OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
i
15-16 GEORGE V, 1925

[Stage Direction]
h\V-T '
[Stage Direction]
House ol Commons Befmtes
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 11, 1925

[Stage Direction]
Copy of report for the year 1924 of positions excluded under the provisions of section 38B
(2)	from the operation of the Civil Service Act, 1918, as amended by chapter 22, 11-12 George V.-Hon. Mr. Copp.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, to amend The Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911.-Mr. Church.

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay before the House a petition of the Montreal Board of Trade referring to the Petersen ship subsidy bill; also a petition of the Montreal Com Exchange referring to the same matter.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. HOCKEN:: How many appointments were made to the civil service of Canada by the Civil Service Commission during the calendar year 1924?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: During the calendar year 1924, 1,571 appointments were made by the Civil Service Commission, to fill vacancies caused by death, resignations or otherwise, and 250 additional appointments. Of the total appointments made 299 were postmasters and 177 seasonal appointments required owing to a large number of positions abolished in the process of re-organization.


COLD STORAGE PLANT, MONTREAL
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Who prepared plans for the Harbour Commission's cold storage plant, Montreal, and what was the engineer's estimate of cost?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of said cold storage plant, and, if so, in what manner?
3.	How many firms tendered, and what are the names of such firms or individuals?
4.	What was the amount of the lowest tender?
5.	At what figure was the contract awarded, and to whom?
6.	What is the totail cost to date, based on engineer's approved certificates?
7.	How much has actually been paid to said contractor ?
8.	Has contract been completed? If not, what still remains unfinished?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Mr. F. W. Cowie, Chief Engineer, Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and Harold Rolph, representing the John S. Metcalf Company, Ltd., Montreal- Preliminary bulk estimate approved PC. January 30,	1919,
8900,000.	Detailed estimate approved P.C.
May 7, 1919, 81,400,000, as follows:
Refrigeration and Equipment	$485,620
Excavation and Piling	Foundation..	100,000
Superstructure	 736,411
Power House J cost	 77,969
2.	On March 22, 1920, tenders were called for the superstructure only, by public advertisement in the local English and French newspapers.
3.	Five, as follows:
1.	E. G. M. Cape & Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
2.	G. D. Loomis & Sons, Montreal, P.Q.
3.	The Atlas Construction Co., Montreal, P.Q.
4.	Geo. A. Fuller Co. Ltd., Cleveland, Ohio.
5.	P. Lyall & Sons Construction Co., Montreal.
The Commissioners' Chief Engineer, Mr. F.	W. Cowie, made a proposal for the building of the superstructure above tendered for, to be carried out by the harbour commissioners organization, with the co-operation of the John S. Metcalf, Ltd., Montreal, at an estimated cost of $957,174, including co-operation fees, &c.
4.	Lowest tender for superstructure, $1,357,000, the John S. Metcalfe fee of 5 per cent for plans, specification and estimates, not in-included.
5.	No award was made. The commissioners gave orders to carry out the whole work departmentally under the direction of Mr. F. W. Cowie, Chief Engineer. The work on the superstructure to be under the superintendence of the John S. Metcalf Company.

Questions

6.	Cost to date, $2,930,723.38, as follows:
Refrigeration and equipment.	..$1,290,494	62Excavation and piling	foundation	125,526	73Superstructure	
1,350,308	42Power House 5 cost	
164,393	617.	For plans, specifications, superintendence and co-operation, $60,705.42, was paid to JohnS.	Metcalf Co. Ltd.8.	Building was completed by harbour commissioners' organization, and plant was put in operation in May, 1922.


NO. 3 ELEVATOR-MONTREAL
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Who prepared plans for No. 3 elevator, Montreal, and what was the engineer's estimate of cost?
2.	Were tenders called for the erection of said elevator, and, if so, in wihat manner?
3.	How many firms tendered, and what are the names of such firms or individuals?
4.	What was the amount of the lowest tender?
5.	Was the lowest tender, or any of the tenders, accepted? If not, for what reason?
6.	Was a contract later given to Metcalf & Company?
7.	What did such contract include?
8.	Were tenders called for this changed or amended contract ?
9.	What were the terms and amount of said contract ?	.
10.	What was the engineer's estimate of amended plan, and who prepared the plans?
11.	How much has been jpaid to Metcalf & Company (a) to prepare original plans; (b) to prepare amended plans; (c) as commission as supervisors?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The original plans were prepared by The John S. Metcalf Coy., Ltd., grain elevator engineers, Montreal, their estimate being the sum of $2,347,000, not including percentage for plans, estimates, engineering, superintendence, etc.
2.	By public advertisement, on 10th March, 1923, in all the English and French local newspapers.
3.	Seven firms,-
(1)	E. G. M. Cape & Coy., Montreal.
(2)	Atlas Construction Co., Ltd., Montreal.
(3)	John Quinlan & Co., Ltd., Montreal.
(4)	Downing, Cook & Coy., Montreal.
(5)	Quinlan, Robertson & Janin, Ltd., Montreal.
(6)	Barnett, McQueen Co., Ltd., Fort William.
(7)	Fegles Construction Co., Ltd., Fort William.
4.	$3,217,S00. Jno. S. Metcalf Company's fee of 5 per cent for plans, specifications and estimates not included.
5.	No tender accepted. Bids were too high.
6.	Yes, on 17th April, 1923.

7.	Plans, estimates, superintendence of work, preparation of bids for materials, tabulation and reports on same, provide at own expense all large items of working plant, and to assume full responsibility for satisfactory work.
8.	Tenders were called on amended plans only.
9.	Plans and specifications, 2i per cent, and engineering superintendence, 7i per cent, or 10 per cent in all on an amount not exceeding $3,000,000.
10.	$3,194,500, including the 10 per cent for plans, superintendence, etc., as above mentioned in item 9.
11.	(a) (b): Amended plans and original plans, included in original contract-(2J per cent).
Amount paid to 31st Jan.,
1925	$ 72,888.30
(c) Amount paid to 31st Jan.,
1925	 160,617.49
(51 per cent) or total of.. .. $233,505.79 2 per cent being held back until final acceptance.


POTATO EMBARGO
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the government any knowledge of the report as published in newspapers of the 7th and 21st instants, that an embargo against Canadian potatoes has been placed by the British government?
2.	If so, what action, if any, does the government propose to take to have this embargo removed?
3.	What action, if any, did the government take to prevent this embargo taking effect?
4.	Does the embargo apply to potatoes grown in the United States?
5.	If not, what is the attitude of the British government with reference to the importation of potatoes from the United States?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Yes, the report is correct.
2.	3. When the possibility of the embargo
was first reported, the following cable was sent to the High Commissioner:	"Unofficially
reported here that British ministry contemplate putting embargo on Canadian potatoes because of presence here of Colorado beetle. This beetle has been in Canada for half century and to take objection to it now would be extremely unfortunate and untimely in view of recent action of United Kingdom looking to promotion of inter-Empire trade by establishing marketing committee upon which dominions have been invited to appoint representatives. Urge you have any such suggested action stayed until whole situation is carefully surveyed from all angles as another ill advised cattle embargo incident would be unfortunate."

Questions
The following is a quotation from a letter addressed by the High Commissioner to the Right Honourable Lord Bledisloe, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries: "I am enclosing a little article which appeared in the Manchester edition of the Daily Mail yesterday headed "U.S.A. Bacon".
You will notice in the last paragraph of this an allusion to potatoes, in case American potatoes should find their way via Canada to this country. As a matter of fact this would be commercially impossible because the duty on potatoes from the United States to Canada is thirty-five cents per 100 lbs. and the United States market is always higher than the Canadian, even in times of plenty like the present year, and if they went through Canada in bond they would be bound to be marked "U.S.A. potatoes."
You are probably well aware of the care taken in grading and marketing Canadian potatoes. They are run over wire screens for sizes, then bagged, and each bag must have a tag attached by a government inspector marked "Canadian A", and "Canadian B" or "Canadian C". I may add that the potatoes are examined by two government inspectors -by the original grader and the potato health inspector at the point of shipment.
The information I get is that it is practically an impossibility for the Colorado beetle to appear in any Canadian tuber because, as you know, the slugs feed on the leaf and they bury themselves in the earth, not in the tuber, and the tuber being run over wire screens for sizes and then run again over hand racks at the point of shipment precludes any possibility of them containing anything that might develop into a Colorado beetle.
These representations were, however, unsuccessful and the embargo was placed on Canadian potatoes. The government was, however, successful in inducing the British government to except from the conditions of the embargo any Canadian potatoes afloat at the time the embargo was put into effect.
A further attempt was made to have the restrictions removed, the following cable having been sent to the British ministry: "The Entomological branch of the Department of Agriculture has just completed a close biological study of the Colorado beetle and from their study of the habits of the insect, there would appear to be no danger whatever of the beetle being transported in shipments of potatoes exported from Canada.
The Colorado potato beetle in eastern Canada disappears from the plants by the end of September and enters the ground for hibernation. In fact, the large majority of the beetles are in the ground a month earlier.
66|
Potatoes exported from Canada to England are dug in October, at which time, as stated, the beetles are inactive, being in hibernation in the ground. After digging, the potatoes are machine graded before shipment and the danger that any beetles could remain in association with the potatoes through all this process is infinitesimal.
Our officers who have made special observations of this insect have never reported the finding of the beetles in bags, barrels, or other containers in which potatoes are shipped.
During the summer months when the beetles are active, there is a possibility of their being transported with any cargo, but it seems almost inconceivable that the beetles could be introduced with shipments of potatoes which are invariably dug after the beetles have entered the ground for hibernation.
We have no records, nor know of no cases in other countries the insect having been distributed through shipments of potatoes.
As the department has an established potato inspection service, Canada would suggest that the Imperial government accept shipments of potatoes from this country subject to their being accompanied by certificates as to freedom from Colorado potato beetle due to having undergone such grading and inspection as would permit of such guarantee.
No reply to this has yet been received.
4.	A similar embargo, and for similar reasons, is placed against the importation into Great Britain of potatoes from the United States.
5.	Answered by No.. 4.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-OFFICIALS
Mr. LUCAS:: 1.	How many veterinarians were employed by the Health of Animals branch in Dominion of Canada during 1923?
2.	How many were employed during 1924?
3.	How many veterinarians were employed by the Health of Animals branch in each province during 1923?
4.	How many were employed in each province in Canada during 1924?
5.	What was the total amount of salaries paid veterinary employees of the Health of Animals branch in Canada during 1924?
6.	What was the total travelling expenses of all employees of Health of Animals branch for 1924?
7.	What mileage expenses were paid for motor cars for each veterinary employee of the Health of Animals branch in the province of Alberta, and what was the name and location of each employee?
8.	W.hat is the total number of permanent officials engaged by the various branches of the federal Department of Agriculture who are located in the province of Alberta, and what are the names and locations of each?
9.	What is the description of the work which these officials are required to perform?
10.	What are the names and locations of permanent employees of the federal Department of Agriculture
Questions

located outside the province of Alberta who were temporarily employed within that .province during 1923 and 1924?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Live Stock Branch-
W. 0. Watkins, district sheep promoter, Winnipeg (since resigned), was employed during the fall of 1923 grading rams in the province of Alberta; J. M. McCallum, chief, stock yards service, Ottawa, was employed for a period during October 1924, grading rams; E. J. Johns, junior stock yard agent, St. Boniface stock yards, St. Boniface, Manitoba, substituted for N. Curtis, stock yard agent grade 2, at Edmonton during the latter's statutory leave September 27-Oetober 17, 1924.
The undermentioned dairy recorders and testers, E. C. Crohn, Victoria, B. C. (resigned); J. H. Marshall, Hamilton, Ont.; S. Ross, Ottawa; A. M. Clark, Montreal, Que. (resigned); E. Young, New Westminster, B.C.; R. Snazelle, Seagrave, Ont.
These men were employed at various intervals -in Alberta during the years 1923-24.
These men were employed as travelling inspectors visiting farms to test cows entered in the Canadian record of performance test for pure bred dairy cattle. They move from farm to farm making the round of the Prairie provinces and British Columbia. Some of them did not return home for two years.
H.	T. Wilson, poultry inspector in Ontario, worked at various periods in the province of Alberta during the years 1923-24.
EGG GRADINe AND INSPECTION


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I.	How many egg inspectors or graders are now employed by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What is the total of the annual salaries to be paid for the present year in this connection?
3.	What are the percentages of the eggs graded in 1924 under the various grades provided in the act, viz. Class I-fresh; grade (a)-specials, grade (b)

extras; sub-grade I-pullets-extras; Grade (c)-firsts; grade (d)-seconds?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	(March 4th, 1925) Twenty-six egg inspectors including one -chief egg inspector.
2.	(Fiscal year 1924-25) $42,112.57.
3.
Percentage
Class (1) Fresh
Grade (a) specials	
'Grade (b) extras	 14.6
Sub-grade (1) pullet extras	08
Grade	(c)	firsts	
27.9Grade	(d)	seconds	
25.3
Class (2) storage Class (2a) preserved
Grade	(a)	extras	
3.4Grade	(b)	firsts	
19.7Grade	(c)	seconds	
9.0Class (c) cracked and dirty	02


RUSSIAN FLOUR ORDER
*Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Has the government any information regarding the large order placed by the Russian government with Canadian mills for more than $12,000,000 worth of flour?
2.	If so, what arrangements, if any, have been made with the government regarding financing this purchase?


Hon. Mr. OOPP:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL TAXATION
Mr. CHURCH:: [DOT]
1.	Has anything been done by the government to meet the Ontario government and co-ordinate federal and provincial taxation to prevent duplication and overlapping, on income, amusement and other forms of taxation, since last session?
2.	If so, what action has -been taken?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1 and 2. A taxation conference was held at Ottawa in November, 1924, at which representatives of the Ontario government were present. On the ll!t-h of November representatives of the various provinces met the Acting Minister of Finance. On the following day the representatives of the provinces -met by themselves and passed a resolution, which was later presented bo the Acting Minister of Finance: " That a conference be called at the joint request of the p-remiers of Ontario and Quebec to deal with the problems which arise from time to time in the administration of provincial affairs and for -the purpose of such conference, but not in any way limiting the scope thereof, that the following be the agenda:-(1)	Overlapping in departments
where joint federal and provincial jurisdiction is being exercised. (2) Consideration of income tax as to collection and allocation. (3) Exemption of all purchases by and on behalf of provincial governments from operation of sales tax. (4) Adjustment of federal subsidies to provinces with a view to having provincial subsidies bear a reasonable ratio to provincial expenditures. (5) Provincial taxation of all nationally operated railroads. (6) Inter-provincial relations in respect to succession duties. (7) Consideration of measures for reduction of taxation and further economies in administration."


MALAGASH DREDGING
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	W-hat are the names of -those who tendered for dredging at Malagash in 1924?
2.	What were the prices of the different firms or individuals tendering?
3.	To -whom was the contract awarded?
4.	By who-m was the work done?
5.	Was the work done according to tender?
6.	What was the price paid per yard for rock?

Questions
7.	What was the price paid per yard for earth?
8.	What was .the total quantity of rock removed?
9.	What was the total quantity of earth removed?
10.	How much money was earned by contractor?
11.	How <muoh imoney was .paid contractor?
12.	How much more rock' is required to be removed under contract?
13.	How much more earth is required to be removed under contract?
14.	Who was the inspector of dredging operations?
15.	How many days was inspector employed in connection with work ?
16.	How much was paid inspector per day?
17.	What was the total amount earned by inspector in 1924?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No contract awarded. The Fraser Paving and Construction Company, Limited, of New Glasgow, N.S. offered to do this dredging if they were given a chance to test out the working possibilities of their outfit before entering into a contract to carry out the work. This offer was accepted and during 1924 this firm made certain tests with a view of doing the work as a hydraulic proposition but they have not yet expressed their willingness to enter into contract to undertake the work.
4.	Work to the value of about $500 is claimed by The Fraser Paving & Construction Co. Matter being investigated.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	No payments made.
7.	No payments made.
8.	Nil.	.
9.	About 500 cubic yards place measurement.
10.	About $500.
11.	Nil.
12.	It is not anticipated that any rock will be encountered.
13.	Approximately 23,290 cubic yards, place measurement.
14.	James H. Treen, (during the period the Fraser Paving and Construction Co., Ltd., were making their tests.)
15.	Fifty-four days.
16.	$4.
17.	$216.


PIERREVILLE WHARF
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What did the repairs to the government wharf, at Pierreville, county of Yamaska, cost?
2.	How many thousand feet of lumber were used in said repairs?
3.	What was the price of said lumber?
4.	Who supplied the same?
5.	Is the government aware that Mr. Rodolphe Tourville, M.L.A., and Mr. Edouard Ouellet, legislative councillor, are members of the Tourville Lumber Company of Louiseville, county of MaskinongS?
6.	Who was the contractor of above wharf and what was his remuneration?
7.	If the work was performed by day labour, who was the superintendent, and what was his salary?
8.	Who bought the old lumber?
9.	What disposition was made of the new unused lumber ?
10.	Was said unused lumber carted away by day or by night?
11.	Was the old lumber sold and at what price?
12.	What was the total cost of the construction of the government's shed?
13.	How many feet of lumber were used in the construction of said shed?
14.	What were the names of the contractor and inspector ?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: For calendar years 1923 and 1924:-
1.	1923-$105.09.
1924-$3,254.19.
2.	1923-937 feet.
1924-26,714 feet.
3.	1923-$39.98.
1924-$1,189-81.
4. 1923-Messrs. D. & A. Laperriere, of Pierreville, P.Q.
1924-Messrs. D. & A. Laperriere, of Pierville, P.Q. and The Tourville Lumber Mills Company, Louiseville, P.Q.
5.	No information.
6.	1923-Work performed by day labour. 1924-Work performed by day labour.
7.	1923-George Allard, $4.00 per day.
1924-George Allard, $4.00 per day.
8.	1923 and
1924-No old lumber sold.
9.	1923 and
1924-No new lumber remained unused.
10.	See answer for question 9.
11.	None sold.
12.	$882.57.
13.	9,061 feet. *
14.	1923-1924-No contractor or inspector as work done under a foreman.


FISH EXPORT
Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: 1.	Has the Marine and Fisheries department entered into any arrangement with Mr. Hugh Green relative to the shipment of fish from the Maritime provinces to Great Britain?
2.	Is any assistance being given by the government?
3.	If so, what is the nature of same and at what points in the Maritime provinces will the operations be carried on?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


MRS. JEAN MULDREW
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Is Mrs. Jean Muldrew an employee of the Soldier Settlement Board ?
2.	If so, what is her annual salary?
3.	What amounts of travelling and other expenses has she incurred each year since her appointment, which have been paid out of public funds?
Questions

4.	Is she entitled to the preference given by section 39 of the Civil Service Act to those who have military service overseas in the late war, or to the widows
of such ?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$3,000.
3.
1919-	20	$1,123	651920-	21	
1,636	511921-	22	
1,404	261922-	23	
862	081923-	24 to Sept. 30, 1923 ....	856	27*Oct. 1, 1923 to March 31, 1924. 1,139 23 *1924-25	
280 284.	No, (she was appointed prior to the passing of this section), but she is a widow whose only son was killed in action in 1915.
* Attached for special duty to Department of Immigration and Colonization.


MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 10-COAL INQUIRY
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	How many officers have been dismissed for participation in the frauds disclosed by the Campbell commission in connection with the sale of coal?
2.	How many non-commissioned officers?
3.	How many privates?
4.	How many workmen?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: None. The government has taken steps to court martial Lt.-Col. G. F. C. Pousette, District Supply and Transport Officer, who was primarily responsible for the receipt of coal at the military establishment at Winnipeg. The question of dismissing and disciplining officers, privates and workmen is under consideration.


CONSUMERS GLASS COMPANY
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is the government aware that the Consumers Glass Company of Verdun, through its superintendent, Mr. Goddard, brought workmen between the 20th and 25th February, 1925, from Zanesville, Ohio, where the trade union is not recognized, and that these strike breakers have replaced citizens of Canada in said Consumers Glass factory?
2.	Is the government in a position to inform the House if the men named Crest and Millar at present registered at Dombrieo hotel, as well as their companions, have not violated the Immigration Act by entering Canada?
3.	If they have unlawfully entered Canada, is it the intention of the government to deport them?
4.	Is it true that said Consumers Glass Company unlawfully employ young girls between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. and even on Sunday?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	No information.
2.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization has no record of Crest and Millar and unless furnished with the names of their companions can make no reply with respect to the latter.
(Mr. Doucet.]
3.	If it is shown that these men effected illegal entry to Canada, the Department of Immigration and Colonization will institute deportation proceedings.
4.	No information.


HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY-LAND
Mr. GOOD:: 1.	During the last ten years has the Hudson's Bay Company been granted any land?
2.	If so, (a) How much; (b) Where situated; (c) For what consideration; (d) For what reasons?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 98,059.94 acres.
(b)	Prairie provinces and Northwest Territories.
(c)	Deed of surrender, Dominion Lands Act, exchange account and by purchase under clause 32 of Dominion Lands Act.
(d)	693.74 acres-Trading post under deed
of surrender.
42,836.27 acres-Notifications and allotments of 1 /20th.
54,156.50 acres-Exchange account.
373.43 acres-Sales for trading post under section 32 of the Dominion Lands Act.-$1,74626.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	How much did the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners pay for the waterfront property lying immediately east of and adjoining No. 1 harbour board elevator, portion of which is now occupied by elevator known as Spillers elevator?
2.	What was the total area of the said property: (a) Above high water mark; (b) Below high water mark?
3.	Was the said property offered to the harbour board for ?275,000?
4.	Did the said price of $275,000 include a sawmill and buildings then on the property?
5.	Did the harbour board secure an option at this price and if so, for how long?
6.	Subsequent to the purchase of the said property, did the harbour commissioners permit the former owners to remove the mill and other buildings, or to whom was the said mill sold, or given, or released?
7.	Was a portion of the said property leased to R. H. Gale of Vancouver, acting for himsdf or a company, and if the latter, what was the name of the company to whom the lease was issued ?
8.	Did the said R. H. Gale negotiate the said lease?
9.	Has there been any transfer of the said lease since the original issue? If so, to whom?
10.	What is the amount of rental being paid to the harbour commissioners for the said lease?
11.	Did the harbour commissioners undertake to build a jetty for grain conveyors as a condition or term in the said lease? If so, what has the said jetty and conveyors and equipment cost?

Railway Mail Service
12.	Has the said original lease, or a later transferred lease been assigned to the "Spillers" Grain Company of England?


MILITIA HEADQUARTERS-STAFF
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What is the name, the rank, the position, and the pension of each officer on the staff at headquarters, Ottawa, and the military districts, who has been retired from the service, from the 1st of January, 1924, to the 1st of March, 1925?
2.	What is the name, the rank, the position, and the salary, including pay and all allowances, of each officer of the staff at headquarters, Ottawa, and the military districts, who has received; (a) an extension of term; (b) a reappointment, from the 1st of January, 1924, to the 1st of March, 1925?
3.	Who recommends to the Minister and the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence: (a) the retirement of an officer; (b) the extension of term to an officer; (c) a reappointment of an officer; (d) the promotion of an officer?
4.	What is the name of each officer of the staff at the general headquarters and local headquarters, Ottawa. and in the military districts, who has held the same rank more than four years, and what is the tenure of appointment of all positions on the staff?
5.	What is the intention of the Minister of the Department of National Defence regarding those officers who have not been promoted in the army for many years ?


OFFICERS COMMANDING MILITARY DISTRICTS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What is the tenure of appointment of an officer commanding a military district?
2.	What are the names of the officers commanding the military districts of Halifax, Nova Scotia; St. John, New Brunswick; Toronto, Ontario; Montreal, Quebec; Quebec. Quebec; from the 1st August, 1912, to the 1st of March, 1925?
3.	During the above years, what was (a) the date of 1st appointment as officer commanding a military district of each of the above officers; (b) the date of each reappointment; (c) the date of each extension of term; (d) the total number of years of service as officer commanding a military district?
4.	Is it the intention of the Minister and the Department of National Defence to maintain in his position an officer commanding a military district for a term of more than four or five years, by this fact stopping promotion to a lot of officers of the permanent force well qualified and available for such a position?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between January 1, 1922, and June 27, 1924, between the Minister or officer of the Department of Public Works and the member for the time being of the riding of West Hastings, referring in any way to the Trenton wharf.



KENO CITY TOWNSITE

Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: For a copy of all correspondence between the Gold Commissioner of Yukon, the Surveyor General, the Director General of Surveys, any official of the government and any person concerning the survey and plan of the townsite of Keno City, iin Yukon territory.



RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, there should be no discrimination against the Canadian National Railways in the carrying of mails.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled
that during the progress of last session I placed the following question on the order paper:
What percentage of the mail of Canada is being carried by ,the Canadian Pacific railway between eastern Canada and the Pacific coast?
The answer to the question was:
Expenditure on account of the railway mail service for the whole of Canada for fiscal year, 1922-23:
Canadian Pacific railways	
$3,683,232	80Canadian National railways.. ..	3,178,411	02Other railways	
615,839	07
It will also be recalled that following the reply to this question, a regular avalanche of telegrams and petitions and resolutions poured into Ottawa from all parts of Canada demanding the removal of what was at least believed to be discrimination against the National Railways in the carrying of mail. Almost immediately following the appearance of the said question on the order paper, I was invited to visit the office of the deputy minister. On visiting his office, I was informed that everything was being done at that time to remove what appeared to be discrimination, and to make as nearly as possible an equal division of the mail carrying business of the country between the two great railway systems. However, not being satisfied in my own mind that all was being done that might be done, this year I placed on the order paper the resolution that is now before the House. In order that I might be enabled to give a fair statement of the situation as it actually exists, I have secured from the Post Office Department some figures that, while they may not all be strictly relevant to the subject matter, I think will be of interest to the House, and probably more so to the country. I will ask to have this statement placed on Hansard in order that the figures can be grasped intelligently.
Hon. gentlemen wall kindly note the track miles of the two great railway systems in the Dominion of Canada are as follows: track miles of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, 13,579; and of the Canadian National, 19,975 miles. Now I would direct the attention of the House to the track miles used. In the case of the Canadian Pacific, 13,172 miles are used; in other words, just 400 miles less than the mileage actually constructed; but when we come to the
Railway Mail Service

Canadian National Railways, we find that the mileage in use is only 18,280. while the mileage built is 19,975. These are the figures that I remarked at the outset were perhaps not strictly relevant to the subject matter of the resolution, but nevertheless I think they are worthy of notice.
Now in respect to the carrying of mail the figures are as follows: Canadian Pacific railway, train miles, 5.638,040; Canadian National railways, train miles, 6,602,644. I would also direct the attention of the House to one feature of those figures, and that is that while the Canadian Pacific Railway operate only 13,172 miles of railway, their train miles amount to 5,638,040; while the National Railways, operating 18,280 miles, have a train mileage of 6,602,644; in other words, the train miles of the Canadian Pacific are 20 per cent, or thereabouts, in excess of the National Railways. Now anyone who has travelled between eastern and western Canada cannot but have been impressed with the large number of excess trains that are operating in this country. When you get on a train in the city of Winnipeg, for instance, you will find, as I did when I was coming to Ottawa this session, that there were only 37 passengers on the entire train. The Canadian Pacific Railway train had left about an hour previously, and I understand that it carried only 31 passengers. I think this might very *well be taken into consideration by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), with a view to seeing if we cannot reduce the number of unnecessary trains that are running, and which are responsible for some at least of the Canadian National Railway deficits.
Now I come to the subject matter of the resolution. The postal service miles of the Canadian Pacific Railway amount to 3,629,508. and of the Canadian National Railways to 4,270,320. Dividing that into two classes, so to speak, we find that the Canadian Pacific operated 1,187,536 miles of the 60-foot full postal cars; that is, a full mail car; while the Canadian National Railways, though they operate 18,280 miles of railways as against 13,172 miles of the Canadian Pacific, is ap-proximiately 75,000 miles more than the Canadian Pacific railway of the 60-foot full postal cars.
Then coming to the thirty foot postal car the Canadian Pacific operated a mail service on 1,575,682 miles, and the Canadian National for the same half car operated a service of 1,411,200 miles. In the case of baggage car mail service the Canadian Pacific mileage was 866,290 and the Canadian National mileage 1,758,366. It will be noted that in that instance the National Railways gave a service

to a much greater degree than did the Canadian Pacific. But that means very little because payment is made for what is called overflow service.	In	other	words	a trainleaves Montreal, Toronto, or some other point, the overflow after	the	mail	car is	filled iscarried in the baggage	car.	That	space is
purchased from station to station as it is required.
Now, in the matter of payment for that service the sum of $772,906.09 was paid to the Canadian Pacific, according to the figures which I have, and $769,916.49 was paid to the Canadian National. You will note, therefore that the payment	is almost	equal	for the
service rendered in that particular class. However coming to the overflow mail we see a different situation. The overflow mail is the mail which I have just mentioned, the mail offered in excess of the accommodation on the baggage or postal car. In the statements I have, the figures are given by provinces. I shall not weary the House by enumerating all the details. but will ask permission to place them on Hansard.
The statements are as follows:
CANADA	'
Statement showing a comparison of track miles, train miles and postal service miles etc., in connection with mail traffic on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways:
Track mile-C.P.R., 13,579; C.N.R., 19,975.
Track miles used-C.P.R., 13,172; C.N.R., 18,280.
Train miles-C.P.R., 5,638.040; C.N.R., 6,602,644.
Postal service miles-C.P.R.,	3,629,508;	C.N.R.,
4,270,320.
Sixty foot postal car, miles-C.P.R., 1,187,536; C.N.R., 1,208.476.
Thirty foot postal car, miles-C.P.R., 1,575,682; C N.R., 1,411,200.
Baggage car miles-C.P.R., 866,290; C.N.R., 1,758,366.
Payment for service-C.P.R., 1772,906.09; C.NR., $769,916.49.	j
Statement showing track miles, Train miles, Postal service miles, etc., in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia.
Track miles-C.P.R.. 8,525 miles; C.N.R., 9,396 miles.
Track miles used-C.P.R., 8,334 miles; C.N.R., 8,798 miles.
Train miles-C.P.R., 2,542,290 miles; C.N.R., 1,620,629 miles.
Postal service-C.P.R.,	1,893,094 miles; CNR.
1,122,018 miles.
Sixty foot postal car-C.P.R., 687,429 miles; C.N.R., 412,986 miles.
Thirty foot postal car-C.P.R., 778,102 miles; C.NR., 278,447 miles.
Baggage car-C.P.R., 427,568 miles; C.N.R., 430,585 miles.
Payment-C.P.R., $411,645.17; C.N.R., $221,518.16.



OVERFLOW MILEAGE-CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island, mileage-C.P.R., nil; C.N.R., nil.
Nova Scotia, mileage-C.P.R., nil; C.N.R., 15,906.
New Brunswick, mileage-C.P.R.,	7,286;	C.N.R.,
36,200.
Quebec, mileage-C.P.R., 30,372; C.NR., 90,186.
Ontario, mileage-C.P.R., 167,700; C.N.R., 68,973

Railway Mail Service
Manitoba, mileage-C.P.R., 58,144; C.N.R., 6,712. Saskatchewan, mileage-C.P.R., 99,094; C.N.R., 3.591. Alberta, mileage-C.P.R., 4S.392; C.N.R., 11,209. British Columbia, mileage-C.P.R., 17,352;	C.N.R.,
10,256.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Pacific Railway-428,340 miles.
Canadian National Railway-243,033 miles.
It will be noted that the Canadian Pacific Railway have for this class of service throughout Canada, 428,340 miles; the Canadian National Railway, 243,033 miles. It might appear, Mr. Speaker, from the wording of my resolution that I intended to jump in and tear the Post Office Department to pieces for not having given a fair share of the mail carrying business to the National system. That is not my intention at all. I simply wished to bring to the attention of the House and the department the fact that there was a feeling in the country that the National Railways were not receiving a fair share of the mails offered. However, I think our efforts of last year have not been without effect.
This morning I telephoned to the office of the Superintendent of Railway Mail Contracts, and asked for a comparison of the earnings from this service of the different railways since 1922-23, and I think it will probably be of interest to the House to give the figures. Payments for the fiscal year 1922-23 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, $3,683,414.13; payments to the Canadian National for the same year, $3,158,063.46, a discrimination, if the term is permissible, of $525,350.67 in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The fact that there was this discrimination precipitated the feeling throughout the country which came to a head a year ago. For the year 1923-24 the payments were: Canadian Pacific Railway, $3,659,012.99; Canadian National Railways, $3,176,034.60, a discrimination of only $482,978.39, so the situation was getting a little better. For the calendar year 1924 the payments to the Canadian Pacific Railway amounted to $3,534,251.69, and to the Canadian National, $3,172,107.07, or a difference in favour of the former of $362,144.62. I presume that when we have the figures for the financial year we shall find a further lessening in the discrimination. So that if the Post Office Department continues the good work for another five years this discrimination or differential will be entirely removed. As a member of this House I must say that I appreciate very much the work which the department is doing. Having discussed the matter at some length with the minister as well as with the officers of the department, I believe they are doing just about all that can be done to gradually remove this apparent discrimination without disrupting the service. Still I am not so generous as to allow the department to take the entire credit for this good work. I think our efforts of a year ago as well as the agitation on the part of the public, which interested itself actively in the matter, throughout the length and breadth of Canada, were very largely responsible for the change which has been brought about'-I was going to say change of heart, but I suppose I should say change of policy on the part of the department.
Now, I understand there are other members who wish to speak on this question and I think I have said all I wish to say except one other matter: It may be of interest to the House and to the country to know just what price is paid for the various services rendered. For the sixty foot mail car the department pays thirty-five cents per service mile, and for the thirty foot car twenty cents per service mile. I may say here that the question is often asked why so few mail cars are found on the Canadian National railway line, and I have often wondered myself why their absence. But the mystery was solved for me the other day by the minister, whom I am glad to see in his seat. He told me that the National railway had been carrying a large percentage of the mails offered to it in baggage cars, and that the mails can be carried much more cheaply in these cars than in mail cars. I have here the price paid for a full storage or baggage car, and it is thirty-six cents per service mile. The minister also informed me that a storage car will carry almost twice as many mail bags as a mail car. So that I think the National Railways are to be commended for their endeavours to adopt the system of carrying the mails in those cheaper cars, where they can carry very much more mail in the same space, and at a greatly reduced cost.
With reference to this overflow space that was mentioned, I might remark that that is sold in three, seven, fifteen and thirty foot units. The price paid for the three foot unit is four cents per service mile, for the seven foot unit 6.5 cents, for the fifteen foot unit thirteen cents and for the thirty foot unit twenty cents. In closing I desire again to impress upon the minister the absolute necessity for economy in every possible way. If mail can be carried more cheaply in storage cars than in mail cars, I think that is the service that should be put into effect. I also think we should try to reduce the number of unnecessary trains operating over our railways.
Railway Mail Service
Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :: The matter which the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) has drawn to the attention of the House through this resolution this afternoon was first brought to the attention of most of the members of this House, I think, through a statement, made before the committee that dealt with national railways and shipping last year, by an official of the Canadian National Railways who appeared before that committee, and although he did not use the term " discrimination " which the hon. member uses in his resolution, he left on our minds the impression that there was a discrimination by the Post Office Department in the allotment of mails to the Canadian National Railways, in comparison with the allotment of mail which the Canadian Pacific Railway carried over their lines. That committee to which I have referred, of which I had the honour of being a member, made a certain investigation of this matter last year. I must admit that the investigation was very casual. We did not go into the subject at any great length, but taking the statement that had been submitted to us by the official of the National Railways as being generally correct, we did make a recommendation to this House, and I should like to read to the House the recommendation made in the report of the committee on National Railways and Shipping last year, which is as follows :
In regard to the transport of His Majesty's mails, the evidence submitted indicates that there is at present an unequal distribution of mail services between the railways-in some instances resulting in inferior service to the public. Your committee feels that adequate mail service is of paramount importance in the public interest, and suggests that the government take steps to review the whole question of the transport of mails throughout Canada in order that distribution may be effected to give a maximum of service to the public and justice to the Canadian National Railways.
Hon. members will note that in that paragraph of the report there is no statement that we had found there was a discrimination, but without affecting the service to the public which our Post Office Departs ment renders, and which it has been formed and built up to render, it appeared to us that it would be possible to change the routing of some of the mails in such a way that it would perhaps render greater justice to the Canadian National Railways. The official who appeared before our committee summarized the claims, if I may use that term, that the Canadian National Railways had upon the Post Office Department for a further allotment of mails to be carried. He put it under four heads. The first claim was

that they should have carriage of mail on their trains, Nos. 1 and 2, from Montreal to Vancouver, which was carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The second claim was that they should similarly carry on their trains Nos. 3 and 4 between Toronto and Winnipeg the through mails which are now allotted to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The third claim was that all overseas mail, ex steamers at Quebec should be handed to the Canadian National Railways for transport to Montreal, and his final claim was that all overflow mail originating in Montreal and destined for Toronto should be carried by the Canadian National Railways. He gave us to understand that the existing condition was that they carried that overflow three days a week, and the Canadian Pacific Railway carried it three days a week.
As I have already stated this matter was not very thoroughly investigated last year by the committee. The House will remember that that committee met in the closing days of the session, and there was no time, even if the committee had seen fit to go into the question at length, and perhaps to the depth, that the question merited. I have, however, in the interval been making further inquiries. It seemed to me that this was one of the matters in which perhaps we could take a definite stand in regard to placing our Canadian National Railways on a little better footing. I want to make it very clear to the House that in making the investigation, and in making the statement that I make this afternoon, I put it on this ground, that we, as representing the taxpayers of this country, who have to meet the deficits of our Canadian National Railways, are not doing our duty if we should overlook any point where we can turn business to the Canadian National railways. I know that someone might raise the objection at this point that by asking the Post Office Department to divert its mails to the Canadian National Railways it may not only put the public of Canada at a disadvantage in regard to service, but it would only be taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. I am not sure that that last argument could be sustained. We certainly do not want to put the public of Canada to any disadvantage in so far as service is concerned. I would lay down as a basic principle that in the matter of the routing of mail the Post Office Department must always have a perfectly free hand to send the mails over the route that will take them to their destination in the shortest time and in the most economical manner that is possible. But on the other hand, where it is possible for

Railway Mail Service
the department to route mail over the Canadian National Railways, so that the public will not be at any disadvantage in regard to service-that is in the delivery of the mail to them-and where it will not cost the Post Office Department any more to route the mail over the Canadian National than over the Canadian Pacific Railway, I think we might well advise the Post Office Department that such steps should be taken, and that they should so route the mail over the Canadian National that they would obtain perhaps an advantage in that respect. Finding themselves, as they do at the present time, at a disadvantage-


Thomas Langton Church: Is it not the function of
the railway commission, of its own volition, to regulate any undue and unjust discrimination with regard to transportation companies that use the mails? I understand the railway commission of its own volition can make rules and regulations to prevent any undue or unjust discrimination.


Charles Wallace Stewart: In reply to
my 'hon. friend, I have never heard of the railway commission taking any action in this regard and I also point out to him that I think the word used in the resolution of the hon. member for Dauphin, (Mr. Ward) was unwisely chosen. I think that the word "discrimination" does not perhaps best suit the situation whidh we are now facing. I would not for one moment have it supposed that I think the Post Office Department are showing discrimination in the allotment of these mails. I was stating that where the Post Office Department could change the routing of their mails they dhould do so, and I think they should be so advised by this House. Hon. members might wonder why this House should need to offer to the Post Office Department any advice in that regard. Perhaps the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy), who is in his seat just now, will think it is presumption on the part of any member on this side of the House to offer his department any advice in that regard; but I want to make it perfectly plain why I think the House might offer them advice without being presumptuous. There is no member in this House who has a greater respect for the efficiency of the Post Office Department than I have. I have had the experience of living out in the frontier of our Dominion for a considerable portion of my life, where perhaps we see the efficiency of the Post Office Department, and realize the efficiency with which it serves us better than those who live in the larger urban centres of the Dominion, where they have delivery many times a day,
just as a natural routine of business. The Post Office Department is efficient without doubt. It has, I believe, built up its record for efficiency by very definite business principles and business lines of conduct. It is because in my contact with the officers of that department I have been impressed with their adherence to very strict business principles, and business conduct, in the administration of their affairs, that I offer this suggestion. The matter which has been referred to in the resolution as discrimination is, I think, the simple growth of the affairs in our national history, rather than discrimination.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was the first railway to cover our country from one end to the other. Without a doubt it gave the best service to the majority of the people of Canada for many years, and naturally, if the officials of the Post Office Department were going to use the most efficient and economical means of reaching the great majority of our people, they would be forced to use the Canadian Pacific. Therefore, naturally, they used those lines and their branches for the carriage of mails, and the Canadian Pacific became a part of the postal system. A matter that must not be overlooked in this regard is the training of sorting clerks in the post office. They have to make the sorting of mails a specialized business. After the routing of mails on one system has been carefully built up, to change it to another cannot be done at a moment's notice and it is not done without thought being taken as to the result. It completely throws out the usefulness of clerks who are trained to know the post offices along certain lines, and who have to learn all over again the post offices on another line. To do this on a big scale means serious disruption of the postal service of the Dominion.
In the past few years, at least the majority of hon. members will admit that our Canadian National railway system in its unified form is reaching and giving service to many centres of this Dominion, as well as to the farming sections, that the units of which it is built up did not do prior to their union into a national system. The Canadian National Railways are now in a position to compete successfully in many respects with the Canadian Pacific and they can compete with the Canadian Pacific in giving service in the carriage of mails. The matter still remains, though, of changing in some sections from one to the other, and we should not too severely criticize our Post Office Department for hestitating to take the action that would be necessary to change the carriage of mails
Railway Mail Service

from a route that their clerks in many cities of the Dominion now well know to a route which those clerks do not know at all.
To give definite consideration to the four claims that were made by the official of the Canadian National Railways who placed this matter before the committee last year, I will refer first of all to the carriage of mails between Montreal and Vancouver, a through service. This seemed to many of us to lend itself admirably to a shift from one railway to the other, and it was felt that the Canadian National Railways could very well take that mail and make the earnings which the Canadian Pacific has up to the present time been making, without greatly disrupting the service and the work of the clerks necessary to render that service. On careful investigation, however, I find that there are details that are rather complicated, particularly on that portion of the route between Winnipeg and Vancouver. The mails are not carried in bulk through to Vancouver, but they are loaded into one sixty-foot mail car and as much storage space behind it as is required. As the mail passes on through those important centres, Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Indian Head, Regina, Calgary and so forth on its way to Vancouver, the mail is distributed from this postal service car, and as the space is available in the postal service car, the space in the storage car or cars behind it is relieved, the mail being piled into the postal service car. By agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, as the space in the storage car is relieved, it is also cut off for payment, the Canadian Pacific being paid only for the space that is required. If this service is to be divided between the two railways, as is suggested, each carrying one-half, it will immediately appear to hon. members here without any technical training, for I myself admit that I have none in that respect, that it will be claimed that the same advantage cannot be taken of storage space in half a car as could be taken in a full car.
As to claim No. 3, that all overseas mail ex steamers at Quebec should be carried between Quebec and Montreal on the Canadian National, that claim was made simply as being a possible point of balancing up the sheet between the two railways. On investigation, I have come to the conclusion that we will have to find out the country of origin and what the government of that country would say as to the routing of its mail once it landed in this country. Some, perhaps a goodly portion of that mail is through traffic that has to travel right across the continent, and it has to go, according to

agreement, by the shortest route possible. If the Canadian National Railways were not ready to give the shortest time and the quickest service in delivery, without any reference to our Post Office Department, the contract might be cut off by the British postal service which has command of that. That is a very small service at any rate. I understand it is a matter of only $15,000 or $30,000 for the whole thing. It is not a serious matter, and considering that the Canadian Pacific have in years past, when necessary, put on a special train to deliver that mail from their steamers at Quebec to Montreal in the shortest possible time, I doubt whether the Canadian National, to their financial advantage, could compete with the Canadian Pacific in that respect.
We have two claims left that seem to lend themselves to some adjustment, the first one being the through carriage of mail between Toronto and Winnipeg, so routed. At the present time, that is carried over the Canadian Pacific. The same objection that could be raised as to the carriage between Montreal and Vancouver, that is that there is a large distribution of that mail en route, does not apply to the carriage of mail between Toronto and Winnipeg. With the possible exception of the head of the lakes, the twin cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, there is no large distribution of mail routed from Toronto to Winnipeg. That which goes into the car at Toronto goes out at Winnipeg. It could just as well' be carried by the Canadian National as by the Canadian Pacific, so far as time is concerned, because their times are equal in that respect. The only difference that could be made would be the hours of arrival <in Winnipeg in regard to meeting outgoing trains on the many branch lines that run out of the gateway city into various parts of western Canada. I think an adjustment could be made in that regard. I would suggest to the Postmaster General and to the members of the House generally that, as regards the carriage of mail between Toronto and Winnipeg, the question of transferring to the Canadian National Railways a part which the Canadian Pacific now has, could very well be considered. This would, to the extent of at least $150,000, reduce the difference that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) gave us. I have forgotten the figure, but I think it amounted for the last year to something like $350,000. If I remember rightly, that is what the hon. member quoted. And that sum could be cut down almost by half through the alteration in this one service. It seems to me too that the service lends itself to this economy.

Railway Mail Service
I might mention another matter of minor importance, in the same category as the carriage of mails from Quebec; I refer to the carriage of overflow mails from Montreal to Toronto. This is not a- serious item viewed from the standpoint of financial returns to the railway. At present I understand the Canadian Pacific Railway, on three days of the week, carries part of the overflow mail, in storage or baggage cars, and possibly this particular service is attractive to the railways. No doubt the Post Office Department would find it profitable to consider the question of allowing the Canadian National Railways to carry these mails in particular, and all of them, every day of the week.
There are a few other suggestions which I might throw out with respect to possible changes that might be made to the advantage of the Canadian National Railways as well as in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole. A saving might in some instances accrue to the Post Office Department also. The hon. member for Dauphin spoke of the need of some consideration being given to such railway train duplication as exists at present and which might be eliminated. The point I am raising now is rather similar. I suppose that every member in this House at some time or other in his life has suffered the inconvenience, on coming to a junction point between one railway and another, of having to wait a more or less lengthy space of time before making connections. If hon. gentlemen will only think of the inconvenience they have suffered under such circumstances as individuals, only once or twice or at most a few times in the course of a lifetime, they will readily sympathize with the country at large in the inconvenience to which the people are put every day of the year and every j'ear in our history through the delay that is caused in the transportation of mails for the same reason. It seems to me that from the postal point of view alone this matter is well worth taking into consideration. Probably my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) will check me up on this with the suggestion that it is a matter for the railway commission. No doubt the railway commission might very well employ themselves in providing better connections at points of junctions between two railways in the interests of the travelling public. But I emphasize here the importance of such an improvement for the proper distribution of the mails. If trains could be made to connect at junction points it would then be possible for the Post Office Department to route mails over two lines rather than over one as at present is the case.
Then there is the question of the carriage of overflow mail throughout the Dominion as a whole. The Canadian National Railways, I think, might be given the carriage of these mails in any particular place where a great deal of it originated. There is an overflow service between large centres of the Dominion, in eastern Canada particularly and to some extent in the west, and this overflow mail could perhaps be subdivided for the purpose I have in mind. I do not know how the Post Office Depart-4 p.m. ment views this matter at all. Strictly speaking, overflow mail is mail that cannot be carried in the postal service car, the storage space available in that car being very limited. The mail clerks must have their distribution boxes placed all around the car and they must be able to move freely from one point to another, so that there is not a great deal of space left for the storage of bulky mail. Anything that cannot go into that car is classed as overflow mail and is carried on a car behind. The hon. member for Dauphin gave the cost per foot per mile of the space so allotted. But there is a certain class of overflow mail which differs from this ordinary material. This other kind appears seasonally, some of it very regularly. We have for example certain magazines and weekly newspapers- one at least in Canada-that constitute a very large amount of overflow mail every week in the year. Then there are other magazines that appear every two weeks or perhaps monthly; and at certain seasons of the year large quantities of catalogues appear in the mails, sometimes filling a whole car by themselves. That kind of overflow mail, when it is sufficient to fill a car, is I believe very profitable to the railways; at any rate, it is decidedly advantageous to them to get the carriage of this mail, inasmuch as it is easily disposed of, being simply destined from one point to another. This mail entails no particular responsibility except the care on the part of the railway people to see that it is kept intact. I would suggest to the Post Office Department that mail of this kind, where the question of distribution en route does not enter into the matter at all, and where there is no particular necessity of relieving storage space by taking it into the mail service car, be turned over to the Canadian National Railways wherever possible. For example, there is every week a car of weekly newspapers originating, let us say, in Montreal for distribution in western Canada. That car could very well be carried to Winnipeg at least by the Canadian National Railways.
Railway Mail Service

There is one other matter I want to mention in this connection, and that is the seriousness to our Post Office Department of sudden changes in time tables by the two main railways in this country. Before I left home dt came to my attention that the Canadian Pacific Railway had made certain alterations in their time table on the main line. I did not realize at the time that this would mean a serious handicap to the Post Office Department who were delivering mails to the Canadian Pacific, but on looking into the matter I discovered that this very change meant a delay of nearly a day to me in my journey to Ottawa to attend this, session. It has also been brought to my attention that this change means a delay in the carriage of mails every day. Perhaps, again, the railway commission might look into this matter. I therefore throw the thought broadcast, that the Post Office Department should always be considered by our two great railways when any changes in the time tables are contemplated; for we cannot possibly have the best service unless ample notice is given of such intended changes. The Post Office Department comprises so many units, and there are so many intricate rules and regulations governing the service, that the department cannot possibly adapt itself to changed conditions at a moment's notice. And for that matter, I understand that sometimes they do not get even a moment's notice, the time tables being changed without their knowledge and the department not finding this out until afterwards. This is something in regard to which the railways might very well work in co-operation with the Post Office Department. I have been advocating the giving of more business to the National Railways, and it strikes me that the National Railways themselves might in this respect meet the Post Office Department halfway by giving it ample notice of changes in the time tables.
Before I close I want to point out again why I have presumed to offer these various suggestions. Our Post Office Department is I believe independent of all large corporations in the country, and I am sure we do not want it to be so warped as at any time to make the postal service of Canada conform to the wishes of any private concern. On the other hand, it is our duty as shareholders in a great railway to advise our postal officials to bend themselves just a little in the direction of giving to the Canadian National Railways, whenever this is possible, whatever business is available. I think I am only doing my duty in offering that advice.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: This
question affects us very keenly in western Canada. Last year I brought to the attention of the House certain figures which the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) described as incorrect. I shall not reiterate any statements I made on that occasion, but I do believe that a discrimination exists so far as any equitable distribution of mail service as between the two railways is concerned. No through mail is carried by the Canadian National either from Montreal or from Toronto. To me this does not seem right. In western Canada the local situation is even worse; towns of considerable size between Winnipeg and the mountains are subjected to very much delay in the delivery of their mail. We can take such places as Rivers, Melville, Watrous and Saskatoon, where we find that the mails are delayed at least one day in their delivery. The mail arrives in Saskatoon four hours later than it would if carried by the Canadian National, and the result is that business letters cannot be answered the same day and replies from Winnipeg to business men in Saskatoon are delayed another twenty-four hours. The situation as regards the mail to the east is just as bad. I am informed by the Post Office Department that the business mail of Saskatoon leaves that city on a Canadian National train at 23.50 and that at Regina it is transferred to Canadian Pacific train No. 4. Lately the mail has not been arriving in time to enable its transfer to Canadian Pacific No. 4 to be carried out. I cannot see why these mails should be transferred at Regina. All Canadian National Railway lines converge at Winnipeg, and the trains on all three lines of the Canadian National arrive at least one hour before either the Canadian Pacific train or the Canadian National through train leaves Winnipeg for the east. I think that is correct. Anyway, if it is not true as regards the Canadian Pacific it is true as regards the Canadian National, and there is no reason why the mails should be transferred at Regina. In a communication which I have from the Post Office department it is stated:
This delay can be eliminated by transferring the mail service now performed by the Canadian National between Saskatoon and Regina to a Canadian Pacific train which does make the connection in time.
I do not think that should be done; these mails should all go right through at least to Winnipeg. This matter was taken up, I believe, by a committee representing both sides, but what has happened since I do not know. As regards the local mail particularly, and also the through mail, before discussing the matter any further I would like to hear what

Railway Mail Service
the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) has to say.


Mr. THOMAS SALES (Saltcoats):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) has referred to Melville and Saskatoon; I would like to draw attention to the condition at Melville. The resolution says there should be no discrimination against the Canadian National, but I would like to say there should be no discrimination against the Canadian public. When a man can leave on a train from an important centre like Melville and arrive in Ottawa twenty-three hours earlier than mail which left Melville on the same train, he is not getting service; to my mind it is a discrimination against the public. Mail leaving Saskatoon, Melville and all other stations between that point and Winnipeg, eastbound, reaches Winnipeg at ten o'clock in the morning, after the Canadian Pacific train has left. The mail is therefore, held over, as I understand it, in Winnipeg until the departure of the Canadian Pacific train the following morning, making its arrival here twenty-three hours later than it should be. The westbound situation is a little different. The mail for Melville and stations between Winnipeg and Saskatoon leaves here on the Canadian Pacific and upon arrival at Winnipeg is transferred to the Yorkton and Minnedosa line. The mail for Melville is carried as far as Yorkton and reaches Melville at five o'clock in the afternoon-that is my information from the people there. If it was carried straight through on the Canadian National it would be in Melville before eight o'clock in the morning, which would give time for the answering of business letters, but when it reaches there at five o'clock in the afternoon it is too late for attention that day. The situation with regard to Toronto is being dealt with, but I did feel that it would be of interest to the House to know the facts as regards all the stations between Winnipeg and Saskatoon on the Canadian National. As has been pointed out, perhaps the present service is a development of the old service before what is the present Canadian National line was built. If that is so it is no reason why this condition should continue from year to year, especially since the matter has been drawn to the attention of the department- and it was drawn to their attention very forcibly last year.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, if no other hon. gentleman desires to discuss the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), I would like the in-67
dulgence of the House for a short time while I offer some observations regarding it and what has- been said in connection with it by the hon. members who have already spoken.
In the first place, Sir, allow me to thank the hon. members who have taken part in the discussion for the appreciation which they have expressed of the desire of the Post Office Department to meet the public needs and to afford the people of this country prompt, efficient and satisfactory postal service. In this connection I should also add a word of appreciation of the admission made both by the mover of the resolution and by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) who stated frankly that there was no discrimination. The hon. member for Humboldt said he thought there might perhaps be a happier choice of a word for the purpose than the word "discrimination" used in the motion. As to that I take no exception; I regard it as a reflex of certain statements that were made last session before a committee of the House by a railroad official who was insufficiently informed on the subject and who consequently misled - unintentionally, I am sure - the members of the committee as well as members of the House. Had the committee seen fit to ask for an explanation from the Post Office Department they would have obtained the facts then in pretty much the same way as the hon. member for Humboldt has given them to the House this afternoon, and as they could be given, by the officials who are technically informed on these subjects, to any hon. gentleman who desired special information about some special railway mail service. For information of this kind and for the data that he may present to the House or to a committee of the House, the minister is, of course, wholly dependent upon the officials of the department.
Now, briefly, there is no discrimination. That has been admitted by the gentleman who was responsible for that impression gaining ground, when he took part in a conference held about a month ago in the Post Office Department with certain officials representing the Canadian National Railway and certain officials representing the Post Office Department. At that conference we took the precaution of having the statements there made taken down in shorthand, and I will read for the information of the House what the railway official in question said on that occasion with regard to the charge of discrimination. He said:
I do not say we are discriminated against-I did not say that. I have not used that term at any time. I said the present service was the result of the growth of service-the present service is the result

Railway Mail Service

of the growth of train service. There has been no intentional discrimination; that is a fact.
That, Mr. Speaker, I submit, clears up the situation both with regard to the railroad officials and with regard to the House and the public generally. The fact is, as stated by the gentleman from whose observations I have just quoted, that the conditions which have been referred to and which have been the subject of criticism, and quite properly so, are the outcome of the growth of service. At the same time, while that is the fact, and as one hon. member who has spoken observed, that is no reason why if present conditions are not found to be satisfactory there should not be changes made. There have been changes made; others are in ,contemplation, and further changes will be made from time to time until eventually we hope to attain practically an equal division of the railway mail service between the two great railroads in this country. In that connection I might-point out that while at the time of the holding of the inquiry before the special committee of this House last summer, it was alleged that there was a difference in the annual
payments of about $750,000 in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as between that road and the Canadian National Railway, that condition no longer prevails; and by reason of improvements and changes that have since been made, the reduction in that difference which was observable at the end of the year indicates that the amount will be more than cut in half for the present year, and as time goes on a progressive improvement in the same direction will be made. In that connection let me place on Hansard a statement which I am sure hon. members who have taken part in the discussion, as well as other hon. gentlemen in the House, will be glad to have in order that they may be able to supply to their constituents or to others who may be interested in the matter, proof of the statement that has been made in the direction that I have just mentioned.
The following statement shows, by provinces, the mail services, all classes, including storage cars-overflow	mail-and	transcontinental
routes, with expenditures for mail carriage, and number of post offices served for quarter ending September, 1924:
Province	Canadian Pacific Railway	Canadian National Railways	No. of services of all classes	Total expendi- ture	No. of P.O's served	No. of services of all clasess	Total Expendi- ture	No. of P.O's served$ cts.	$ cts.	25	12,398 80	12458	67,774 90	1,40042	19,091 66	280	72	59,558 64	49863	88,287 04	1,232	131	157,443 78	1,789104	315,992 58	1,118	199	277,343 26	1,800Manitoba	40	100,892 86	438	48	59,572 93	572Saskatchewan	58	153,141 26	826	65	106,844 08	92238	110,727 17	COO	25	45,751 60	685British Columbia	42	100,068 82	625	4	12,777 72	275Total	387	888,201 39	5,119	627	799,465 71	8,065
This statement, Mr. Speaker, is for the quarter ending September 30, 1924. Now the difference in money payments, between the total amount paid to each of the two roads, amounted for that quarter to $88,735.68 in favour of the Canadian Pacific, or a total for the year if the same ratio was preserved of about, in round figures, $350,000; or less than one-half the difference that prevailed for the year which was under discussion at the time the committee sat last summer. That statement for that quarter will indicate the improvement that has been made and the equalization that has been going on in favour of the Canadian National Railway.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: If I may be permitted a question, could any of these services which are assigned to the Canadian Pacific be just as well performed by the government railways?


Charles Murphy: In answer to my hon. friend I may say that his question touches the point that is at issue in connection with all these services; and in relation to that the department has to consider, for instance, a local service at any point in relation probably to a whole service, and it has to consider whether one road is the better adapted by reason of location, and density of population

Railway Mail Service
along the line, and so on, to give service than the other road. The changes that have been made have been all in the direction my hon. friend's question indicates, that is, that where it has been found that the Canadian Pacific is serving any territory which could be as well served by the Canadian National Railway, then a change has been made in favour of the latter line and that will continue to be the policy of the department. But it all takes time, and the situation is complicated by a happening which was referred to by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Stewart) who told the House that frequently the railroads make sudden changes in their time tables without notifying the Post Office Department, thus dislocating the mail service. That has happened time and time again. The Post Office Department has made representations to both railroads, and I have induced my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals to make representations also, that none of these changes should be definitely decided upon, much less put into effect, without consulting the Post Office Department in advance, so that there will not be a dislocation of services and all these delays to which some hon. members have made allusion.
Now, there are certain features that have been brought up in the discussion that possibly might be referred to, but I do not know that it would profit any of us if I were to go into details regarding them. However, I might mention one or two. My hon. friend from Humboldt made a number of excellent suggestions. These suggestions have in part been carried out already. To the extent to which they have not been carried out immediate attention will be given to them by the department if, indeed, the department is not considering them at the present moment. In the same way the suggestions made by other hon. members-the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans),-these suggestions, as well as a request or two preferred by one or both of these hon. gentlemen, also will receive the immediate attention of the department if, as I have said, in point of fact it is not engaged already in dealing with them.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart, Humboldt) has suggested that a portion at least of the overflow mail-the seasonal overflow mail as he happily characterized it; that is mail which appears from time to time and is not continuously in flow throughout the year-might be given to the Canadian National Railway, and my hon. friend instanced magazines, catalogues and so on. That class of mail has been given to the Canadian National Rail-
67i
way, and as a matter of fact the system has been paid through one quarter approximately $30,000 for the carriage of that particular class of mail.
I do not know that at the moment it is advisable to take up any further time of the House on this subject. It is one that my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Ward) was quite justified in bringing before the House, and one which has elicited suggestions and requests from hon. gentlemen who have spoken that will bear fruit in a very short time by reason of the action which will be taken by the Post Office Department. Such being the case, and as we are all in agreement that there is no discrimination-I have quoted to the House a statement on that point by the gentleman who was responsible for that idea last year gaining currency-I would suggest the purpose of the mover of the resolution has been effected in introducing the resolution and having it discussed and that it might be withdrawn.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: I
did not think when I made my suggestion last night in favour of the consolidation of the two great railways in this country that I would meet with so much evidence in favour of the proposition as I have heard here this afternoon. Then let me cite another instance of approval. I was sitting down to my modest dinner last night when a gentleman came in and introduced himself to me and said "Mr. Maclean, there was more sense in what you were urging this afternoon than I have heard for a long time in parliament." The idea is going to grow; and I want to tell my hon. friends from the west that if they want to consolidate that part of Canada, make it more efficient, bring about better settlement, and have its business affairs improved, they must take up this proposal for the consolidation of these railway lines; and the sooner it is done the better it will be for them and the better it will be for the country at large. I want also to compliment the Postmaster General upon having recognized the need for consolidation and for the existence of a spirit of fairness between the two systems. But it is not so much fairness in competition between the two railways that we want as the consolidation of the two services and an improvement in the treatment of the public. If that is done you will see great improvements not only in the west but also in the east-in fact throughout Canada-because of putting an end to the existing awful extravagance of railway services, of postal services, of telegraph services, of express services and,

Select Standing Committees
worst of all, the competition between the two systems to get the business.


William John Ward: I am very glad to aecept
the suggestion of the Postmaster General. I think the resolution has served its purpose, and I am sure we all' appreciate the information which the minister has given with respect to the services already given, and his promise to .continue the good work. I am very glad, therefore, with the permission of the seconder to withdraw this motion.
Motion withdrawn.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:: Select Standing Committees
I have not the figures as to the meetings or average attendance of the committee on Railway Transportation Costs, as the minutes seem to have been mislaid. The committee on Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment met in 1922, percentage attendance 68, but in 1924 the same committee only had a percentage attendance of 46.
It strikes me that in determining the size of committees one should keep in view the nature and extent of the business that is likely to come before any committee.


Mr. HOEY:: Could the hon. gentleman
give us any figures showing the attendance preceding the session of 1922?


William Charles Good: I regret to say that I have
not any figures dealing with the committee attendance in previous parliaments.


Mr. HUGHES:: I presume the hon. gentleman recognizes the fact that many members of the House are on two, three and four committees, that these committees meet frequently on the same day and at the same hour, and that therefore it is impossible for a member to attend more than one committee meeting on the same day and at the same hour. That fact should be recognized, and it should not be made to appear that members of this House were neglecting their duties.


William Charles Good: The hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) has anticipated what I was going to say in this connection. I do not wish to infer at all that this lack of good attendance is due to negligence or carelessness on the part of hon. members. It may, in some isolated cases be so, but for the most part it is due to the overlapping of committees meeting at the same time and the inability of members to be in two places at once. That is, however, a condition which we have to face. My proposal is that this matter should be faced frankly and courageously, and that we should make some effort to remedy the difficulties that we have met in the past. The Chief Clerk of Committees, Mr. Todd, was good enough to write me a letter in connection with the tabular statement, and I should like to quote, with his permission which he has given me, three paragraphs from his letter. Mr. Todd, I understand, has had very extensive experience and he speaks with some authority in regard to this question. I quote as follows:
From my own experience, I may state that during the last three or four sessions, when committee work has been quite heavy, a number of members have complained that they have been put upon too many committees, and could not attend to them all. As a consequence, we have frequently experienced considerable difficulty in procuring a quorum.
"V- Good.]
It seems to me that if the membership of the standing committees were cut in half, and members of the House were placed on, say only two committees each, there would be less trouble in obtaining the necessary quorums.
And the final paragraph:
The Railway committee, for instance, consists of 128 members, with a quorum of 25^ or five more of a quorum than that required for the House itself. In former yearn, when railway legislation was very important and numerous bills were referred to that committee, most of the members wanted to be on it. Now, however, that the number and character of railway bills is not as it used to be, members have not the same interest, with resultant difficulty in our obtaining a quorum. I think the size of this committee especially, and of its quorum, should be very considerably reduced to meet present conditions.
I also have some information regarding the reduction of the size of committees in Great Britain almost a century ago owing to their experience. I shall not weary the House with reading this; I desire merely to refer to it.
In order to get some further information on the subject matter of the resolution, I drafted the following questionnaire which I mailed to the clerks of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces of Canada, also to the Clerk of the House of Representatives at Washington. I have received some information from most of these parties. Following is a list of questions submitted in this connection :
1.	Total membership of your legislature.
2.	Names of your various standing and special committees, and number of members composing each of them.
3.	The provisions for a quorum in each case.
4.	Have you had poor or irregular attendance at committee meetings, and if so, for what reasons?
5.	What principJes, if any, determine the size of your committee?
6.	Is there discernible any disposition to increase or decrease the size of your committees, and if so, upon what experience is this disposition based?
7.	Do you find a higher percentage of attendance and better results from smaller committees?
I will give as briefly as I can the substance of the information that I have been able to secure from the various provinces in this connection.
In Ontario, the committees are large and the quorum small. I do not wish to give all the figures. My information is that the attendance is fairly good and that there is not much disposition to make any change. I believe, however, that I am safe in saying that most of the standing committees about which I have information meet more or less infrequently for special purposes and not for investigational work such as is frequently carried on in this House. The difficulty, therefore, which has been referred to, namely the inability of members to attend two committees at the same time, does not seem to have applied, at least to the same extent.

Select Standing Committees
In Quebec, I also have a membership list of all the standing committees and their quorums. The standing committees are generally relatively smaller in numbers than in Ontario and the quorums are also smaller in numbers. As regards special committees, I submit the following information from the Quebec assembly rules of 1915:
A majority of the members of a spoc-ial committee shall compose a quorum unless otherwise ordered by the House.
Rule No. 332 states:
No special committee may consist of more than fifteen members without special leave of the House.
I shall refer later to the situation in Great Britain in this respect.
In Nova Scotia, with a total membership in the legislative assembly* of forty-three, the committees are also fairly large, relatively, I think, as large as they are in Ontario or Quebec. The report which I have does not seem to indicate any disposition either to increase or decrease, and there is no complaint as to irregularity or poor attendance.	,
I have also the list of the various committees, with membership, quorum and so on, in New Brunswick. I wish now only to draw to the attention of the House the opinion of the clerk of the legislative assembly of New Brunswick that the percentage of attendance in the smaller committees is better than in the larger committees.
I have not as yet received any direct reply in regard to Prince Edward Island although I have the information.
There is nothing of special interest to refer to as regards Manitoba.
In Saskatchewan, a majority constitutes a quorum unless otherwise ordered. I may say, however, that the quorums as ordered by the assembly are relatively small, running from eight down to three.
The situation in Alberta is somewhat the same. In both Saskatchewan and Alberta the membership of the committees is large. 1 think the situation is very much the same as it is in Ontario where the committee meetings do not clash and are held infrequently.
The information from British Columbia is also to the same effect, that there seems to be no particular disposition to move one way or the other. Generally speaking, the provinces of Canada have standing committees, the meetings of which do not, I think, clash, and no special difficulty seems to have been experienced.
I attempted to get some information concerning the situation in Australia and South
Africa, but the information which I was able to secure is not sufficiently complete to make it worth while giving it to the House. I desire, however, to refer to the situation in the United States which, I think, is to a verv large extent similar to Canada. In the' United States the select standing committees of the House of Representatives are very numerous and small in number. There are fifty-five such committees, and it might be interesting to hon. members if I would refer to some of these committees and give the number of members composing them: On elections, three committees to consist of nine members each; on ways and means, 26 members; on appropriations, 35; on judiciary, 21; on banking and commerce, 21; on coinage weights and measures, 19; on interstate and foreign commerce, 21; on rivers and harbours, 21. And so on. The membership is almost entirely in the neighbourhood of 20- 22, 22, 21, 21, 20, 21, 22, 22, 19, and so on, down through the list. There are a few smaller committees: for example, education, 15; labour, 14; patents, 14; invalid pensions. 16, and so forth. There are some with 13. Then there are a number of committees having to do with expenditures in the different departments; these are quite small committees., I might mention a few: expenditures in the State department, 7; Treasury department, 7; War department, 7, and so on. They range between 6 and 7. The committee on rules numbers 12, of whom the speaker must be one. A rather interesting committee, the 55th of the number, is the committee on the disposition of useless executive papers, 2 members. I have a letter from the clerk of the House of Representatives and I should like to quote a few sentences from it:
A majority of the entire membership, excluding vacancies, constitutes a quorum. In ifche House, in committee of the whole, 100 constitutes a quorum.
On the whole, committee attendance is regular. It is only when meeting days of committees clash that difficulty is had in securing a quorum.
The size of house committees is determined by the relative numerical strength of the two great political parties. The membership on committees is in ratio to that of the membership of the House itself.
I would quote now the last paragraph in this letter in regard to the percentage of attendance of smaller or larger committees. The answer is as follows:
This question cannot be answered with any degree of accuracy. I will say, however, that practically all of the large committees operate through subcommittees of 3 or 5 members each, indicating that better results can be obtained by small committer*
Select Standing Committees

I would refer very briefly to the provisions in Great Britain relating to special committees, or what are called there select committees. At pages 80-81 of the Manual of Procedure in the Public Business of the House of Commons of Great Britain for 1912, under the heading Select Committees, I quote the following:
A select committee is a committee appointed lay the House to consider or take evidence upon any bill or matter and to report their opinion for the information and assistance of the House.
And further on:
A select committee must not, without the leave of the House, consist of more than 15 members.
That is all which I think it is necessary for me to quote in this connection. It seems to me that we are faced with this situation, that from time to time in this House committees meet infrequently to consider matters not of prime importance and not requiring any special investigation, but in which the opinion of a considerable number of the members is perhaps desirable. In such cases I believe that a large committee is entirely .proper, and I do not desire to argue that there should be any reduction in
5.	p.m. the size of committees of that character. But some of the standing committees in this House, and practically all of the special committees, that have been appointed, are required to concentrate' very intensively upon certain important mattere and to give those matters prolonged and careful consideration extending over weeks and months. In those cases it is in my judgment very desirable that the committee should be smaller in number so that it would be possible for members to attend regularly; a very large percentage of attendance being in such circumstances essential. If such is not done there will prevail a condition of affairs which in my judgment is disastrous to progress, that is to say, we shall have members who, either because they cannot or do not want to attend certain committees, are available merely for voting purposes in case of need. Members can be swung from one committee to another in case of a vote, and it does seem to me highly undesirable that there should be a vote upon any matter of great importance by a member who either does not care to attend a committee regularly 01 is unable to do so. I could cite some cases that have come under my observation in this House, and I would seriously recommend that the whole matter be gone into carefully, and that we take into consideration the probable nature of the work of the various committees, and adjust the membership 
accordingly. Of course, one difficulty occurs in that connection: from time to time certain committees will have relatively few meetings and relatively inconsequential business during a particular session, and the next year very important business. But surely in view of the situation some attempt might be made to adjust the membership to meet the conditions existing at any time. I do not see why it is necessary that the membership of any committee should remain the same from year to year. If, for instance, the Banking and Commerce committee had before it such an important investigation as it had in 1923 -or rather two important matters requiring about eighty meetings-it would have been advisable to reduce the membership so that those who attend may do so regularly and inform themselves in regard to the matters under consideration.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House further, but would suggest that in view of the appointment of the special committee to consider the rules, the question I have just submitted to the House might very properly be turned over to that committee for further investigation and report. And I sincerely trust that, after the question has received further consideration at the hands of this committee, something may be done to remedy what I think has been a very serious, and indeed a disastrous, state of affairs in regard to some of our important committees. The resolution standing in my name was drafted a considerable time ago and is therefore not just what I should like at the present time. I have therefore arranged with one of my friends to move an amendment which I shall gladly accept in order to dispose of the matter.
Mr. 1. L. CHURCH (North Toronto): The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) has moved a resolution asking that the membership of select standing committees be reduced with a view to securing a more regular attendance as well as to promoting efficiency. When we look around the empty chamber today and see the House practically deserted, while academic questions are being discussed by some hon. gentlemen, it seems to me that the same reasoning with which the hon. member has supported his resolution might apply to the membership of the House itself, and that we might argue for the same reason that if the size of this House were reduced it would increase efficiency and secure better attendance. Not so. The size of the House or committees has nothing to do with efficiency or -the number who attend. Members will not attend to hear trivial questions at the expense of dealing with up to date and

Select Standing Committees
practical problems of an economic nature and their solution, or to deal with problems affecting the members' local or national interest.
It is pretty nearly time that private members' day was abolished altogether and that such questions as those which now appear on the order paper were dealt with when the estimates for the different departments come up. When you reflect upon the extent to which the order paper is filled with motions referring to a lot of academic questions, I think the people of Canada can congratulate themselves that we have a Senate to save us from the deluge of legislation which hon. gentlemen and some others would place on the statute books. We should have shorter sessions of parliament. We cannot expect members to sit here, day in and day out, for months, listening to discussions on academic questions. The legislature of Ontario, with a very large legislative programme to deal with, can get through in six or eight weeks, and I submit that this parliament should complete its work in from two and a half to three months, if it had up to date rules to provide for modem methods of dealing with the problems which come before it. We should have shorter speeches; we should limit the time for speeches; there should be a committee before whom all resolutions should be submitted before presentation to the House. The special committee which is to deal with the rifles of the House this session would do a good work for the people of Canada if it recommended the bringing down of legislation such as they have in the British parliament, whereby discussion is curtailed and a proper closure rule enforced. The hon. member for Brant is very fortunate to-day. If he has this small attendance out of an audience of two hundred and thirty-five, how many would he have if his resolution were adopted? I am afraid he would talk to empty benches; that he would have no listeners at all.
One of the reasons why members do not sit continuously in the House on private members' day is because of the purely academic questions Which are brought up. Consider the many practical problems that are at present before the people-unemployment; the social condition of the country; the transportation problem; the condition of trade, commerce and industry; agriculture, and so on. Not one of the resolutions at present on the order paper relates to the accomplishing of anything in a practical way to solve the practical or economic problems which confront us, whether they pertain to the Maritime provinces, to the west or to central Canada. And I may say just here that the west spends months telling us of its ills and woes and is happy, when sending deputations to Ottawa to place before the government the conditions in that part of the country. The same may be said of the Maritime provinces. It is about time central Canada woke up and sent some deputations to Ottawa to deal with matters affecting its interests long overlooked. Central Canada is too modest, it has paid most of the taxes since confederation and it is time it woke up and sent along a deputation to tell Ottawa of its ills and1 then west and east would see they were well off.
I repeat that the government ought to take steps to bring down modern rules with a view to shortening the session. No one but a rich man can afford to be a member of this parliament, owing to the way our antiquated rules permit the lengthening out of the sessions to five months of the year. We sat until July 19th last year; then with the holiday season coming on in July and August the best of the year is practically gone. Members of the cabinet are busy men; they have important departments to preside over, and their time is unnecessarily taken up in listening to the discussion of academic questions on private members' day in the House. I have looked over the resolutions on the order paper from first to last, and the only academic subject that seems to have been omitted from the bill of fare is that important question: How old is Anne? If that was included then the bill of fare would be complete. Why, there are more practical problems dealt with in an ordinary meeting of the mock parliament of a Canadian university in this country than there have been during the past month or two in this House on private members' days. Private members' day should now be abolished for this session and then, any of these remaining questions can be discussed on the estimates. For my part, I am willing to facilitate the business of the House by dealing with my resolutions in that way; and I have three on the order paper, with reference to such questions as coal, unemployment, the exodus and soldiers' re-establishment. I do not think that the adoption of my hon. friend's resolution would have the effect of increasing efficiency. The size of a legislature has nothing to do with efficiency nor with the number who attend. For the reason I have stated Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to my hon. friend'3 motion.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me that the great trouble
with this House so far as the committees are concerned is that we do not get down to business soon enough. I think I am correct in stating that last yQar there were no

Select Standing Committees
meetings of any of the standing committees, except for organization purposes, until after the Easter adjournment. That meant that when we got down to business toward the end of the session there were a great many committees meeting at the same time. Most of us were on two, three or four of them, so that it was impossible for us to attend them all. That is the position I was placed in, and of course the same applied to other hon. members.
Now, we have wasted a good deal of time during the present session without doing very much committee work. I am on three committees this year, and none of them has so far met. I presume that this session will travel along in the same old way; that there will be no meetings of these committees until after the Easter adjournment. If it could be possible for the government to get down to a business basis and have the committees start their work right at the beginning of the session, then we might be able to avoid the duplication of sittings that we have always experienced.
So far as the number on the committees is concerned, I do not think it will make very much difference if the number is reduced. I question whether this resolution, if passed, could accomplish anything. I do suggest, however, that the government might do something to expedite the work of the committees. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day if we were going to have any committee meetings before the Easter adjournment, and he told me he thought that that was a matter for the members of the committees. He suggested that if I happened to be on a committee and thought that that committee should be at work, it was for me to take the matter up with the whip-government whip, I presume-and see that the committee got down to work. I do not know that I am supposed to be a supervisor of the government whip, or to dictate in any way to the government or to the chairmen of committees as to when they shall start their business. I think if I went to any chairman of a committee and tried to dictate to him, he would immediately tell me to mind my own business. But in my capacity as a member of this House, I think it is only my duty to state my views as to the meetings of committees, and I do recommend that something be done to get our committees working earlier in the session.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I am sure we are all anxious to facilitate the progress of business through the House, and since coming here I have very frequently felt as the hon.

member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) has done, that we do not get down to the business of committees early enough. I know that certainly some of the business that comes before some of the committees might just as well be brought before them earlier in the session; on the other hand, there is some business that cannot be brought before the committees until the House has been in session for a certain length of time. However, I shall not enter into a discussion of this matter at any length. It has already been indicated that there is perhaps a better method of our dealing with this subject than taking a vote in the House upon it at the present time. A committee was promised, and I think very properly, earlier in the session, and I think has already been appointed, to consider the advisability of revising the rules of the House. That, of course, refers to procedure of both the House.and the committees, and in view of that fact, I would move the following amendment to the resolution, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer):
That all the words after the word " House " in the second line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The question of revising the membership of select standing committees so as to secure more regular attendance and promote greater efficiency should be referred to the special committee already appointed to consider the advisability of revising the rules of the House, and that the said committee be requested to report upon the said matter during the present session.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Might I suggest to the hon. member that in order to have his motion in conformity with the one naming the committee, it should read "the special committee appointed to consider jointly with Mr. Speaker."


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, I move accordingly, Mr. Speaker.


William Charles Good: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I am entirely in accord with the amendment. I think it is the proper procedure under the circumstances. I only desire to say that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) has already four resolutions on the order paper for private members' day, and he has I think disposed of another one; so that if he is very anxious to get rid of private members' day, he perhaps can help in that direction as much as anybody else.
In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie), I am afraid that the earlier meeting of committees will not wholly solve the difficulty that I mentioned. When two or three important

Defence of Sea Coasts
committees are meeting at the same time, and practically have to meet at the same time, it is very necessary that the committees should not be composed of the same membership. That has happened in the past, and I submit to the House that that is a problem which we ought to tackle. While I am entirely in accord with what the hon member has said as to the advisability of committees meeting as early as possible in the session, I would submit to him that that will not be an entirely adequate and sufficient solution of the difficulty that we have to face.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion as amended? Main motion as amended agreed to.



DEFENCE OF SEA COASTS AND OCEAN-BORNE COMMERCE

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, Canada should consider the question of the defence of our sea coasts and of our ocean-borne lines of commerce.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I have framed this
motion in the very simplest and broadest language. I wash to avoid the error into which I think the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) fell the other day in introducing his resolution in connection with the British North America Act. He lost a good deal of support for the main principle of his motion by tacking on to it a detailed method of carrying it out.
I would ask the liberty of the House to diverge for a moment to perhaps a more personal matter. Some months ago I saw an editorial in a paper called the Mail and Empire-I should not say I saw it, because my attention was called to it. Personally I only subscribe for the better class of newspapers.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Where is
that paper published?


Alan Webster Neill: I have only an obscure knowledge of this particular paper, but I think it is published in the city of Toronto. I wonder is that the same city that publishes the Orange Sentinel. It is, eh? Well, Mr. Speaker, that accounts for a -whole lot, does it not? It is a surprising thing to me to find that a city that sends men here as able as the Toronto representatives, particularly the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol)
and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), should be found lending its support to newspapers of this character. When the occasion offers I think I shall make it my business to visit the city of Toronto, and observe at first hand the habits and customs of this quaint and interesting people, with their strange weird newspapers. This particular editorial is a peculiar one. It is incorrect as to its facts, very muddy as .to its logic, and faulty as to its grammar which one would not have expected. But it suggests that a dark conspiracy exists between myself and the members of the government in connection with my bringing in this resolution. Having a simple, innocent mind myself I cannot see where the conspiracy comes in, nor can I see any purpose or benefit to either party in a conspiracy of that kind. However, I can assure the House that before I put this notice on the order paper I had no communication whatever with any member of the government or even with any member of the House. If the Toronto Mail and Empire would believe me-but I suppose its mental efficiency has been so impaired by long years of narrow, partisan viewpoint that it is very difficult for it to do so-it might accept the very simple solution that I put this notice on the order papier because, as I represent the constituency farthest west in Canada and the one that would be almost certain to have to bear the brunt of any attack in case of a war on the Pacific, I deemed it my duty to lay the facts there before this House and before this parliament because when our hour of travail comes upon us I do not want my constituents to say, "Our representative knew of these conditions and failed to warn the public and parliament." I propose, therefore to transfer the responsibility in that regard to this House and to this government.
I wish to be particularly careful, in handling this matter, to do so from a non-partisan viewpoint, and for that reason I have been careful, not even to seek information as to the history of this or similar transactions in the past I care not what Conservative or Liberal, in days gone by should or should not have done in this matter. We are living in the present and the future is our responsibility. "Let the dead past bury' its dead". There is ample scope in this matter to enlist the very best abilities of both sides of the House, of all three parties in the House, in order that the government may be advised as to the adoption of a policy in the best interests of the country at large. I would suggest, if I might make the suggestion in a modest way, that a committee of this House-a small committee re-
Defence of Sea Coasts

presenting a few of the ablest men on each side or of both the three main parties-might be formed to consider this matter. I believe that the leaders of the Conservative and Progressive parties are big enough men to subordinate any possible party advantage and to ant with the government members of the committee, and with the aid of experts- because the committee's deliberations would be of 'little use in such a highly technical matter without the aid of experts-they might be able to arrive at and enunciate a policy that would be of the very greatest benefit to Canada. That policy might be known, I was going to say, as a national policy, but I suppose that would be infringing upon a long established political trademark. It might be called, however, a "Canadian" policy, and the credit of it would enure not to the government or the opposition but to all parties in the House alike, and incidentally probably would have an additional chance of success from the very fact that it was non-partisan in its origin.
There are two phases of this question that I want to discuss as briefly as I can. The first, and the most important one by far, is: Is there necessity for such defence? Secondly, the method of furnishing such defence. The first question is by far the most important. Grant me that and I care not at all if we do not agree as to the details of furnishing such defence because it would be almost impossible for us to do so. It is a singular fact that there is no representative in this House-I think I am justified in saying so-who has any real, practical knowledge on the subject of naval defence. If it were a question of law, of medicine, or of military matters, we have plenty of experts-men qualified to speak with	authority-but	not in this
particular instance.


Mr. HANSON:: What about the minister?


Alan Webster Neill: He has, I think, no personal
naval knowledge.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) ?


Alan Webster Neill: Fishing and naval defence are two wholly different things. Dealing with the second phase of the subject I should like to touch on this point: There is a great diversity of opinion, there must be naturally, as to how we would carry out any adequate system of defence. Some members would advocate the buying, or perhaps borrowing, of ships from Britain. Others would have us build our own ships. Others suggest we do not need capital ships but might depend on an aeroplane service, or submarines, and possibly gas-but I 
do not propose to invite any possible conflict of opinion by discussing any of these diversified ideas; that is a matter, as I have already said, entirely for experts. But there are two facts which I would like to mention that would have to be considered in arranging defence. The one is that we have in Esqui-malt, which is close to Victoria, a dry dock which is soon to be completed at a cost, I think, of $7,000,000. That dry dock is of very vital importance to the British navy operating in the Pacific. If that navy should meet with any mishap rendering repairs necessary, as a result of war operation, it would be of the most inestimable benefit for the vessels of that fleet to be able to go into dry dock there and the fact of there being a diy dock would avoid those ships having to return to Britain. In the case of war ships coming from Britain they might have to go round cape Horn, owing to the possibility of the Panama canal being blown up at the very inception of hostilities, and after reaching the Pacific coast of Canada it would be necessary for them to go into dry dock, because a man-of-war is a very intricate piece of mechanism and needs constant care and overhauling. It is very important therefore that this dry dock should be protected. Yet to-day that dry dock is almost open to the attacks of any man who comes along with a motor boat and a few rifles, and might readily be blown up. There are a few obsolete guns mounted on the fortifications but it would take them all their time to protect themselves let alone the dry dock in case of attack. Another point is that Barkley sound, which is on the west coast of Vancouver island, would likely be the very spear head of an attack on the Canadian positions, because it is the most westerly point of land, is the most exposed, and is particularly unprotected. It has the third biggest harbour in the world, a natural harbour, and it runs into the island, so that its head is within thirty miles of the east coast, and it happens to be the end of one of the Transcontinental lines of railway. It certainly should be protected in some way, and the dry dock ought to be protected from attack both by water and by air; land fortification is not so important.
I am dealing only with the Pacific partly because that is the part of Canada with which I am acquainted, and partly because there is where the danger of war is most to be apprehended. This is no idea or conception of my own. We have had lately the announcement. of Major General MacBrien, chief of the Canadian military staS, who has stated publicly that in his measured and considered

Defence of Sea Coasts
opinion the next war will take place in the Pacific. Another reason why I am dealing with the Pacific more .particularly is because it is remote from Great Britain. A fleet can cross the Atlantic from Britain to Halifax, in,
I suppose, four days; but it would take that fleet two or three weeks, possibly six weeks, to reach the Pacific.
To give you some idea of the great importance of the Pacific I may mention that the tonnage sailing in and out of Pacific ports has increased from 500,000 tons to 11,000,000 tons. Even the tonnage going in and out of the port of Vancouver last year amounted to 2,000,000 tons.
Now, I come to my main argument and it 'S this. We assert that we need defence on the Pacific coast, and if it should be asked "defence of what?" I would point to the dry dock in Victoria, and the large expenditures on public wharves and public buildings. In Vancouver we have a floating dry dock of very considerable value, we have the elevators and all the government plant connected with Vancouver harbour. Millions are invested there and further investments will likely be made. We have the terminals also of three railway lines. The same conditions prevail more or less in Prince Rupert. They have an elevator building there, and they have also the terminal of a transcontinental line. Roughly speaking, and keeping within a conservative estimate, it is estimated that the value of these public works and including private property would be something like $200,000,000. Now on a war insurance basis the premiums on this tremendous amount would come to a very large sum indeed. There is in addition a coast line entirely open and utterly defenceless of something like ten thousand miles, with numerous inlets, also the great Fraser river opening into the centre of the country, which it is desirable to have protected.
But the most important thing of all, and on which I would base my sole argument as to the need of the defence, if there were no other ground for it, is the shipping interests out there. The exports and imports into Canada by sea, leaving out the exports by land to or from the States, amount to $2,000,000 every day of the year, that is, there are two million dollars worth of merchandise going out from or into Canadian ports every day. The average voyage would take perhaps fourteen days. That would represent something like fifty million dollars worth of goods constantly on the ocean going to or from Canadian ports. That gives hon. members an idea of the magnitude of the shipping interests. Those interests of course would be the main object
of attack. An enemy gunboat might come and put the city of Victoria or Vancouver to ransom, or they might come and blow up the dry dock, but the greatest damage they could do to Canada would be the attacking and destroying of the shipping. It was different with the Germans who had to be content with sinking ships, because they could not get them into their own harbours. In our case the enemy out there would have the double advantage, because not only would we lose the goods and ships but she would have the benefit of both ships and the goods themselves, which would be seized by her. This would not be done by men-of-war, slow-going vessels, but it would be accomplished by light cruisers, or even by armed raiders. They might blow up a town or two and hold them to ransom but the main object would be to blockade the country and destroy the shipping. The greatest damage would be to the province of British Columbia, because that is where the different trade routes converge coming into port. Once a ship got out in the open Pacific it would have a chance for its life, because the ocean is very big and the British fleet would be likely to safeguard the main routes, but when it comes to the smaller ports the greatest danger would arise. That is what we have to defend on the Pacific
It may be asked, against whom do you suggest it would be necessary to defend? We have all observed the complications that are arising in Europe. You have only to read the daily paper to see how constantly near a conflagration they are. Dealing with the situation on the Pacific ocean, there are seven nations involved, or counting Australia, New Zealand and Canada as one, there are five nations with large territorial interests and coast lines, and any one of them may precipitate a war at any time, or one of the nations may, as in the case of Belgium, be dragged into a war quite unwillingly.
Now consider the possibilities of war. I know it is very unpopular to talk about war. There is a sort of psychological reaction against it. The sufferings the public have endured, during and since the war, have given them a distaste for the subject, and they want to try and put it out of their minds by refusing to talk about it, and they say, "There is no war and there will be no war". But we would be lacking in our duty as legislators, if we shut our eyes to the plain facts, however willing we may be to do so. We are told that there is no need to talk about war, we have the League of Nations. Yes, we have the League of Nations. I could talk for an hour on the disabilities connected with the League of Nations, but I think it
Defence of Sea Coasts

will be admitted by any student of the subject that the League of Nations is to-day a source of weakness to Great Britain, and she never would have gone into it if she had not believed that the United States would also be a party to the League of Nations. Britain is confronted with great obstacles and dangers owing to her adherence to the League of Nations. She has either to break faith with France or to coerce a number of small Balkan states which might at any moment cause trouble, and there is little doubt that her comparatively isolated situation in the League of Nations is a source of danger. But the United States is not a party to the League of Nations. A league of nations that does not include the United States or Germany or Russia or Turkey, with a united population of almost three hundred million, or nearly fifty per cent of all the white races on the globe, cannot help being weak and ineffective in the exercise of any power to stop war.
We are told that we should remain defenceless, because a number of people cry, "Peace, peace", when there is no peace. But do we require to be taught the lesson a seoond time? Who was so blatant in his declaration of peace previous to the Great War as the Emperor of Germany? Did we not pay in the blood of the human race for our foolish belief in his interested assurances? It is an absolute fact that many of the men lying in Flanders are there to-day because we had to rush in men who were unprepared for war. We paid in blood the price of unpreparedness. When we recall the occasions of men going up to the front, infantry men who had never fired a rifle in their 'lives until they reached the front, and men who took charge of aeroplanes the third time they had ever seen one, because there was no time or material or instructors, artillery men supplied with twenty rounds of ammunition to last them a week in competition with an enemy who could fire that number of rounds a minute, we begin to realize that we paid in the slaughter of our men because we listened credulously to the assurances of the German emperor and people of his ilk.
There is another argument, in addition to the one based on the League of Nations, which has been advanced. We are told we are going to have disarmament. We have had disarmament conferences and are going to have more of them. I have no doubt we will have more, but as to their efficiency, I think the matter will have to be considered very carefully. The actual results of disarmament conference recommendations up-to-date have been exceedingly small, very much
tMr. Neill.]
smaller than is popularly supposed. The sole limitation imposed by the disarmament conference at Washington was not to limit the size of fleets at all. It was supposed to be, but all that was limited was the size and numbers of the capital ships; that is men of war like a dreadnought. There was also a provision as to aeroplane carriers. And they did put a restriction on auxiliary ships- that is, smaller than capital ships-and the restriction they put on was that they were to be of not more than a certain size and a certain gunnage capacity, and the result is that instead of reducing the navies it has increased them, because you will understand you can build more ships when they are a reasonable size and reasonable in price than when you require to build an enormous dreadnought. Suppose the Utopian dreams come true-and thej' have never yet come true in this world-but suppose disarmament is an accomplished fact; suppose they succeed in suppressing the instincts, the ambitions and passions of every nation in the world, whether they belong to the League of Nations or not, and we have universal disarmament-and you would not expect a ten year old child to believe it-what does it mean? It means a great advantage in one respect and one respect alone; it would be a tremendous advantage to the human race, as it would stop the enormous economic waste caused by maintaining armaments, and that is all it would do.
I want to lay down another principle and emphasize it, because it is almost the crux of my argument. Disarmament does not stop war. I think it is the popular idea, but it is not correct. No greater fallacy was ever enunciated than the proposition that armament is the cause of war or that disarmament would stop war.


Mr. SHAW:: Does the hon. gentleman say that armament would stop war?


Alan Webster Neill: No. Armament, to a certain extent encourages war. It encourages a nation to be truculent towards its weaker neighbours. Disarmament, to a certain extent, also encourages war, because a weak nation, defenceless and unprotected; offers an opportunity of attack by a bullying or aggressive neighbour who wants to take advantage of the weaker nation's necessity. To that limited extent, disarmament encourages war and armament also encourages war,.


Mr. SPENCER:: What, in the hon. gentleman's opinion, is the general cause of war?

Defence of Sea Coasts


Alan Webster Neill: I am coming to that. I was so careful to get it precise that I have written it down. War is caused by the conflict of different national, economic and racial policies, by the never-ending economic competition, by the strife for trade, by the demand for an outlet for surplus population, by the demand for a place in the sun. These are the causes of war, and not the fact that one nation is armed more than another. We had war in the world long before there was armament. Men fought with scythes and pitchforks for lack of more effective weapons, and they would do so again if they could not get the ordinary armament of to-day. But that is not what would happen. If we had disarmament, this is what would happen. It would mean nations ostensibly adhering to the pact and at the same time secretly preparing for war. It would mean nations secretly equipping factories, ostensibly for industrial purposes, but so prepared that by the tearing down of a partition and the coupling up of a pulley, they could be used for the manufacture of munitions of war. The nation that was most unscrupulous, the most careful to carry on these secret preparations, would be the one ahead in the game. This would put a handicap on the nation that sought honourably to adhere to the disarmament treaty and would be a great stimulus to dishonesty in the matter.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If the causes of
war are so largely economic, might it not be wise to devote our attention to removing the economic systems that perpetuate war?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. I quite agree with that, and When the millennium comes, we shall all be in heaven. Both are equally remote at the present time. I am talking about the present day, present conditions and the present generation. I do not expect to live in the next century, I am interested only in this one. There will also be the situation of a nation keeping outside of a disarmament conference, and, not by her government but by private manufacturers, building cannon and guns ostensibly belonging to themselves, which armament they would be ready to deliver when war broke out to any country which, perhaps, had already paid for them. The disarmament conference applied only to capital drips and heavy cruisers. It had nothing to do with light cruisers, destroyers, aeroplanes or gas.
We have only to remember, to go back for a moment to the "secret preparations" idea, what is going on in Germany to-day. Under the treaty of Versailles they have a
rigid inspection by an Allied Military Commission as to whether they are carrying out this compact, and the commission has discovered and reported that they cannot enforce this. They have discovered 'large quantities of gas masks, gas manufacturing machinery and the smaller class of munitions, rifles and so on. Although they have this military inspection which would not occur under ordinary conditions, to control these things, they have not been able to control them. It has also been discovered that they have the skeleton of the headquarters staff of an army as big as they had before the war. These things cannot be controlled.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does the hon. gentleman
place much faith and credit in the report of that military commission that has made the report to which he refers?


Alan Webster Neill: I think I am entitled to
accept to a large extent, the report of a commission presided over by General Foch and accepted by Britain.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I should think not.


Alan Webster Neill: I was going to touch for a
moment more on the Washington conference, which did something of very vital importance to Britain. Britain there agreed to depart from the three to one naval power arrangement and to come down to a one to one. Where before she had maintained a navy equal to any two of the next two naval powers, she agreed at that conference, unfortunately, I think, for our interests, to come down to a basis of the next highest, so that any two nations would have a bigger fleet than Great Britain. That is one of the outstanding features of the disarmament conference.
As regards the prospects of war, nations do not advertise their intention of getting ready for war or of going to war. You can judge only by small matters. If you read the report of what is going on in the United States to-day, are they not strengthening, day by day, their defences? They are strengthening their air fleet, their navy, and they are even recruiting corps of nurses to be ready for any eventuality. If you look at the last Japanese budget, you will find that over fifty per cent of it is devoted to preparations for war. They have strengthened, increased and developed their compulsory military system. All these things have their significance, and surely it is a much more significant factor, which I do not think can be gainsaid, that there has lately occurred a thing which has been dreaded by every military student for the last one hi-"'1''*"! years-an
Defence of Sea Coasts

Oriental-Slav combination. A treaty has been made by which China, Japan and Russia, make a defensive or possibly an offensive alliance. The resources of China are almost untold as regards population, and when they are properly trained, equipped and led, they make very good soldiers; they are second to none. China is to have a peace army of
800,000,	capable of expansion to double that number, to be trained, educated and equipped by the genius, thoroughness and energy of the Japanese. The Japs have their own excellent fleet and a peace army of 250,000, convertible in three weeks to 500,000. Above all, they have the co-operation of Russia with her great ability to supply not only men, but food, and greatest of all, her ability to create a diversion in Europe by starting a war in Europe in such a way as to require the concentration of armies and fleets there. It is a combination that is, to a large extent, I will not say irresistible, but very strong and powerful. This combination is aimed, so it is stated, against any possible combination of the United States, Great Britain and France, but I notice that the door has been thrown open for Germany to enter into this Slav-Oriental combination, and it is too much to expect that she would not take advantage of such a favourable opportunity. These three powers the two oriental nations and Russia, have a combined1 population of 522,000,000 and, with Germany, 582,000,000 ranged against what? Against 185,000,000 of France, Britain and the United States. That is rather more than one-third if you leave out Germany, and considerably less than one-third if you take Germany in.
Under these conditions it is not a dream to say that war may any day, and will some day, occur, and it is more than likely it will occur on the Pacific. I have not quoted my opinion; I have quoted the opinion of Major General MacBrien. Are we to repeat history again? Britain had a very able and experienced soldier in the person of Lord Roberts who spent the last years of his life in warning Britain what was to come. His opinion was based on no fanatic idea of militarism but on his reading of the signs of the times, just as a farmer reads the prospects of the weather or the crops. They paid that man a big sum for his work, and when they received his recommendations they laughed at them. We have since paid for that. In this instance, we have the recommendations of Major General MacBrien who points to a war on the Pacific.
[Mr. Neill. [


Mr. BIRD:: Does the hon. gentleman not think that the soundness and elasticity of our national credit is a better security for our nation than an armament which will possibly be obsolete before it is built?


Alan Webster Neill: I must confess I do not think so. When I go out to fight, I want something to fight with, not an economic situation of a problematical kind.


Thomas William Bird: Is it not a fact that in the recent war the nations whose credit was most elastic, healthy, eventually won the war against nations that were armed in a far superior way than ourselves?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, in the long run that is true. But who stood in the forefront and paid the price at the beginning?
I laid down the proposition that we need defence, and if we accept that, we must now address ourselves to the question as to what we have either in the way of our own resources, or what we may expect from others. On the Pacific we have practically nothing but one or two boats with a few obsolete land guns. W'e have a destroyer which mounts three 4-inch guns instead of four 4.7 guns as a modern boat should have. It is hopeless so far as its radius is concerned; it could not hit anything five miles off. It is hoplessly outclassed by modern boats of the same type, and it was built in the early years of the war when material and time were considerations of importance.


Mr. CARROLL:: The hon. member, I suppose, is aware of the fact that these boats are simply used for training purposes.


Alan Webster Neill: Largely, but they are all we have.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there
any danger that this will lead to another Petersen subsidy, for arms?


Alan Webster Neill: The subject is altogether too important to be treated lightly. We shall deal with the Petersen subsidy at the right time, and I am sorry to hear the hon. member for Bow River treating lightly a subject the importance of which he may come to recognize later on. I would ask hon. gentlemen not to interrupt me further because I want to finish with this destroyer before six o'clock. It is made of (plates of steel three-sixteenths of an inch thick, that is, about double the thickness of an ordinary strand of telephone wire. And it is not galvanized. Now, anyone who has lived near the coast,

Ocean Shipping Rates
where telegraph wires are subject to the spray of salt water, knows that the galvanization rusts off in a very few months; and this boat has no galvanization on it at all. You can imagine therefore what the effect of the salt water has been on it during these years. Some day it will run against a floating log or one of our British Columbia salmon and crumple up like last shear's snow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 12, 1925