Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I have the

honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Hon. Messrs. Bradbury, Casgrain, Foster and Pope, have been appointed a special committee to confer and act with the committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, who have in charge the building and arrangement of the new Parliament Building, in order that there may be erected therein a suitable memorial [DOT] of the late Lt.-Colonel George Harold Baker, M. P. for Brome, he being the only member of Parliament who lost his life on the field of battle, and inviting this House to appoint a like committee to act jointly with the committee appointed by the Senate.

Sir THOMAS WHITE:

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the message that has just been read from the hon. the Senate, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Reid-the consent of the House being necessary-[DOT]

That Sir Sam Hughes, Sir Herbert Ames, Messrs. Boivin and Kay, he appointed a Special Committtee on behalf of the House of Commons, to confer and act with the Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, who have in charge the building and arrangement of the new Parliament Building, in order thait there may foe erected therein a suitable memorial of the late Lt.-Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P., for Brome, he being the only member of Parliament who lost his life on the field of battle ; and that a message foe sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours (therewith.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I wish to bring to the notice of the Acting Prime Minister a communication which I have received from Halifax concerning the men engaged in the naval service during and since the war. The largest number of men engaged there did not much exceed 3,000, and there are still, I understand, 900 men on the pay roll, about 2,000 having been demobilized. The cry among those who are still on is that demobilization is proceeding too slowly and that there is no occasion for keeping them there. They are doing nothing, and in letters I have received they assert that they are simply kept there by the officers as an excuse for the latter to retain themselves in office. The statement is broadly made both in the newspapers in Halifax and in the communications that were sent to me, that all the officers on the Nio:be, in the higher ranks at all events, are English naval officers who were loaned 'to the Canadian Government for this service, and that when they came to this country they were promoted in rank from what might be regarded as petty officers to a higher grade, with a consequent increase in wages, and, as it is remarked in these letters, promotion in social standing, and so on. It is asserted that they are having an excellent time and good pay and are just keeping it going in order that their salaries may be continued. The men appear to be highly dissatisfied and write me that they believe their time will be up on the 11th of this month, that

is, six months after the termination of hostilities, when tney are entitled to leave. I was anxious to bring this matter to the notice of the authorities to-day so that we would avoid if possible the disagreeableness and, to some extent, the disgrace of having any trouble among our men, and in order that the most effective and speedy action should be taken by the Government to meet any brewing difficulties among them. They have sent me a copy of a general order issued by W. Oswald Story, Admiral Superintendent of that service at Halifax. It reads:-

In view of the misunderstanding which appears to exist, with regard to demobilization, attention is called to the fact that ail officers and men are liable to serve for a period of six months after cessation of hostilities. As some officers and men will be required volunteers were called for, in order that, so far as1 possible, those retained might he volunteers, but it must be understood that others will also he required, if insufficient volunteer, and will be retained as necessary.

Those who do not volunteer to continue to serve will be demobilized after cessation of hostilities as thpir services can be spared.

W. Oswald Story, Admiral Superintendent.

November 23, 191>8.

The men in the service interpret this Order to mean that hostilities ceased on the 11th day of November. They had a contract to stay in the service until the cessation of hostilities and for six months thereafter. When the armistice was signed on the 11th of November, these men, it appears from the tenor of this Order, wanted to get away at once, and this Order was made then to make their position clear. They understood by it that those who volunteered were bound to remain for six months after the cessation of hostilities, or up to the 11th of this month, and they want to get away at that date. I have here copies of newspapers that are friendly to the Government-the Halifax Herald and the Halifax Evening Mail, both of them strong supporters of the Government, speaking editorially-I shall not take up the time of the Committee reading it-they sustain exactly what I have said. They put forth the same theory, that these officers are unnecessarily prolonging the time of demobilization. The Mail is jusit an evening edition of the Herald, both being owned by the same people, and both issues set forth, as an argument to show the unreasonableness of the time that is taken in dealing with these men, that 150,000 men have been brought home from England and disbanded and dealt with by the authorities in the military service.

While this has been done there are only 2,000 demobilized altogether and about 1,000 on the hands of the officers doing nothing, according to the report that comes to me.

I think it is quite proper for me to read a letter I received to-day:

Halifax, N.S., May 4, 1919.

Dear Sir:-I have been delegated on behalf of the Boys from the Lower Deck to direct a letter to you, asking you, if you would take up our case which is stated below, in the House of Commons.

We men have resolved, on or about the' 11th of May to discontinue our services in the " Canadian Navy " and demand that we be demobilized forthwith, on the grounds, that our contract as far as the Canadian Navy and Government is concerned, is completed, observing, that we have carried out our duties 6 months after the cessation of hostilities. We further base our claim on the General Order, which I enclose, dated November 23, 1918, ....

That is the general order that I read-

and signed by Admiral Storey. Will you, on our behalf ask in the House of Commons the following question: "What date, after November 11, 1918, do the contracts, signed by the Canadian Naval Ratings become void? In the event of the men refusing duty after the 11th of May, what stand will he taken by the Government?"

The letters which I enclose, published by the Halifax Herald express the feeling of every Canadian sailor in the service. We have stood everything during the war, and when war ended, to our great surprise the Government had no policy formed, as to dealing with our demobilization. We have waited our six months, and even to-day they have not declared themselves in regard to the ultimate date of our demobilization. We are all anxious to get back into civilian life as soon as possible, in order to get re-established in our civilian occupations.

That is the substance of the complaint made by these men, together with what I have already stated. I think that it is not necessary to keep them there, and that the officers are simply making jobs for themselves. That is not my language; it is what is communicated to me by these men, and I think it is my duty to represent the matter to the Government so that such action may be taken as will prevent any difficulty between these men and their officers.

I trust that immediate action will be taken upon these facts, as I believe them to be facts. I would have some hesitation perhaps if I did not have exactly the same story in the form of an editorial signed by the editor of the Evening Mail. He puts his own name to the statements which appear in his paper, and I feel confident that a paper of the standing of the Evening Mail would not give its countenance to these , statements by publishing them if the editor did not believe they were true.

Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of the Naval Service):

The other day, -when this matter was brought to the attention of the House, I stated that the total number demobilized amounted to 3,490 out of a total establishment of 5,468. I can quite understand these naval men. who are probably tired of the service and anxious to get back to civilian life, all writing that they have nothing to do. But I can assure the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) that they would not be kept in the Naval Service if they had nothing to do. There has been a great deal of talk in regard to the Niobe. We have altogether a total down there of 779 men; on the Niobe 231, guards in the dockyard, etc., 99; troops in reserve 206; on vessels at Liverpool, Nova Scotia, 40; in hospital 80; to be demobilized this week, 123. The Naval Department cannot let every man in the service go until we can enlist enough civilians to perform the .duties that are necessary ion board the Niobe. -Seamen returned from overseas, boys from the Niobe and members of the accounting staff are kept busy with the details of keeping accounts, discharge, etc., and it is necessary to accommodate on the Niobe both Canadian and Imperial naval men who are returning to Canada. Then, we have to .keep men with the large number of. drifters and trawlers owned by the Imperial Government, and until such time as we can enlist a sufficient number of civilians to take charge of these vessels we could not allow every man to go. Allow me to assure the hon. member that energetic steps are being taken constantly to demobilize these men and to see that this week alone we have demobilized 123. I hope that before long they will all be demobilized. Whoever wrote that letter considered that he was free from service six months after hostilities ceased. I do not claim to be a naval authority, but I know that no man is free from the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and no man is free from the navy, until six months after the War, which means six months after peace has been finally declared. While we do not want to hold these men unnecessarily, it would be very ill-advised, indeed, for any one to be absent without leave on May 11 because I hold that the men are n,ot_ free until six months after the war., But, in any event, I am as anxious as any one else to have them demobilized as rapidly as possible. I am .urging it every day. Just as soon as I can get civilians to take the places of these ratings I will do so. I will have something

more to say upon the navy when I answer the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), but I regret to note that there always seems to be a tendency to malign our little navy and to say that our men are not doing anything when as a matter of fact they are doing good work and have performed very satisfactory service for King ana country.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I am pleased to find that the minister is taking every reasor able step to meet the views of these men. I do not profess to be a military or a naval man, I am only ' an ordinary lawyer; but if this document were dealing with ordinary-commercial business, I would have to say that it dates from the signing of the armistice, because hostilities did end on that date. Whether the man who drafted it meant that or not, that is 'the language of the Order. I understand that the contracts that men sign in the infantry contain the expression " six months after the end of the war." "The end of the war" and "the cessation of hostilities" are separate and distinct things. There have been no hostilities since the armistice was signed, and unless there is some peculiar interpretation of naval and military contracts, those men have the right to believe that their six months commenced to run from the 11th of November last and will expire on the 11th of this month. Those men are Canadians and are deserving of our best attention. They are not rebellious. They interpret their contract in a certain way, and it is quite possible that they got the opinion of some legal gentleman in Halifax in regard to it. I would like the minister to take positive action, so that those men will see that they are not treated as if they were nobody, that "they can mutiny if they like and they will see where they are going to land." I do not want them to have that idea; I want them to feel that the minister is concerned about their welfare and will see that they are properly treated. If they do hear something from the department before the 11th recognizing their position,

I presume they will be pleased and there will be no trouble; whereas if they are ignored, if nothing is done beyond the stereotyped reply that the minister makes to me across the#floor, we may have another Kin-mel situation on our hands. We do not want anything of that kind; rather we desire our naval as well as the rest of our military operations to end properly, for we may want those men again. That was mentioned in one of the letters addressed to me, that naval and military men may

be required at other critical stages of our national life, and it is well not to leave any stings or heartburnings in connection with their demobilization. I hope such action will be taken that those men will realize that they are treated as Canadians who have rendered good service to their native country and in whom the Government feel a deep interest.

Mr. LEMIEUX:

Last night I offered a few observations on the different matters which are covered by section 2. I do not intend to repeat what I said then, except perhaps to emphasize one point only in connection with transportation and the promotion of trade and industry. I listened this afternoon with a great deal of pleasure to the statement made by my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), and as I told last night to my hon. friend the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Thomas White) to promote to some other department the present incumbent of the Department of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), might I not suggest to him at the same time that my friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is exactly the "live wire" I would like to see in the Department of Trade and Commerce?

I do not offer any criticism of the contract between-the Naval Department and the Dominion Steel Company which was mentioned this afternoon. I have not seen that contract, and I have the word of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that it may be altered or even dropped. I do not purpose to let politics interfere with my v.iews on the questions of trade and transportation, for I am a Canadian, first, last and always, and I sincerely approve of the policy of any Government which will promote our shipbuilding and improve our transportation facilities. I happen to reside in Montreal during several months of the year, where 1 represent one of the constituencies nfost interested in shipbuilding. The county of Maisonneuve has within its boundaries the establishment of Canadian Vickers Limited, and L think it is to the credit of the Laurier administration that we have that great shipbuilding plant. Canadian Vickers Limited employ thousands of men, and they have been able to build up an industry which some years ago was considered as only a dream and impossible of realization. I cannot forget that in 1&12 when the question of a Canadian navy was being debated in this House doubts were expressed as regards the practicability of that policy. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) himself stated, in a now 142H

famous speech, that not in twenty-five, or even fifty years perhaps, could we expect to build a Canadian navy. And we had the candid advice of Mr. Churchill, who told us-with some ingenuousness I should say -that we could not find riveters in Canada, and there were so many swamps that we could hardly lay keels for the proposed Canadian navy. Sir, let us not refer to that debate, because really it is enough to make us lose confidence in some of the statesmen of the Mother Country. We have passed the period when the British Government could at their own sweet will thus impose their views on credulous colonials. We have had the satisfaction since that time of establishing shipyards on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, on the river 8t. Lawrence, and on the Upper Lakes, and the British Commissioners who were appointed some years ago to study the trade conditions of the British Empire, reported that Canada was fully equipped for shipbuilding and had nothing to fear from competitors. I have under my hand the report of those commissioners, published in February, 1917, from which I read the following:

Before leaving the subject of the overseas communications of Canada we may allude very briefly to the capacity which the Dominion has for shipbuilding. We visited yards for ship construction and ship repairing both on the Pacific coast and at Montreal and we-were struck with the activity generally prevailing at all places. There is also considerable shipbuilding work on the upper lakes.

I do not know what the commissioners would say if they came back to Canada today. Had they come last year they would have seen how our shipyards kept the wheels of industry running at full speed during a very crucial period. But Canada must not be satisfied with her war industries only. During the war Canada established her ability to do things; she must go on now and adapt herself to peace conditions, profiting by the development which has taken place during the war.

The member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) spoke this afternoon of British shipbuilding as compared with Canadian shipbuilding. If we are satisfied always to look upon John Bull as the privileged one who should take care of our shipping interests we sha-11 never make any prbgress along that line. Let us learn from the old gentleman. During the last century-indeed,-since Waterloo-John Bull, much to his credit, has been able to take toll in the way of trade from every nation in the world. We Canadians, members of the great Em-

pire, should get our share of that business which John Bull has taken unto himself. I stand for a moderate and wise policy of shipbuilding for Canada, and if the Acting Prime Minister, under section 2 of the Bill, intends to apply some of that money for the promotion of shipbuilding and the improvement and development of our Canadian transportation facilities, I shall vote for the amount which is being asked this evening.

Nothing, in my judgment, has proved more adequately the ability of the Canadian people to do things than the enormous development which has taken place in our shipyards during the last three- or four years. It is urged that the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne) took away from the Imperial Munitions Board a business which that board was carrying on at our Canadian yards. It seems to me that the answer given by the hon. gentleman is a common-sense one. During the war Canada gave to the Mother Country the exclusive use of her shipyards, in which ships were built of British registry. Our ships were also commandeered. Of course, it was for the common cause. But the moment war ceased, the moment we come to peace activities, it is only common sense that Canada should take control of these shipyards and build her own ships with her own men and her own money, with a view of improving her shipping and transportation facilities.

While on this question of shipping and shipbuilding-because all this is more or less implied by the word "transportation" -may I refer once more to the report of the Dominions- Royal Commission? The report is a very interesting one, containing data on a variety of subjects. It is from reports prepared by people who do not live in your country that sometimes you can learn the most about your country, and I would ask my fellow members to glance over this report at times, because it contains most interesting information about Canada and about the possibilities of trade development in this country. Speaking about trade through Canadian ports, the commissioners use the following language:

"When we turn to the question of the general development of Canadian trade routes it is somewhat disappointing to find, in view of the excellence of 'the harbours of the Dominion, that much of its overseas trade is still carried on through the ports of the United States. It is estimated that in 1913 two-thirds of the Canadian export wheat was shipped through United States ports, and though quantities and proportions differ no doubt in different years, considerable -diversion from Canadian ports appears to be a normal condition.

No doubt a partial explanation Is found in the fact that the St. Lawrence ports (and Montreal especially) are not available for five months in the year, during which time there is a shorter haul from Canadian centres to New York -and other United States ports than to the Canadian Atlantic ports open throughout -the winter. But it seems worth while to examine the position and to set out briefly

(1) What appears to be the main hindrances to the use of existing routes; and

(2) What other alternative routes could be created or developed.

I wish to refer especially to the hindrances referred to in this report. The first is the "depth of the St- Lawrence channel between Montreal and Quebec, and the present rat^s of marine insurance in respect of Canadian eastern ports." I understand that the Minister of Marine has a relatively large amount in the Estimates this year to enable him to proceed with the further deepening of the St. Lawrence channel, and that the port of Montreal will receive fair treatment at his hands. I understand that the terminal facilities of the harbour of Montreal are to be considerably improved. But the main hindrance to the development of Canadian transportation-Canadian shipping, Canadian business overseas-it seems to me that this should attract the attention of the Acting Prime Minister-is the, shall I say, conspiracy?-yes, a conspiracy, of the marine insurance companies in the Old Country. Here is what the commissioners say in this respect:

It was also represented ito us that a difficulty in the way of more extended use of -Canadian Eastern ports lies in the heavy insurance rates now charged-

(a) on- cargoes carried to and from those ports,

(b) on the hulls of vessels using them.

We were itold that these rates are unduly

hiigh in comparison with those in force at the Atlantic ports of the United -States', an-d in particular-

(1) that underwriters charge an extra premium on hulls of tramp steamers for one or more voyages to the St. Lawrence during the summer season,

(2) t'hiat this extra premium is -further increased for voyages during the last two months before the close of navigation.

I believe we are being very seriously discriminated against by the marine insurance companies. It is admitted to-day that our Atlantic ports are safe and that the St. Lawrence route has been -so considerably improved, so well buoyed and lighted, and the channel so well deepened, that it offers practically no element of danger. Why is it, then, that the marine insurance companies of England are so drastic in their terms to shipping companies? That is something which is not clear to my mind and which

- somewhat prejudices me against those British marine insurance companies. It was suggested some years ago that the Canadian Government should itself assume responsibility on account of the St. Lawrence risks for a period of, say, five years. It is contended that in the course of this period the Government would ascertain exactly the extent of the additional risk involved and that in the meantime extra shipping would be attracted to 'St. Lawrence ports. If we are going to improve our transportation facilities, we should strike at once at the root of the whole trouble. Doubtless, the high insurance rates against the St. Lawrence route will always be the main hindrance to Canadian transportation interests, and I would ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is a keen business man and who knows the St. Lawrence route just as thoroughly as an old sea captain, to put another feather in his cap by settling the question one way or the other. He knows that business men and shipping interests not only in Montreal, but all over Canada, are up in arms against Lloyd's, and that a solution must be found now that we have reached peace times. We must improve our transportation facilities in order to develop our trade, because, as I stated last evening, we cannot expect to have a favourable balance of trade now that we have passed the war period. Foreign trade is the trade that we must look after, and our country should he, above all things, a big-exporting country. We have all' the raw materials, and we have the whole world to which to export our raw materials, wheat, pulp, the products of our forests, our mines and our fisheries-which last is an industry

which has hardly begun to exploit the foreign market. The Canadian Government ought to have trade agents in various countries of the world and to advertise our products and our industries, and by means of a safe transportation ensure that those products are sent overseas. Unfortunately, in the past, we have overlooked our interests, but when we know that Canada's prosperity depends upon a favourable balance of trade, a reasonable expenditure should be made in order to promote the trade of Canada in foreign markets. In 1913, Canada exported $1,216,000,000 worth of in 1914, $432,000,000 iworth; in 1916, $741,000,000 worth-in which year we had for the first time a favourable balance of trade amounting to $233,000,000. In 1918, Canada exported $1,540,000,000 worth of goods, with a favourable balance of trade of $577,000,000.

For the twelve months ended February, 1919, Canada exported $1,216,000,000 worth of goods, with a favourable balance of trade of $284,000,000. But now the war is over; we have reached peace times and we must, if possible, maintain a favourable balance of trade. We cannot hope to reach the same high figures as during the last three or four years; hut if the Government is an up-to-date, alert administration, it will see to it that our products are advertised broadcast and that orfr transportation facilities are bettered, so that our export trade may give our people the means of paying the enormous war debt which we have contracted.

Once more, subject to the criticism that I offered last night, I say to the Acting Prime Minister that I will vote with pleasure for the development of our transportation facilities, but this implies the development of our trade, and with all due respect to the ability of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster)-, I do not believe he is the right man in the right place. I would put in that department an active young man, who has new visions of things and who would transform that musty department into a business one. With these few remarks, I shall resume my seat, and I wish God-speed to my hon. friend in the administration of this enormous sum of money. I am afraid that my hon. friend has become colour blind in money matters. A dollar, a hundred dollars, a thousand dollars-there is no difference between them to my hon. friend. He has been rolling in millions and billions since the beginning of the war, and I am afraid he has lost his sense of proportion. Whether he speaks of one million or one billion, it is all the same to him. Perhaps it is due to the fact that he is an optimist; but there are limits to optimism. My hon. friend should not forget that Canada has a population of barely eight million, that we have a war debt of two billion dollars, and that although the resources of the country are immense, it may not be an easy thing in this general bankruptcy of the wdrld to develop our resources. To develop our resources we shall need the aid of foreign capital, and in order to obtain the aid of foreign capital we must certainly maintain our credit on the safety line, but I am afraid my hon. friend has long since left the safety line. However, I am willing to give him another chance. I suppose when the Budget comes down he will outline such a policy that we may soon expect the mil-lenium for Canada.

Mr. BRISTOL:

Coming from a city which is very much interested in the trade and commerce of Canada and also in shipbuilding, I am very glad indeed to find myself so= much in accord with my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). This country is passing through what might be called a. transition stage; that is since the cessation of the manufacture, on an enormous scale, of munitions, normal conditions of trade have not yet been resumed, and, in the. ordinary course, probably will not be resumed for some months to come. Under these circumstances the Government, as I understand it, have felt called upon to consider in the national interest the expenditure of sums of money for the purposes referred to in the second section of this Bill, to stimulate trade and industry and improve our transportation facilities.

I was very much interested in the statement presented this afternoon to the House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on the ship-building policy of this Government, I want to say in answer to the criticism that the Government did not start on this policy quite soon enough, that -as a matter of fact it was in 1917 that the British Government became thoroughly convinced of the necessity of building ships all over the world and endeavouring both in the United States and Canada to supplement their building in the British Isles by building ships wherever possible. As a result of that policy, in the spring of 1917 the Imperial Munitions Board undertook the building of ships, and a large number of contracts were let in this country for the building of ships of various kinds. In 1918 the Government of Canada who had been financing the expenditures of the British Government in this country in connection with shipbuilding thought that if it was in the interests of Great Britain to build ships in this country with Canadian assistance, it certainly would be in the interests of Canada to build those ships herself and own them for her own benefit. I do not think anybody would seriously argue that that was anything but a good policy for the Dominion of Canada. It is perfectly obvious that if Great Britain, which at the outbreak of the war had some 18,000,000 tons of the 40,000,000 tons of shipping which the world possessed, thought it necessary to pay from $185 to $210 for a ton deadweight for ships in Canada, it would certainly be in the interests of this country to follow that lead. As a matter of fact in 1918, although the price of labour was undoubtedly higher, and that of material somewhat

higher, the average price paid by this Government for Canadian shipping was, I should think, about $5 a ton less than the price for which Great Britain had let contracts in this country. That certainly was the case in the Vickers' yard at Montreal; I cannot say as to the other yards. The price therefore for which the Government were getting the ships constructed was reasonable from every aspect.

The minister told us to-day that the United States has built about 3,000,000 tons of shipping, and is contemplating building 13,000,000 tons more. I have a fairly accurate knowledge of the cost of American shipping during the war and the best information got from the shipyards themselves is that American shipping cost from $250 to $.350 a ton deadweight, which is largely in excess of the price paid either by the British or Canadian Government for their shipping. The policy of the American Government to-day is practically to write this en-normous war loss off, just as if it was an expenditure for dreadnoughts which would be no good for commercial purposes.

What I consider the essential reason why this country should continue to build ships, not merely 260,000 tons which the minister has spoken of to-day, hut a very much larger tonnage, is this: If Canada wishes to have the certainty of getting her products to other countries she must own her own shipping. The shipping of Great Britain is perfectly willing to handle any business that Great Britain- wishes it to handle. The shipping of the United States will look after the interests of the United States first; so if Canada is to be a great exporting country, as we know she will be, she must own a certain amount of her own shipping to ensure the country getting proper .attention along those lines. For that reason, if for no other, it is a national safeguard for the Government to build not only 260,000 tons of shipping, but a considerably larger tonnage.

Looking at the matter from a national standpoint, the Government have taken over certain railway systems. Controlling those railway systems and controlling ocean transportation, this Government can route everything on their own lines and on their own boats to any country we wish to export our goods to, and get a profit from one end to the other. That is one of the greatest national assets you could possibly have. The control of both railways and steamships will make for national wealth, and will improve freight rates between our West and the ports of other

countries to which our exports are to be shipped.

It has been suggested by some hon. gentlemen that the Railway Board should fix the rates on these Canadian ships. Imagine, Mr. Chairman-50,000,000 tons of world shipping, and 300,000 tons of Canadian shipping which is quite inadequate to handle the needs of our own country. If you want other ships to come here, you must pay the rate; otherwise, they will not come. If you wish to attract shipping to this country so that we can export our goods, you must pay the current rate, and I am sorry to say that so far as Canada is concerned we shall have to pay more than the current rate because of the reasons given by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve. If a boat comes from London, England; to South America, from South America to New York, and from New York to London, on what is called the Atlantic triangle, its gets a load at every place, and the result is a cheaper rat e. When a boat goes from Montreal to Liverpool it has a cargo for Liverpool, but what cargo is it going to bring back to Montreal? That is a very important factor in the rate from Montreal or any other port in Canada- On top of that, is the insurance on the St. Lawrence. It therefore seems to me that we should have a certain number of ships which the Government of this country can control, so that shipping for the transportation of Canadian products will be available, so far as the Government can make that possible.

The hon. member for Red Deer, for whom I have a deep affection and esteem, was arguing to-day that with the protective tariff we could not have shipbuilding in Canada, that shipbuilding and protection were incongruous, that imports would not come into this country if we had protection on the one hand and built ships on the other. Yet before the war, for years under protection, our imports exceeded our exports. Take the example of the United States. Twenty-five years ago England practically had control of the iron and steel trade of the world, but under a protective tariff the United Statets to-day is unquestionably supreme in that regard. Take Germany forty years ago. Under Bismarck they started a protective tariff. The country was poor and they had-no shipping, but in practically forty years they built themselves up by aid of a protective tariff to be practically the second shipping country of the world. Free trade may be an ideal thing, but if you do not protect your own people and your own

markets and - manufacturers you certainly cannot expect other countries to do it for you. Coming to the question of shipbuilding in this country, the difference between the cost of shipbuilding in Canada and in England is practically the cost of labour and material. So far as steel is concerned, places like Toronto and Montreal that get their steel from Pittsburg or wherever it may come from, are going to be able to get their steel plates practically as cheap as they do in England, The enormous manufacture of steel in the United States is constantly reducing the price just as it reduced the price of steel rails below the price in England. As to the question of cost of labour,

I am dealing with it as a pure matter of competition, and I have as high an authority as Colonel Carnegie, who represented the Imperial Government on the Munitions Board with reference to Canadian labour. After inspecting the two yards at Toronto, especially the Dominion Shipbuilding yard, he said: "Mr. Bristol, in the Dominion Shipbuilding yard at Toronto, owing to your splendid facilities and the efficiency of Canadian labour, you are going to manufacture just as cheaply as they do in England." I hope the prediction is true. When people talk about ships for $100 a ton dead weight in England it is absolute nonsense. You cannot possibly get contracts of that kind. The best contract you can possibly get is a cost plus 10 per cent. From the best information I have been able to get on the subject, I have not found any man in the United States or Canada who wanted to buy a ship in England, and who could get a contract price of $175 a ton dead weight, or who was satisfied if he let the contract in England that he could ever get a price that would work out at $175 per ton dead weight or get delivery of his ships before 1922. The importance of shipbuilding in this country is absolutely paramount. The objection has been made to the smaller boats of 3,700 tons built on the lakes as distinct from the 8,100 and 10,500 ton boats built in Montreal. Any man engaged in shipping will tell you that the most useful boat on the Atlantic has been for years and is to-day the 3,500 and 4,000 tonner. The reason is a simple one. It is easy to pick up a cargo of 3,000 or 4,000 tons, but for a boat of 8,000 tons you practically have to take a cargo of grain or a through cargo from Montreal to Liverpool, and the question is, what will you fill that 8,000 or 10,000 ton boat with when you come back? The same thing applies as regards trade between Montreal and South America, or Montreal and South

Africa, with which countries we are Opening up trade all the time and would open up still further if we had ships. The same applies to the West Indies. A friend told me to-day that in the Seven Islands, near Quebec, they had a great deal of pulp to ship. There was a 10,000 ton boat offered them, but they could not load more than 3,000 tons because they had not facilities. The Acting Prime Minister and the Government will be justified not merely in the programme that they have so far announced, but in the programme that has been foreshadowed to-day by the Minister of Marine in the spending of a very considerably larger sum in shipbuilding in this country, and I hope that this consideration will weight in the minds of hon. members.

We are passing through a period of unrest, when the industries of the country have not been able to resume full swing. It is in the interests of the country that the labouring classes should be kept occupied, and I submit that it is important that all shipyards, at all events during the present year, should be kept going at full capacity so that the 30,000 or 40,000 labourers referred to to-day may be kept at work.

Mr. McKENZTE:

My hon. friend (Mr. Bristol) thinks that the Government just started at the right time to build ships. I do not agree with him in that. I think any person starting in a new enterprise would naturally watch for the time when labour was fairly cheap and material fairly reasonable, so that he might invest his money to the best possible advantage. In 1910 the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier formulated a policy on the question of the Canadian navy, which incidentally carried with it shipbuilding in this country. The naval and shipbuilding policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time was agreed to by hon. gentlemen on the other side, and if it had been carried out we would have had 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and the best part of 1914 to our credit in our shipbuilding before the war broke out, and even in the first years of the war, being fairly under way, we would have been .able to handle our business before prices went sky high. For that reason I have made the statement several times that we started our naval and shipbuilding policy at a time when the prices were four hundred per cent higher than they were when we could and should have started, and at a time when the productiveness and usefulness of these ships will be three hundred per cent less than they would have been if we had had them at the com-

mencement of the war. I say three hundred per cent less, because by the time we get into the commerce of the world with our ships things will be getting normal and we shall have to accept the same rates as other people who had their ships built in normal times and who are therefore able to go back to normal rates. We will have to go into the market to compete with those who built at ordinary prices. We are too slow. If we were spending these large sums in shipbuilding for the purposes of the war we fail of our purpose, for the war is over and the ships are not yet available. My hon. friend's very clever and well-delivered address does not give any good reason why we did not launch upon a policy of shipbuilding at the time it was properly formulated some eight or nine years ago. As he knows very well, the reason was that the present Government would not admit that anything good could come out of Nazareth -they would have nothing to do with any policy formulated by the Laurier Government for fear it would carry any credit to that policy and to the Liberal party. They would rather let everything drop, hoping that some day in the future they would formulate a policy of their own for which they would have the whole credit.

The day came when they formulated a policy of their own, but they do not seem to be able to get very much glory out of it. It is not a policy at all; it is a sort of a driving of the scapegoat into the wilderness. The leader of the Government knows what the scapegoat was? The sins of the people were put on its head, it was blind-folded, driven out into the wilderness and left there in a place from which it would never come back. The policy of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in so far as these manufacturers is concerned, is a policy of starting them out. He makes them invest their money in providing the plant necessary for shipbuilding, he is going to take them out beyond the three-mile limit and then say: " Now gentlemen,

I have got you under way, and this is as far as I propose to go; you can either continue to go to sea, or turn back; I am through." That is the policy that he has given to us to-day. He says that he is going to spend a certain amount of money, to build a certain number of ships, and then he is going to tell the people: "You can provide your own money; it is none of my affair. I have given you a start, induced you to go into this business believing that I had a fixed, permanent policy, but I have not. You can go on or turn back, or do what you please." Does any

person call that a policy? I do not believe it is. A policy that is permanent would be based upon some principle, whatever else it might be. We had a fair sample when, from the Conservative side of the House, they launched the National Policy in Canada. That was a permanent policy in so far as that party was concerned, and they look upon it as their policy down to the present day. But when we do not know whether it will last for a day or a week or six months nobody would call it a policy; it is only an expedient for the time being and they are likely.to drop it at any minute. Really, the Government have no policy at all in regard to shipbuilding, and no policy in regard to naval protection. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) came to the aid of the Government with some of the product of his brain, saying that he would lead them in the way they should go.

This section points out that some of the money is to be used for " the defence and security of Canada." If any of that money is to be used for the purpose of securing us against extravagance, recklessness and expenditures that are wrongfully proposed and badly conducted, I should say that it would be well spent. I think that is the only security we really need at the present time. Then, provision is to be made for-

The conduct of naval and military operations in or beyond Canada and the demobilization

I have already said to-night all I intend to say about demobilization. Another provision is:

The promoting of trade and industry, and transportation facilities therefor.

I wish to take advantage of the fact that we have a gathering of the ministers here to-night that we do not very often have to say a few words on this subject. I do not know what is in the air, but we had a masterful array of talent a _few minutes ago and there are still quite a number of ministers present. I 'wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the importance of doing something to promote the fishing industry in this country. There is no other industry in Canada that has such magnificent possibilities as the fishing industry both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific coast. We have only been gathering the pebbles on the beach compared with the ocean of development that is open before the Canadian people. I trust 'the minister will take that into his serious consideration and that he will come down to the House with a well-considered scheme for the development of

the fisheries and will ask Parliament for enough money to carry out that scheme. It will involve the establishment of storage for bait in convenient places along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and the proper looking after of these bait storages so that they can gather the bait at the time it is available and so that the fishermen may be able to get it when it is required. The condition in Cape Breton to-day is that very often, when fish is running along the shore in hundreds of thousands of tons and within easy reach of the fishermen, they have no bait. In September and OctobeT you find people simply sitting on the banks and doing nothing because they cannot get any bait. The fishermen, as a rule, are poor, they have no cold storage facilities, they cannot preserve the bait and although it is to be found by schooner loads around the shores, they cannot get it. If the Government would provide proper facilities for storing away that bait and selling it to the fishermen at the time it is needed the catch of fish would be quadrupled in many places. Together with that, there must be the necessary cold storage on the railway for carrying the fish to the market centres. The people are beginning to realize what a magnificent life-giving, strength-producing food the codfish, herring and salmon of Nova Scotia and British Columbia are.

Mr. BUTTS:

And a brain producer.

Mr. McKENZIE:

Yes, 'and it is needed most strenuously.

Oh, oh.

Mr. McKENZIE:

I had no reference to my hon. friend. My good friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Butts) knows me too well to think that I would say that he had no brains. That is not the worst part of the business. I wish to take the opportunity that this Bill gives me of placing before the minister and the Government the suggestion that they should devote some time, thought and energy to the development of the fish trade of this country. Perhaps on some other occasion I shall have a better opportunity of quoting data that will show the importance of this -trade, but I hope- particularly in view of the observations made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was a " live wire " and that he would like to see him in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce-that he will give particular attention to this subject. This is the business of which he has charge at the present time, but according

to the Scripture those who are faithful and useful in small things ishall he put in charge of greater things and shall enter into the joy of their Lord.

I hope that he will show in the apprenticeship that is assigned to him in the Fisheries Department such ability as will justify the next Prime Minister-who will, of course, be the hon. gentleman who is now leading the Government-promoting him to the Department of Trade and Commerce, where it is suggested his energetic personality will find fuller scope.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Militia and of the Acting Prime Minister where some of his money that is to be expended in connection with war gratuities and demobilization should go. An Order in Council was passed by the Government some time after the 11th November (when the armistice was signed) giving gratuities to certain military men who were in the service on thatdate, but not to those who had

served their country at least equally as well but had been already demobilized. Here is a concrete case in my own town. The 94th Highlanders, a regiment of militia, was ordered to camp at North Sydney in the early stages of the war. It was put on home service and formed a sort of nucleus to which recruits were sent, trained to some extent, and as rapidly as possibly moved overseas. I am told that something like 1,200 men passed through the 94th to the front, and that the 94th itself would have gone had it been given the opportunity. A short time before the" 11th of November the 94th was demobilized to a very great extent and a new establishment was set up in which the military authorities retained a very small group of those men- The colonel, the captain, and a great many soldiers were sent home as being no longer required. Those men would certainly have been in camp on the 11th of November had it been left to their own volition and would be entitled to the gratuity. I submit to the Minister of Militia and to the Committee that that is not a fair deal, that those who for nearly four years rendered good and faithful service are equally entitled to the gratuity although they were obliged to leave the regiment before the 11th of November. This phase of the subject has been strenuously presented to the Government and to the minister already from several quarters and I need not elaborate it further. I have not heard what the decision of the Government is, but I trust they will so amend the Order in Council that those who were demobilized before the day of the

armistice will be treated as well as those who happened to be retained in the service.

There is another point I must bring to the notice of the Minister of Militia in connection with the 94th. When that regiment was called out first the colonel-Colonel J. D. McRae-was obliged to hire a house in the city of Sydney while proper barrack accommodation was being prepared for the officers. When the regiment went into camp under canvas the house was given up; and I am very much surprised that the department up to this date has refused to reimburse the rent paid by the colonel. I have not had an opportunity of bringing this matter to the notice of the minister himself, although I have had it up with the department and have been turned down. I had practically given the case up as hopeless, but seeing that this vote covers money to be paid out in connection with matters of this kind I wish once more, with the greatest possible confidence, to ask the minister that this rent

it is only $75, a very small amount indeed for the department, but too .much for a poor officer to pay out-be reimbursed to Colonel McRae.

Major-General MEW^RURN: I am very glad that the hon. member has brought these two matters to my attention. With regard to the war gratuity, I can assure him that personally it will have my sympathetic attention. It is in the hands of a committee, and I hope the situation will be satisfactorily dealt with. With regard to Colonel McRae, I think my hon. friend should not be tired in well doing. He says that he has already brought it to the attention of the department and been refused; but I can assure him that I will see what the trouble is.

Mr. BUTTS:

I would not have been inclined to speak at all to-night were it not for what I might almost describe as the discourteous manner in which I wa3 treated by the hon. member for Guys-borough and the hon. member for Maison-neuve. I attempted to ask my hon. friend from Maisonneuve whether or not there was any difference at Lloyds between the Atlantic seaboard of Canada and the British Islands in respect to the rates for marine risks. M'y hon. friend did not see fit to allow me to ask the question.

I do not think there is any difference in the rates. I intended to ask my hon. friend (Mr: J. H. Sinclair) whether it was not true that much British shipping in Canada is put under'Norwegian register in order that

it may be operated more cheaply. My hon. friend would not allow me the question. The Storstad, when she rammed the Empress of Ireland in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, was a British ship, but under Norwegian register. Nearly every ship that has carried coal from Sydney Harbour to Montreal, Three Rivers and Sorel during the last twenty years has been a British ship under Norwegian register.

Mr. BUREAU:

How could that be?

Mr. BUTTS:

I do not know, but it is so. They were British ships under Norwegian register.

Mr. BUREAU:

It could not be.

Mr. BUTTS:

It is true. Now, a Government ship was sent from Canada to the West Indies under special conditions and my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) complains that the ship came back from the West Indies to New York with a cargo. Did he want her to come back empty. The hon. gentleman is a shipping man; he owned three of the poorest ships that ever crossed the Atlantic. My hon. friend criticises the Government for taking up shipbuilding. Are we to wait until the time when shipbuilding will pay? Was the building of the Canadian Pacific railway delayed until every one was sure that it would pay? No, we built it in order that it would bring returns to the country and afford transportation facilities, and that is the policy I hope the Government will carry out in respect to shipbuilding. There are many reasons for believing that at Sydney Harbour we can procure the cheapest pig iron in the world; why, therefore, can we not produce the cheapest ships in the world? The only advantage that the Old Country has over us in the matter of shipbuilding is the advantage of wages-and surely we do not wish to curse this Dominion with cheap labour. About twenty years ago we built a ship at Three Rivers-it was either the Montcalm or that other little ice-breaker we have down there-and it did not cost so very much more than it would have cost to build it in the Old Country; the difference was simply the higher wages, which is the cost of labour, I repeat that we do not want to curse this country with cheap labour.

We have at Sydney Harbour blast-furnaces, open-hearth furnace and a plate mill in course of construction. We have a rail mill that has sent from Sydney Harbour around the Horn to British Columbia rails at a lower price than that at which you could send them by rail from the Sault.

We have opportunities for the greatest shipbuilding in the world. Even if within a decade, even if within our lifetime, it should cost a little more to build ships, why should we not be anxious to develop the shipbuilding industry. The member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) and the member for Antig-onish and Guysborough (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) are simply trying to stand in the light of this country and to stamp out an industry that represents one of Canada s greatest possibilities. We have our coal; we have our coke; we have our iron; we have our steel; we have our blast furnaces; we have our open-hearth furnaces; we have plate mills in course of construction; we have a rail mill from which rails have been shipped in competition with England to be used in railway construction in the north of Ireland, Tight in Belfast. In view of these facts it is too bad that prominent public men should try to throw cold Water upon Canada's greatness. All we want is more people, more money, and more development, and the sooner we get it the sooner shall -we see in Canada ships built as cheaply as they are built on the Clyde or at Belfast.

The only insurance that it in any way high in Canada is the insurance applicable to the upper reaches of the St. Lawrence, and that is quite natural. It is a large inland waterway that must be piloted for six or seven hundred miles, where ships without skilful pilots are in danger of being run ashore. But we do not know of any heavy insurance in respect of the ocean ports of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. When you come to run six or seven hundred miles on the upper St. Lawrence or to the upper reaches of lake Superior, which is 2,500 or 3,000 miles inland, what can you expect? Insurance must be heavy; pilotage must be heavy. From the time you leave Cabot strait, between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, you must have two, three, four or five pilots on each ship. Shipping in Canada is one of the big questions, and the sooner we give encouragement to a Government that is prepared to go ahead with a bold policy in the matter, the sooner we shall become a shipbuilding country.

It is not many years ago; it is within the lifetime of almost every man in this Chamber that Nova Scotia built the County of Yarmouth, the largest wooden ship that ever floated on the seven seas of the world. I can remember when she ran ashore on a ledge in Sydney harbour. Is there any reason for believing that Nova Scotia can-

not build the largest steel ship in the world, when she has the men and the coal, when* she has the steel and every other commodity that enter into the building of a ship? That is the situation, and I say: All power to the Government that goes ahead with a real, good, strong, forcible shipbuilding policy, and let the Government give us the largest plant in Sydney harbour it possibly can.