious matter under normal conditions that a piece of territory in a province might be sold to people who were not British subjects. I learned, however, that there might be great importance attached to it. I suppose it is known to very few members of the committee that under the constitution of the state of Washington no foreigner can under any circumstances own a single piece of land in that state.


Vincent Dupuis: Even companies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Vincent Dupuis: In the United States?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither directly nor
indirectly, in the state of Washington.


Mr. POWER:: California has a somewhat similar law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Theirs is somewhat
modified.


Charles Gavan Power: I think it applies to Japanese only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although I learned this professionally, I suppose there is no reason why I should not mention it. I was representing certain interests who wanted to acquire property in Washington. They were Canadians, and in consultation with the authorities I learned that the supreme court of Washington had decided that there was no means in the world by which a foreigner, a company or corporation or partnership or anything else, could acquire title to a piece of land in that state. In days gone by I did not attach much importance to this question of ownership, especially in view of the fact that companies are mainly the owners.
But now let us go a step further. Had this investigation been limited to the question of the number of cords of wood upon the island, the matter would have been

simple. Unfortunately that is not solely what the investigations were about, and if there is any interest on the part of this committee as to the names of the investigators I can give them. I can also give the committee some information as to their reputations in Germany, their high reputations for skill, but not as foresters or as woodsmen. They have very close and intimate associations with the government of Germany. When my correspondents-more than one-saw what took place the other day at the annual meeting, they said, "Now you see how wrong you were. You see how much importance really does attach to this." Now it is proposed to do what was done by aliens in another province. In British Columbia certain aliens acquired interests in a timber limit and in something else which we shall leave out for the moment. They organized a company; of course it was a Canadian company and they had Canadians to act for them. I wonder how many of us have forgotten what happened at the outbreak of the war. I wonder if all of us have forgotten that distinguished German who cut so wide a swath in Vancouver. I wonder if we realize just what we discovered after it was all over.
It is proposed that a company shall be organized, a Canadian company. Well, in this material age Canadians with an assurance of good faith lend themselves to these matters and then endorse the certificate in blank, and that is the end of it; the active management passes into the hands of people who are selected by somebody else, and the purposes are not made apparent.
I suggest to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister of this country that the Expropriation Act, chapter 64 of the revised statutes of Canada, should be utilized. In section 2, paragraph (g), a "public work" is defined as meaning "fortifications and other works of defence, and all other property, which now belong to Canada," etc. There is granted the power of expropriation, fortunately, which enables this government to file in the appropriate registry office a plan-that is all that is necessary-over the signature of the Minister of National Defence, and the property is ours; it is then in the crown in the right of the nation. It does not make any difference whether or not it is crown land in right of the province; it is ours, because the nation requires it for its national well-being. The statute also provides something which I regard as of very great importance. It is not essential that you acquire the whole of the property; only such interest in it need be acquired as may be necessary for the purposes for which it is being acquired.

Supply-External Affairs
I therefore suggest to the Prime Minister the desirability of consulting with his officials in the Department of Justice and the Department of National Defence, and filing a plan to-morrow to acquire, not the timber, not the trees, not the forests, but the soil, the land of Anticosti island, making it clear that we do not want the trees. If they desire to carry on their operations they will still be able to do so, but we shall own the land itself in right of the crown. Then the question of taking possession comes up. We have the right to take possession at once when we deposit a plan. We deposit a plan indicating as nearly as we can the land which we are taking possession of-very simple in this case, for it is the land of Anticosti island. Subsection 2 of section 9 provides:
When any land taken is required for a limited time only, or only a limited estate or interest therein is required, the plan and description so deposited may indicate, by appropriate words written or printed thereon that the land is taken for such limited time only, or that only such limited estate or interest therein is taken, and by the deposit in such case, the right of possession for such limited time, or such limited estate or interest shall become and be vested in his majesty.
I repeat that we would get out of a very difficult position by merely expropriating the soil, leaving the trees, making it clear that we are not taking the forests, and that those who are acquiring them, if they desire to do so for the purpose of operating the mills, cutting down pulpwood and doing matters of that kind, may be able to do so. Have it written on the plan that the widest possible facilities will be afforded by the crown to those who may desire to carry on lumbering operations.


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that we have some title to the sites of the lighthouses, so that the federal government has at least a foothold. Besides that, the federal government at one time, over my very serious protest, subscribed something like three or four hundred thousand dollars to the harbour of Anticosti, so that we have some claim on the wharves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I looked into the wharf situation, and I am bound to say that on a moment's reflection I should have remembered the lighthouses because I have passed by when the lights were shining and I realized that they were under federal power. I should have remembered that, and I thank the hon. gentleman for directing my attention to it. I do remember the harbour; it was assistance given to the enterprise that was undertaking to remove pulpwood from Anticosti, which
they said they could not ship because of lack of facilities for doing so. It was essential that they should have a harbour to enable barges to be laden with the wood and towed down to one of the pulp and paper mills. I do not think it can be said that the Anticosti venture has been a great success. I put it as mildly as that and say nothing further about it. But here is an opportunity for us to acquire what I describe as the title to the surface. On the plan we can make it clear that we do not want anything in the way of buildings that are owned by others, or trees, forests or anything else, but that the crown for national reasons proposes to acquire property in the soil. It can be made plain that any use that may be desired for purposes of development will always be facilitated, that any facilities required will be available, and that they will be free to put up a mill or do work of that sort. That has been done in this country.
I suppose it does no harm for one to refer to the fact that when we went to Churchill and chose that as our site we filed a plan. Although there had been a great deal of what might be called speculative buying and selling of that townsite, nevertheless people were awarded S60 a lot by the exchequer court. That is my memory of it. At any rate, it was a very small sum. There may be some members in this house who recall the exact amount. It will be remembered also that when we had to do with the improvements in Montreal, without waiting even for all the details, a plan was filed in the name of the Minister of Railways and all that land was vested in the crown. The present Minister of Finance was then Minister of Railways. The hon. gentleman is now coming into the chamber, and I may tell him I am referring to the plan filed by the Minister of Railways at that time for the acquisition of lands in Montreal in connection with the proposed construction of the terminals there. I was also discussing what was done in connection with the filing of a plan for taking over the townsite at Churchill under the Expropriation Act. A question was raised in the court as to the validity of these actions and the court sustained the action taken by the government, holding that under this very statute it was a valid exercise of power in connection with the Churchill matter.
I suggest that the cost would be insignificant, trifling-why? Because we do not suggest for a moment that we are going to take that to which value has been attached. If all these stories are true, these people are not
Supply-External Affairs

going in there for anything other than the development of the forest resources of the island; and in the plan that we would file we would make it clear that we did not intend to touch or to interfere with development of anything connected with those resources, and that the surface, to the extent that it might be required to enable them to develop the forest resources, would still be available for them, but that we would be proprietors of the land. There is a special provision with respect to crown lands owned by the province. I make this suggestion to the Prime Minister with much hesitancy. Frankly, I found it a little difficult to bring my mind to the thought that this was worthy of serious consideration, but I am satisfied that it is a serious matter. All you have to do is look at the personnel, if you like, of the whole situation. One does not want to talk about relationship and ties of marriage and matters of that sort, questions of the nationalities of various people. We do not want to discuss that, but if you look into these things you will find that there is ample food for careful thought.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred to the possible seriousness of the situation. May I say that the government has been fully alive to that aspect of it from the beginning. We have been watching the situation very carefully, and, as I have indicated, have been in communication with the government of the province of Quebec in relation to it. I am glad to be able to say that the government of the province of Quebec and this government are of one view with respect to the importance of that island being kept securely for Canadian interests, and that no foreign interest should be permitted to get any control of it in a manner that could possibly prejudice the position either of the province of Quebec or of all Canada. My right hon. friend has referred to the Departments of Justice and National Defence as departments likely to be principally concerned. I may say that for some time past both departments have been at work on the obtaining of detailed information, and have been carefully considering what steps might be advisable and necessary. I do not think I should say more than that the government itself is considering what is the best step to take and the time to take it in the light of all circumstances. We are not overlooking any circumstances of importance, but in dealing with property in any province care has to be taken to consider the

interests of that province and how the province concerned is likely to view any action on the part of the dominion government. If it is found necessary to take action on this matter of the character indicated I hope whatever is done will be done with the full accord of both governments. Certainly that accord exists at the present time with respect to the steps that thus far have seemed essential to protect all interests.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Item No. 45, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick George Sanderson: The leader of the opposition stated he had not finished at six o'clock.
Canada's contributions to maintenance of external organizations-To the expenses of the league of nations for 1938, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $150,565.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When Mr. Chairman called it six o'clock I had not concluded what I was saying. The right hon. the Prime Minister spoke after the chairman had said it was six o'clock. I wish to make only a few further observations in connection with this matter. Hitler's personal representative, or a gentleman who at any rate alleges he is such, was in this country on Saturday last, and was in Ottawa on Sunday. He stated he had been down to Quebec to see the premier there. Whether or not that is correct, I cannot say. I only know what he said and that Sunday he was here. The highly intelligent gentlemen of the press seem to have overlooked the fact. Whether it was in relation to Anticosti island or not, I have no means of knowing. But at any rate he managed to escape publicity here.
I have pointed out the method by which the crown can relieve us of any possible anxiety or worry with respect to this matter, and without incurring any very substantial financial obligations. I say that because the statute is framed for the purpose of enabling the crown to acquire a very limited interest or such interest as may be desirable for the purpose of protecting itself from any improper claims. It is needless to say that the island of Anticosti lies in the gulf of St. Lawrence, and not only commands the north and south shores of the river and the gulf, but commands the trade and commerce of the whole of that watershed which is drained by the great lakes

Supply-External Affairs
and the St. Lawrence. From a strategical standpoint it is of very great importance. I know not of its value from the standpoint of its possibility of production of pulpwood, but I knew something of the circumstances under which it was acquired, and of the surveys which were made at that time. It is very difficult to understand just why soundings, for instance, are so essential now for the purpose of ascertaining the value of an island for timber purposes.


Mr. DUNNING:: There is a very important reason there, in that case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I am talking about recent times. I agree that a very substantial investigation did take place, and rightly or wrongly we were induced, in view of representations made as to the situation of the paper industry, to provide money for the construction of wharves at Anticosti island, to which the Minister of National Health referred this afternoon. But more recent explorations in that direction are perhaps a little more difficult to understand.
One word more, and that has to do with our situation with relation to our friends to the south. The importance of the island from the standpoint of an airport or the standpoint of a possible base for many operations must be apparent, and affects as well our relations with the outside world as our relations with our friends and neighbours to the south. It would be an unpleasant situation if it were to develop that we had not protected ourselves to the fullest possible degree. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say-what I would expect he would say, of course-that he is fully aware of the possibilities latent in the situation.
I am sure anyone charged with the responsibilities of government would realize these possibilities. The steps which might be taken for the purpose of protecting ourselves is another matter altogether. I think the provisions of the statute might easily be utilized so as to protect us, and at the same time not involve any heavy liabilities.
I have not forgotten the tendencies of our friends from Germany. Those who have read the memoranda left by the last German ambassador to Great Britain before the war, Prince Lichnowsky, will realize to what extent he, himself, was the victim of deception in connection with the operations of his own country. I think it is only fair to say that one country house, which was frequently visited at weekends by German representatives, was found to be a vantage point for observations from the roof. The type of men who 51952-207
came here to make investigations which were not made in a corner-in that sense they were done openly-certainly were not Hollanders nor were they Dutch. They were not men who were concerned solely with the manufacture of pulp, as I mentioned this afternoon.
We should not hesitate to take steps which would render it impossible for us to have any further anxiety with respect to the matter. The statute I think provides a remedy, without involving us in any great liability. It is always difficult to know how far one should go in discussing a matter of this kind. There is a public duty with respect to the community at large on the part of those who constitute an opposition, and there is a public duty as well not to arouse unnecessarily public anxiety or even public resentment. But on the other hand I had occasion the other day to refer to what had come to my own observation, and not in this part of Canada, I am perfectly frank in saying. Since then I doubt not that many members of this committee have read in cne of the great United States newspapers of the anxiety that is felt there with respect to somewhat similar matters. The far-reaching consequences of the doctrine that has been enunciated by the German Fuehrer in connection with minorities, and the duty to the parent state of all who owe, or whose ancestors owed allegiance to that community, are such as to make one apprehensive under the conditions to which attention has been directed here.
If I have refrained from making statements that I think possibly at the moment might not assist the government in the discharge of its public duty, I do so because, the Prime Minister having stated that the government is fully aware of the circumstances to which attention has been directed, and that it is taking every reasonable step to deal with that situation, I should do nothing which will embarrass the government in that work, except to point out certain difficulties which I think are inherent in the situation itself, and particularly that difficulty which arises out of the organization of a Canadian company with dummy directors, alleging that there is no danger or fear because the Canadian directors or those in charge may have pieces of paper issued to them which they have endorsed in blank and which mean nothing in the world. The whole situation so bristles with difficulties that it does seem to me an easy way out would be to take the appropriate proceedings and expropriate that island; not the property as a whole, but the soil without the forest or the mills or the wharves;

Supply-External Affairs

just what might be necessary to constitute proprietorship in the crown in the right of the dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To portion of expenditure of the imperial economic committee and the imperial shipping committee for 1938, $18,690.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the work of these two committees?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, these are committees that are set up in London, the memberships being made up of representatives of the different parts of the empire. The one committee deals with economic questions, the other with questions pertaining to shipping that affect several parts of the empire. The Canadian representatives on the imperial economic committee are Colonel Vanier and Mr. M. F. Hudd. The work of the committee is mainly the collection and presentation of economic information relating to different commodities or groups of commodities, the general purpose being to throw light on the competition which empire countries are likely to meet. This is done through reports to governments on subjects within the terms of the committee's reference, such as the issue of economic information on the production, trade and consumption of particular commodities. The commercial intelligence service of the committee covers canned and dried fish notes, dairy products' notes and the publication of world surveys of production, trade and consumption of selected commodities, for example, cattle and beef, mutton and Iamb and so on. World surveys on apple, pear and fig production are under preparation. Inquiries made at the time of the last imperial conference indicated that the different governments were making an extensive use of the trade information and statistical services of the imperial economic committee.
The Canadian representative on the imperial shipping committee is the high commissioner for Canada. In his absence, he is represented by Mr. MacLeod of Canada house. It may be noted that among the inquiries of the imperial shipping committee involving questions of interest to Canada are Pacific shipping, marine insurance, Hudson bay and St. Lawrence river routes and communication with the British isles.


Howard Charles Green: What is the situation in connection with the purchase of new boats for the Canada-Australia-New Zealand service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That particular matter would come under the Department of

Trade and Commerce. It was a subject of consideration some time ago by the imperial shipping committee. The Minister of Trade and Commerce would be the one to report on the progress of negotiations. I may say to my hon. friend that the matter is subject to negotiations at the present time which have not been completed.


Howard Charles Green: Did this imperial shipping committee report in favour of new boats being required for this service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The imperial shipping committee is a fact-finding body. It does not report for or against a project; it rather seeks to present an analysis of the situation with a view to enabling the governments concerned to work out the more intelligently and effectively a solution of the problem among themselves.


Charles Grant MacNeil: If I might revert to the
the previous item, could the Prime Minister advise if Canada has been consulted in connection with the recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia? Has any particular attitude been expressed in that regard?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The governments of the different parts of the empire, including the government of the United Kingdom, are free to take their own course in the matter. The United Kingdom government has adopted its own course. Up to the present we have not had occasion to express any view.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International joint commission, 1-2 Geo. V, chapter 28, $75,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item deals with the expenses of the international joint commission. It is a statutory item and does not require a specific appropriation, but it affords me an opportunity to direct the attention of the government to a matter that I regard as rather serious, especially in view of the decision of the privy council in connection with our right as a parliament in any sense to abridge or lessen the powers of the provinces. Section 2 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1911 reads:
The laws of Canada and of the several provinces thereof are hereby amended and altered so as to permit, authorize and sanction the performance of the obligations undertaken by His Majesty in and under the said treaty; and so as to sanction, confer and impose the various rights, duties and disabilities intended by the said treaty to be conferred or imposed or to exist within Canada.
This is a direct and clear-cut statement on the part of this parliament that any laws in

Supply-External Affairs
any province of Canada should be set aside by that treaty. There it is. If the decision to which I have referred is sound, then this statute is useless and our international joint commission has no foundation. In the very nature of things it does deal with matters that are within provincial jurisdiction. As long as it deals with matters within the federal jurisdiction I cannot conceive of any difficulty arising, but the language of that section and the judgment of Lord Atkin are in complete contradiction with one another. Speaking for the privy council he has said that we have no power to abridge, lessen or alter the constitutional rights of the provinces by any treaty that we might make. True, this treaty was made by Great Britain, not by Canada. Lord Bryce signed on behalf of Great Britain and Mr. Root, on behalf of the United States, but that fact does not get us away from the provisions of section 132 of the British North America Act. This is not a matter of a treaty within the empire; it is a treaty that has to do with the United States. On May 19, 1911, we passed a statute that declared:
The laws of Canada and of the several provinces thereof are hereby amended and altered so as to permit, authorize and sanction the performance of the obligations undertaken by His Majesty in and under the said treaty;
This is so clear that I felt at the first opportunity which offered, namely, when the estimates were under consideration, I should direct attention to it. I should like the law officers of the crown to satisfy themselves as to just what our position may be. Section 132 of the British North America Act reads:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
I take it that it is alleged that under this section of the British North America Act there is power in this parliament to do what is done by chapter 28 of the statutes of 1911. But is that a sound contention? But it does create such a condition, in my opinion, having regard to the language of that judgment, if we give attention to its exact terms, that I venture to believe should receive the consideration of the government. The matter was discussed in this house in 1928 to considerable extent. I took the view then which Lord Atkin took in the privy council, that it was ultra vires for this parliament by legislation to bring about what amounted to an amendment to the constitution of the provinces. The then Solicitor General took another view, contend-51952-2071
ing that section 132 was broad enough to cover the situation. I subsequently modified my view, having regard to the judgment of Lord Chancellor Sankey-
Mr. DUNNING; And you have to change it again.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, and that is the reason I venture-not expecting the Prime Minister to give an answer-merely to direct attention to the matter in order that it may be looked into by the law officers of the crown, and appropriate action taken. I do not express any opinion as to what, if anything, is essential should be done, but I point out that grave doubts are thrown on the validity of the statute itself, having regard to the terms in which it expresses the will of this parliament with respect to the provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that my right hon. friend in what he has just said did not intend to open a debate on the treatymaking power. It is a matter for the law officers of the crown; I am sure they will be pleased carefully to consider what my right hon. friend has said.


Thomas Langton Church: What has become of the application during the last few years before the international joint commission for additional power in the Niagara river, with a view also of preserving the scenic beauty of Niagara falls? The treaty was before the house a few years ago but was rejected by the United States for some reason. Has anything been done since?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no application before the international joint commission on the subject to which my hon. friend has referred.


Thomas Langton Church: Regarding the collapse of the bridge at Niagara falls, does the treaty not also give the joint commission jurisdiction as to the kind of bridge that may be erected, and also in regard to obstructions in the river? For example, material escaped and is floating in the Niagara river and away out into lake Ontario as far as Sodus point, and is a menace to navigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The authority is broad enough to permit the commission to make inquiry into any matters of the kind referred to, but the commission would first have to be directed to make such an inquiry, and no such request has been made by either government.


Thomas Langton Church: Has any action been taken by the commission in reference to the lowering of the water levels in the great lakes, brought about by the Chicago diversion? The treaty
Supply-External Affairs

gives the commission absolute jurisdiction. Is the Canadian section, or the government, or the department, negotiating with reference to the matter of illegal diversion of waters, thus lowering lake levels and doing damage to navigation on the great lakes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The commission is not dealing with the subject of the lake levels. The matter was dealt with in the St. Lawrence treaty, and it would be that treaty that would govern.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think what the hon.
member for Broadview was referring to is whether or not any action has been taken or is contemplated by the government of the United States in connection with that agreement which -was arrived at between Canada and the United States in connection with the scenic beauty of Niagara falls. It will be remembered that we ratified the agreement, but it was thrown out by the United States senate. Then it was resubmitted, and I am not familiar with what has happened since. I was rather curious to know whether or not any action has been taken, because pieces of rock have fallen off from the face of the falls since then; there has been a gradual destruction by nature of the face of the fall itself. The Prime Minister will remember that Hon. Charles Stewart was then Minister of the Interior, and he negotiated the agreement. He felt then that it was a matter of considerable urgency, and I rather agreed with him. We endeavoured to get it disposed of, but we had no better success than the right hon. gentleman. I was wondering -whether it has been cleaned up since then or is in process of being disposed of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The United States government has presented to our government the point of view that all these waterways matters should be dealt with more or less as one in connection with a coordinated plant. It would involve consideration of questions of diversion and levels, power, scenic beauty and the like, wherever they arise from the head of the lakes to the St. Lawrence, and along its international course. Thus far it has not been possible to reach agreement between the two countries as to proceeding only in that way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Representation abroad, including ministers plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments-further amount required, $60,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item is to make provision for the legations which it

is intended to open in Belgium and Holland. There will be the one minister but two offices. Details are given on page 28 of the supplementary estimates.
As hon. members are aware, it is over ten years since Canada first established a legation at Washington, and we have since established legations in Paris and Tokyo. It has been felt that we ought to extend our diplomatic service somewhat, and our business interests with Belgium and Holland are greater than those with any other countries in Europe or other parts of the world other than those in which we have legations at the present time. For that among other reasons we felt that the next legations to be opened should be in Belgium and Holland. It is customary in the case of many countries to have one minister represent his own country in two different countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: South Africa does.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The Irish Free State, although it took action subsequently to Canada, has now legations in seven foreign capitals, and South Africa has legations in eight. This will bring our number to five. I might point out that the countries comparable with our own in the matter of population such as Argentina, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden, have from thirty-seven to fifty-two posts abroad.


Mr. BROOKS:: Will the Prime Minister
tell us in which city the legation will have its headquarters; will it be in Holland or in Belgium?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At Brussels
and at the Hague. There will be two offices, but the one minister will be named as minister to both. A charge d'affaires will act for him in the one country during his absence in the other country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is perhaps in connection with this item that I should have made the observations I did in connection with promotions in the service. I can only express the hope that it may be possible to find a place for one of the members of the service as minister at Brussels and the Hague. I believe there are within the service itself a number of men who are qualified by their long experience to fill with distinction such an appointment and thereby indicate, at least, that there is a career in that branch of the public service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should bke
to add, in connection with the legation at Brussels, that it will be recalled that a year or two ago the Belgian government sent a distinguished representative to Canada. Bel-

Supply-External Affairs
gium is at present and has from the outset been represented in this country by Baron Silvercruys.


Thomas Langton Church: With reference to item
No. 505, the supplementary vote to provide for:
Representation abroad, including ministers plenipotentiary-
"Envoy extraordinary" has been left out.
[DOT]-secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments-further amount required, $60,000.
I wish to protest against this form of separatism, of dividing Britain's representation and adding a new legation in Belgium and Holland. It is unnecessary. These services are already covered by the British embassies and our own trade commissioners. It means that we are going to open up a legation in a danger spot of Europe, namely Holland and Belgium, which will be a very sad state of affairs for us. The policy I recommend is that we should close up some of these useless legations instead of opening more. I have protested against this form of separatism at every session I have been here. It was made a plank in the platform of the Twentieth Century Liberals last week; they protested against separatism. What has Canada already in Holland and Belgium? Trade commissioners and all classes of commercial agents of the Department of Trade and Commerce are all over Europe. Yet you are opening up an agency there which divides Britain's representation in two, in places where you have no army, no navy and no league to back up what you are doing there. It will simply mean that Canadian nationals will lose the protection they have, and it will cost this country more than S60.000.
I wish to protest against this kind of thing. It is going to bring Canada into all the affairs of Europe. Next year we shall no doubt be asked to establish a legation at Rome. The Prime Minister went to Berlin, and there was a proposal a few years ago and last year to open an embassy in Berlin representing Canada in Germany. If we are a separate country, let us get out of the British Empire. I referred to this matter this afternoon in my remarks; I referred to it last year in reference to Japan. I predicted that we would have trouble in Japan before the year was out, and three months afterwards trouble and war broke out. We have a legation there which does nothing. Anyone who wants protection goes to Shanghai and other places, to the British embassy for protection. We are opening up a lot of useless agencies and providing them with secretaries, a subordinate staff, and all that kind of thing. What good will all this division of authority be? It will emphasize our separation from Great Britain, which enjoys the prestige of protecting Belgium and has treaties with France and other countries in regard to it. Are we to be drawn into establishing legations in every petty country in Europe, when it should be the policy of Canada to get out of the League of Nations as rapidly as possible and bring home our envoys extraordinary and all the rest of these officials?
Just to illustrate the principle, we have Sir Herbert Marler, who went down to the Mexican border the other day and made a political speech at Houston, Texas. He gave his opinion on current events, trade, diplomacy and many other matters. He told the people there how large our trade is and that if people will turn their attention to trade relations, political questions will take care of themselves-all that kind of thing. These ambassadors of ours are just causing trouble. They are not necessary. They divide Britain's affairs. Not by the widest stretch of the imagination can it be said that Canada, a country of ten million people, needs to appoint ministers in Europe in this way. Has New Zealand or Australia an ambassador in Holland or Belgium? No. I protest against this vote on behalf of the taxpayers, in a year in which it is difficult for business men to pay their taxes. In another of his speeches our minister at Washington, addressing a Canadian Club in New York, makes some political remarks; I see references in them to Mexico, the demands for the return of oil profits, and Mexico's row with the oil moguls.
When this legation of ours is opened overseas, on one side of the street will be the British embassy, and on the other side will be the rival Canadian legation, but we shall have nothing with which to back it up If any Canadian national gets into trouble over there, what are you going to do about it? You know the trouble we got into with Italy, through passing sanctions. It was announced with a great flourish of trumpets that we were going to have an ambassador to Italy, and our delegates to the imperial conference went over Europe in part but they did not get as far as Italy; after the imperial conference was over, our emissaries did not see fit to honour Mussolini with a visit.
What is the idea of all this? Are you going to have these useless legations all over the seven seas? We have a Department of Trade and Commerce, presided over by a minister
Supply-External Affairs

who sends out every month a :booklet showing the work done by our various trade agents in the capitals of Europe. Why is that not sufficient? This is just dividing Britain's representation, a policy so fatal in peace, and more disastrous in war.
Dear knows where the next legation is going to be. All this is nothing but straight separatism. Had I been in the house when the legation was proposed for Washington, I would have opposed it even though I had been the only one in the house to do so. What had our minister there to do with the contest of the congressional party versus the administrative party?
In regard to foreign affairs, we know rhat to-day the British ambassadors to Belgium and Holland are right in the centre of the trouble in Europe; they will be immediately affected if war comes, and war may come at any moment. You have to be ready for it; you have to be ready to meet these dictators. Are we to continue this policy of separatism, dividing Britain's representation all over the world? We have seen the result of it in South Africa. We have seen the result of it in Ireland. Those countries are outside the empire altogether. Ireland proposes to appoint a president; the Irish will not have " God save the King." For our part, we continue this separatist movement and increase these votes every year. I do not know why we belong to the British Empire. The British ambassador to the Hague and Belgium was good enough to look after Canadian interests in the Low Countries for four and a half years, during the war; he also looked after our expeditionary force without any trouble to us.
What do we see happening in this country? Germany had only invaded Austria the day before when, according to the Montreal papers, she hauled down the Austrian flag and put up the German flag over the consulate there. AVe have gone far enough in getting out of the empire. Let us turn attention to our own country and our domestic affairs. With the trouble we are having in Canada at the present time, with the difficulties our people find in making a living, we should close up these embassies-I would shut up every one of them-and return to the old system of depending on the British Empire and the mother country, not only for diplomatic representation but for an army, air force and fleet to protect our shores.
We are going to provide this new legation this first year with a whole lot of secretaries. I do not know how many there will be. They generally have a first secretary and a second secretary and a third secretary, and a fourth

secretary with another degree-that is, he has one more degree than the other gentlemen secretaries from the same or other university- and I suppose they will sit there right in the centre where the trouble is, in Belgium, and study international law. I suppose this policy will extend to Russia, then to Italy; next it will cover the Black sea and we shall find these legations all over the seven seas and the civilized world. But what are they doing? They have large staffs and visitors from all parts of the world, from north and south, from east and west. It seems to me that we are taking on the airs of a nation, while we are doing nothing but sponging on the mother country for protection. We may open up all the agencies we like, but the fact remains Lhat we are not a nation. See what happened in our dealings with Italy. We got into trouble there with passing sanctions, and we had to cancel the sanctions as soon as or shortly after they were passed. We have a minister to Japan. What is he doing there?
These legations were started when the first one was established in Washington; then the policy was extended to France; then someone said that we ought to cross the Pacific, and there was a proposal that we should also have legations in Japan and China. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is altogether too much interference and too much of an attempt to divide Britain's authority. This is not only fatal in times of peace, but will be absolutely destructive in war. It is having a disruptive effect in Europe at the present time. What both Canada and Britain need to-day is a foreign minister like that great man of a hundred years ago, George Canning, to keep the empire out of trouble and out of Europe.
The United States since George Washington's day will not interfere in European affairs, and it seems to me absurd for us to be establishing a legation in Belgium and Holland at the present time. Belgium is under the protection of two great powers, which have armies and fleets. She is in the danger zone, and what are we doing? We are going over there over the head of the British parliament and are appointing a minister to Belgium. In other words, we are saying that we are not satisfied with the British ambassador. We are satisfied enough while a war is on to have the British ambassador act for us, but now we want our own ambassador. I have no doubt that the next thing will be the establishment of something like Canada house, costing two and a half millions, and they will probably have a Canadian flag flying over the legation, while inside the doors you will find brass railings and fittings and

Supply-External Affairs
a host of secretaries. The first secretary will report to the second secretary; the second secretary will report to the third secretary; the third secretary will report to the fourth secretary, and finally that dignitary will report to the minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary-and I admit that some of them are extraordinary. Here is a sample of some of the extraordinary things they do, these articles with reference to Sir Herbert Marler. That gentleman at one time represented the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George in this house, and then he was made a diplomat overnight. I had never known him to be a diplomat; certainly he never looked like one; but, as I say, he was made into a diplomat, and in these articles we see what he had to say with reference to the situation in Mexico when certain British property was confiscated there.
Are we going to open another legation in Belgium and hoist our flag there? I suppose the next thing will be to have legations in all the Balkan states. No doubt after our representative has been in Belgium for some time he will be moved on. He will probably get an order to make room for the ambassador from Washington. That gentleman has been all over the world and he will probably be sent to Belgium. I do not know who will be selected for the post in China, probably the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). I saw him talking the other day with a couple of Chinamen-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. May I ask
the hon. member what item he is discussing?


Thomas Langton Church: A principle is involved in this vote of $60,000 for representation abroad, Mr. Chairman, and I am dealing with that principle, the principle of separatism, and the dividing of Britain's representation in Holland and Belgium. I am absolutely opposed to it, and I believe that the Canadian people will be opposed to it too. No wonder someone made the statement on one occasion that Britain was the hardest country in the world to deal with because of all these embassies. He said it was hard to make a treaty with Britain because Britain could do nothing without consulting the dominions, and the dominions could do nothing without consulting envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary. I am absolutely opposed to all this sort of thing, and if they open an embassy in China I am going to oppose it, just as I shall oppose one in Rome. It was proposed two years ago to open one there, and we know the trouble we got into over the question of sanctions. However, this policy of creating one embassy after another
will simply seal the fate of the government when the people understand that the embassies are nothing but mischievous institutions, the practical effect of which is to divide Britain's authority abroad.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How will these representatives be designated? Will they both be known as ministers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be one minister who will be Minister to Belgium and also Minister to The Netherlands.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will that mean that they will have power to negotiate matters political as well as with respect to trade?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The political end of it is the more important of the two with respect to diplomatic representation, using "political" in the large sense of the word.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Can we have some further explanation as to why Belgium and Holland were selected in this instance, seeing how extremely important it is that we should have our own representatives at Berlin and Rome?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The trade and business that Canada has with Holland and Belgium is more extensive than the business with Germany and Italy. As mentioned a moment ago, Belgium has opened a legation in Canada, in the city of Ottawa. It is customary in diplomatic matters, where a step of the kind is taken by one country, to return its representation. That has not been the governing principle in this case, but we thought that in extending our legations Belgium and Holland, having regard to the important relations we have with those two countries, were the natural countries in which to take the next step. There is this advantage in having an additional minister in Europe, that there are many matters which the government may wish to have reported upon by a minister of its own, and a minister resident at Brussels would be in a position to visit Scandinavian countries if that were thought advisable and to report upon any special matters there, or to visit Berlin or other centres. We have frequently had occasion to ask our minister in France to act for the government at the League of Nations and we have had occasion to have our high commissioner represent us also at the league and in different parts of Europe. The addition of one more minister in Europe at this time will be helpful to the government in obtaining such information as it desires to have from its own source with regard to matters of concern to our own country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought the Prime Minister said a few minutes ago that the
Supply-External Affairs

functions of these men were to be diplomatic rather than those associated with trade. If that is so, it would seem as if in selecting another country we should select from among the larger countries rather than those of minor importance. I do not think that point was answered by the Prime Minister.
Then there is a second consideration. If I am rightly informed, if war should be declared by a country in which we were represented only by the British minister and that minister were withdrawn, thereby we would be automatically at war. I think this is just one aspect of the matter we were discussing two days ago. If that is correct -and I wish the Prime Minister would tell us, because he is an expert in these matters -ought we not on that account to have min- [DOT] isters at the larger centres? Or are we simply going to throw up the whole thing and say we are automatically at war when Britain is at war? These are rather important considerations, it seems to me, and I should like to have a little more light on the matter than I have at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is true that we have efficient trade commissioners dealing with questions of trade in a number of countries. However, with the restrictions that are placed on trade to-day, arising from embargoes, quotas, questions of exchange control and the like, many situations are created that can best or only be dealt with efficiently by a minister, with the minister of the department of government in the country concerned. The whole business of international trade nowadays requires more in the way of direct communication between government representatives as distinct from representatives of government departments.
A minister has full authority to take up questions of the kind with the ministers of the government of the country to which he is accredited. Without the authority which his rank gives, access to governments abroad is not easily obtained by officials. That is one of the reasons why the question of Canada having ministers in other countries is becoming increasingly important.
With respect to the other point mentioned by my hon. friend, as to whether or not Canada is at war when Britain is at war,
I do not see that the situation would be altered in the least by the fact that in the one case you had an ambassador from the United Kingdom who might be withdrawn and in the other case a minister from your own country who might be withdrawn. The broad question of whether Canada is at war when Britain is at war would still remain, regardless altogether of any representation either country might have or cease to have.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it anticipated that
Belgium and Holland will each send a minister to Canada and establish a legation here?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, Belgium has already opened a legation in this city. Whether or not Holland will follow the example of Belgium, I cannot say. It is possible that she may, but I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses arising out of the Trail Smelter arbitration, $7,600.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought we were indemnified in this matter. Now that the question has been disposed of, should we vote any money for this purpose? I know we were indemnified against any expense in connection with this arbitration. Why are we voting money for it now? The award has been made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a system of control that is to be continued for another two years, and this amount is to cover whatever may be necessary in that connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The company pays for it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ultimately the company will pay for it; that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Direct payments to veterans and dependents- War veterans' allowances-further amount required, $1,400,000.
Howard Charles Green: Is this vote intended to meet the requirement of the War Veterans' Allowance Act passed this year?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Are applications being received already?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, a very large number of applications has been received. It was estimated that there would be something like five thousand applications, and I think perhaps half of them are in. Some allowances have been actually granted. The act was assented to on April 6, and by the end of April some eighty allowances had been issued. I think we are now up pretty close to one hundred and fifty.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the item carry? Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to protest, Mr. Chairman; I have not even found the items in this book, as it is now arranged. Yet

Supply-Pensions-Veterans
you go ahead, tear off your slip and declare the item carried. That has been done half a dozen times in the last hour or so.


Charles Gavan Power: This item happens to be in the supplementary estimates. I called the number and said it was in the supplementary estimates; I am sorry if my hon. friend did not hear me.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think we should be so hasty that members of the committee cannot follow what is being done.


Charles Gavan Power: It is item No. 557, on page 6 of the supplementary estimates.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has there been any change in the estimate of the number likely to benefit under this legislation?


Charles Gavan Power: No. When the bill was being discussed in, the house it was estimated that there would be approximately five thousand who would come under the war veterans' allowance during the course of this year and that the cost would be something like $2,100,000. Since they will not all come on at once, however, it is likely that the cost this year will be about $1,400,000.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has any step been taken to review, automatically, the files of those who formerly applied for war veterans' allowance and who were refused on the ground that they were not permanently unemployable? A number of men keep writing me stating that they have applied and been rejected. Apparently their files have not been reviewed, and they are at a loss how to proceed. In spite of the excellent work that has been done by the board in distributing information on the subject, there is still some uncertainty. Could there not be some automatic review of applications formerly rejected before the act was amended?


Charles Gavan Power: I think for the moment the board will have all it can do to deal with the applications which have come before it since the amendment was passed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch-Pensions branch administration-further amount required, $30,240.
Howard Charles Green: What is the reason for this vote?


Charles Gavan Power: This is also in connection with the war veterans' allowance. Under the set-up of our estimates the staff for the war veterans' allowance outside Ottawa is supplied by the Department of Pensions, and this provides for a number of reviewers, stenographers, investigators and so on. The same applies to the next item; only those will be directly
under the control of the board here in Ottawa, looking after the applications, which are coming in very rapidly.


Howard Charles Green: I see there is quite a large sum for temporary assistance. What is the nature of that?


Charles Gavan Power: There are two members of the board at $6,000 each, and then there is the temporary assistance. A very large portion of the staff will be temporary, to deal with the rush we are having at the present time. I may say that in Toronto since April we have had a thousand applications filed, and we need this staff in the worst way possible, as soon as we can get it, to deal with them.


Howard Charles Green: They are all being taken on through the civil service commission?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Under this item could I urge the minister to introduce a bill this session amending the Pension Act? There are certain matters which urgently require consideration, and I think it would be advisable to have them cleaned up as quickly as possible. I refer particularly to the deadline; to some anomaly that exists in regard to the position of widows who were married between 1931 and 1933, and to section 77 of the act.


Charles Gavan Power: The matter is still under consideration; but I want to be quite frank with my hon. friend, and I must say I hardly think it will be possible to introduce any new pension legislation this year, though the government has not definitely come to any conclusion in the matter. A decision will be reached within a few days.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
War veterans' allowance board-further amount required, $73,200.
Howard Charles Green: The sum of $45,000 is to be paid to the soldier settlement board for investigation. What is that for?


Charles Gavan Power: Investigation in rural districts is and has always been undertaken by the soldier settlement board. So far that board have been doing this work without charge, but they have found that they have a lot of work to do in connection with the matter, as well as in connection with several other pieces of legislation-I believe the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Farm Loan Board are included-so they have asked that this department pay its share for the work being done.


Howard Charles Green: The administration expenses here in connection with the supplementary
Supply-Pensions-Veterans

vote for war veterans' allowances seem higher than they were for the vote in the original estimates. I believe they work out at about five per cent of the amounts to be paid to the recipients. Why is that? I understand it was only about two per cent in the other case.


Charles Gavan Power: This will be temporary, and as soon as the rush is over the staff will be adjusted.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is the basis of payment to the members of the soldier settlement board? Will they be paid on a mileage basis?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not any idea of that at all. The persons I mentioned a moment ago are not employees of this department. I was merely saying that the Department of Pensions utilizes the services of the employees of the soldier settlement board to make investigations in rural districts, and that for that service the board have asked us to pay a certain amount.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is not the minister responsible for paying them?


Charles Gavan Power: We are paying $45,000 in
a lump sum for work they do every day throughout Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How did you arrive at
the sum of $45,000?


Charles Gavan Power: There was a calculation made as to the cost in each investigation, and I believe it worked out at about $6 or $7 for each one. After considerable negotiation between the departments it was decided that if the Department of Pensions would allot $45,000 to the soldier settlement board, they would be able to do our work for us this year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the soldier settlement board make recommendations to the
department?


Charles Gavan Power: They merely investigate
cases.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They do not make recommendations?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I notice there is provision for two members of the board at $6,000 each. Why is that item in the supplementary rather than the general estimates? Are they new appointees for this particular position?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; under legislation
which passed the house in the month of April. At the time the main estimates were made up the board consisted of three men;

but under the new legislation which passed the house some time in April the personnel of the board was increased to five members, so that we have to make provision for them in the supplementary estimates.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Do any of
the five members of the board receive less * than $6,000?


Charles Gavan Power: No; that is the statutory
salary.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to add that
the arrangement by which the soldier settlers do this work is an excellent one. They are living in the district and have been familiar with the men for perhaps a period of years. The work can be done more cheaply and more quickly than by an official sent from a distant city. It is a thoroughly good system, and I hope the minister will continue it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Services to veterans and dependents-For the continuation or carrying out of projects or schemes commenced or recommended by the veterans' assistance commission and to authorize the employment or continuation in employment by the governor in council of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, $100,000.
Charles Grant MacNeil: What are the plans of
the department under this appropriation? I would remind the minister that in 1936 the appropriation was $500,000 for the veterans' assistance commission. In 1937 there was a revote of $400,000, plus $250,000 for pro-bational training. This year there is an amount of $100,000 in the main estimates and a further sum of $50,000 in the supple-mentaries. It strikes me that this is hardly adequate for the work outlined.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member is quite
correct when he says the original vote in 1936-37 was $500,000. There was an expenditure that year of $99,572.25. In 1937-38 there was a vote of $400,000, and, according to the latest figures, an expenditure of about $260,000, leaving $140,000 unexpended. In the main estimates of this year there is a vote of $100,000, and if the hon. member consults the supplementaries he will find an additional vote of $50,000, making a total of $150,000. There is also in the main estimates one of $120,000 for probational training.


Howard Charles Green: It is not intended there
shall be much extension in the projects to be undertaken?


Charles Gavan Power: A certain amount was provided last year, and a great many of the

Supply-Pensions-V eterans
projects are being continued from then. As the hon. member knows, the local committees made their recommendations to the veterans' assistance commission here in Ottawa, and they had over a year in which to do it. I do not anticipate there will be many new projects submitted during the present year.


Howard Charles Green: It does not seem reasonable for the government to reduce the vote, in view of the fact the minister has announced he will not accept the main recommendation of the veterans' assistance commission, which was to provide temporary aid for the fit unemployed veterans. The money used last year amounted to $260,000, and yet this year it is to be only $150,000. If there are no new schemes, is not the result that the 10,000 front line men who are fit and the recommendation with regard to whom was refused, will simply remain in the position they are in now, which is on the ordinary provincial or municipal relief?


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think so. In that $260,000 there was included a fairly large amount for the purpose of land settlement, and so on. That will not be repeated this year. Besides, the requirements were made largely through honorary local committees. As the hon. member knows, provision is made in these estimates to keep the men working.
I am informed that when the commission reported in early January there were placements amounting to 8,000 to 10,000.


Howard Charles Green: Many are just casual.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the exact figures here, so I shall not go into details.


Howard Charles Green: Is it intended to create new honorary committees?


Charles Gavan Power: No; there has been no demand for any.


Howard Charles Green: What portion of the vote is for office expenditures and administration expenses?


Charles Gavan Power: About $30,000 will be for
the payment of secretaries, and so on.


Howard Charles Green: At page 158 of the estimates the temporary assistance is shown at $50,000. Apparently the only portion of the vote of $100,000 available for projects is the sum of $35,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Plus the sum of $50,000 in the supplementaries.


Howard Charles Green: A total of $85,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; about that.


Howard Charles Green: How much of that expense is incurred here in Ottawa?


Charles Gavan Power: Not a cent in Ottawa.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any staff here now? Mr. POWER: No.


Howard Charles Green: No staff working on those projects?


Charles Gavan Power: I am wrong in that statement; there is a staff of two, namely Mr. B. W. Allen and Mr. L. McKenna.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister no doubt will agree that the work of the local voluntary committees is extremely important. It represents an effort by businessmen to assume some responsibility with regard to the absorption of ex-service men into industrial enterprises. I scrutinized carefully the statement made by the minister on March 17 when he dealt with the recommendations of the commission certiorari. After consideration of this appropriation I find it difficult to discover what possibilities there are for enlarging the scope of the activities of the Vancouver honorary committee beyond the provision of the corps of commissionaires. As matters stand, I see nothing but to proceed with the promotion of the plan that we started which was especially adapted to conditions in British Columbia.
A second point I have in mind refers to a statement made on the same date by the minister with regard to the tools, equipment and transportation fund. He was good enough to give us his assurance that the recommendation of the commission would be implemented.
I had occasion to talk over with the officials of the department the case of an ex-service fisherman. This man had his own boat and required a small loan in order to proceed with operations in the approaching fishing system. I have no criticism to make of the officials of the department as they were extremely courteous. They told me that departmental action was under consideration, but there seemed to be some doubt as to whether the provisions of the last fiscal year would be extended over to the present fiscal year. I think such cases are distinctly worth while. A little boost in the form of a loan would enable this man to secure independence after his first successful fishing season.


Charles Gavan Power: We have set aside by order in council a certain sum to take care of loans of that kind. I understand that my hon. friend's protege wanted a loan of $500 or $600, whereas the limit was $50.


Howard Charles Green: How is this vote to be allotted to the different projects?


Charles Gavan Power: We have no definite allotments at the present time; they are only

Supply-Pensions-Veterans
tentative allotments to projects already under way. There is nothing very definite about it. We want to keep a little reserve in case some new project comes up which might be worth while examining into.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What portion of this
appropriation will be placed at the disposal of the Vancouver local committee? What projects will they be permitted to promote?


Charles Gavan Power: In December, 1937, an
amount of $2,000 was allotted to them to provide for the formation of veterans' auto parking protective corps in Vancouver. In January, 1938, an amount of $2,500 was provided for the establishment of a veterans' night patrol. In January, 1938, an amount of $5,000 was provided for the renting and leasing of suitable parking areas in Vancouver upon which veterans could carry on auto parking services. On January 5, 1938, an amount of $500 was provided in order that fifty or sixty veterans might obtain first aid certificates in conjunction with the St. John ambulance corps to meet the requirements of the provincial government. In March, 1938, a sum of $2,500 was provided to form a veterans' guide and greeter project, which it is expected will eventually employ twenty-five veterans and will be self-supporting. Then $10,000 was provided for the Red Cross Society to assist in the establishment of a veterans' hostel.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is there anything left for any place else?


Charles Gavan Power: I think so.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: How much of this $100,000 is being expended in Toronto?


Charles Gavan Power: Toronto received $48,000 last year under the land settlement scheme, and $5,000 this year and $10,000 for the poppy fund factory.	.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Is that $43,000 less than last year?


Charles Gavan Power: The expenditure last year was a capital expenditure and will not have to be repeated this year.


Howard Charles Green: What progress has been made in setting up branch corps of commissionaires across Canada? I know from our experience in Vancouver that they are a fine body of men and have done a splendid work.


Charles Gavan Power: As my hon. friend knows, a corps has been set up in Montreal. Originally, there was a headquarters corps and General King was appointed as chairman, with Major Corrigal as secretary. They travelled across Canada setting up branch

divisions. Vancouver has always been independent and has been remarkably successful in that way. I am under the impression that no assistance has ever been asked for or given to the Vancouver division. A division was organized in Calgary and has established a night patrol, and I am informed that thirty-five or forty men are employed at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are doing splendid work there.


Charles Gavan Power: My right hon. friend says they are doing a very good work.


Howard Charles Green: Are branches being established anywhere else?


Charles Gavan Power: There are branches in Lethbridge, Windsor, Winnipeg, London, Toronto and Hamilton. I do not think they have been as successful in these other places as in Calgary in placing the number of men. I think Calgary is an outstanding example, and of course Vancouver has been doing this kind of work for several years, as also has Toronto.


Howard Charles Green: Will anything be supplied from this vote for commissionaires?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Some weeks ago the minister suggested that the collection of radio licence, fees might be turned over to the unemployed veterans. What progress has been made along this line?


Charles Gavan Power: I have preached to the
veterans' associations that I have met, the benefits of unity. We seem to be talking about unity a great deal these days. I think the veterans might get together as a unit and form some kind of a corporation. Having done that, they could go to the government and undertake, as a corporate body, to collect radio licence fees all over Canada. I have spoken to the minister, and I think he might be interested if he received a concrete proposal. About a month ago when I last visited the Toronto honorary committee we had quite a discussion on the matter. I do not mind saying that I do not think any one association can undertake this work; it would have to be a joint effort on the part of the ex-soldiers of Canada. So far nothing has been done.


Howard Charles Green: Probably it will amount to nothing.


Charles Gavan Power: I cannot control the soldiers' associations.


Howard Charles Green: The suggestion has also been made to establish highway patrols. What progress has been made in this connection?

Supply-Pensions-Veterans


Charles Gavan Power: I know that representations have been made to the provincial government of British Columbia, but I have no knowledge of what the result has been. Strong pressure was brought to bear upon the minister of highways of Ontario. I was speaking recently to one of the men in the voluntary committee in Toronto and he told me that they had called on the minister of highways, but he did not seem to be pleased with the progress they had made. They placed their project before the provincial government. It might involve additional taxation on automobile owners, and perhaps the government did not think it advisable.


Howard Charles Green: These schemes are all very much worth while, but does not the minister think that during this coming year it is likely that very few additional men will be helped by the projects; that it will be largely a matter of continuing help to men already working under them?


Charles Gavan Power: It is quite possible.


Howard Charles Green: For that reason it seems important that every effort should be made to work up some new projects.


Charles Gavan Power: I must have a project in order to spend money on it. We have explored pretty thoroughly every project submitted. I cannot just spend money for the sake of spending it.


Howard Charles Green: The result, I suppose, will be that a great many unemployed veterans will not be placed in any work or covered by any government provision.


Charles Gavan Power: It is quite possible.


Alan Webster Neill: Going back for a moment to the radio question, if I may I would sound a note of warning to the minister to go very carefully before he involves the legion in that work. The payment allotted by the government is totally inadquate; a man cannot call four or six or eight times to collect five cents and make money on it, especially in a scattered community. The result will be tremendous discontent and dissatisfaction.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: In regard to that large appropriation of 15,000 for Toronto, from which city I think the largest number of soldiers went overseas, and in which there are the largest number of veterans, would the minister give the break-down of that large expenditure?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not say that is all that will be spent in Toronto this year, but that is the only thing we have been asked for.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: That is, they do not ask enough in Toronto.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the trouble.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister referred to small holdings in Toronto, Windsor and Winnipeg. Has any consideration been given to British Columbia in that matter?


Charles Gavan Power: No schemes have been submitted to us from British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: British Columbia is a nation to itself!


Howard Charles Green: What amount has been spent each year for the different local committees? I believe each one of them has a paid secretary, and the government pays the rent of the offices. Perhaps in some cases there is more than one employee.


Charles Gavan Power: The offices are obtained through the public works department; in most cases they are in a public building. We do not pay any rental; all we pay is just straight salaries. I have a list of the salaries, if my hon. friend wants them.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The list is as follows:
Name-Title-Annual salary Ottawa (Head office)-
Allen, B. W., administrative assistant, $3,000.
McKenna, L. R., clerk, grade 2, $1,080.
Honorary Local Committees Halifax, N.S.-
McKenzie, L. H., secretary, $1,200.
Vaughn, Miss A., stenographer, grade 1, $720. Montreal, P.Q.-
Burbidge, G. C., secretary, $3,000.
Doherty, C. J., assistant secretary, $1,200.
Peattie, M. W., stenographer, grade 1, $720. Toronto, Ont.-
MacKendrick, H. C., secretary, $3,000.
Shannon, R. M., special placement officer, $1,800.
Cane, Miss H., stenographer, grade 1, $720. Hamilton, Ont.-
Thompson, R., secretary, $2,400.
Blunt, R., stenographer, grade 1, $720. London, Ont.-
Goldston, R. G., secretary, $1,800.
Kilty, Miss B., stenographer, grade 1, $720. Windsor, Ont.-
McMordie, H. C., secretary, $1,800.
Cuthbert, S., stenographer, grade 1, $720. Winnipeg, Man.

Taunton, A. J., secretary, $2,400.
Wayling, C., stenographer, grade 2, $1,200. Regina, Sask.-
Lamont, R. D., secretary, $1,800.
Childs, Miss D., stenographer, grade 1, $720. Calgary, Alta.-
Graham, F., secretary, $1,800.
Wise, G., stenographer, grade 1, $720.
Supply-Pensions-Veterans

Edmonton, Alta.-
Menziea, A., secretary, $1,800.
Adam, Miss H, stenographer, grade 1, $720. Vancouver, B.C.-
Bedson, S. L., secretary, $2,400.
Malabar, R. F., stenographer, grade 1, $1,200.
Freudiger, R., clerk, grade 1, $720.


Howard Charles Green: In Vancouver last Christmas the department acted in a way which was very harmful to the efforts of the honorary local committee. Each year at that season, there is special work in the post office, and last year I believe two or three hundred returned men were required for that temporary work. We had over five thousand unemployed veterans registered in Vancouver and district with the veterans' assistance commission, and I understood from the minister last session that these post office jobs would be filled through the honorary local committee, apart from politics. Instead, I believe men were called from different soldiers' organizations, but in each case had to get the approval of a representative of the government, or of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). That sort of thing does not help the honorary local committee to persuade citizens generally to give work to unemployed ex-soldiers. I protest strenuously against action of that kind. I should like the minister to assure the committee to-night that that procedure will not be followed this coming Christmas. I see no reason why politics should enter into the employment of these unfortunate unemployed veterans for a few days around Christmas. That is going altogether too far.


Charles Gavan Power: These honorary local committees are not patronage committees.


Howard Charles Green: That is why they should distribute the jobs.


Charles Gavan Power: I would call that a patronage committee. The other day when the estimates of the Minister of National Defence were being considered, my hon. friend complained in connection with a project, at Point Grey I believe, that the Vancouver honorary committee did not have the choice of the men. But it appears that there were forty-eight men employed and all forty-eight were returned soldiers. I do not know what more my department could do or what more the Department of National Defence could do. The object of this commission is to find jobs for returned soldiers, not for the particular returned soldiers picked out by the committee.	.


Howard Charles Green: But not to find jobs for Liberal returned soldiers.


Charles Gavan Power: That is not of interest to me, provided the full quota is appointed. If there are forty-eight jobs and they were filled by forty-eight ex-soldiers, I see no cause for complaint. The committee's job is to stimulate the interest of the public in returned soldiers and as far as possible to get them jobs, but not to select those who are to be appointed; otherwise we would make these committees into political committees. I think my hon. friend will be the first to say that ever since the committees were appointed there has been no political interference with them whatsoever. I had nothing to do with the choice of the men on the committees, or of the men who were secretaries, or with the appointment of the stenographers or anyone connected with the committees. In fact, I have been told on many occasions from this side of the house that a large number of members of the committee will be assisting at the Tory convention here in July.


Howard Charles Green: That is because they were
the best men you could get.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, I did not choose them. Many of them are very good men. I think the best I can do is not to interfere with them at all, but let them go ahead. They are doing their best for the returned soldiers, and I deprecate any attempt to drag them into politics. It is unfair both to them and to us.


Howard Charles Green: There is no attempt being
made to drag them into politics; it is only common sense. You have a high-class, independent, non-political honorary committee with a paid staff working under them costing this department several thousand dollars, and the whole purpose is to get jobs for unemployed veterans. At Christmas there are openings for 200 or 300 unemployed veterans. They are all registered with this local committee. The local committee knows better than a Liberal henchman whether they are good men or not, whether they deserve work or not; yet this government has a special representative through whom all these unfortunate men have to pass before they get a job, and if they are not Liberals they- do not get a job. If that is not dragging the veterans' assistance commission into politics, I do not know what is, and it is one way to ruin its effectiveness; it is one way of breaking down the whole scheme. I suggest to the minister that this practice should not be followed this year.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think there has
been any complaint that the number of

Supply-Pensions-Veterans
32S3
returned men which was required was not obtained. The only complaint has been as to which particular ex-soldier was appointed.


Howard Charles Green: They had to go through the Liberal machine.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that that is quite the case. I do not understand from the Minister of National Defence that such is the case. My hon. friend wrote me about that time, and I obtained a reply from the Minister of National Defence which satisfied me, at any rate.


Mr. STEWART:: It would not be hard to
do that.


Charles Gavan Power: The department employing the men, or the contractor, or whoever is the employer, surely should have some right to say which particular man shall be appointed and which shall not. I have never yet heard in this chamber anyone complaining because a Liberal returned soldier was appointed. The great complaint up to the present has been that not a sufficient number was appointed. Once we get this full quota I think returned soldiers should be pretty well satisfied; if they get forty-eight out of forty-eight, I do not think they can complain at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is quite exceptional.


Charles Gavan Power: That is what my hon.
friend is complaining of.


Howard Charles Green: No. The Minister of National Defence has laid down a rule that he will only hire returned men or militia men on his works projects, but in addition to being returned men they have to be Liberals. That is the position in connection with these post office jobs.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not believe my hon. friend is serious in that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In order that the Minister of National Defence shall not get too much credit, I want to say that down in Nova Scotia, when they were building the Venture for the Canadian government, out of one hundred men employed there were only two returned men. I had letters from A number of returned men who could not get jobs because they were not on the right side of politics.


Charles Gavan Power: That was done by the contractor, I suppose.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say who is the representative in Vancouver through whom these men had to pass last Christmas?


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the faintest idea.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose the Minister of National Defence can explain that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For the continuation or carrying out of projects or schemes commenced or recommended by the veterans' assistance commission, etc.- further amount required, $50,000.
Charles Gavan Power: It is the same thing. It is an additional 850,000 to the vote we have just passed.


Howard Charles Green: How is it to be allocated?


Charles Gavan Power: I have that somewhere.
These, as I said, are only tentative: Workshops Limited, Montreal, $25,000; Canadian corps of commissionaires, $10,000; Toronto veterans' committee, $5,000; Toronto amputations placement service, $2,500. Windsor land settlement scheme may require a further amount of about $10,000. At London there is a placement scheme for veterans; the cost will run to about $1,000. From Winnipeg there is a demand for another $1,000. At Regina, for the veterans' workshops there is a demand for $10,000. For the Moose Jaw workshop the demand is $3,000. At Vancouver there is a demand for $1,500, plus a repayment fund of $5,000. This amounts to about $73,000. We are trying to keep some in reserve. I do not say that all this money will be spent- that is why I hesitated to give all the details- upon these particular projects. I am just stating what has been asked for, and we shall have to allot it in the best way we possibly can to reach our objective.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I did not hear the minister mention any projects in the maritime provinces.


Charles Gavan Power: There have not been any suggested, unfortunately.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, of course!


Charles Gavan Power: There is none from Quebec city, either.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Direct payments to veterans and dependents-* Probational training allowances, $120,000.
Howard Charles Green: Last year there was a vote of $250,000. How much of that was spent, and how was it spent?


Charles Gavan Power: The estimate of this year
is based to some extent on the amount spent last year. We did not spend by any means as much as we anticipated; the amount was $67,209.01. Perhaps my hon. friend will remember that we started a little late. We began
Supply-Pensions-V eterans

about June, and perhaps that was a little late in the season for men to get this probational training work, but we consider it has been highly successful. It has proved very successful as a means of placing a large number of men, and we intend to press it this year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is there any age limit
for probational training?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What are the regulations
as to eligibility for probational training?


Charles Gavan Power: There must be service in
a theatre of war, and the assurance that a man has a chance of getting a job when the probational training is finished.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is it necessary to have
an agreement with a prospective employer?


Charles Gavan Power: We originally began with
the idea that we could get a written agreement, but that regulation had to be relaxed to some extent as we went along. But it is really the work of the honorary committees, and they have been remarkably successful. The three qualifications for eligibility are, that he served during the war in a theatre of actual war, provided (a) that he is registered for employment with the employment service of Canada and/or the veterans' assistance commission; (b) that he is employable, and (c) that he requires a period of probational training to fit him for employment with the industry or firm.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I agree that this scheme
has been eminently successful. I think it is one of the finest schemes that has been evolved for some time My observation of the cases which have come under my attention is that it has provided not only training but the most satisfactoy approach possible to permanent employment for many men. For that reason I was hoping the minister would increase the appropriation or that the scope of this activity might be widened as far as possible. The results achieved this past year amply justify an extension of this activity.


Charles Gavan Power: We consider that this appropriation is ample to take care of all who will apply. That is the only reason we did not increase it.


Howard Charles Green: How has the minister dealt with the two recommendations from the veterans' assistance commission; one suggesting that the veteran might be given this training even if he had no prospective employer in sight, if the department was satisfied that such training would more readily fit him for suitable employment; and the other being that the department could pay tuition fees in

a worthy case to help the man get the training, for example, for a civil service examination?


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to tuition. I
am informed that we had three cases in which there was a definite undertaking that if the man underwent certain training he would get a job. One was at the Kemptville dairy school in Ontario; another was at Winnipeg, in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway shops, with special training on air conditioning, and the other was at Hamilton, with an airplane manufacturer. And they got the work.


Howard Charles Green: And the department is
willing to give them that sort of help?


Charles Gavan Power: It never was intended either by the House of Commons or by the department, or, I think, by the commission, that this money would be employed only for putting men in an assured job. Short of that we can do pretty nearly anything.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the Canadian legion at their dominion convention suggested that the minister should also make eligible those men who served only in England but who enlisted under the age of twenty-one years. In other words, they are a young group of returned men. Has anything been done about that?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment assistance, $2,350,000.
Mr. REID:: I wish to discuss the condition of a class of ex-service men who until now have been only very briefly mentioned in this house. I refer to that class known as eximperials. In doing so I am not unmindful of the plight of many Canadian ex-service men and I realize that our first consideration is for them. But we have now in Canada some 200,000 ex-imperials who, I believe, merit greater consideration than they are receiving. In British Columbia it is estimated that there are at least 50,000 ex-imperials. Perhaps it would be better for me to quote one or two extracts from the brief which was drawn up by them and which, I fancy, explains their condition and the situation in which they find themselves to-day far better than I can. Dealing first with hospitals they say:
In Great Britain all are within easy reach of military hospitals, and in the case of a veteran who is making first application the documents have to be sent for from London, causing considerable delay; and then there is also postal delay in Canada itself. Unlike the Canadian veteran, the British veteran may see his documents which are in the. possession of

Supply-P endows-Veterans
the British ministry of pensions. This is a considerable hardship as the ministry compel one to prove a medical history practically for the whole of one's life, except in the case where there is a definite wound. Further, a British veteran on pension, or allowed treatment, may not be admitted to a military hospital without sanction of the British representative at Ottawa, which causes considerable delay.
There are free hospitals in Great Britain, and in Canada there is none. They say that in Great Britain there are many services in connection with sickness and disablement such as free sanatoria, practically free medical attention, and so on. Then they continue:
The British veteran was encouraged in various ways to come to Canada, but the difference in climate, cost of living, and the cash value of his pension was not fully explained to him. In our opinion Canada must share to a certain extent the responsibility for this.
Many British veterans were advised to commute the whole of their service pension, to come to Canada, no consideration being given to the fact that their long years of army service unfitted them to compete in the business world. Canada again must also share the responsibility for this, as advice on these lines was given at Canada House, et cetera.
I have before me a letter-in fact I could quote many-which will substantiate the contention of the ex-imperials in regard to inducements offered to them to come from Great Britain and take up responsibilities in Canada. I received this memorandum this year and the dates will appear as I read it:
By Captain C. M. Stringer
I enlisted in England on August 4, 1914.
In 1926 I went to B.C. House, London, England and saw Mr. McAdam who was secretary to the agent-general for B.C. I asked him if there were any jobs to be had in B.C. He said that the Bank of Commerce had been asked by a farmer for a man at $5 per month plus board, and he advised me to take it, as it was in Grand Forks, where there was a smelter and sash and door factories. It was a busy town and by having some definite job to go to, I could find something after arrival with more remuneration.
I left my family in England and came to B.C. in June, 1926. When I arrived I found the smelter had been closed eight years and that there were really no industries.
I stayed on the farm till November when the farmer said he could not afford to pay me any more as he was going to lose his farm.
I went to the bank and said, "You got me out here, you must find me a job for the winter." This was done.
In 1927 my wife and two children came out to me. Our lovely home in England was sold. My wife brought several thousand dollars with her at the time.
All this money went and we have suffered since.
My contention is that had I not received glowing pamphlets, which were not true, printed by the B.C. government and reports from Mr. McAdam, I would never have come to Canada.
I had a small pension for two years, after the war, for malaria, but owing to pressure of business, I voluntarily dropped it. I did not commute it.
Since 1924 I have been trying to get it back, but as I cannot show positive of malaria parasite in my blood, the authorities will not give a board.
That is only one of many instances that can be cited, one of many communications that can be quoted with regard to the inducements given to ex-imperials in the old land to come and settle in Canada. However, to proceed with extracts from the ex-imperials' brief:
Many British veterans who had pensions when they came to Canada, and who would still be eligible for pensions if Canadian veterans, lost their pensions within two years or so of arrival in Canada. Further, the British ministry does not pay any pension for injury et cetera that is less than 20 per cent, thus debarring many from the benefits of the S.C.R. relief. A very great many of these veterans are now charges on Canada in various ways, such as relief, hospitals, et cetera. This is of course entirely up to Great Britain, although we consider that Canada should have made some arrangements with the government of Great Britain when she accepted these men, so that when their disabilities bore too heavily on them, they should not have been an entire charge on Canada. . . .
The British government actively assist in sending immigrants to Canada, and where it is necessary, or to the advantage of the veteran, the British government should participate in the cost of repatriation. In this connection the B.C. government in conjunction with local authorities have shown the most commendable spirit, in that they repatriate married families on relief, where the veteran can produce a certificate of employment in the country of his origin. The Canadian government have no such scheme, so that a man living in B.C. and drawing S.C.R. relief, cannot be repatriated under the aforementioned scheme. This works a great hardship on the small pensioner. . . .
In the case of "special campaign pensions," the income of the recipient is taken into account, and in applying for such a pension one has to submit for the relief office, a statement of the amount of relief in cash or kind received during the past year. Only a royal commission could settle this question between the two governments. . . .
With regard to S.C.R. relief, the veteran not being able to see his documents as he must have, or have had a disability pension of 5 per cent. In some cases where a final award has been made, the amount of the remaining disability is stated, but in most cases it is not. . . .
In the foregoing we are being reasonable as we are not even asking for the same treatment as the Canadian veteran as far as pensions are concerned, but we do ask for the same treatment as the Canadian veteran in the war veteran's allowance, S.C.R. relief, and et cetera, as we consider these to be social services as distinct from pensions. . . .

Supply-Pensions-Veterans

They claim that:
The history of imperial pensions in Canada is a story of the most arrant callousness and neglect. Men who had no knowledge of imperial pensions regulations and no authority to guide them as to their rights were taken advantage of in the most cold-blooded manner. There is no question that, particularly at the present time a resolution in parliament requesting a British royal commission to investigate the ease of imperial pensions in Canada would bring results.
They say that while imperial veterans through their organization are asking the Canadian government to grant them certain social services granted Canadian ex-service men, their chief objective at the moment is one that cannot be reasonably denied them by parliament. Here is their request. They are asking this parliament to petition the parliament of Great Britain, requesting that a royal commission be set up in this country to travel from Halifax to Vancouver and Victoria to listen to the grievances of these ex-imperials. It may be said by some hon. members that this parliament would have no right to appeal to the parliament of Great Britain, but this is not the first time in the history of Canada that an appeal has been made concerning matters affecting Great Britain. I hold in my hand a memorandum of a petition that passed this house in 1903, in which this parliament asked that the parliament of Great Britain grant home rule to Ireland. That was passed after a great deal of discussion, and I need not take the time of the committee to read it.


Charles Gavan Power: It has been suggested to me that if it took as long for the imperial veterans to get their commission as it did for Ireland to get home rule after that petition of 1903, it would not do them very much good.


Thomas Reid: 
Mr. LANDERYOU:: May I ask if the minister has negotiated with the imperial government at all in regard to this question?


Charles Gavan Power: I think the imperial veterans discuss it pretty constantly and persistently with the representative of the British ministry of pensions here in Canada. The British government have a representative of the ministry of pensions in Ottawa, Mr. Owen, who has all to do with imperial soldiers in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: This is the item under which it was arranged earlier in the session we should be at liberty to discuss the report of the veterans' assistance commission. There was some discussion on it one night when the item was up previously, about two months ago, but that was a one-man performance with the minister taking all the parts; he then told us that he was not going to accept the main recommendation of the commission.
Before I proceed to deal with that report, I should like to add a word in support of the suggestion that the government do something to help the imperial veterans. I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster that for many years the lot of the imperial veterans in Canada has been a tragic one, and anything that can be done by this parliament to assist them certainly should be done.
This, I suggest, is the session when the commission chickens are coming home to roost. Two years ago this government quite cheerfully tied several difficult problems to several commission chickens, with the result that they were flown away and did not have to be faced until this year. Now these chickens are back with reports. There is the veterans' assistance commission, known as the Rattray commission; the national employment commission, known as the Purvis commission; the

Supply-Pensions-V e terans
textile commission and the wheat marketing commission, both known as Turgeon commissions, and the penitentiary commission, known as the Archambault commission. Then there is the Rowell commission on dominion-provincial relations just over in the next field, on the way back-


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member is out of order in discussing commissions not pertaining to pensions and health.


Howard Charles Green: I was just going to say
that this Rowell commission threatens to fill the whole barnyard when it gets back. But to get back to the Rattray commission chicken, it had the unfortunate experience of coming back to the doorstep of the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I think that was a very unhealthy place for it to land, for after a certain amount of deliberation the minister proceeded to give its neck a twist by turning down the main recommendation, which was that the dominion government should accept responsibility for temporary assistance to indigent unemployed veterans who are employable; in other words, for unemployed veterans who are fit, with several provisoes: first, that these men must have served in a theatre of actual war, or, in other words, that they must have been front line men; second, that they must have been domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment; and third-and I point this out particularly-that they must be willing to work. If they were not registered with an employment agency; if they showed any sign of being unwilling to work, then they were not to be eligible for this assistance. It should be pointed out also that this recommendation does not apply to pensioners or to veterans in receipt of the war veterans' allowance as burnt-out soldiers. These groups are cared for in other ways.
The reply of the government to this recommendation by its own commission was definite and complete. I quote the remarks of the minister, which are to be found at page 1040 of Hansard:
Most hon. gentlemen will agree with me in considering that the one hundred per cent fit man is not the responsibility of the federal government. If he is out of work at the present time it is due to economic causes, and not to war causes.
That is a statement which, I think, needs many qualifications. But the minister went on:
If a man is absolutely fit to work it is extremely difficult to attribute his unemployability to his war service.
Then at page 1459 the minister said:
I want to repeat that the government does not think it should accept responsibility for 51952-2081
the care and maintenance whether by way of an economic allowance or otherwise, of 100 per cent fit men.
That was a definite and complete rejection of this recommendation, and a denial of any responsibility for the care and maintenance of the fit front line men. It was rather surprising, in view of past events.
The problem of the unemployed war veteran, who was not a pensioner or the recipient of war veterans' allowance because he was brunt-out, came with the depression. It was so bad by 1934 that in that year the Canadian legion made an extensive survey of unemployment among veterans. In January, 1935, they asked the late Conservative administration to have an investigation, and in March of that year the Hyndman committee were appointed. They were instructed to investigate facilities for providing employment for unemployed veterans and also-and I stress this point-to investigate the facilities for the care and maintenance of these unemployed veterans while unemployed, showing that the government of that day recognized the fact that Canada had some responsibility for the care and maintenance of these veterans while they were unemployed.
Late in May of 1935 the Hyndman committee brought in an unanimous report finding that the dominion government should assume some responsibility for these men. I quote the following from page 5 of that report.
We are of the opinion that Canada as a whole would shrink from any policy which would permit these unemployed non-pensioners to remain in want and dire distress, as some of them undoubtedly do, and would approve of reasonable assistance being extended to them during temporary unavoidable idleness, until such time as occupations suitable to their ability can be found.	.
They recommended that the government should add to the relief paid to veterans by municipalities where the municipal rate was below that paid by the Department of Pensions to small pensioners. They recommended further that a veterans' assistance commission be set up to help find jobs for these unemployed veterans. Later in 1935 came the election, and I have no doubt every hon. member heard about the Hyndman committee report. Probably many of them undertook to implement those findings.
Then, in the 1936 session this government passed the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act which under paragraph (e) of section 6 provided the following:
6. The commission shall,-
(e) investigate into existing facilities for the care and maintenance of veterans while unemployed and report thereon with such suggestions or recommendations as may be deemed advisable.
Supply-Pensions-Veterans

This shows that in 1936 the present government realized that Canada had some responsibility for the care and maintenance of these men while they were unemployed. That bill was referred to a special committee of the house known as the committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems. The bill was approved by the committee and returned to the house with a recommendation in which again responsibility was acknowledged. That recommendation from the committee was as follows:
As representations were made that the existing facilities for the care and maintenance of unemployed veterans were inadequate in some localities your committee would further recommend that the commission, while conducting this survey into the extent of unemployment, should investigate the facilities available throughout Canada for the care and maintenance of veterans and should make such suggestions and recommendations as may be deemed advisable.
The Veterans' Assistance Commission Act became law. The Rattray commission was appointed on July 7, 1936, and shortly afterwards fifteen honorary local committees were set up across Canada-with a paid secretariat and provision made for officers to help carry out the provisions of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act. The Rattray commission deserves a great deal of credit. With the aid of these local committees, which also have done wonderful work, and for the setting up of which I give the government and the minister all due credit-


Charles Gavan Power: The commission did that
work; I did not do it.


Howard Charles Green: The minister helped to set
up the commission. Work was found for many of the unemployed veterans in several ways. For example, the honorary committees went to employers and were able to place many of the unemployed veterans. There is a very cheering word in the report with regard to the attitude of the veterans to work, and the attitude of the prospective employers to the veterans; at page 55 of the veterans' assistance commission report we find this:
Before recommending temporary allowances be granted to single and married unemployed veterans who saw service in a theatre of actual war, this commission established these facts:
1.	Veterans are anxious to work;
2.	Employers are willing to employ them.
I believe employers across Canada have never been more favourably disposed towards veterans than they are at the present time, on account of the efforts of the Rattray commission and of the honorary local committees.

In addition, the commission set up different projects which were referred to to-night during the course of the discussion, such as the corps of commissionaires, Workshops Limited, and other projects; and probational training was provided to fit men for work which they could not have done without the extra training.
But in addition to finding jobs for veterans the commission made a thorough investigation of the problem of the unemployed veteran. Early last year interim reports were brought in, and finally in December a final report was presented. Several significant findings were made by the commission. For example, it found that it could do nothing for unemployable veterans, those who were disabled. There was no sense in getting jobs for men who were not fit to do them. Several of us had pointed out to the minister and the government during the 1936 session and again last session that the unemployable men could not be helped by the commission, and that they should be provided for by an extension of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. The Rattray commission found the same thing, and this year the government has extended the act to provide for those men. Then, the commission found that many of the employable men could not be placed either through projects, through direct contact with employers, or by giving probational training. Thousands of these men could not expect to get jobs. Tonight the minister frankly admits that the projects the government is financing during the coming year will take care of only a few more of the unemployed veterans, and that there is no legislation being proposed or no provision being made by the government to find jobs for these men.
The commission reported as its main recommendation the following, which will be found at page 63 of the report:
After giving the matter considerable thought and bearing in mind the representation made by organizations throughout the country, by honorary local committees, and information obtained from various sources, the commission has come to the conclusion that it can do no less than recommend that the dominion government accept responsibility for all indigent unemployed veterans who were domiciled in Canada at date of enlistment and who saw service in a theatre of actual war.
But it goes on to state the proviso that the men must be willing to work. That finding is confirmed by the reports of the different honorary local committees which actually had to face the situation. They were composed of men who knew the facts and the Rattray commission had travelled from one end of

Supply-Pensions-Veterans
Canada to the other and knew the facts too. The numbers covered by the recommendation are to be found at page 61 of the report. It is there stated that there are 10,146 men. At page 20 of the report the commission has this to say:
This leaves about 10,000 men with actual war service who are physically fit, who want work, and up to the present time have not been able to find it.
It will be noticed that the recommendation does not include those who served only in England or Canada, and includes only those imperials who were domiciled in Canada when they enlisted. And I would draw particularly to the attention of the minister the fact that the recommendation that the government assume responsibility for these men is directly in line with the recommendation of the national employment commission, known as the Purvis commission, that the Canadian government should assume responsibility for the unemployed in Canada who are employable. Both commissions recommended that employable men willing to work were the responsibility of the dominion government; yet the answer of the government so far as veterans are concerned is, "We will assume responsibility only for those who are unemployable, who are broken down." In other words, the government's policy is what might be termed a " break-down " policy. There is to be no responsibility for care and maintenance of an unemployed veteran unless he is broken down.
I submit that the policy should be to do everything to prevent these men from breaking down. It is another case of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. This answer is given by the government despite the fact that it was known from the start that the fit unemployed veterans were the largest group in trouble. It was known that these men could not all be put to work and that the commission would have to make some recommendation for their care and maintenance while unemployed. The principal reason given by the minister in support of the government's action is, " Oh, the soldier organizations have not supported the recommendation; the soldiers are not agreed on what should be done." As a matter of fact, I do not think there were many soldier organizations in Canada that were not agreed that the responsibility lay with this government. There was some disagreement as to the method by which that responsibility should be undertaken, but there was practically no disagreement on the principle recommended by the commission.
Certainly the reason given by the minister is no excuse for doing nothing; it is merely
camouflage. No answer is given to the reasons set forth by the commission for the recommendation. The commissioners found that the veterans are handicapped in the labour market because of loss of training; that they were in the army during the time when normally they would have been receiving training; also because they were preaged. The dominion government admitted that the exsoldier is preaged to the extent of ten years when it made provision that the war veteran should receive an allowance at sixty years of age instead of at seventy, the age at which the civilian becomes eligible for old age pension. Another reason given was the difficulty that these men had in readjusting themselves when they came back from the war; many of them have not been able to readjust themselves up to the present time. It was found that all these handicaps are the result of the service that these men gave to their country. The commission also considered the tendency of the provinces and municipalities to question their obligation to the veterans. It was found that these other governmental bodies take the position that the veterans are not their responsibility; that they are the responsibility of the dominion government. At page 34 of, the report of the commission we find these words:
The whole problem of care of the veteran is complicated by the different, and frequently conflicting, governmental authorities. The dominion government has always assumed full responsibility for its pensioners. Not so, however, in the case of the non-pensioners who are classed as ordinary citizens and come under the same social legislation and benefits as other residents of their respective municipalities and provinces. None the less, the majority of unemployed veterans insist that they are wards of the federal government because they were enlisted by that government, paid by that government, and promised the never-failing gratitude of the country by representatives of that government.
This attitude is shared by the provinces and the municipalities. True, in respect of the latter there is always the hope that they may succeed in shifting part of the burden of expense from themselves. But apart altogether from this hope, there is a feeling that the federal government has a responsibility towards the veterans that sets them off from ordinary citizens.
Another reason given by the commission for this recommendation is the attitude of the veterans themselves toward relief. The following is to be found on page 19 of the report:
To the veteran, relief is something which is given reluctantly by a government body- usually his municipality-which he does not consider the governmental authority that really should look after him. The war veteran's allowance on the other hand, is looked upon as a reward for services rendered to the dominion government during the great war. The veterans'
Supply-Pensions-Veterans


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister made a statement on March 17 bluntly rejecting the main recommendation of the veterans' asssist-ance commission, and we have since had an opportunity to gauge the reaction of the ex-service men and the public generally. There has been found disappointment everywhere at the attitude taken by the minister and his unwillingness to assume additional responsibility with regard to the problem outlined by the commission. The approach to the problem has been very carefully and ably outlined by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), and I wish to support his position and to add a few observations on my own account.
I did hope that as a result of the Hyndman commission report, the work of the parliamentary committee of 1936 and the interim and final reports of the veterans' assistance commission we had now reached the position where this problem could be brought to a stage of finality, where sufficient evidence had been gathered to enable the minister to present to parliament a well-rounded program disposing of the residual features of the situation. As I have said before, inaction or delay in these matters is always more costly than prompt action.
I have perused the report of the veterans' assistance commission with great interest. This report is something more than merely an interesting document; it represents a very careful analysis of the situation in all its aspects. For the first time in recent years it affords a fairly accurate measure of the dimensions of the problem, and also makes concrete proposals for dealing with it. The report deals with the obligations of this country in regard to ex-service men, promises made in years gone by, tells exactly what has been done and what remains to be done, and makes an effective plea for ex-service men, not on compassionate grounds, but for a satisfactory solution of their problems in the public interest.
A very important point it makes is that there are no constitutional barriers in the
way of effective action by this government in regard to this problem. In connection with the general problem of unemployment we have frequently been told that constitutional difficulties prevent action by the federal government. This report shows how the government by aiding ex-service men as suggested in the main recommendation could ease the burden resting upon the municipalities and ameliorate much of the general social distress which is apparent across Canada. I was struck with the reminder contained in this report of the promises made to the soldiers and the circumstances under which they were made. May I quote briefly from page 27:
Sir Robert Borden addressed the Canadian fighting forces at Vimy Ridge in 1917 in words ascribed to him as follows:
"You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such a strain without breaking; but you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come.
"You men are about to enter one of the most serious engagements that ever faced the Canadian corps. I cannot, at this moment, give any information as to where this attack will be staged; whether it be successful or not, it is to be borne in mind that it will not be an easy success .	.	. We feel confident that you
will succeed where others failed; for you have never yet failed in anything that you have set your hand to as a Canadian corps.
"You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government I give you this assurance; that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do and what you have already done.
"The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour so to guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died."
In these words Sir Robert, on behalf of the government, entered into a contract every whit as binding as that between Canada and the holder of victory bonds. In a certain sense the contract was more solemn. The victory bonds were, after all, pretty much a business transaction. The contract between Canada and her men going overseas reached beyond business into the realm of the ideal.
The report brings to the attention of the minister evidence that gives an excellent perspective of the entire problem. Boiled down it is this: there are practically 15,000 unemployed men, as far as they are able to esti-
Supply-Pensions-Veterans

mate, who have seen service in a theatre of actual war; five thousand of this number are likely to benefit under the new amendments to the War Veterans' Allowance Act. There remain approximately ten thousand men who cannot be classified as unfit or partly fit, for whom no provision is made. I would point out the large percentage of these men suffer from disabilities or handicaps as a result of service for which no satisfactory yardstick can be found in existing pensions legislation or in the War Veterans' Allowance Act. There are, for instance, those men who enlisted early in life and sacrificed the formative years of their life, who were unable to gain skill in any trade or vocation, whose educational progress was interrupted, and who since then have never had any opportunity to gain a secure foothold in the economic life of the country. These men suffered more than any other class during the depths of the depression. There are men in this group to-day who are classified as being "too old at forty," who for various reasons are not wanted in our industrial enterprises. They are more or less derelict, drifting, forgotten and unwanted. This report brings these facts to the attention of parliament in a very concise form.
The central issue at stake with regard to the main recommendation is, as has well been pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Shall the federal government assume additional responsibility with regard to those who are classified as nonpensionable or not elegible under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and who yet, by reason of war service, are unable to secure gainful employment? I think the tragic feature of the situation is that the minister definitely rejects the main recommendation of the commission, though on several occasions previously he has admitted the existence of this problem in all its most serious aspects, and yet he has not presented to the house any satisfactory alternative as a solution of this problem.
The minister in a statement on the 17th instant, in rejecting this recommendation for a provisional economic allowance, made the definite point that there was little agreement among the organizations of ex-service men. I am bound to point out that the disagreement to which he referred was only with regard to details as to the recommendation. Practically all the national organizations were in agreement as to the principle that the federal government should accept responsibility now for the welfare of unemployed, fit ex-service men.
I think a word should be said here, because of remarks previously made by the

minister, as to the attitude of the national organizations of ex-service men. They have painstakingly gathered together evidence with regard to this problem and presented it in a reasonable w'ay to the government. All their proposals have been reasonable. There has been no attempt to create artificially a problem or to foster a general grievance. I think it should be recognized that in their representations, arising from conclusions reached in the units across Canada, they are under great pressure because of the need that exists in all these communities. At every meeting that I have attended of ex-service men I have found pathetic evidence of a large number of men in distress appealing to these organizations for definite aid, and only through these organizations do they find channels of negotiation. Those who serve in the national executives of these organizations do so only because of a desire to assist their less fortunate comrades and at the same time reconcile that service with the public interest.
Coupled with the rejection of the main recommendation of the commission on economic allowance, I am distressed to note the reduction in the provision for special employment projects. The minister has said that while he could not accept on behalf of the federal government any further responsibility for the extension of relief to unemployed, fit ex-service men, nevertheless the government was prepared to accept a full measure of responsibility with regard to provision of employment facilities. There is as yet no evidence that this particular phase of the work will be extended in a manner that will deal adequately with the situation. In this regard I think we should note the position of the local honorary committees. Within those committees there have been recruited representative business men, and I fear that unless adequate funds are provided for the projects outlined by them, there will be a sense of let-down; they will be disappointed and discouraged, and never again will their cooperation be secured for work of this sort.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that ex-service men are at a special disadvantage when unemployed, particularly when it becomes necessary for them to apply for relief. Everywhere I find, as the hon. member for Vancouver South has found, evidence that the municipalities are inclined to refer exservice men back to the department, to deny any responsibility and to say that they should be provided for by the federal department. Day after day I receive letters from men and meet men who seem to be kicked about from pillar to post. They are told, if they apply for work on the relief projects,

Supply-Pensions-Veterans
that they are medically unfit, that they should go to the federal department. When they go to the federal Department of Pensions and National Health they are told that their disabilities are not such as can be recognised for pensions, war veterans' allowance or unemployment assistance. Their plight is serious in that regard because of the general pressure now being exercised to reduce relief expenditure. For that reason I feel that the minister should not be too blunt in closing the door on negotiations with regard to this problem. The problem has not yet been solved. He rejects the recommendation of the commission in this respect, and if he does not suggest some satisfactory alternative the problem will assume more definite aggravation in the days to come.
I also wish to add a word in support of what has been said about the plight of imperial ex-service men in Canada. Everywhere there is pathetic evidence of their distress-men who, encouraged to come to Canada, have given every evidence of a desire to establish themselves as satisfactory citizens in our community, men who when they left the United Kingdom surrendered what advantages in the way of social services they might have enjoyed if they had remained in their own land. As a parliament we cannot deny all responsibility for their present tragic plight. I do not suggest that the Canadian government should assume full responsibility for their welfare; but I do suggest and urge that the minister take suitable action to enter into negotiations with the British government whereby, with a general cooperative effort, some provision may be made for their needs. Possibly at another time-the hour is growing late-we may have an opportunity of dealing more extensively with this particular problem, which is most urgently demanding our attention in all communities in Canada. The most conservative estimate I have yet seen of the number of imperial ex-service men in Canada is 76,000. I think we owe it to them at least to enter into negotiations on their behalf. The minister stated formerly that he did on one occasion while overseas, interview officials of the British ministry of pensions. May I suggest to him that a passing and more or less casual interview of that sort is hardly sufficient. We have records of negotiations successfully consummated previously with regard to those who served in imperial units, who had pre-war domicile in Canada. Part of that agreement is incorporated in the Pensions Act, part of it stands apart from the Pensions Act; but by reason of negotiations entered into by Canadian government officials it was possible that
when the problem has been fully stated on their behalf by the minister or some representative of the Canadian government we may find it possible to evolve some scheme which will ease the tension of the present situation. It is most unsatisfactory at the present time to find so many of these imperial exservice men in want, in desperate straits, and with no direct avenue of negotiation on their own behalf.
I have just a word to say upon the discussion which took place earlier in the evening with regard to the employment of ex-service men on dominion government projects. In the house the other day some reference was made to the situation in Halifax. Only this morning I received a communication from an organization in that city stating that they have a definite grievance, that when the veterans' assistance commission sends a list of the unemployed ex-service men available for special improvement projects, this must be o.k.-ed by a representative of, or personally by, one of the sitting members for Halifax. When the list is o-k.-ed-on the basis of political considerations, as I am informed-it is then referred to Colonel Vince, the head of the local engineering branch of the National Defence department. A selection is again made from that list, and the definite complaint is that by reason of that procedure of selection civilians are actually placed on the work to the exclusion of veterans who are competent and available. They say that many of those in charge of projects frankly state that they are not prepared to employ ex-service men.
As I have stated, the ground has been thoroughly covered by the hon. member for Vancouver South, and I desire to place myself on record as indicating my support of all the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission. I find it hard to believe, from what I know of the character of the men who composed that commission, and the nature of the inquiry conducted across Canada, that they would make this recommendation in respect of a provisional economic allowance unless they were earnestly convinced that there was no satisfactory alternative to solve this problem. May I, in closing, quote a few sentences from page 62 of their report:
We are convinced that we would not have done our duty if we failed to make recommendations that would cover them all-
Referring to the entire 15,000.
-and that if we recommended remedial legislation to cover only a portion of the unemployed veterans who saw service in a theatre of actual war, we would not have completed our difficult task.
Supply-Pensions-Veterans

There is a general feeling throughout the country that unemployed war veterans should be accepted as the responsibility of the dominion government. Particularly is this view prevalent amongst provincial and municipal authorities, and among responsible veteran organizations who have to deal with the class of veteran included in this report.
During the recruiting period in Canada, many war-time promises were made to the troops by men in public life, no doubt in all sincerity at the time, but it would not be correct to say that all of the promises had been fulfilled.
There is no doubt that the veterans keeping in mind these promises, believe that they are and should be accepted as a definite responsibility of the dominion government when unemployed.
It is not altogether surprising that, in view of the attitude of provincial and municipal authorities on this matter of unemplo5rment relief responsibility, veterans, who have to seek local assistance, do so with a feeling of humiliation. Disillusionment and bitter thoughts prevail amongst many of these men to-day, yet they have held themselves aloof from all that *is not good citizenship. They stand for law and order, but they feel that they deserve better than their present lot.
Our veterans are a strong moral force in the nation and, during years of depression, their attitude has had a steadying effect on the community in general.
By its efforts to solve the unemployment situation, the dominion government has already recognized that unemployment is basically a national problem. In the case of ex-service men, the commission feels that unemployment is essentially even more of a national problem, because the influences that contributed most to the unemployability of these men had their origin in a national emergency.
I heartily endorse these words.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I do not wish to say much at this late hour, but I do want to associate myself earnestly with the previous speakers. All things considered, our treatment of our returned men has left very much to be desired, and I think something further should be done for them. If this system under which we are living renders Canada incapable of doing more for her returned men, that fact alone stands as a condemnation of the system and for all thoughtful men it should be a sign that the system must be changed. Manifestly a country like Canada can do more for her returned men than she is doing. I shall never be satisfied until at least all that is asked for and recommended by these two commissions is done.


Mr. ISNOR:: I realize that the minister is anxious to get this item through, and I do not propose to take up time except to reply briefly to a remark made by the hon. member for Vancouver North. I would hesitate to criticize actions or supposed actions taking place in Vancouver, which is rather a long distance from Ottawa, and still longer from 
Halifax, and for that reason, without knowing my facts, I wmuld hesitate to make criticisms of conditions at such a distance. I live in Halifax; I am there the greater part of the time, and when I am in Ottawa I keep in touch with matters pertaining to my constituency. I have on my desk and in my file letters from various returned soldiers' organizations in Halifax, and almost without exception they have been good enough to write thanking me and asking me to express to the Minister of Pensions and National Health as well as to the Minister of National Defence their appreciation of the cooperation given to returned men not only in regard to pension matters but with respect to the general employment situation. I hesitate to say that the hon. member for Vancouver North raised the question from political motives. Knowing him, I would not say that he had spoken from that point of view; but in regard to the question raised the other day by an hon. member sitting on the other side of the house, when he asked a question based upon a telegram he had received from an individual in Halifax, it was shown later that the information was not according to the facts.
Last Christmas the complete list of names which was forwarded by the secretary of the veterans' assistance commission was accepted 100 per cent, which shows a willingness to cooperate on the part of those who are in authority in Halifax. I believe the same can be said to a very large extent with respect to various projects now being carried out in Halifax. I say, therefore, with all due respect to the criticisms offered by the hon. member for Vancouver North, I am satisfied that in the very large percentage of cases, almost wholly, this government has the support of the returned men not only in Halifax, but also throughout Nova Scotia.
May I say one word in reference to another criticism offered by an hon. member in reference to a certain undertaking in Nova Scotia. He did not mention the county, but the reference was to the town of Yarmouth. I have been informed that, regarding the recent project in connection with the airport in the town of Yarmouth, a responsible party wrote to the honorary secretary of the veterans' assistance commission in Halifax, stating that fifty per cent of the men on that project were returned men and that a large number of unemployed returned men of Yarmouth were being taken care of. That is altogether different from the picture presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North. The hon. gentleman did not state his authority for the statement he made. Perhaps he will give us the name of the person who sent the letter.

Supply-Pensions-Veterans


Charles Grant MacNeil: I have no desire to question the hon. member's statement. I brought this matter to the attention of the committee as an indication of the general procedure in connection with the employment of ex-service men. The letter is from an organization known as the Veterans of France and is signed by N. M.L. Rolfe over the seal of the organization. The complaint is not against the hon. member or the department, but rather against the procedure. It is that when the list of exservice men available for work is prepared by the veterans' assistance commission, it is again scrutinized on the basis of political considerations, apparently in regard to their eligibility to share in political patronage, and is o.k.-ed by some representative of the hon. member or by the hon. member himself. Then they say it is again scrutinized by the department, and that by reason of this procedure some ex-service men who might have obtained employment are denied that opportunity. It is just that, with the hon. member for Vancouver South, I protest against such procedure, because it results in the elimination of some men who, I feel, should be entitled to employment. They state definitely that on some of the projects now under way in Halifax a very small percentage of ex-service men are employed. I hope to hear from the hon. member for Halifax a denial that such procedure is followed, and that regardless of political considerations all deserving ex-service men are granted an opportunity to obtain employment on these projects.


Howard Charles Green: What is the present position with regard to the number of pensioners who are getting assistance?


Charles Gavan Power: There are about 8,500.


Howard Charles Green: Then there has been a substantial reduction in the number of pensioners requiring relief?
Mr.,POWER: Yes. A good many of them have obtained jobs and quite a number more received the war veterans' allowance during the past year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Services to veterans and dependents-Care of patients, $3,045,287.
Charles Grant MacNeil: The other evening the minister stated that there was an increase in the total appropriation for hospital allowances and care of patients. I have some difficulty in understanding the figures he utilized. Apparently he took the actual expenditures for 1936 and 1937, according to his statement on page 3071 of Hansard, and compared them
with the estimate for the present year. But in both estimates, for care of patients and for hospital allowances, there are definite decreases indicated this year. Is it possible for the minister now to give comparative figures for the fiscal years 1936-37 and 1937-38 as regards provision for care of patients and provision for hospital allowances, as well as comparative figures with regard to hospital admissions, with particular reference to class 1 patients?


Charles Gavan Power: It has been very difficult to get the exact figures, on account of the different set-up of the estimates this year. I do not think I can get that information for my hon. friend without going to a great deal more work than I have had time to do since I last saw him. There has been a change in the system since 1936 in that, as my hon. friend knows, class 5 has been established, which is really a clearing-house for the other classes. So it is very difficult for us to obtain comparable figures.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I shall not press the
minister if it entails a great deal of work, but I asked for these figures because of the general concern that exists with regard to the application of P.C. 91 as against P.C. 1842. There are some points which have been brought to my attention in dealing with individual cases. It is alleged that a number of men have been transferred from class 1 to other classes and thereby have been deprived of pay and allowances, and there has been some readjustment in regard to reclassification which has reacted to the disadvantage of the men.
The next point was with regard to dental treatment. That was touched upon the other night, but I wish to add that when dental treatment is offered a man living in a remote district, away from a departmental institution, and it is required that he receive that treatment in a departmental institution, no provision is made for transportation expenses, so that it is practically impossible, as I understand the situation, for that man to take advantage of the regulation. The expense of travelling probably would be greater than the expense of having dental treatment at home.


Charles Gavan Power: I suppose my hon. friend
knows that under P.C. 1842, the former order in council, dental treatment was never given as class 2 at all, and that under P.C. 91, passed in 1936, dental treatment is given as class 2. So there is that much improvement in comparison with the old order in council; I think that is pretty clear.
Supply-Pensions-Veterans


Charles Grant MacNeil: Yes; but my plea is for
the man for whom dental treatment has been recommended as likely to improve his general condition. He may be in receipt of a pension for tuberculosis, let us say-


Charles Gavan Power: But he did not get it at
all before; so he is that much better off now.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am glad to hear that;
but is it not possible to make satisfactory arrangements so that a man may either receive his transportation expenses to a departmental institution where he can receive the necessary treatment, or secure that treatment at the point where he resides?


Charles Gavan Power: I am studying that matter,
and I hope to arrive at a fairly satisfactory solution.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister would let this item stand. I think there are more matters to be brought up.


Charles Gavan Power: Is there much more on it?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to go into
health to-morow. A number of hon. members have been asking me about that. We have spent a considerable time and quite a number of sittings of the house discussing pensions, which we have debated in all its phases. Of course I am in the hands of the committee, but the doctors must have their day some time. The soldiers have had many days.


Howard Charles Green: There is only one point I
have in mind, and it might take only a short time, but I suggest that the minister let the item stand.


Charles Gavan Power: Has my hon. friend anything to say about it, or does he just want to make another speech? I do not want to have the item carry if there is to be any further discussion; I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: We had two or three points we wished to have discussed; it is not a question of making a speech, or anything like that. I think the minister should let the item stand.


Charles Gavan Power: It is eleven o'clock anyway. Item stands.
Progress reported.


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

Friday, May 27, 1938