Miss MACPHAIL:

I would finish it.

I do not intend to say much on the question of the reservations, but let me say that I do not like them. I think Lord Cecil put that very well when he said:

I feel that the attitude taken nip by the German government in the matter was the right one.

This quotation appears in the Toronto Star of July 25, 1928. The attitude of the German government was that they were willing to sign the original draft, that they made no reservations. However, I am not going to take the reservations too seriously, because they do not appear in the text of the pact or treaty. They are not put in words except in the notes which passed between governments, and, so far as Canada is concerned, I think we should see to it that they do not affect us; that Canada does not stand for reservations; that she means exactly what the text of the pact says. I believe the people who believe in peace all over the world will gain most by reading into the text of the Kellogg pact the full meaning as written, and then holding the governments to the letter and to the spirit of that text.

The greatest danger I see from the Kellogg pact is that the peoples of the world will feel that when sixty-two nations out of sixty-four have signed a peace pact, they can sit back and rest, that there is really nothing more to be done. It would be fatal to do that, because this is but the beginning. It is true that words mean nothing unless actions follow, but they mean much if actions do follow. It is the duty of each of us as Canadians and the people of other countries who, I believe, are as good as we are, to seek the economic causes of war and then shape our national policies, and indeed our private endeavours, so as to remove them. We should as a nation put international concord above everything else and we should shape our policy to that end. We need to develop a peace technique. In the positive field of education something has been done, it is true, but very much re-78594-18

maiins to be done, and in the negative field of undoing what has been the custom of the ages, almost no start has been made.

We might very well listen to the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister of Great Britain, who, addressing the League of Nations Society of Great Britain this year, said that all those who really desire peace should be missionaries for peace. I take it that he is a missionary for peace and that he is exceedingly desirous of the peace of the world. It is well for us at times to be idealists, not to be scoffers and doubters, not to be cynical, but to believe that all the people of the world, regardless of colour, regardless of the country in which they live, are fine people, and if we treat them as though they were, they will treat us in the same spirit. It is well for us sometimes to go to the hilltops, and when we do as individuals and in great moments as nations, we see a fairer world. That fairer world is no dream; it can be made a reality if each of us takes the matter seriously and works towards that end.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):

Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege to follow the debate this afternoon upon this very interesting question. I have not prepared anything with regard to it, but I think I owe it to my good constituents and to the people who have confidence in me in the province of Quebec, or elsewhere, to express at this juncture my strong and unreserved approval of the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at Paris and Geneva in relation to this treaty. I read the speech of the right hon. gentleman; when it was published I reread it; I translated it for my own sake and I commented upon it. The more I thought of it, ithe more I considered it one of the most complete, and may I say, perfect expressions of what should have been in the past and what ought to be in the future the attitude of Canada in international affairs at large, but especially in those endeavours of all nations to eradicate the roots of the evils of war.

I concur entirely in most of the remarks that have been given to the house by the lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). We ought, and all peace loving people ought, to take the Kellogg pact at its face value. We ought to trust the conscience, the common sense and the true sense of interest of the masses of the people in every country to make that treaty good. I also agree with her that we should not discourage the idealist, either by scoffing at him, or by exaggerating, or perhaps simply by emphasizing too much, the obstacles, permanent or

274 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Bourassa

occasional, present or future, which may prevent this pact from bearing all the fruits which the suffering peoples are expecting from it. On the other hand, I think all parliaments and all thinking people would be untrue to their duty if they did not point out some of the obstacles, human or material, which may in fact prevent the fructification of this great peace endeavour.

Let us take first our position in Canada. On this point again I congratulate the Prime Minister for having spoken at Geneva in the name of Canada, and of Canada alone; for having affixed the signature of Canada to this treaty, for Canada's sake, in the interests of Canada, and as a contribution from Canada to the cause of peace. For once, the first time, perhaps, in the most unequivocal fashion, Canada has spoken and acted in her own name, has shown herself worthy of the confidence of her own people, and also of the confidence evinced during the last twenty or twenty-five years by the people of Great Britain, in the virility, determination, dignity and self-confidence of their young brothers of Canada, proving that they are capable, may I say, of butting into those international gatherings, modestly, but proudly, in their own name, and expressing their own views for the benefit not only of their own people, but also of the other British communities and the world at large. The Prime Minister was especially happy upon that occasion in showing that in her modest sphere of action, in the sphere of action where Canada can do something, she may render greater and more important services to Great Britain with whom she is associated, and to the United States, her only neighbour, than perhaps is thought of either in Washington or in London.

I was struck once-I have never forgotten the incident and frequently commented upon it-with the profound truth of an observation made by a distinguished diplomat who represented Great Britain in Washington for many years-I refer to Sir Esme Howard- when he said that he considered the peculiar, the particular service which Canada could render to Great Britain, the British Empire and the world at large, was to act as the normal interpreter of Great Britain to the United States and of the United States to Great Britain. That is quite true, because, on the one hand, the United States is our only neighbour, and a very close one; and on the other, we are associated with Great Britain. From Britain we have derived those political institutions of which we are proud, of which we French-Canadians are as proud as Eng-lish-Canadians may be, and for excellent rea-

sons: the first being, as recently demonstrated by our distinguished fellow citizen, Mr. Ewart, that we have nationalized those British institutions; we have borrowed from them their spirit, the kernel out of which grew that magnificent tree of liberty, of order, of continuance in action, of tradition and progress, and at the same time we have grafted upon it those legal or constitutional dispositions which are necessary to make it a constitution, not one to which the people of Canada must be adapted, but one adaptable to the people of Canada. Likewise, in international affairs I think the best service we can render to the British Empire-and I say this for the consumption of those who put empire first and Canada after-is not to follow

blindly every dictation, every attitude, every instrument of international policy that may be decided upon in London by this cabinet or that other cabinet. On the contrary, we should give not only a sympathetic but a free and independent support to every move of the British government which makes for peace and liberty, and on the other hand, oppose courageously and openly every attitude of the British government, for the time being, whether it be Tory, Liberal or Labour, which makes for greater misunderstanding and equivocations as between Great Britain and other countries, or with the world at large.

Therefore while approving unreservedly the ratification of the treaty, and offering to the Prime Minister for what they are worth my humble congratulations, at the same time I think we must take cognizance, to a greater extent perhaps than the hon. member for Southeast Grey has done, of the reservations which have been-I will not say, put upon that pact-but which 'have been, so to speak, planted around it by some of the most powerful governments of Europe and America. If these trees of distrust, these threats of practical disallowance of the treaty, are left to grow, the time will come when they will act, not as a bulwark against war, but as a moral barrier between the principle of peace evinced in the treaty, and the practices of war as carried on by the various nations that have adhered to it.

Let me remind the house that practically every treaty, public or secret, that was entered into during the forty years, let us say, which preceded the war, either those that were finally gathered together in the system of the Triple Alliance, or those that paved the way to the less defiant but more mysterious and perhaps a little more hypocritical Triple Entente to which we adhered during the war-all those

International Peace-Mr. Bourassa

treaties, all those conventions, all those understandings, preparing for war, fattening the ground out of which the plant of war grew and nearly killed civilization and humanity, were entered into in the name of peace. Every one of them contains these or similar words: "The high contracting parties, desiring to ensure and maintain peace," enter into such-and-such an agreement. All the treaties entered into between Germany and Austria, and later on between Germany and Italy, were made in the name of peace. The secret agreements between Russia and France first, and then between England and France, and then between England and Russia, were all framed in the name of peace. Poor Sir Edward Grey believed till the third day of August, 1914, that he had been working for peace, while as a matter of fact, quite honestly but just as surely, he had been working for war during the ten years which preceded the war, because he let himself be dragged from one agreement to another, made always under the pretence of peace, but always making for war.

In that respect, as a Canadian, and in spite of all that may be said, as a candid but true friend of Great Britain as well, I am especially proud and happy at the attitude taken by the Prime Minister, at his emphatic declaration, that as far as Canada is concerned there is no reservation secret or public, tha-t Canada is not a party to any understanding written or unwritten, public or secret,, defined or undefined, either with Great Britain or any othei country on earth, to prepare war behind the curtain while talking of peace before the public.

The hon. member for Southeast Grey made reference to the splendid speech of M. Briand. Undoubtedly M. Briand is to-day, with Mr. Stresemann, with Lord Cecil, and to a lesser but also to a certain degree with Sir Austen Chamberlain, one of the men who have done most to undo the hellish work which brought the world to the crucifixion which lasted from 1914 to 1918. But perhaps the lady member did not realize the tragic irony of a casual reference she made to the France of Briand and the France of Poincare, apparently forgetting that Briand and Poincare are in the same government.

Miss MACPHAIL:

They might be, but they are not the same people.

Mr. BOURASSA:

No, but in France, as in England, as in the United States, as in Canada and everywhere, more especially in those countries which have not known the bitterness of defeat and humiliation, in those 78594-18J

countries which can boast of their victory of 1918, there are, as the lady member said, both the forces of peace and the forces of war; but unfortunately the forces of peace and the forces of war are very often united in the political sphere, and I am afraid they are a contributing factor in keeping over the eyes of the people a veil which prevents them from seeing the truth.

It is useless to entertain illusions. The political situation of Europe, and the economic situation perhaps more so, is such that to-day there are more standing causes of war alive than there were six months before the war of 1914. Without committing an indiscretion, without naming anybody, I might here give the opinion expressed 'before me in private, two years ago, by one of the leading statesmen of Europe, one who has much, and who in the near future perhaps may have more, to do with the direction of policies in Europe and the world over. This statesman told me quite pointedly-I will not say cynically: "Of course there will be war again. At present no government, not even my own, would risk declaring war, or would even accept a declaration of war, because the memories of the last one are still too fresh in the people's minds. There are still too many mothers whose hearts are bleeding from the losses of the last war. But when this generation has passed, if the political, international and economic causes of war that are in existence to-day are allowed to grow, although you and I may not see it, because we are old enough perhaps to be spared, yet our sons will see the day when there will be another war, and the last war with its cruelties and devastations will be nothing compared with the experiences of the next."

Of course, no responsible statesmen dare utter such feelings in public, but when you talk to them in private, it has been my experience during the last seven years, in the various trips I have taken to Europe, that almost every one of the men who are responsible for the welfare, or the contrary, of the various peoples of Europe do not know when the next war will break. They realize that there are tremendous causes of war, moral, ethnical, economic; causes which preceded the last upheaval and which have not been eradicated; new causes created by those abominable, absurd, nonsensical treaties concluded at Versailles, at Neuilly-sur-Seine, at Trianon. Those treaties would be denounced to-day by every government in Europe but for the fact that some of the men responsible for them are still in power and obliged to maintain in the minds of the people the

International Peace-Mr. Bourassa

delusions under which the treaties were con-duded and imposed upon Europe.

Let me quote here the opinion of one of the leading spirits of Europe. In Mr. Ramsay MacDonald I see, from a certain point of view, the most eminent statesman of the British Empire to-day-I repeat this not for the first, the second or the third time, and I am going to repeat it yet again in the future. One of his staunchest opponents was telling me a year and a half ago: "We may differ with MacDonald in his home policy, we may disagree with his economics, but we must admit that he is the best foreign minister that England has known in the last half a century. Of course, he added, you must make allowance for party prejudices; but had Ramsay MacDonald been foreign secretary in the two years which preceded the wrar, had he held that portfolio either in a Tory or a Liberal administration, he might have spared us the agonies of war." I thought that was a remarkable testimony to the statesmanship of MacDonald. Now, when that statesman was in our midst not very long ago, I was struck with one of his observations, right here in Ottawa. All his speeches of course were permeated with his love of peace, but also with dread of a still possible war. He indicated as the main moral cause of future wars the one question of the treatment of minorities in the various countries that have been created artificially or carved out from the map of Europe by those absurd and nefarious treaties.

At the next meeting of the League of Nations, this question of minority rights is to be discussed in its entirety; and I am happy and proud to say that that action will be taken upon the initiative of our own representative, Senator Danduraod. What Mr. MacDonald said practically amounted to this. We made an issue of the maltreatment, real or imaginary, of two or three minorities at the hands of our enemies, the Alsatians and the Poles under German rule, the Slavs and the Italians under Austrian rule; we fought for those minorities and defeated the countries which dominated them. Then we carved out various nations among whom at the present time twenty million people are distributed as minorities. Some of the majority-nations maltreat those minorities much worse than the Prussians ever maltreated the Poles or the Alsatians. And those majority-mations are of our own making. We Canadians affixed our signatures to those treaties which recited that ali minorities should be given equal rights in matters of language, equal rights in matters of religion, and equal rights in matters of education. All those minorities are knocking .

from year to year at the gates of the palace of peace at Geneva, begging for justice and protection. They invoke the principles of the league, and they call upon the letter and the spirit of those sacred treaties that are supposed to have put an end to all the injustices inflicted by our late enemies. Those minorities come to us, the protectors of the weak, to us who during four years waged war to save civilization and make the world safe for democracy. I am afraid I must repeat here what I have said once before to an American audience: If we go on at this rate, a slight correction will have to be made in Mr. Wilson's famous text, and we shall have to say that we fought four years "to make the world safe for hypocrisy."

Well, I hope that Canada shall not be a party to making the world any safer for hypocrisy. I hope and trust that this government, or any other government, will not err in this respect. I would be prepared to trust the leader of the opposition nearly as much as the leader of the government, because I believe that once loaded with the responsibilities of office my hon. friend would have enough sense of his duty to the people of this country, to the people of the empire, and to the people of the world at large, to realize and to put into practice the profound truth of that saying of Sir Esme Howard, a saying that should always remain as the motto of our international relations-first make America safe, as between Canada and her only neighbour. Then make the safety of those cordial relations between the United States and ourselves the means to impress upon the British government-with whom I am proud that we should remain associated for so long as it suits both nations, but no longer-the necessity of carrying all over that spirit of amity.

Under the new condition of affairs, the United States have become practically the economic arbiters of the world. Germans and English, French and Italians, whether they like it or not, go to the Americans and ask them to act as arbiters between them in the partition of the war indemnities. Similarly,

I think we have a noble task to perform, without doing anything derogatory to our national honour. Let us make use of our being neighbours, not to make money out of the United States, not to ask them to remit any debt that we owe them, but to give them our help, weak as we may be in point of numbers, but strong as we are if we stand by a moral right, to impose, not in the low provocative sense of the word, but by the strength of reason, by the strength of political and economic

International Peace-Mr. Irvine

causes, to impose, I repeat, upon the British Empire a policy of peace that will determine the relations of that great empire with the rest of the world. That would be far better I think than to let the British government understand that in all they do we are prepared to uphold them, because at times that would land us in a pretty bad fix.

In conclusion, I am very happy in supporting the adoption of this motion and endorsing the views expressed by the Prime Minister this afternoon, as well as those of my hon, friend from Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Southeast Grey. If I have insisted a little more upon the pessimistic aspect of the question, it is not because 1 wish to throw cold water upon the enthusiasm of any sincere peace seeker, but because I have always believed that there is no salvation in delusion, no salvation in either pessimism or optimism. The true solution of all problems, national or individual, lies in the sincere search for truth and the courage to stand by the truth.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):

I desire to make a very brief comment on the important matter before parliament and on some of its implications. It does not require an undue gift of imagination to conceive the possibility that subsequent generations will regard the treaty now before this parliament as an epoch making event, and to the extent that such a possibility materializes in the future this is a great occasion. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been signally honoured by good fortune in having been associated with what may well prove to have been the most significant human episode in many centuries. We, too, are honoured in being privileged to endorse, in the name of the people of Canada, the sentiments of peace embodied in the treaty now under discussion.

This. I think, is a time when one may be pardoned for even going so far as to pay a compliment to the Prime Minister and one to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) at the same time. We all regard the presentation of the case for peace by the Prime Minister this afternoon as one entirely creditable to the leader of a great people, and I am sure that, in view of the high expressions which he gave and the very high ground he took in the interpretation not only of the treaty but of its implications, there is reason for us all to feel quite proud indeed. I think, also, that we are highly indebted to the leader of the opposition, who, while agreeing with the sentiments expressed, laid his

finger upon some of the immediate and practical things which must be done if any real fruits are to result.

The Prime Minister indicated that this treaty is not merely something that has come about as the result of a pious wish on the part of the nations concerned. As he indicated, war itself has become such an impossible thing that the intelligence of mankind is being compelled by circumstances to find a better way of dealing with international disputes. As we have seen in the past, war does not settle anything but tends rather to unsettle everything. We have seen, also, that war methods have become so destructive that, in the words of the Prime Minister, war will destroy civilization if civilization does not destroy war. So that the necessity of the times in which we live is back of this treaty; though it may be regarded by some as a mere pious gesture, there is necessity behind it. As the Prime Minister pointed out, it implies that we renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and by so doing we focus the attention of the world upon war as an obsolete method. He also further cautioned us that there is no royal road to peace but that there are many paths which lead thereto. Furthermore, he implied that there is no immediate hope of arriving at peace and that we must regard this treaty as merely the beginning of what we hope to accomplish. He intimated that the binding force of the treaty was to be found in the bonds of the dead. While that is true, yet at the risk of appearing to be pessimistic I am bound to point out that the bonds of death have been snapped a thousand times in the history of mankind. We must not rely on the bonds of the dead to maintain the spirit of reality in a great international bond of this character; we must somehow find the bonds among the living- bonds in which we may be able to place a great deal more confidence than we have ever been able to repose in the bonds of the dead. The great feelings which are common to humanity, which well up as a reaction from the Great war which shook the world a few years ago and which brought about the signing of the treaty before the house, are only feelings after all. These feelings will rise just as speedily twenty years from now to bring about once more the condition which to-day we so much deprecate.

May I be permitted to refer to the utterances of men who have not only given a great deal of study to this question but some of whom are playing parts on the chessboard of international politics while we are speaking here. The first one to whom I would refer

International Peace-Mr. Irvine

is Premier Mussolini. This is from a report of the Roman celebration of the Italian victory over Austria at the battle of Vittorio Veneto:

Mussolini: "If it is necessary, Trill you do to-morrow what you have done, what we did together, yesterday?"

Seventy thousand Italian World War Veterans: "Yes!"

That is just a little glimpse. Let us turn now to what the Right Hon. Philip Snowden, former Chancellor of the British Exchequer, had to say on peace sentiments in general and this treaty in particular. This is what he says:

There is still talk about renouncing war, and pious platitudes about universal peace are on everyone's lips. But there has been no real progress toward the abolition of war. Locarno agreements ami Kellogg pacts are mere eyewash to bamboozle the people while statesmen carry on their secret negotiations to prepare for the next great war.

I think we can understand something of the pessimism which is here expressed when we realize the conditions prevailing at the moment, as referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). When we think, for one thing, of the new map of Europe which was drawn up after the last war, and when we think of the treaty which has been referred to, we can understand the sentiments of the Right Hon. Philip Snowden which I have just quoted. Let me refer next to the Right Hon. David Lloyd George. He says:

As our relations are getting better, our armaments are growing bigger. The nations are sharpening their arms on the stones of the Temple of Peace. The armaments of Prance to-day are four times as powerful as those of the great German army of 1914.

Let me also quote what General Sir Ian Hamilton has to say:

Though cannon may be muzzled and poison gas manufacture in suspense, our gigantic war propaganda plaint has never been properly scrapped, and, undeT cover of night, the factories still go on stealthily pumping out a few extra special samples of the good old fumes. There s hardly a morning passes when some ot it does not drift on to the breakfast table, tolded up, usually, in twenty-four sheets of paper.

I think it would be fitting to mention here a statement by Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, former British Home Secretary, who said:

The armies of the world are ready to fight, the navies only await the order to lift anchor and go into action. Aerial armies are ready to destroy our cities in one night. Within a few weeks the world's war machines could again imperil civilization.

Four years of war are now only unthinkable because they would be unnecessary. The apparatus of war, evolved since the end of war to end war. would probably destroy civilization in a few months.

Finally let me quote what Lord Riddell, British journalist and publicist, has to say:

There is grave danger that the world will allow itself to be chloroformed by general declarations in favour of peaceful intentions. If a man says he is against shooting and, at the same time, purchases two new revolvers, what would you think of him? He might say he did not intend to use them, but I think you would have your doubts.

I &iye these quotations, Mr. Speaker, not to indicate tha.t I have no faith in the moral qualities and in the intelligence of mankind generally to find ultimately a better way of settling international disputes than by war, but merely that I might give emphasis to what I regard as the implications of the Prime Minister when he stressed the fact that in itself this treaty is only a beginning.

I wish to close my few remarks by indicating through analogy what I regard as the real significance of this treaty, which I have no doubt will be unanimously endorsed by the representatives of the Canadian people. It might be said to be a new-born child, born of the noblest sentiments of the races, its potentialities great but with many dangers besetting its life. It may be nursed, educated and developed to make a great contribution to mankind, or it may be strangled or starved or maimed and never allowed to give full expression to its potentialities. If the nations of the world sit back now and say, " No more war; behold the treaty we have signed," then our treaty means less than nothing; it will not be Tvorth the paper upon which it is printed. If, on the other hand, the nations of the world who have subscribed to the principle of that treaty can rise to the occasion and accept the responsibilities which it implies, then Sir, I say that we have here one of the greatest documents of many centuries of history.

What are some of the responsibilities which it implies? It does not merely imply a negative response by getting rid of armies, navies and arsenals; in my opinion those are the last things which will go. You might as well ask a sailor to jump from his sinking ship and be drowned immediately as ask that the nations who have hitherto found in armaments their only supposed means of defence throw them overboard before we have actually set up and established that which is to take their place. So I think it is not merely a negative action now morally imposed upon every nation subscribing to this treaty; I

Montreal

Harbour Commission

think some positive action must be looked for, and I would suggest that the first positive action should be re-drawing the map of Europe. In the treaty of Versailles, the treaty of peace, we have the seeds of many wars, and we must not think that by any artificial means we shall avoid the aftermath of that treaty. Any action we take must be natural; it must appeal to human nature, and I do not think human nature is always bad. I know that those who advocate war think that as long as human nature is what it is we shall have war, but I recognize the fact that in human nature we have the source of all the good that humanity has ever accomplished just as we have all the bad, and I believe that humanity will respond to the good just as readily as, and perhaps even more readily than, it will respond to the bad.

The treaty will prove a mere delusion without positive action, which will have to be in line with the natural law and with the best in human nature. Our first action should be to endeavour to apply human methods in repairing the evil brought about by the last peace. We should begin to set in motion an international co-operative effort which will call upon every nation subscribing to this treaty to yield perhaps a little of that sovereignty of which it is so proud and a little of that pride which sometimes keeps nations apart, and to take part in some actual international co-operative organization which will deal first of all with questions of territory, questions of economics and international trade generally, questions of politics and racial problems. There is no use leaving these questions and just hoping they will be settled sometime; if we are to abandon the navies and armies we must begin immediately to set up that which is to take their place.

That, Mr. Speaker, is all I desire to say. I am sure that whether or not these great possibilities which we visualize become actualities, no one will blame us in ages to come, in view of the circumstances existing to-day, for having made even this feeble attempt. Should wars succeed wars in the near future I shall still be glad that we had this treaty before this parliament and that I was privileged to say what I have said in its favour. I do believe that no really intelligent, constructive action can be taken by mankind until such an idea has been conceived. The idea of a human world has been conceived. This treaty is a new-born child of peace. Let us hope that the best of human nature will nurture it and that the best leaders of the nations concerned will help humanity forward if only in the first step toward a new

human relationship which will regard humanity as paramount in all dealings national or international, rather than that lust for power, economic aggrandizement or other things material which have characterized and even dictated the diplomacy of nations in the past.

On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.

Mr. BENNETT:

Before the resolution is put I think the minister might make some explanation to the house. The resolution involves $10,000,000 of the credit of Canada, and it should not be passed without explanation.

Mr. CARDIN:

The resolution is for consideration by the house in committee of the whole. If my hon. friend does not object I will make the explanation when we are in committee.

Mr. BENNETT:

The proper time is to

give it before we go into committee, but I am not concerned as long as we get it some time.

Mr. CARDIN:

The resolution contemplates the advance of $10,000,000 to the harbour commissioners of Montreal. The object of this advance is to permit the harbour commissioners to proceed with the developments required by the increasing business in this important port. The port of Montreal-and the same may be said of Vancouver-has shown some very interesting results. The receipts of t)he port of Montreal for 1924 were $4,000,000, and they have increased to over $5,500,000 for the year 1928. The exportation of grain through the harbour of Montreal has also very materially increased. Anyone who has any knowledge of the conditions prevailing in the port of Montreal at the present time knows that they need increased facilities for the shipping business passing through that port.

2S0

Montreal Harbour Commission

We must keep in mind the fact that the money we advance through these bills is not a gift to an organization of any kind. This is money which will be lent to an organization created by the laws of the country, and in the case of Montreal the country is getting back the interest on al the money which has been advanced. Besides paying the interest on the money advanced, the port of Montreal has provided for a sinking fund for the repayment of the principal. This year, after taking care of the interest and providing for the sinking fund, the harbour commissioners are left with a very substantial balance an the form of a real surplus. These harbours are to-day in a very satisfactory condition. Anyone who believes in the general development of the country must realize that this development is due in large degree, to the facilities provided in the different harbours throughout the country. Money spent in the harbours will prove very profitable to Canada at large. We have passed the time where we have to wait for business before providing facilities, and have reached the point where we should provide the facilities in order to take care of business which may come later. I do not think anyone seeing the need of these transportation facilities would hesitate to advance the money. There is a certainty that the government will get the interest on the money so advanced.

If we did not follow this procedure of advancing money to these harbours we would have to make the same expenditures through the Department of Public Works. There are certain harbours less important than the ports of Montreal and Vancouver towards which the government has been contributing large amounts of money with a view to developing the facilities for the shipping interests at large. The procedure we have been following with regard to Montreal and Vancouver and the other harbours is as sound as any procedure followed in any other country of the world.

I am not in a position to-night to give a comparative statement of the great harbours of the world, but I have caused the officers of my department to prepare a statement showing how the great harbours in foreign countries are administered and maintained. I am sure this statement will show that while our procedure is not perfect-nothing is perfect in this world-it compares favourably with the system followed in all foreign countries.

The proposal of the harbour commissioners is to provide for the enlargement of the Laurier pier. They are also providing for the reconstruction of the King Edward pier and the Alexandra pier, the

extension of the electrified railway system across the Lachine canal, the extension of the grain conveyor system, industrial wharves, additional berthing facilities and the acquisition of land. This last item is brought about as a result of an adjudication by the privy council. Parliament first authorized the harbour commissioners of Montreal to extend tbeir facilities and to build wharves on certain properties under the control of either the provincial government or individuals. This question was brought before the different tribunals and the privy council decided that the harbour commissioners, under an amendment of their act, had no right to take over properties which were under provincial jurisdiction without making compensation therefor. In the S10,000.000 asked for the commissioners have provided the necessary amount to pay for the lands upon which they have already built wharves.

Mr. BENNETT:

To whom would the

compensation be payable?

Mr. CARDIN:

To the proprietors of the

land. One case was brought before the privy council, but there are two or three other properties in the same position and the commissioners will have to compensate the proprietors.

I think at this stage the resolution should go through, without any commitment, as has been stated on previous occasions, on the part of any other hon. gentleman who can make his comment when the bill is brought down and we go into committee of the whole thereon. I do not see that I should add anything at present in support of the resolution.

M.r. STEWART (Leeds): Might I ask the minister whether I understood him to say that the proprietor of part of this land was the province of Quebec?

Mr. CARDIN:

No. Individuals were proprietors. The court 'held that it was a matter of civil rights.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the on-position) :

The reason I was rather anxious that the minister should make some explanation with respect to this particular item was that, he might unfold to us any scheme he had in mind, in the light of his observations last session, looking towards a more comprehensive dealing with the whole problem in connection with port expansion in Canada. The minister will recall the discussions that took place last year. It appears to me that before we vote further sums of money we should have upon the table of the house the report of the harbour commission for the last year. We are called upon to vote large

sums not only for this harbour but for some others, and it is important that we should have a comprehensive realization, in the light of what the results may have been, of what is involved in the way of expenditure with regard to the whole. In Montreal we know that they have very large revenues derived to no inconsiderable extent from the elevating and shipping of grain that comes from western America. If I carry in my head correctly the returns for last year, they would indicate a very large volume of traffic originating in a country other than our own. It is important, in the light of possible developments that have been foreshadowed, and if the Hudson Bay railway is to carry the traffic that it is expected it will, to know to what extent this may result in a curtailment of the handling of grain traffic through the port of Montreal. I suppose the minister will recall the recent meeting that took place in It inni-peg and the discussions of an extension of the railway directly from Winnipeg to the bay in order that the traffic that they believe is contiguous to it in the United States may find easy access to Fort Churchill for shipment to Europe. That would have an important bearing upon the development of the port with respect to grain business, and I observe from the explanation given by the minister that some considerable portion of the proposed expenditure will be for the purpose of extending facilities to handle that particular kind of traffic. I assume, however, that the report for the year ended December 31, 1928, will be available before the house finally determines what action will be taken in connection with this and other cases of a similar character. The harbours of Montreal and Vancouver are at the moment paying their own way very handsomely, taking care of interest and sinking fund, but some of the ports into which 'money is being paid can hardly be said to be in that category. It was for that reason I had hoped the minister would make a statement of policy in a large way, such as was indicated last session. Knowing that Mr. Palmer was making a report on the terminal railway facilities and, to some extent, the handling of traffic on the river front, I suggested he make his explanation before we went into committee. With the understanding that we are not committed without having some explanation as to details, I have no objection to the bon. gentleman's resolution proceeding to committee.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McPhee in the chair.

Mr. BENNETT:

I suppose the minister would like to get this resolution reported out of committee, and there is no reason why that

Questions

should not be done provided it is understood that an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the matter in detail when the bill is in committee.

Mr. CARDIN:

Yes, that is understood.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, to provide for a further loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.