[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. POWER:: Under this bill it is proposed to amend the Pension Act to provide for the abolition of the pension appeal court and to set up, in lieu of both the court and the quorums, appeal boards of the commission, each consisting of three members wherein the applicant's right of appeal and personal appearance will be preserved.
The volume of business coming before the appeal court has been steadily decreasing and will continue to decrease. It is considered that the abolition of the court as at present constituted will accelerate the final settlement of applications. It is not proposed to provide for the reopening of any applications heretofore disposed * by the court, other than to the extent now existing in the legislation, whereby in special circumstances leave to renew an application may be granted.
With reference to those who saw service in France, there is at present a dead-line on the date of their application for pension, which is set at January 1, 1940. This amendment proposes to extend the dead-line to January 1, 1942. The remaining sections of the bill provide for amendments to methods of procedure consequential upon the disappearance of the court.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Dominion Elections-Returning Officers



INTERNATIONAL FORWARDING COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Pursuant to a brief intimation I gave to the Minister of National Revenue I desire to ask him a question. It has come to my attention within the last two or three days that alarm is prevalent in the Niagara peninsula with reference to a supposed application, which was referred to in this house last year, of the International Forwarding Company in regard to the carrying of bonded freight. Has there been an application or any indication of an application to the minister with respect to the carrying of United States goods in bond by the International Forwarding Company over Ontario highways? If such an application has been received, would the minister indicate the attitude of the government in this connection?
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: No application has been made to the Minister of National Revenue, and I have had no notice of any such application. I may say however that the Minister of National Revenue has no discretion in the matter as the law now stands, and possibly those desiring to secure the legalization of the trucking of goods in bond would not come in the first instance to myself; perhaps they would proceed in some other way, as by private bill. However I have no knowledge of it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: May I then ask the minister to whom in his opinion that authority
would go?



HON. C. G. POWER BIRTHDAY GREETINGS TO THE MINISTER OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. M ANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask
the government a question, but before doing so may I say that I noticed the hearty applause which greeted the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) when he entered the chamber, and someone whispered that to-day is my hon. friend's birthday. Since the minister is an old friend of mine, and since I may not have a chance to do so later in the day, I should like to offer to him my congratulations and the congratulations of those on this side of the house.
The minister is still young enough to feel that congratulations rather than commiserations are in order on his birthday. May I add that I hope he may decorate either this or the other chamber for many long years to come. I am not sure that I would not prefer to have him go to the other chamber, though I cannot speak with certainty on that, because he might do us more damage there than he can do here.


Charles Gavan Power: May I thank my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) for his kindness and courtesy in extending his best wishes and those of his party on this occasion. I do not suppose I have reached an age when I can afford or would like to enter into any philosophical dissertation as to the experiences, good and bad, which I have had in the twenty-five years during which I have been a member of this house, but there is one thing I should like to point out, and it has been well exemplified to-day. It is this: Whatever else the house may be, it is tolerant, as has been indicated by the remarks of my hon. friend and the applause, coming from all sides of the house, which greeted them.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should
have given notice of this question, but I assure the government that my failure to do so was not due to any bad faith. I remember that until 1930 it was the custom for the government of the day to appoint returning officers. In 1934 our government passed legislation dividing the duties of the returning officer and providing for the appointment of a returning officer and a registrar of electors. The appointment of the returning officer was made in the same way as before; that is, if I remember correctly, the government appointed him. The registrar of electors, who had the duty of drawing up the electoral lists, was appointed by Colonel Thompson. These men were appointed on the basis of forty-five per cent from our side of the house, though we were very much in the majority, forty-five per cent from the Liberal side, and I think the remaining ten per cent from the third, fourth, fifth and sixth parties.
I desire to ask if it is true that now the returning officers have been given once more the work of not only providing the machinery
116	COMMONS
Dominion Elections-Returning Officers
for carrying out the election but also the work of drawing up the electoral lists. That has been represented to me in many letters I have received. The government need not answer until to-morrow, if they so desire, but I should like to know if it is true that the returning officers are now being appointed on a direct patronage basis, in all constituencies. That is the charge which is being made to me, and I should be glad to have any comment from the minister who is in charge of that department.


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to this question, which is perhaps somewhat more controversial than the matter of a birthday, I believe, speaking from memory that prior to 1930 there never was any question at all as to who should appoint the returning officers. The government of the day, through the Secretary of State, appointed the returning officers as they pleased, and invariably those officers were supporters of the party in power. In 1928 and again in 1930 I was chairman of a committee of this house which brought in legislation which had not been heard of prior to that time. First, it was provided that in the appointment of enumerators for the making of electoral lists there should be a representative from each of two parties for each polling division. Second, it provided that the returning officer should be chosen not by a political officer, such as the Secretary of State, but by the chief electoral officer.
In 1930 the chief electoral officer, in the pursuance of his duty, went from one end of the country to the other. It is true that he did not, in all instances, please the members sitting on the opposite side of the house at that time; but to a very large extent either the returning officers were chosen outside of politics, at the suggestion of the opposition organization or the opposition member, or in other instances the returning officer was a public official, a prothonotary, a clerk of the court or someone who had actually withdrawn from active political controversy. That was what occurred in 1930.
In 1934 the government of which my hon. friend was a member introduced into the house two pieces of legislation, one the Franchise Act and the other the Dominion Elections Act.
' Under the Franchise Act it was provided that there should be registrars whose duty it was to see to the making up of the electoral lists. By a resolution of this house, which was consented to by all parties, Colonel John Thompson was appointed dominion franchise officer; that is to say, he became the person whose duty it was to choose the registrars for making up the lists. He took his duties seriously

and performed them in a non-partisan manner; and, as my hon. friend has pointed out, he appointed a very fair proportion of the registrars from the different political groups. At the moment I cannot say whether it was forty-five per cent or fifty per cent or ten per cent from any group; but in any case I think the appointments were made, so far as the opposition groups were concerned, in a way that gave satisfaction to them.
In 1934, however, when the Dominion Elections Act was brought in, over the protests of the then opposition the government took away from the chief electoral officer the power of appointing the returning officers, and placed it back in the hands of the Secretary of State.


Mr. CAHAN:: In the hands of the governor in council, if you please.


Charles Gavan Power: Very well. In any event, the act passed at the last session of parliament, so far as the appointment of returning officers is concerned, was an exact reproduction, word for word, of the act passed when my hon. friend's party was in power in 1934, and that is the situation at the present time. The returning officers are named in exactly the same way as 'was provided by the legislation passed in 1934.


Robert James Manion: I do not suppose it is proper to carry on anything in the nature of a debate on this matter, and I am not attempting to do so; but is it not true that in 1934, while the returning officer was appointed by the government of the day, as my hon. friend says, the registrar of electors was still left to be appointed by Colonel Thompson? And is it not true that now these registrars of electors have been eliminated?


Charles Gavan Power: The Franchise Act is being eliminated, and there are no longer any registrars. I might add what I forgot to say previously, that the provision introduced by the committee of which I was chairman in 1930, whereby the actual compiling of the lists was to be carried out by enumerators, remains; and from each of the political parties, or at least from two of the political parties, there are enumerators who go together to make up the lists.


Mr. STEWART:: That is in urban districts only.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Mr. HEAPS:: Can the minister inform the house whether new appointments are to be made on a purely partisan basis, the same basis on which they were made previously, namely forty-dive per cent, forty-five per cent and ten per cent?

War Munitions-Aeroplane Shipments


Charles Gavan Power: The only time there was any basis other than the partisan one was under the elections acts of 1929 and 1930. There were committees in both those years, and the result was the bringing in of one general elections act, known as the Dominion Elections Act, 1930. Under that act, which is the only time in my recollection the returning officers were appointed in what might be described as a non-partisan manner, the chief electoral officer had the right to choose them. However, last year the provisions with respect to returning officers were copied from the act passed in 1934.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the minister might
add that the registrars are not appointed by the chief returning officer, because registrars and deputy returning officers are the same individuals. Further, I understand, they should be appointed by the governor in council and their names published by the twenty-first day of this month.	[DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: As a matter of fact this
whole matter was fully debated last year-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so.


Charles Gavan Power: -when the elections act was discussed. I do not believe we want to debate it now; it was fully debated at that time. There is no element of surprise about it.


Mr. POULIOT:: What may be the reason for complaint when they are all honest men?



WAR MUNITIONS AND MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) care to make a statement respecting the press report from Ankara, Turkey, to the effect that military planes manufactured in Canada, supposedly for the Turkish government, found their way into the hands of Spanish insurgents. Would the minister investigate the matter and assure the house that if the persons responsible for the alleged forgery are in the country, there will be prosecutions?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
was good enough to give notice of the question, and I am prepared to make a brief statement regarding the planes to which I believe he has reference.
Applications were made by a Canadian manufacturer for permits to export thirty-four
aeroplanes to the Turkish government. These permits were issued by the Department of National Revenue in due course, the department having no discretion under the law to refuse permits to export to Turkey. Representations contained in the applications were checked by the officers of the department, who examined and found in order all documents relating to the purchase of the planes.
Subsequently, upon request from the United States government for information concerning these shipments, all the documents pertaining to the order and the shipments were rechecked by the departmental officials and found to be in order, and it was verified that the aeroplanes and parts had been loaded on the ships for export from Canada in accordance with the terms of the permits, and that the bills of lading were properly drawn to cover . shipment to Turkey. The United States government was interested in the movements of parts of these planes exported by the United States to Canada.
The Turkish government later stated that it did not authorize the placing of the order for these planes. It would appear that the planes reached Spain, a country shipments to which are prohibited by order in council, not nationalist Spain as indicated in the question, tut republican Spain. There is, however, no evidence before the department to indicate that the exporter acted in other than good faith in applying for permits for export to Turkey.
Inquiries have been made in Canada and the results do not indicate that any person or company in Canada was responsible for any of the alleged forgeries. The government has asked the government of the United Kingdom to make inquiries of the Turkish government as to the outcome of an official inquiry which it is understood the latter is conducting. When this information is received I shall be glad to make a further statement.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. E. Matthews for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Manion, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to join with other hon. members who have already spoken in congratulating the mover (Mr. Mat-
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

thews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
The address itself covers a wide range of subjects. I do not propose this afternoon to traverse the whole of it, but shall confine myself to several topics indicated therein. It contains in respect to unemployment a new confession of failure. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) quite properly condemns the government for its failure, just as the Liberal party in opposition in 1935 condemned the government of which the present leader of the opposition was then a member for similar failure.
Hon. members in this group maintain now as they did then that only intelligent planning and control of our monopolistic industries and financial corporations will help us to find a way out of our own domestic difficulties. That is why the subamendment was moved yesterday by my leader (Mr. Woodsworth).
In our view social and economic progress is possible to-day, despite the difficulties which confront us. This statement is proven by what has occurred in New Zealand, where a government with a philosophy and ideals similar to those to which we adhere has been able since 1935 to assist the people of that country to solve problems which, according to the speech from the throne now before us, seem insoluble. In New Zealand in the three years following 1935 something like a miracle has occurred, because the government in that country had a plan and a determination to put it into effect. Unemployment has ceased to be a grave problem in New Zealand. The actual number of unemployed officially reported in August of this year-the depth of winter in the Antipodes, may I add-stood at only 1,273. In 1935 large numbers of the farmers of that country, the other major class suffering from economic difficulties, faced bankruptcy, the statement being made by their organizations at that time that at least 50,000 New Zealand farmers were in a very bad financial position. Three years later, however, it was very largely the votes of the agricultural community which in November last returned the Savage government to power, with a new mandate.
In 1935 schools were closing and school grants were being reduced, just as they have been in our western provinces during the past few years. To-day new schools are being built, teachers' salary schedules have been restored and improved, and educational facilities are being extended all across the country. Contrast that condition with the condition of

schools and teachers in the province of Saskatchewan. I suggest we cannot be proud when we make the comparison.
With respect to housing the fact is that in Canada we have signally failed to provide any volume of new homes for the Canadian people. In 1935 not a single house was built in New Zealand by the government, but since that time thousands have been built. Last year 3,500 were constructed. Multiplying their population to equal ours would mean that on a similar basis the government of this country would provide over 30,000 houses this year for the Canadian people. Not only have government houses been constructed in New Zealand, but in order to prevent increases in rents by those who built houses privately, rents are being controlled and restricted by legislative enactment. In 1935 pensions for the veterans and the blind in New Zealand had been cut by one-third. The sick and the aged were dependent largely upon charity or their own friends. These pensions have been restored and pensions are now granted to widows. The old age pension has been increased from $20 to $30 per month, and the age limit has been lowered to sixty years.
What effect has all this had upon the business of our sister dominion? Business in this country languishes while in New Zealand it has shown a steady advance during the past three years. The figures for bankruptcies show that last year New Zealand had the smallest number of business failures in sixty years. Since the present government took office, more than a thousand new shops and six hundred new factories have been opened. According to a government report which I have studied, the railways of New Zealand had a record volume of business last year. Another indication of what has occurred under a policy such as we recommend is the fact that last year the number of automobiles in New Zealand increased by twenty-five per cent, while the number of new telephones installed last year exceeded all previous records. This improvement was due, at least in some degree, to the fact that the government of New Zealand, under the leadership of the minister of finance, the Hon. Walter Nash, used the newly nationalized central bank of that country, not as a social credit instrument but as an instrument of public policy.


Mr. MITCHELL:: What is the difference?


Major James William Coldwell: I hear one of my Social Credit friends asking what is the difference. There is a great difference between those two conceptions. Under economics that are sound

The Address-Mr. Caldwell
the issue of money by the national bank of New Zealand is intelligently related to the actual production of the country.


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: What is the difference between that and social credit?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: States and Great Britain were signed. I picked up the western United States papers, and I could find very little in them about those treaties except that the agreements represented a great gain for the United States wheat grower, that once again he had been able to get back into the British market, and that Canada's unfair advantage, as he regarded it, had been eliminated.
Moreover, though the price of wheat has been fixed in Canada, eighty-cent wheat does not meet the average cost of production. This is substantiated by figures prepared not by me but by our universities, and by figures presented to the Rowell commission, not by members of my party, but by speakers on behalf of the Liberal governments in western Canada. What we want to know to-day, and what I am asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), if he participates in this debate, to tell us, is this: What is the government's wheat policy for the coming year? Surely a policy, and a very direct and certain policy, is needed in face of the world situation; for the appalling picture painted by the International Bureau of Agricultural Economics is one which we in this parliament and in this dominion cannot pass over lightly. I have on my desk the figures supplied by that organization, and they show that for the current crop year there is available approximately 1,175,000,000 bushels of wheat to meet an estimated import demand of
545.000,000 bushels. If the United States winter wheat belt has only ah average crop this coming summer, then there will be on hand ready to supply the world next July before a binder turns in one of our western harvest fields, enough unused wheat to meet the present world demand for two whole years. I can see no indications of that condition improving in the near future.
What does the government propose to do? What proposals has it to offer at the forthcoming world wheat conference? What policy is it prepared to support at that conference? I submit that the parliament of Canada, which is held responsible for marketing policies, ought to be told what the government proposes to do in this connection. What we who represent western Canada, and have a very direct interest in this problem, are anxious to know is what the government proposes to do during the coming year.
Some say that our farmers must change to mixed farming. If they did, what would be the effect, I wonder, upon eastern agriculture and the eastern farmer? Already our western farmers are producing large quantities of dairy produce, and if they went into such production in a big way, into the production

of butter, for example, of which we already have a surplus running into many millions of pounds, what would be the effect upon the eastern dairy farmer, having regard to the present world demand?
But I think this can be said, that over large areas of the prairie provinces, particularly south and southwestern Saskatchewan, lack of water and peculiar climatic and soil and growing conditions make it unprofitable for our farmers to enter that field, and consequently we have to regard that part of the prairies as a wheat producing area. So we ask again, what does the government propose to do in relation to this problem, which is becoming more acute as the days go by?
Again, if our farmers are to grow wheat, they must secure good seed. We now know that good seed must be of some rust-resistant variety, and that is perhaps particularly true this year because moisture conditions are above normal over a large part of western Canada, and normal moisture next summer, -with certain other climatic conditions which are not unlikely to occur, may encourage rust in heavy crops. Last year the rust-resistant varieties stood up well, and there is plenty of seed to seed the land with rust-resistant wheat provided it is properly distributed. But the government's exchange plans are not satisfactory to the western farmer. They require two or three bushels of low grade wheat to be given in exchange for one bushel of good seed, and I am informed that the wheat board is selling commercial wheat for feed purposes on the basis of the open market price less the freight. Many farmers throughout the west have only low grade wheat of an inferior quality, and in view of this, farmers and municipalities are urging upon the government a policy of the distribution of good seed.
I have received, and I have no doubt the same is true of other western members, a number of resolutions dealing with the matter. I shall quote only one-to get it on the record -which I received from the municipal council of Perdue, Saskatchewan, in my own constituency. It reads as follows:
That the Canadian' wheat board sell to the farmers of Saskatchewan the rust-resistant varieties of wheat of such quality as to be usable for seed, which are now held in store in the dominion government interior elevators, at the same price as it now sells commercial wheat to the flour mills for milling purposes; that is, at Fort William open market price less freight charges; and that the said wheat could be coloured with some substance not injurious to germination so that it could be easily detected if offered for resale to the wheat board and, as a further protection to the wheat board, that a farmer's application to purchase such

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
seed wheat l>e first approved by a responsible municipal official who would know the acreage cultivated by the applicant and the quantity of rust-resisiant wheat required by him.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: May I ask, for information, whether the hon. member can tell me who the father of that resolution is? I have received a number of similar resolutions from municipal councils, all couched in the same words, and I should like to know whence they emanate.


Mr. COLDW  ELL@: Air. Speaker, I am as ignorant of the person who drafted this resolu-tinon as my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). I have received, as he has done, a number of these resolutions, quite a number from my own constituency, and because I have received them from my own constituency and know who the movers and seconders are, and the officials who forwarded the resolutions to me, I am placing this one before the house.


Mr. EULER:: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but may I ask him this: If that policy were adopted by the wheat board would it not mean that a farmer who had sold his wheat to the wheat board at eighty cents would buy it back for himself at sixty cents and make a profit of twenty cents?


Major James William Coldwell: I understand the government will not distribute seed now to farmers who sold wheat to the wheat board. It seems to me that the policy could be carried out so that the sales could be safeguarded. I do not know how practicable all the suggestions in this resolution are, but I believe the principle involved is a sound one, and I would recommend it, not for adoption in toto but for the consideration of the government as a constructive proposal.


Mr. GARDINER:: If the hon. member does not mind, I might point out to him that the proper way really to deal with that resolution is to send it to the government of Saskatchewan. This government does not conduct any of the transactions referred to in that resolution; they are all carried out by the provincial government.


Mr. COLDW  ELL@: No, but the government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, set up the wheat board. The wheat board is a creature of this parliament, and this particular resolution involves the proposal of a method of operation of the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are already negotiations between the provincial government and the wheat board, and the wheat board has been instructed by this government to'
continue to carry on the negotiations, with authority to deal with the matter if and when a policy which can be properly applied is developed by the province.


Major James William Coldwell: That is all the more reason why a constructive proposal of this sort should be placed before parliament and the Minister of Agriculture at this time, and I am glad I had the opportunity to bring it to the minister's attention this afternoon.


James Garfield Gardiner: I signed about a dozen replies to resolutions this morning.


Major James William Coldwell: I permitted the Minister of Agriculture to ask me a question, but I would ask him not to interrupt.
The whole problem, may I add, is one which parliament must tackle this session. A solution is imperative in the interests of western agriculture, and I hope to say something more about it when a resolution on the order paper in my name is debated. I realize that the problem of wheat and of marketing is made more difficult because of the present international situation. Threats of war and recurring crises have resulted, too, in a decrease in the value of the pound sterling. We remember the disastrous effects of the decline of the pound sterling in 1932 and 1933. Our attempts then to retain parity with the gold dollar penalized very severely the primary producers of this country. A year ago the pound sterling was worth five dollars in Canadian money; to-day it is worth approximately S4.70, which means, of course, that if we sell a pound's worth of goods in Great Britain, instead of getting the five dollars in our local currency which we got last year we are getting only S4.70. There might be a much more severe fall than that. In the years to which I referred the governments of Australia and New Zealand took exactly the opposite view to ours, with the result that the farmers of those countries received higher prices in their own currency for their own produce, enabling them to meet their own local obligations in that currency. That, I submit, is an aspect of the agricultural situation which ought to be considered by the Minister of Finance and by the government before it is too late.
I do not wish to deal extensively this afternoon with the international situation. We were assured by the Prime Minister that the house would have ample opportunity to discuss international affairs, and I am looking forward to that occasion. But I do want to say something this afternoon about one of the results of the recent tragic series of events.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

To-day the victims of fascist and nazi terror cry aloud to all civilized people for consideration and for aid. I am wondering what is going to be Canada's response to that cry. Pro-nazi papers printed in Canada and pronazi literature printed in Germany and widely circulated in Canada are trying to poison us with anti-semitic propaganda. It strikes me as being a strange thing that again and again in this chamber and other legislatures of this dominion we hear of communistic propaganda, and the need, so it is said, to meet it, to keep it out of the country; but so far nowhere in parliament or in any legislature has an attempt been made to keep out this vicious nazi propaganda which is attacking a minority in the country in which we live. Bear in mind that two-thirds of the refugees who today suffer in central Europe are non-Jews. I do not suggest of course that with our present problems of agricultural depression and unemployment we can open wide our gates to all who seek admission. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in common with others in this country, has always opposed immigration schemes fostered by certain vested interests that had an economic axe to grind, land to sell, transportation facilities to use, and so on. Canada, however, should to-day be willing to join with other democracies in offering asylum to a fair quota of sufferers, both Jews and Christians, in a broad humanitarian effort to relieve their distress and with proper safeguards that they will not become public charges or increase our problems of agriculture and unemployment. I submit to the government that this policy will conform to the principles of what we sometimes call traditional liberalism.
What is "traditional liberalism?" Last evening I read an old Montreal newspaper file regarding Canada's reaction to similar but much less serious atrocities in Russia in 1905, now thirty-three years ago. At that time a great protest meeting was held in Montreal and a resolution of protest and of horror was passed unanimously and forwarded to the Czar. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jews in the province of Quebec joined in expressing their abhorrence of crimes which pale into insignificance before the cruelties of nazi persecution in Germany and the areas under Hitler's iron heel. Many notable people who could not be present sent messages. Here is one written at that time by his excellency the Archbishop of Montreal to Mr. D. A. Ansell of that city. I will read the English translation. It is dated at Montreal, November 15, 1905, and is as follows:

Sir:
I have received your letter of the 13th instant. I greatly deplore, as you do, the massacres that have taken place at Odessa and in other parts of Russia. Such massacres are contrary to the spirit of Christianity and to the laws of humanity.
However, I do not consider it advisable for me to take part in the meeting to which you invite me.
Yours sincerely,
Paul, Archbishop of Montreal.
I understand that the last sentence simply means that as a rule high ranking prelates of the Roman Catholic Church do not participate in public demonstrations. The Anglican Archdeacon of Montreal wrote a very fine letter at that time:
The Archdeacon of Montreal and Mrs. Norton regret that another engagement will prevent their being present at the meeting on Monday evening. They beg to enclose ten dollars as a small expression of their sympathy, and of the disgust and horror with which they regard the massacres in Russia of law abiding and innocent Jews, whose nation has in God's good providence given to the world its greatest moral and spiritual instructors, and has contributed enormously towards the upbuilding of the British empire by the loyalty and genius of such Jews as Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Herschei and Lord Goschen.
After over thirty years more of education and Christianity are we going to say anything less than our predecessors did thirty-three years ago?
May I place on the record a telegram forwarded from this city by the great man who was then the prime minister of Canada? I have before me the original telegram from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dated at Ottawa, November 20, 1905. It reads:
I beg you to accept expression of my regret that other duties will not allow me to attend meeting to be held this evening to protest against recent massacres in Russia. I heartily sympathize with the object of meeting and I earnestly concur in your laudable efforts.
(Signed) Wilfrid Laurier.
Thus some of the leaders in church and state in Quebec and in Canada thirty-three years ago expressed themselves forcibly and freely; and I wondered when I read that telegram what Sir Wilfrid Laurier would say if he sat in this house as prime minister to-day. At that time Great Britain was endeavouring to bring about an entente cordiale with Russia, having completed one with France; yet in spite of the fact that negotiations may have been difficult, the prime minister of this country at that time did not fear or fail to express himself in the terms I have just read. To-day we are granting most favoured nation treatment under our tariff and other treaties to Germany,

The Address-Mr. Deachman
and when we make a concession to other countries Germany participates. Therefore Germany gets her chromium, her nickel and other supplies from this dominion under most favoured nation terms, while the victims of the fascist terror hammer at our gates in their desperate search for refuge.
The Canadian people are democratic. They are warm-hearted, and I believe we have an opportunity to demonstrate our humanitarian-ism now. We are urging the Prime Minister to take the house into his confidence and tell the house immediately whether this country will receive-not a large influx, unregulated, of the victims, because there are a million and a half of them, but whether in common with other democratic peoples we will take our fair quota of those who are suffering from the terror in central Europe. May I add that under a proper policy, just as in days gone by when our forefathers received the Huguenots from France and exiles from other places, these refugees may do much to help us in this country to build up a balanced economy. And may I say that in the suggestion I have just made I am expressing not only my own views but those of the national council of the movement of which I have the honour to be the chairman.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just read this resolution passed by the national executive:
The national executive of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation expresses its sincere sympathy with the victims of religious, racial and political persecution in central Europe, and requests the government to admit, on humanitarian principles, in the same manner as other democratic nations are doing, a reasonable number of the victims of persecution to this dominion.
That is all we ask the government to do.


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: I listened as I always do with a great deal of interest to my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). In regard to his statement of the situation in western Canada I have of course the deepest sj'mpathy. I lived there for twenty-five of the happiest yearn of my life, and one of the pleasantest memories I have is' that of my association with the people of the west. I am not so sure that I can follow my hon. friend in his picture of conditions in New Zealand. I imagine they are now experiencing what may be termed the honeymoon of inflation, and the bright and vivid story we have had of their situation to-day may change somewhat in the next year or two. I have before me a copy of the London Economist.
Before I quote from this I want to answer the reply that can readily be made that this is a capitalistic journal and looks at things from a capitalistic viewpoint. Of course the countercharge might be made that the statement we heard from my hon. friend is from a socialist viewpoint. But there are two points of view, and I submit this one from the London Economist; I do not know myself whether that view or the view expressed by my hon. friend is right, but I suggest that hon. members keep these things in their minds for a year or two and then pass judgment when the test of time has brought its result. These are the words of the Economist'.
In other words, it is evident that the success of the New Zealand government's control scheme depends, not so much upon the effectiveness with which it is worked, as upon the manner in which the fundamental economic problems of New Zealand are tackled. If the New Zealand government temper their grandiose public works schemes and their progressive policy of social services with caution, and if they have the luck of good export prices, the exchange control scheme may happily prove to have been a valuable, but temporary, expedient to tide over a difficult period. Mr. Savage however has gone far to shatter this hope by his declaration that these measures were intended to form a permanent part of the government's plan for "insulating the economic life of New Zealand from outside disturbance." If, in the course of this insulation policy, the control scheme is merely used as a means of evading the fundamental issues involved, if it serves only to "plug the clinical thermometer," it will land the patient in a much graver crisis than that in which he finds himself to-day.
I call attention to that proposal to "insulate the economic life of New Zealand." I call to mind the fact that the United States tried for a number of years to insulate the economic life of the United States. They succeeded in "plugging the clinical thermometer," but when the time came the crisis was thereby made much worse than it would otherwise have been. I ask the house not to accept my judgment or the judgment of the Economist or even the judgment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Time gives the answer to most of these questions.
I was very much interested in the speech delivered by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) the other day. I cannot help but think how greatly the conditions of this world would change if our foresight were as good as our hindsight. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was a candidate in the city of Vancouver in the anti-reciprocity campaign of 1911. Yet in 1936 he voted for the reciprocity agreement, and at that time, in a speech in this house, he stated that his work in the Department of Trade and Commerce

The Address-Mr. Deachman
had convinced him that an inquiry ought to be made into the idea of expanding trade with the United States, and that he believed the expansion of trade would result in the betterment of conditions as between the two countries. As I read the speech of the leader of the opposition to-day I thought that if only the hon. gentleman could have worked in the Department of Trade and Commerce for a few brief months he too would have found that to be time; and instead of having one dissenter from the party, or perhaps more, we would have a united vote on the part of the Conservative party in favour of the policy which they condemned in 1911.
It would be pleasant if these memories could come to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It must be a great thing for the leader of the Liberal party in this house (Mr. Mackenzie King), when he recalls the campaign of 1911, in which he took part; when he recalls how the Conservative party at that time fought as they never fought before, how they wrapped the flag around them, how they came weeping with every eye they had, bleeding in every pore, talking of patriotism and telling of the disasters which would follow if we accepted the suggestions made in 1911. Now, with softened tones, I read these words from the speech delivered just the other day by my hon. friend. Referring to the Canadian manufacturers he said:
Some of them appear to think it would be more or less unpatriotic to express an opinion against the treaty.
What a marvellous change indeed! But if we have a change in view we still have the old arguments. The other day we heard the story of the balance of trade. That was first brought up in Canada, I think at the time of the first reciprocity treaty, in 1854. We have had eighty-five years of it. In all friendliness I suggest to the Conservative party that they spend another fifteen years discussing the balance of trade and then let the matter drop. The other day we heard that we should have our trade balanced with the United States, that we should reduce our imports from that country so that the trade would have an approximate balance. There is no man or woman within sound of my voice who balances his or her trade exactly. No man has a favourable balance of trade with his tailor. Every man buys where he can buy the cheapest, and the balance of trade is what is represented at the end of the year, regardless of whether it is carried on with one person or a thousand persons. Well, when one cannot balance his trade, how can the combined trade of eleven million

people, with every nation with which they do business, be expected to balance?
I am not going to discuss this suggestion for very long, but I want to give a few brief facts in regard to the balance of trade. Since confederation we have had twenty-seven favourable balances of trade, of which sixteen were under Liberal governments and eleven under the Tories. I have left out the years 1919 and 1920, because then we were under a war economy, shipping munitions and other war material which affected the result. In 1925 and 1926, under the Liberals, the favourable balance of trade exceeded all the favourable balances of trade under all Tory governments from the time the dominion was formed right down to 193S. I am suggesting, in kindness to the Tories that they drop this suggestion, because the argument is entirely on our side. The greatest adverse balance of trade which ever took place in the Dominion of Canada was in the years 1912, 1913 and 1914, under a Conservative administration. I went through the files of Hansard for those years, but I found nothing, not a word, about the balance of trade. Why should they worry about it? Every Conservative in the house kept repeating to himself, "Why should I fear? The Tories are in power." Yet they come back with this story to-day, and that is why I suggest that they take another fifteen years and then get rid of it for good.
But there was one delightful thing in regard to the remarks of the leader of the opposition that I cannot miss. My hon. friend the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) suggested that it was a fifty-fifty deal, one horse and one rabbit. At once my hon. friend said, "That is it. We ship a horse to the United States and get back a rabbit."


Robert James Manion: No, I did not say any such thing. Stick to the book.


Robert John Deachman: All right; for curiosity's sake we will stick to the book.


Robert James Manion: I said we got a rabbit and they got a horse, on the trade treaty.-


Robert John Deachman: All right; it was on the trade treaty, but that does not alter the suggestion. We got the rabbit and they got the horse.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert John Deachman: That is quite right; we got the rabbit and they got the horse.


Robert James Manion: On the trade treaty.


Robert John Deachman: Quite so; and that means that we shipped a horse to the United

The Address-Mr. Deachman
States and got back a rabbit, that our exports were more than our imports, and that the nation was prosperous. That is the Tory theory: favourable balance of trade; exports exceeding imports. But I want to point out something else to my hon. friend. If we had got back only the ears of the rabbit or the hair from the end of its tail we would have been still better off, because we would have received less for what we gave; and according to Tory theory that would form a bigger and bigger balance of trade.
I want to add this word. All these discussions that have taken place in the house have not been in regard to the balance of payments. They have referred almost entirely to the balance of commercial exchanges, of goods for goods. I suggest to my hon. friend that if he is going to discuss the balance of trade again, he should take the balance of international payments and show what is the total of our earnings from investments, our payments of interest, our earnings from the tourist traffic and all the great multiplicity of exchanges which take place. But despite that little lapse with regard to the rabbit, for which I shall forgive him, I wmnt to point out that there were some exceedingly delightful arguments in the speech of my hon. friend. In particular I like this one: Last year we bought from the United States $40 per capita; they bought from us $3.50 per capita.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert John Deachman: Well, I can make it worse: Last year we bought from the world $100 per capita and the world bought from us sixty cents per capita, and what is to save us? Nothing but the goodness of God. Last year we bought from the United Kingdom $14 per capita and the United Kingdom bought from us $9 per capita. Yet our trade with the United Kingdom was very fair, as I see it. Our imports from the United Kingdom were $145,000,000 and our exports to the United Kingdom were $409,000,000.
There is another little item. My hon. friend was worried, or at least he tried to worry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), in regard to the loss of the three per cent excise tax. Well, let me point out that the former Conservative government removed the excise tax against Great Britain. I do not think it worried very much about it after it had done it, only in so far as it felt that it was going outside its usual course, because that to a certain extent reduced the tariff which was imposed. But the loss of revenue was not a serious matter. The loss of revenue in this instance will not be a serious matter, either, because I venture to suggest that when the previous government removed the excise tax
against Great Britain, they did the only thing they ever did during their entire period in office which helped to increase employment throughout Canada. On the other hand, when the Liberals remove the three per cent excise tax on all imports, as I hope they are now going to do, they will have done not the only thing they have ever done but certainly the biggest thing they have ever done to cure unemployment.
I come now to another point in connection with which I shall probably differ from the hon. member. In that connection I shall follow his suggestion and shall try to get the facts. Speaking about our export of wheat he said:
I find that in 1922-I take the worst year- only 29 per cent of Canadian wheat went through Canadian ports, and 70 per cent through United States ports, whereas last year, 1938, 82 per cent of our Canadian wheat went through Canadian ports and only 15J per cent through United States ports.
That is correct-at least, I take it as it stands there. But what the hon. member did not tell, and I should have liked him to tell, is that in 1922 there were 89,000,000 bushels of United States grain which passed through Canadian ports; in 1927-28 there were 88,000,000 bushels; in 192S-29 there were 83,000,000 bushels, and in 1937-38 there were 64,000,000 bushels.
I submit to the house that when a person attempts to present a story of the export of Canadian grain through United States ports he ought also to tell the story of the export of United States grain through Canadian ports. There is a proper way of putting the situation before the House of Commons and the people of Canada. I do not quarrel with my hon. friend's making a mistake of this kind. For some years he lived in Fort William and caught the Fort William spirit. He thinks everything that goes out of Fort William is much more important than anything which goes through in any other direction-and that is quite all right. I must point out, however, that it is not a fair statement, and an hon. member ought not to take one side of a story, state it in a certain way, and then leave it before the house with the suggestion that we are using the transportation services of the United States and not using our own transportation facilities, and therefore that we were not doing the right and proper thing for the Canadian people.


Robert James Manion: May I interject? The export of United States grain via Canadian ports is not affected in the trade agreement, whereas the export of Canadian grain via United States ports is affected.
The Address-Mr. Deachman


Robert John Deachman: Yes, but here is the point: Why did not my hon. friend point out the other side of the story as to the balance which was taking place? Why did he not point out that when Canadian wheat was going through United States ports, it was probably going through for the simple reason that Canadian ports were glutted with United States grain.


Robert James Manion: No, no.


Robert John Deachman: And there was a balance between the two. While we were carrying the products of the United States they were carrying our products. We were working together, using the transportation systems of both countries. Does the hon. member wish to appeal to the west and tell them he will confine that movement only to Canadian waterways? What would have happened if in some years, for instance back in 1929 when we exported 370,000,000 bushels of wheat, we had been confined to Canadian ports? All channels would have been glutted, and we would have been left wondering what had happened. Every elevator would have been filled; transportation facilities of both countries would have been fully employed.
I care not what the hon, member says; that statement should have been placed fairly and squarely and both sides should have been balanced properly. But there is another item -and I like this; I am delighted with it. My hon. friend went to the United States; he wanted to see the prices of United States products so as to compare them with those in Canada. He went to several places, and while looking he, investigated the prices of automobile tires. But he did not look at the rest of the automobile; he got just as far as the tires, and then stopped. Automobile tires were practically the same price on both sides of the line; but he would have found there was a difference of $500 or $600, in some instances, in the prices of automobiles. He did not look at that. What would the house think of a physician who was called in to look at a man who was very ill and found that he looked only at the patient's feet and then declared, "He is all right"? What would the house think of a physician who under those circumstances never looked at the engine, the chassis, the hood, the top or any other part of the patient? It is much better to look both ways.
There is another matter, in an entirely different line, to which I wish to direct attention. It has very little to do with freedom of trade, but it has some connection with freedom of discussion. The question has arisen

in regard to the right of a certain newspaper publisher to speak over a radio network and to present to a large and extended audience the important views he may have on many questions. The publisher in question is very active in Canada to-day. Among other things he is deeply interested in the Canadian railway problem. He believes in the unification of railways and, believing that, he has unified two newspapers. I suggest we might wait to see how he gets along with them before we decide that he is in a position to give advice with regard to railways. The question arises as to the right of this gentleman to speak over the radio. I quote now from the Globe and Mail:
Let us see how the heel of authority is cracked down-
I like that "heel of authority."
-the publisher of the Globe and Mail cannot use a network of private radio stations for the simple reason that he is able to do so. By the same brand of reasoning he should be prohibited from publishing a newspaper; there are others who cannot. If he wishes to telephone to Winnipeg he must content himself with speaking to Long Branch; every one is unable to make a long distance call. He must not ride in a parlour car because some other person cannot do so. He should not drive an automobile; there are people who cannot.
We have freedom of the press in Canada, and we have it for a certain reason. There has been a constant process of evolution in the development of the press. Those men who had charge of its development had a high sense of honour and responsibility. Connected with the press of the world are the names of many of the greatest and most influential men who lived, men like Scott of the Manchester Guardian, Delane of the Times and our own George Brown, whose statue stands outside this building. But if in the future the press is to develop to the stage where men who do not know its traditions and who have made their money in other fields of effort may use the press for their own purposes, and instead of leaving the news fairly to the public, presenting their own personal views to the editorial page, I fear that the boasted freedom of the press will to some extent cease, and some measure of restriction may eventually be adopted.
What followed in this particular instance? If a man publishes an argument or a letter or an editorial in a newspaper, there is a chance to answer him in the same paper. But when a man acquires a monopoly of the time on a radio in which to speak, in which to state his own views, unless another man has an abundance of money to buy similar time, he has no opportunity to answer. If you

The Address-Mr. Deachman
are going to have freedom of the radio there must necessarily be some restrictions. Those restrictions must be such as will serve to retain freedom and not something that limits it. As for the other argument, that when he wishes to telephone to Winnipeg he is compelled to telephone to Long Branch instead, let me say that there are other methods of reaching both Long Branch and Winnipeg. But there are no other ways of meeting the situation when a man of wealth, demanding power, seeks the right to express himself over the radio unchallenged by other people who may also want the right to express their opinions but lack all possible means of doing so.
I do not make these statements without particular affection for the Toronto Globe. I owe that paper too much. It was my guide in my youth. The opinions which I hold today were founded largely upon the sound arguments that were used by that paper in the days when it had youth and vigour and freedom and fearlessness. I can remember, after ploughing all day, walking three miles to town in order to read the Globe. I feel too strongly to say anything against that paper, but freedom must be defended and you cannot defend freedom by giving privileges to some which are denied to others.
I come now to the other point. I want to touch upon the question of unemployment. The story that I desire to put before the house I think is somewhat difficult, but it is one to which I have given considerable thought. Speaking the other day with reference to the causes of unemployment the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that the primary causes were war, intensive nationalism and trade restriction. I agree with that, but in what way do those things cause unemployment? When the efforts of a nation are thrown into preparation for war, there is within the nation a smaller total volume of production of consumable and capital goods. For that reason there is less to be distributed, and less wealth is created. There is another way in which this might be expressed; it might find expression not in reduction of employment, but in a lowering of the standard of living. When you have violated an economic law; when you have restricted the trade of a nation; when you have lowered production, then I suggest that there will be punishment for that through economic laws from which there is no escape. Nothing can stop them. The only thing that can happen when that is done is one of two things. There will be a general lowering of the standard of living and a reduction in wages and profits or, in the alternative, there will be unemployment. The measure of your unemployment
will be the measure in which you have been unwilling to face the whole problem in the way which I have suggested.
I want to put tliis before the house as an illustration which may be a little difficult to explain. I have before me a book and in it I have marked a wage scale starting at SI and continuing with $2, S3, $4, $5, and $6. We will say that my deskmate, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon), and I are working in a factory of which the manager is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). We have a quarrel, not political but over labour matters, with the manager, and we go to him and demand a higher wage. The attitude of the hon. member and myself is simply this: We do not care for the Minister of Labour. He is the boss; we are going to fight for the highest possible wage we can get. We do not care particularly for the other men who are employed in the factory because we feel that as we are the senior men, we shall retain our jobs anyway. We do not take into consideration for one moment the interests of the consumer. We are fighting simply for an increased wage, and we are ready to take the highest wage we can possibly squeeze out of the capitalist who controls the plant, who happens, fortunately or unfortunately, to be, in this instance, the Minister of Labour.
Our quarrel with the Minister of Labour, having been settled, the following day the government appoints a commission or a committee the object of which is to fix a wage scale in the Dominion of Canada which will produce the largest total volume of wage funds out of which all wages are to be paid. At once the attitudes of my deskmate, the Minister of Labour and I change with reference to this problem. We then say to ourselves: We must fix a wage scale which will employ the largest total number of men, so that the number of men employed multiplied by the wage scale will give us the largest total wage fund out of which all wages must be paid. I do not think there is any dispute in regard to that. That is what we would do. While we were working as individuals, if we were getting $3 per day, we would try to shove it up to $6; but if we were working on behalf of the nation to create the largest possible wage fund, we would try to fix that at the point where, multiplied by the total number of employed, it would create the largest wage fund.
I put the same illustration last summer to a labour leader in western Canada. At that time I was working for a newspaper, and he said to me, "Am I speaking to a reporter for a newspaper, to a member of parliament or to a chap named Deachman?" I told him that
12S
The Address-Mr. Deachman

it was purely personal, that I would never use his name in connection with it. I asked him if that was the answer to the unemployment problem and he told me that I was right. However he said that labour could not give way because, if it did, what would follow? If labour lowered its wage scale, he said the capitalist owner of the plant would take the difference, and the only thing labour would get would be less wages and a lowering of the standard of living. Then I asked him what would happen if something could be done to lower prices, if, for instance, the tariff could be reduced sufficiently to compel a lowering of the price of goods. He said that the result would be an increase in the volume of employment. There would be a larger total number of men working for a slightly lower wage, but there would be a lower cost of living. They would have a relatively low nominal wage, but they would have something far more important as far as labour is concerned- they would have a higher standard of living than they had before.
I submit that is how this problem must be approached if this government is going to solve unemployment. It must be willing to bring about a better distribution of what one United States economist has called the pie of production. Throughout the Dominion of Canada we find little groups of men fighting desperately to increase their standard of living. We are missing the opportunity that ought to be ours and is ours of increasing the standard of living by working steadily for the better distribution of the wealth which is produced. What is to be done? I submit to the Liberal party that we have made a start in the reduction of the tariff by means of the abolition of the excise tax. That has been the greatest single move since the depression towards the restoration of normal conditions.
The government has mapped out for itself a further course. It proposes now to examine into the tariff upon sugar and into the West Indies treaty. I wish it would be willing to act without examination, because that situation has been examined before, and the record is so clear that he who runs may read. There is one of the worst examples of exploitation that we have in this dominion. But I feel confident that the government will do everything it can to facilitate that investigation so that action may be taken in the situation before this session is over. That is a next-door way to escape. Then, having expanded our trade with the United States and with the West Indies, keep on going. There is no fear so far as the Liberal party is concerned regarding the expansion of trade. We are not afraid to deal with any 
class of people, wherever they may be. We are not afraid that they will take too much from us or that we shall give them too much or that we shall get too much from them. I never worry about that; I leave that to my Tory friends. Forward, then, under those methods. Forward towards the expansion of trade; forward for a better distribution of the wealth we are producing, forward for a better distribution of our production. That is the task of Liberalism. That is the task before the people of Canada to-day.
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): Mr. Speaker, the debate has progressed into very deep channels, and at the moment I feel impelled to make a few remarks about some of the major speeches made thus far.
Judging from the courteous exchanges which took place between the two sides of the house on the first day of the session I had expected that the addresses in this debate would be confined more particularly to the business of the house, and I must confess that when I listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) on Monday I had a rather sinking feeling. The very strong preelection speech which he made, supported by quotations from the red book with which we are all familiar, did not give me the reaction that the exchange of courtesies which took place on the opening day would lead one to expect. I have no desire to show partiality for either of the two old major parties, for in my opinion there is very little difference between them except on their tariff policies.
It was gratifying to me that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) confined his remarks for the most part to the important business of the session and largely refrained from replying to the criticism that had been made by the leader of the opposition.
The mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne well merited the praise accorded to them from all parts of the house. I was myself greatly impressed with the fluency with which the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) addressed the house in both French and English. We as westerners do not meet with that same demand to use the two official languages, and therefore perhaps we have not availed ourselves sufficiently of the opportunity to use the French language. We are more inclined, in fact, to feel pressure from the German element in the west to use the German language.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) gave us his usual kernel of logic in his contribution to the debate, and I have no hesitation in predicting

The Address-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)
that after the next election he will be sitting in the seat of the leader of the opposition. No comment, favourable, or otherwise, has so far been forthcoming on the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). Apparently what he said cannot be refuted or contradicted. His contributions to the debates of this house always contain material for thought, and I would predict of him that he will soon be called upon to assume the very important office of prime minister. In that event he will be confronted with the task of finding cabinet material. Some of it has already proven itself. What better minister of defence, for example, could be chosen than the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) with his bigger and better armies and navies that ought to make the present Minister of National Defence blush with envy? He would get the necessary money, of course, from the new minister of finance, the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou), and the British North America Act would readily be amended by the member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) and one deputy by the name of Roger Smith.
Those responsible for the visit of the President of the United States to Canada last August and for the forthcoming visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen should be congratulated upon these attempts to foster better relations within the empire and with our great neighbour to the south. I am of opinion that better relations could be fostered with other countries by an exchange of visits between their respective leaders. While doubtless the results in some cases would be nil, in the final analysis a clearer understanding of each other's problems would follow and conduce to better relations.
The itinerary of their majesties' tour across Canada, so arranged as to prevent social exploitation, thereby permitting a wider territory to be covered within the short space of time available, should meet with general satisfaction. My constituency regrets that no provision has been made for a stop by their majesties at any important point within its bounds, but understands the difficulties in arranging an itinerary of the magnitude proposed.
Prominence has been given in the speech from the throne to the necessity of increased armaments because of developments in the international situation and their effect upon Canada; while at the same time it is acknowledged that there is a widespread desire for peace in the minds of the people. But what I am concerned about at the moment is what will happen when the present armament race is over. I hope that in preparing the estimates and legislation to come before the house this 71492-9
session the government will take into consideration the very unpleasant situation that is sure to arise when the resources of the nation will have been spent to produce scrap metal. In the event that no disastrous war culminates there will be thousands of men and women, released from the occupation of manufacturing armaments, demanding work by which to obtain food, clothing and shelter. Judging from present day difficulties in solving the problem of unemployment by methods now in effect, war preparation which ends in peace is more awful to contemplate in its social and economic reactions than if war had ensued with its casualty list or perhaps thousands of Canadian lives.
From about 1870 to 1940 in north America men were overrunning the continent and words could not seriously deflect the course of hustling and impetuous action. But those of us who lived through the great war, the great boom, the great depression and now observe the rise of dictators abroad are not so easy in our minds as were our fathers.
Even if not caught in a catastrophe of fighting, financial ruin, personal suppression, deportation and violence, one reads the headlines morning after morning with a kind of dazed incredulity.
What is the matter with people? What is the matter with governments? And, perhaps, more particularly, what is the matter with ourselves?
First, a war that killed thirty million human beings; then a speculative boom which, after producing more bad language to sell more propositions than in the entire previous history of finance, explodes like the airship Hindenburg. Finally, when a little headway has been made against economic disaster, the peoples of Europe, more civilized than any other group, prepare solemnly and deliberately to blow one another to molecules. By a course as relentless as a Greek tragedy they now move, white faced and slow, to that end.
If this government is contemplating the expenditure of fifty million dollars or more on preparations for war or defence, the program will doubtless be put over and men will welcome it as an opportunity to earn wages and get work. Business will also welcome it as an opportunity to make its profits. But if the urgency is so great for the security of our people-and from the information which we are able to obtain at the present time it would seem to be-it behooves this government to assume the entire responsibility for the provision of armaments at cost. The appointment of a commission or

130	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Elliott (Kindersley)
a purchasing board to limit profits is to my mind entirely inadequate. Definite steps should also be taken to protect the general public against the rise in commodity prices in the eventuality of war,-a rise against which, we have been taught by the recent increase in prices in Great Britain, we should receive ample protection. The appointment of a purchasing board seems to me to be an acknowledgment on the part of the government that business cannot be trusted to play fair even where the lives of our people are at stake. Yet they laboured under the impression not so long since that business would assist in solving the unemployment situation. Doubtless they promised to do so in so far as it did not interfere with their profits. Blame has been attached to crop failures in the western provinces and business recessions in other parts of the world, but I ask you, has there ever been a time when there were not crop failures of some sort or a business recession in some part of the world which assisted governments, possibly, to evade their responsibilities? Blaming unemployment on such causes seems to me a very lame excuse; it gives the impression of an underlying desire for disaster somewhere in the world in order that business may be improved at home. How could the shortage of a commodity of which the world already has an abundance be a cause of depression, provided that we had the proper transportation and exchange facilities? As it stands now, the world has so much wealth that we are poverty stricken.
The National Housing Act, which was relied upon to provide some measure of relief from the present situation, cannot be said to be a success, and never will be until the people have steady incomes, even though small, and the security of living in the same locality long enough to enjoy a home. At the present time employment is somewhat like the weather; there is seasonal employment and seasonal unemployment, but unfortunately the people have to eat every day. Only a couple of months ago we had seasonal employment on the railroads. Business was heavy and in many parts there was a shortage of men until proper adjustments could be made in the staffs. In the meantime the men carried on to the best of their ability, in many cases working long hours without extra compensation. When depression or lack of business appeared on the horizon almost as suddenly as the boom, men were immediately laid off in large numbers and many positions abolished which had never been inactive before. In such circum-

stances-and we have the same conditions in all lines of business-how can an employee feel any security?
In connection with the railroads, the opinion is widely held that this government has not declared itself with sufficient emphasis on problems of amalgamation. Those who are in favour of and have continually broadcast propaganda throughout the dominion in support of amalgamation have not been met with the proper counteracting authorities whereby employees of the railway might be given the feeling of security to which they are entitled.
I have no desire at this time to prolong the debate on questions that will come up later, but I must say that the efforts of the government and the results obtained thereby have not alleviated the mental depression caused by our plight. I believe that the present situation can be appropriately summed up in the words of Oliver Goldsmith in The Deserted Village:
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, as the subject that I propose to speak about will likely take up my full time, I would appreciate it if the hon. members who introduced the address in reply to the speech from the throne will pardon me for omitting, so far as they are concerned, the usual amenities of debate.
Also, for the same reason I shall have to forego the pleasure I otherwise would have of referring to the coming visit of the king and queen, whose coronation I witnessed in Westminster Abbey. I want to refer to something left out of the speech from the throne which might well have been included in it. In the third paragraph of the speech on page 3 of Hansard we find these words:
Our own relations with other countries continue friendly-
I maintain that after that might very well have been added the words:
We regret to advise this country that with several of our provinces our relations are unfriendly.
I am going to deal with one reason why the relations of this government with the government of Ontario are unfriendly. I do not know that I particularly blame either government. Recently there has been a rather bitter disputation between this government and the government at Toronto over the question of the diversion of water from lakes and rivers of northern Ontario. The immediate cause of the flare-up was an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram I believe on November 26, written on the subject of the Long Lake diversion by a staff writer, Mr. Roy Snider.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
I do not believe there is a more competent and able writer in Canada on that subject, because he has thoroughly traversed the area and knows what he is writing about. His article contained illustrations of the dam on the Kenogami river some fourteen miles north of Long Lake, and a dam and diversion canal within six miles south of Long Lake. These diversion works are designed to divert waters from the Albany river, a watershed wholly within the Dominion of Canada, into the international watershed.
A local reporter representing one of the Toronto papers, I do not know his name, but one apparently thoroughly well posted on this subject, probably after having read the article written by Mr. Snider, approached the government to ascertain what would actually take place providing the Ontario government did, as was intimated in Mr. Snider's article, open the sluice gates five miles south of the height of land in the international watershed, and pour Kenogami river waters into the great lakes in violation of both the Boundary Waters Treaty and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The government spokesman who replied to the reporter in Ottawa said:
The federal government could not stand idly by and allow any violation of a treaty to occur by such diversion, unless the consent of the United States to the plans for diversion is first obtained. President Roosevelt declined Ontario's request last May for these diversions affecting the Albany river basin until the question of the St. Lawrence deep waterways scheme was decided upon.
That statement was quoted in the Toronto Star of November 29.
The purpose of my remarks is to lay the situation before the government, in the hope that they will refrain from permitting the Ontario government on any consideration to divert the waters of the Albany river watershed into the watershed of the St. Lawrence, because there is involved in that diversion a national menace and also an international menace.
Perhaps before going any further, as I have studied the subject so long, I ought to give a brief description of two types of diversion. First, there is the type of which the power canals at Niagara are an example. There, water is diverted out of the Niagara river south of the falls, and, after passing through the turbines in the power houses, flows back into the Niagara river north of the falls. This type of diversion does no harm to a watershed because the water is not taken out of it. But the second type is that illustrated by the diversion effected by the Chicago drainage canal. That canal diverts water from lake Michigan, part of the St. Lawrence water-
71492- 9i
shed system, and carries it some thirty-four miles west into the Des Plaines river, which is part of the Mississippi watershed. The Kenogami river diversion is of that type, as would also be a diversion from the Ogoki river, to which I shall refer later. Both these diversions would be most injurious to the Albany river watershed, just as the Chicago diversion, which hon. members know has been the cause of a large proportion of the lowering of water levels on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence, has been injurious.
This opinion is not held in Canada alone. For several months last' winter in Washington there was an application before congress for the passage of a bill called H.R. 8327, to permit Chicago to take 5,000 cubic feet per second from lake Michigan from January 1 of this year. As hon. members know, Chicago had to reduce its diversion on January 1 of this year under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1930. The bill of last year, which I believe is coming up again this year, was to forestall the effect of the reduced quantity of water to be taken by Chicago into the Illinois canal and the Chicago drainage canal.
In Washington on January 17 of last year, the mayor of Milwaukee, Mr. D. W. Hoan, speaking before the committee on rivers and harbours, after giving his version of the effect of the Chicago drainage canal on the water level of lake Michigan, said:
It (the Chicago drainage canal) violates every moral right and every right of decency.
I say that statement applies to any diversion from the Albany river or the Kenogami river or the Ogoki river into the St. Lawrence watershed.
Hon. F. D. Culkin, member of congress, speaking of the Chicago diversion in the House of Representatives on January 18, quoted Hon. Charles Evans Hughes, one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was acting as special master on this question, in a proceeding between certain great lakes states and the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, as saying:
There was no warrant at law or in nature for this diversion.
And I say the same statement applies to the Kenogami river diversion or the Ogoki river diversion if this government permits either to take place.
Then Hon. F. D. Culkin himself said, on January 20:
If anybody asks me I am going to tell them I do not think the congress of the United States has any power to take water from one watershed and place it in another.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
I do not think so either. I think if either of these two rivers is diverted it will be a calamity to the watershed of the Albany river, one of the great rivers of the north.
The cause of the disunity as between the government of Ontario and this government is the neglect of this government to enforce section 4 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which states:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless the site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
The governor in council did not give the Ontario government authority to build those works; yet the works have been built. This government should have informed the Ontario government in ample time that it could not proceed with this undertaking. The construction of those works is one of the reasons for the disunity that exists between the government of Ontario and the federal government. There they stand, out in the open, and I doubt very much if they will ever be placed in operation. In 1937 the public press quoted statements to the effect that the Ontario government intended to proceed immediately with the erection of the works in connection with the diversion of the Keno-gami river, so that the federal government must have had full knowledge of it. The Ontario government also knew very well that it could not proceed with those works. Back in 1924, the question of diversion was brought to the attention of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and Hon. Charles Stewart, at that time Minister of the Interior, advised the government of Ontario that they could not proceed because of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Boundary Waters Treaty. In spite of that knowledge, however, the Ontario government went ram-stam ahead and built a diversion control dam fourteen miles north of Long lake. It stopped work' for a while, but later also proceeded to build a diversion canal and another diversion control dam south of Long lake.
On July 21, 1937, the Ontario government concluded that they had better let this government know that they proposed to carry on this work, and they did so through the provincial secretary. The Prime Minister replied to that letter, but not until September 7, when he wrote a letter recalling to the attention of the provincial secretary the fact that the diversion of rivers or lakes into the international watershed was a matter for the dominion government. He wrote a long letter to explain that. All he had to do was tell

the Ontario government that they could not proceed with those works for three very good reasons; namely, that to proceed with them would be a violation of (1) the Boundary Waters Treaty; (2) the Navigable Waters Protection Act and (3) the natural flow of the waters of that river. In spite of that, however, the Ontario government proceeded with the construction of those works. In fact after receiving the Prime Minister's letter, in which the Prime Minister outlined to the Ontario government why this matter came under the two acts to which I have referred, the Ontario government proceeded with greater dispatch than ever in an attempt to finish the pouring of the concrete for the dam fourteen miles north of Long lake before hard frost set in. The work south of Long lake was stopped temporarily.
On February 14 last, the premier of Ontario wrote a letter to this government, which will be found in the white paper placed in the hands of each member of this house last session. I am going to deal with three passages contained in that letter. The first is as follows:
In addition to this, the diversion would provide sufficient water to develop 35,000 horsepower, which will be required for the natural development of the district within the next two years

I want the house to bear in mind that the Nipigon river flows some sixty or seventy miles west of Long lake and that, on that river, there are at present two very large power houses, at Alexandra Falls and Cameron Falls, developing some 60,000 horsepower. If those two power houses did not have sufficient extra capacitj'' to provide the power, which Mr. Hepburn in this letter stated would be required within two years, then just a little further north on the same river, or I might say just south of the commencement of the river, at lake Nipigon, there are several magnificent falls, White Rapids falls, Rabbit Rapids falls and others, all very beautiful, which I am told could be utilized for the development of not less than from 90,000 to 100,000 horsepower. In addition, the publication of the Ontario government dealing with water powers in Ontario, in connection with the Kenogami river points out that within a few miles of the commencement of that river at Long lake-I went down the river myself, so I know the situation-there is ample capacity for the development of 20,000 horsepower. So that in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the diversion of the Kenogami river is not necessary at all for the development of power. All the power required could be developed on the Kenogami or the Nipigon rivers.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
Further, the diversion, of the Kenogami river would destroy the 20,000 horse-power that can be developed north of the source of the river and north of Long lake. A further sentence, commencing at line 43, reads:
Since the attitude of your government was made known-
That is, made known in the Prime Minister's letter of September 7.

we found it necessary to modify our proposed plans and we are now proceeding with only sufficient works to permit the transportation of pulpwood.
I went down the Kenogami river last summer, at which time I made a thorough survey north and south on the river and lake, and within the international watershed south of Long lake. The guides with me informed me that when Mr. Hepburn wrote his letter of February 14 to the Prime Minister the dam north of Long lake was completed. It was completed when I was there, and the work south of Long lake was well on towards completion. I can tell the Prime Minister today that all of the works are practically completed-the dam fourteen miles north of Long lake, the dam six miles south of Long lake, and the canal between the southerly dam and the south end of Long lake.
I beg the government to observe that five miles of the diversion canal and the control dam south of Long lake are located five miles within the international watershed, in absolute defiance of the Boundary Waters Treaty. That is a fine way to govern a country. I cannot help censoring both governments, this one for not enforcing section 4 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the provincial government for proceeding to construct these works without authority. I ask the government. There are two good reasons why they should have acted, first, the Boundary Waters Treaty and second, the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What amazes me is the defiance of this government by the provincial government.
Then we come to the third quotation from the same letter from Mr. Hepburn, as it appears at line 17 of page 53. He writes in reference to the possibility of the Ontario government being able to obtain at Niagara Falls, a further diversion of water, equivalent to what they might pour into the great lakes from either the Kenogami or Ogoki rivers. He says this:
While recognizing the right of Ontario to further divert these waters at Niagara-
That is, for the generation of power. I want to warn the government, as forcibly as I can, under no circumstances to consider the revision of the clauses in the Boundary Waters Treaty
pertaining to the division of water at Niagara Falls. At present, under that treatey, Canada receives 36,000 cubic feet per second, the United States receives only 20,000. Last summer, while pursuing this study in Washington, namely the whole subject of diversion,
I came in contact with a sentiment there of which this government ought to take notice. It was that if Chicago can get along with the 1,500 cubic feet per second, which it now diverts out of lake Michigan, instead of the
10.000	it was taking some few years ago, the probabilities are that we will be asked for a revision of the Boundary Waters Treaty. So that instead of the Ontario government obtaining the right to divert an additional 1,200 cubic feet at Niagara Falls for the Kenogami diversion, and 4,000 cubic feet per second for any diversion from the Ogoki, a total of 5,200 cubic feet per second, they are likely to receive from the United States a request to redivide on a fifty-fifty basis. I warn the government under no circumstances to permit the diversion of those waters from the Kenogami or the Ogoki, and not to ask for a change in the Boundary Waters Treaty, if Chicago can get along with a lesser diversion than it has been taking.
I have been under the impression for some time that the reason the United States allowed us 36,000 cubic feet per second at Niagara Falls and took only 20,000 themselves, was that out of our 36,000 cubic feet per second they received the power developed from 13,600 cubic feet per second of our water. But it appears that is not the reason. They allowed us that extra water on account of the Chicago drainage canal diversion, a fact which came out last winter at the hearing in Washington of the application of the Chicago people for more water. At that hearing Hon. C. A. Newton quoted the late Hon. Elihu Root. At the time the Boundary Waters Treaty was written Mr. Root was Secretary of State for the United States. In explaining to the senate committee why he permitted Canada to obtain
16.000	more cubic feet per second at Niagara Falls than was received by the United States, he is quoted by Mr. Newton as having said:
Elihu Root, then Secretary of State in 1909, in explaining the treaty to the United States senate, said that the Chicago diversion W'as taken into account. He said that the reason the state department permitted Canada to take 36,000 cubic feet per second for power at Niagara falls, while the United States only got 20,000 cubic feet per second was that this country-
The United States-
-was taking 10,000 cubic feet per second out of the St. Lawrence watershed at Chicago.
Again I say to the government that if Chicago does get along with 1,500 cubic feet
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

per second instead of 10,000, we might anticipate that the United States would ask for a revision of the Boundary Waters Treaty. I would not bring it up, and I would not permit diversion from the Kenogami river as an excuse for bringing it up.
May I comment further on the whole Long lake area. After making a thorough survey of it, I cannot see why in explaining its attitude in reference to the exportation of pulpwood the Ontario government contends that there would be difficulty in getting the pulpwood out of the area, and further that the pulpwood could be ground into paper at Schreiber on lake Superior. The pulpwood could be ground into paper at Long Lac where there is a good townsite. The power required could be developed on the Kenogami river, and it would be cheaper to grind the pulpwood into paper there than to divert the wood to some other point. If there is determination to take the pulpwood down to lake Superior, it would be a simple matter to do it. The height of land south of Long lake is low, and is only a mile south of the lake. It would be a simple matter to run a light railway over the height of land to transport the material to the lake five miles south of the height of land, from which point it would go naturally by water down to lake Superior.
There is no reason whatever that I can see for that diversion. If the Ontario government follows my advice it will do what was done in connection with the Newmarket canal. At the present time the locks of the latter canal are located out in the fields. The canal itself will never be used, because it has long since filled in. I suggest to the government that they leave this dam south of Long lake as an example of governmental folly, just as the Newmarket canal is an example of governmental folly. Fill in the ditch south of Long lake. In any event do not become entangled internationally over the diversion of water from these rivers to the ruination of the Albany river watershed.
I should like to refer to the Prime Minister's letter of February 22 last, which appears in the white paper. He stated:
Your letter, after indicating the benefits of the Kenogami diversion project to the province, goes on to suggest that because of the attitude of our government the works under way have had to be partially suspended or cut down.
They were stopped for a short time but later on were rushed to completion. The letter, continues:
As the works were started before the necessary consent under the Navigable Waters Protection act had been assured, or the discussions concluded as to the possibility of an arrangement with the United States, it is

apparent the responsibility for the situation which has arisen does not rest on the Canadian government.
Of course it rests with the Canadian government. Why was the Ontario government not stopped from proceeding with these works? Why was the Ontario government permitted to erect these diversion works north and south of Long lake? They certainly had no authority to proceed with them. It sems to me that our Navigable Waters Protection act is not tight enough and I suggest an amendment to conform with the United States act. The word "commenced" should be added to the first line of section four. If that word had been in the act then the Ontario government would be wholly to blame, but under the present circumstances this government must bear part of the blame.
The diversion of water from the Kenogami river will have a disastrous effect upon the Albany river, and the proposed diversion of water from the Ogoki river will be four times as disastrous to the Albany river. The Ogoki river has about four times the volume of the Kenogami. It is proposed to divert 1,200 cubic feet per	second from the
Kenogami and 4,000 cubic feet per second from the Ogoki. That is just about the amount of water that Chicago is asking for. There seems to be more behind this whole business than appears on the surface. I do not think the movement of pulpwood and the generation of power south of Long lake is the whole reason for this diversion. I may be entirely wrong, but I have the idea that what is behind it is the delivery into the great lakes of 5,000 cubic feet per second so that Chicago may take that much more water from the great lakes without further lowering their level. The diversion should not be allowed to go on.
The Ogoki river is a fine, beautiful river. Its width varies from five to six chains, I have been over a good deal of it. The proposal of the Ontario government is to erect a dam at Waboose falls on the Ogoki river. At the present time the stakes are in outlining the location of the dam at these falls. It is proposed to erect a dam 35 feet high. The falls themselves are 1,035 feet above sea level and the dam will raise the water level sufficiently high to back up the waters of the Ogoki river a distance of about forty miles.
Calm lake is about forty miles west of the falls and if the water is raised 30 feet, it will submerge Calm lake, and create a new lake of about 750 square miles.
If water is diverted from the Ogoki river, it will be ruinous to the Albany river. I am told

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
by those who use the Albany river for transporting supplies into the hinterland of northern Ontario that if the suggested diversions are made from the Kenogami and Ogoki rivers, the Albany river will not be navigable during the summer months. Navigable waters are under the control of this government, and it seems to me that the government has been asleep at the switch so far as these diversions are concerned. This government should have acted to stop the proposed works on the Kenogami river, and they should have taken a definite stand in connection with the Albany river. This government ought to have taken a stem stand; they should have said to the Ontario government that navigable waters are under their control and that no diversion may take place from these rivers because it would destroy the navigability of the Albany river.
I want to point out to the government and to this house how difficult it is to revoke an agreement to divert water. I refer hon. members to the Massena diversion under which some 25,000 cubic feet per second is diverted from the St. Lawrence. This diverted water flows for three miles across New York state and is then poured into the Grasse river. It appears that about 1896 an engineer was canoeing up the Grasse river and he observed that there were practically no obstructions going up that river and scarcely any current to contend with until Massena was reached. He also knew that some three miles away were the Long Sault rapids in the St. Lawrence river. From a point north of Massena, on the Long Sault rapids, to the foot of the rapids is a distance of eleven miles. The Grasse river flows into the St. Lawrence at about the foot of the rapids. Within the eleven miles on the St. Lawrence the river drops forty feet, whereas the Grasse river in its eleven miles hardly drops at all. It was a clever idea, and of course, on being presented to the St. Lawrence River Power Company, the company obtained a charter to build the Massena power canal. That was prior to the Boundary Waters Treaty. It would never have been done had the Boundary Waters Treaty been in existence.
In 1918, the last year of the war, the St. Lawrence River Power Company applied to the International Joint Commission, which had been created under the Boundary Waters Treaty, for the right to place a weir or dam across the Long Sault or south channel of the St. Lawrence river. On this application from the St. Lawrence River Power Company being presented to the International Joint Commission, on the ground that they required additional power in order to supply the allies with very necessary war materials, the
commission granted the company the right to place a weir across the south channel. That was a violation of the Webster-Ashburton treaty, which forbids any obstruction in any branch or part of the St. Lawrence river, and provides that the water shall run free on either side of the river. But permission having been granted, the St. Lawrence River Power Company commenced to erect a weir in the fall of 1918, and the agreement was that the weir, within five years or at the termination of the great war, was to be removed from the river. But as this government well knows, that weir is still in the river. I looked over the whole territory last summer and saw the weir myself. The result is that navigation in the south branch of the St. Lawrence river is impossible to-day. Even a canoe cannot go down the south branch without making a portage because of the weir.
The federal government-I do not mean this particular government-in 1922 made a very strong effort to have the diversion stopped and the weir taken out of the river; but they achieved neither object. The fact is that the weir is still there. Once the right has been given to divert water from or into an international watershed, since the United States has to be a signatory to the agreement its signature is also necessary to stop the diversion. I submit that if this government entered into any agreement with respect to the Kenogami river to divert water into the international watershed, once that was done nothing could stop the diversion, because we have not been able to stop the Massena diversion. Furthermore, I believe that the diversion of these rivers into the great lakes is not necessary.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time is exhausted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Yes, by leave of the house.


Walter Edward Foster: With the consent of the house.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall take only a moment or two longer.
I am one of those who believe that, if and when the St. Lawrence canal is considered, it will not be necessary to divert water from Canada into the great lakes watershed because there are other engineering means of taking care of any lack of water.
In reference to diversions of water generally, I might say, now that I have been accorded extra time, that this whole scheme of diver-
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

sions is built on a misapprehension. This whole fantastic, bizarre scheme of diversions springs from a mistaken conception of the real situation in northern Ontario. Perhaps the first man -to bring this subject to public attention was an eminent engineer, for whom I have a very warm regard-I know him well-Mr. Ralph Keemle. I believe Mr. Keemle was up in that country in 1922, and he conceived the idea of making a lake up there, not a large one, by confining the waters of lake St. Joseph and lac Seul, and diverting them across into the Ogoki river, thence down into lake Superior via the Little Jackfish river, then on east. Mr. Keemle conceived the idea only as an interesting engineering problem; and it is an interesting engineering problem. He presented his idea to the late Sir Adam Beck, but, as far as I can ascertain, Sir Adam Beck did not do anything about it except to send out a reconnaissance party. I met a couple of parties up there myself later.
But Mr. Lome Campbell, another engineer, wrote an article on Mr. Keemle's proposal, and he himself conceived the idea of making a very large lake in that country, of an area of about 15,000 square miles. His idea was to run a dam across from a point near Waboose on the Ogoki river to the Albany river, about thirty miles away, to dam the waters of these two rivers and make a great lake; and then the waters would be poured south into lake Superior. He wrote an article upon his scheme, and that article is commented upon in the Canadian Engineer of October 6, 1925, in these words:
"You would have a lake with an area of approximately 15,000 square miles," says Mr. Campbell. "You would have a flow of water from this lake estimated to be from 15,000 to
18,000	cubic feet per second, easily controllable at the canal gates. It would permit a volume more than ample to meet every difficulty with which we are now confronted, and permit Chicago to take an even greater amount of water for drainage purposes than she is now using."
When Mr. Campbell's article was brought to the attention of Mr. Keemle, who had first conceived the idea of making a lake in that territory but had thought of it only as an interesting engineering possibility, he wrote a letter to the Canadian Engineer of November 3, 1925, in which he says:
The sixth great lake, as suggested by myself, covered merging lake St. Joseph and lac Seul into one large lake by constructing dams at the outlets of both lakes and flooding out of the height of land. This lake could be used for storage for the Great lakes and the English river basin, and might lead the way for a ship canal to the west. It would flood 1,000

square miles of land and necessitate raising sections of the Canadian National railways. The value of the lake scheme is problematical and was not stressed by myself, but mentioned only as an interesting engineering possibility. Mr. Campbell seems to have conceived the same idea in practically the same words, although at a later date, but he has mislocated this lake on the map and exaggerated its dimensions.
So it was, Mr. Speaker, because of the Chicago diversion the question became a continental one and was taken up by many engineering papers.
The whole scheme of these diversions or proposed diversions was built on an impossible lake located in an impossible position. In closing, I would warn the government not to allow the Ontario government to proceed as they are proposing to do with the opening of the sluice gates south of Long lake. It was that which probably caused the recent blow-up between this government and the government of Ontario. I warn them, that if they permit those diversions to take place, they may rightly expect that when they apply to Washington to permit Ontario to take that much more water at Niagara Falls, which will result from the diversion of those two rivers, namely 5,200 cubic feet a second, they may anticipate an application from Washington to revise the clauses in the Boundary Waters Treaty pertaining to the diversion at Niagara Falls, probably to permit of a diversion on an even basis, provided the necessities of Chicago can be taken care of by the diversion now taking place at Chicago, namely 1,500 feet a second. It would be much better, as I said a few moments ago, to let that dam south of Long lake stand there, idle as the locks in the Newmarket canal stand idle. Better fill up the canal south of Long lake and never let water pass through it.
All governments occasionally make errors, and while I believe that the works have already cost in the neighbourhood of two million dollars, it would be better to forget that expenditure than to get into trouble internationally with our cousins to the south. The fact that this government did not stop the Hepburn government from proceeding with these works in 1937 is one of the reasons for the disunity between the province of Ontario and the government of Canada.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.


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

Old Age Pensions-Quebec
Thursday, January 19, 1939