Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

A month ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said he would name an opportune day for consideration of Bill No. 2, to amend the Railway Act with reference to soldiers' fares. I would ask the Prime Minister, would he name a day, or shall I have to move for leave of the house to proceed with the second reading of the bill? I did move for leave, on May 8, and the Prime Minister then asked that it be postponed, and said he would name an opportune day.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I understand that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) will make a statement on that matter before the house adjourns.

Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Munitions and Supply. On May 22 I asked a question with reference to the Dominion Bridge company's plans to move its furnaces and rolling mills from its Calgary plant to Vancouver. A return was ordered, and after a question asked on June 6, the return was made. That return contains only one letter, which the Dominion Bridge company wrote to the government,. and there is no answer. I am informed that there was more corre-

Supply-Diversion of Water

spondence. I wonder whether the minister would clear that point up. Surely the government must at least have answered their letter.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

I was told that that represented the complete file as of the day it was tabled. I shall be glad to check it and1 see if there is some further information.

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

I am

informed that there is. I think there must be some mistake there.

Mr. HOWE:

I cannot understand why the full file would not be returned, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):

Before Your Honour leaves the chair I wish to make some comment on the agreements tabled on May 29 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in reference to the diversion of waters from the Niagara river at Niagara falls.

Before doing so may I, as the first to speak to-day, extend my compliments to the new Minister for National War Services (Mr. Thorson) ? There is one thing about his appointment which makes me glory in British institutions, and that is that he represents a race other than British, because he is descended from those who came from Iceland. I remember being at a great banquet in London during the coronation festivities, a banquet which was attended by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and other distinguished statesmen from various parts of the empire. One of the principal speakers was Colonel the Honourable N. C. Havenga, a statesman from South Africa. He made what struck me as a very patriotic British speech, and he was of Dutch origin. The Minister of Justice also made a speech; he is of French origin. It is one of the glories of the British empire, Mr. Speaker, that races coming into our empire bring to it their strength, their education, all that they stand for, and assimilate it with that for which we stand. That is what makes the British empire the greatest in the world. That is why the British empire will win in the conflict in which we are now engaged.

With regard to the agreements tabled by the Prime Minister, I intend to be brief, and I am not going to oppose them. But I believe, having given perhaps as much study

to this matter as any other hon. member, and having travelled thousands of miles in and around the watershed west and north of the Niagara river, that I might be expected to say something on this subject. I know the problems with which the Prime Minister has been confronted, and I am not rising in an attitude of combativeness or opposition.

The agreement states three things. First, on the United States side of the line 5,000 additional cubic feet of water per second may now be or at present is being diverted from the Niagara river south of the falls. Second,

3,000 additional cubic feet per second may be diverted from the Niagara river on the Canadian side of the falls. Third, works will be erected-I assume as promptly as possible- on the Niagara river south of Niagara falls, somewhat of the character of those so exhaustively planned and detailed in the report of Colonel-later I believe General-Warren, of the United States army, chief engineer of the United States division of great lakes, during his term of office.

In addition to the two diversions to which I have just referred, and which are mentioned in the agreements tabled recently, there was the agreement of March 19 which permitted the province of Ontario, the government having obtained the consent of the United States, to divert from Niagara river an additional 5,000 cubic feet per second on the understanding that the province would at once divert into lake Superior, from the flow of the Kenogami river, 1,200 cubic feet per second, and proceed to erect works, to divert from the Albany watershed a flow of 4,000 cubic feet per second into the great lakes.

It was necessary to have these two agreements to which I have referred because the diversions in question would violate the international treaty of 1909, which distinctly states that on the United States side of the line they shall have the privilege of diverting from Niagara river a maximum of 20,000 cubic feet per second, and on the Canadian side of the line Canada was to have the right to divert 36,000 cubic feet per second These two diversions are referred to in article V of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. It became necessary therefore, as I understand, to pass these two agreements to which I have referred. They are not laws, nor are they treaties; they are merely agreements and are subject, I presume, to abrogation or change at some future time.

The white book which was tabled some time last October refers in article IX to the diversion of 5,000 cubic feet per second by the province of Ontario as a result of their pouring water into lake Superior to that amount,

Supply

Diversion of Water

either now or later on. What are the diversions at Niagara falls to-day? I feel constrained to make these remarks so that during the recess any hon. members who are interested enough to study the question will have at least some data before them on which to base their studies, and in 1942, when the recent agreement tabled on May 29 comes up for revision, hon. members if they so desire will be in a position to add something to any debate in connection with the further extension of the May 29 agreement.

The United States has the right to divert

20.000 cubic feet per second, and Canada can divert 36,000 cubic per second. But from the 36,000 cubic feet per second that belongs to Canada, for very good reasons which I will not go into now, having done so on previous occasions, the United States receives the power from 10,000 cubic feet, which really brings their taking up to 30,000 cubic feet; and then, from the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission, they receive power produced by a further 3,600 cubic feet per second, bringing the amount now diverted, either on our side of the line or on their own side but for purposes wholly on their own side, up to 33,600 cubic feet per second, which therefore reduces the amount used on our own side for power in Canada to 22,400 cubic feet per second.

The agreement of May 29 permits the United States to divert immediately another

5.000 cubic feet per second out of Niagara river, which brings their taking out of the river on their own side, or from our side, for their purposes, up to 38,600 cubic feet per second. Under the agreement of May 29 we too shall be permitted bo take another 3,000 cubic feet per second, which will bring our taking for our own purposes up to 25,400 cubic feet per second, apart from the 5,000 cubic feet referred to in the March 19 agreement, that belongs to us, since we are to divert from our own purely Canadian watershed into the great lakes watershed the equivalent of 5,000 cubic feet per second. Altogether, therefore, at the moment, there is being taken out of Niagara river south of Niagara falls a total of 69,000, plus 3,800 which is still to come from the Albany watershed, or 72,800 cubic feet per second.

On Sunday last I drove over to Niagara Falls to confirm rumours I have been hearing for some time with regard to the effect of this diversion of water on the great scenic beauty of the falls, at least, the former glory of the falls, which made it perhaps the greatest scenic wonder in the world. I drove over to ascertain the effect of the diversion of this 69,000 cubic feet per second, plus another

3,800, or, to be exact, 72,800 cubic feet per second. If hon. members will drive over they will be struck, as I was, that as far as the falls are concerned the effect upon their majestic beauty is a tragedy. The diversion of over one-third of the possible flow, which amounts normally to 210,000 cubic feet per second, though it does fall as low as

190,000 cubic feet per second, has had a marked effect on the beauty of the water flowing over the falls.

However, as I said before, I am not opposed to the present agreement, because it is stipulated in the agreement that this is for emergent war purposes. I have my own knowledge of these things. What I dislike about all these diversions is that they are asked for because -of the war, though anyone who knows anything about Niagara falls, the watershed behind it and other watersheds, knows very well that all that power required could have been provided for during the last few years if either this government or the United States government-they would have had to do it jointly-had proceeded with the work south of the falls, which would have permitted a considerable additional diversion without affecting their scenic beauty. Why this government and the United States government have not done that I do not know.

In addition to what is diverted out of the river at Niagara Falls there is another deterrent effect on the flow over the falls, namely, the 3,900 feet diverted at Chicago. Chicago takes 1,500 cubic feet for dilution purposes, according to the order of the United States supreme court, and is permitted to take up to 2,400 cubic feet per second for domestic purposes, making a total of 3,900. That too has an effect on Niagara falls. The water taken at Chicago is diverted wholly out of the watershed into another watershed. However, I am not going to discuss that at the moment.

I now want to give the house some information about the power developed at the falls. These are not the latest figures; they are from the report of 1920 of General Warren. I believe that on our side of the line there has been a change in the amount of flow at Queenston which has altered these figures, but as I have not the authentic figures of to-day I give the ones which were authentic up to the time of this report. They are subject to change in reference to the increase of flow to Queenston resulting from the nonuse of any other Canadian plant at the falls. I give the figijjes because I want to show that the water at the falls is not being used for power to the extent it should be. And someone is to blame for so much water being

Supply-Diversion of Water

used to produce so much less power than could be produced were the water properly used.

For example, at the plant of the Canadian Niagara Power Company on our side of the line, all of whose power development goes to the United States side of the line, the diversion according to General Warren is 9,600 cubic feet per second, from which they produce

100,000 horse power. The head is only 173 feet and the horse-power developed per cubic foot per second is 10-4.

At the Ontario Power Company plant a diversion of 11,200 cubic feet per second produces 163,000 horse-power. The head in this case is 215 feet and the horse-power produced is 14-6 per cubic foot.

The Toronto Power Company I believe has been merged with the hydro power, but according to these figures it diverted 12,400 cubic feet, producing only 125,000 horse-power, with a head of 183 feet or 10-1 horse-power per cubic foot.

The Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission at Queenston via Chippawa at that time was using 10,000 cubic feet per second. I believe it is now using 16,000, and the power produced at the time of General Warren's investigation was 294,000 horse-power from a head of 313 feet, or 29-4 horse-power per cubic foot.

The Niagara Falls Power Company, with a diversion of 9,450 cubic feet, produced 100,000 horse-power at a head of 219 feet, or 10-6 horse-power per cubic foot.

The next major power production plant there, the Hydraulic Power Company, using 7,840 cubic feet per second, producing 145,000 horse-power at a head of 219 feet, with the most modern equipment, apparently more modem than used in some of the other plants for it produced 18-5 horse-power per cubic foot.

Someone has been to blame during all these years in not modernizing the power plants at Niagara Falls. It is apparent from the figures I have given that if the maximum height of 313 feet on both sides of the line, at Queenston via Chippawa in Ontario, and I believe it is Fort Schlosser on the United States side, an ancient fort site of long ago, the power produced at Niagara could be almost doubled. Someone should be responsible for the neglect to take advantage of the power resoures at Niagara Falls. These piecemeal agreements for diverting water are robbing us of the great heritage of power and are not the proper methods. Some other plan should be used.

I suggest to the Prime Minister, since he has added a new minister to his cabinet this

morning, that perhaps the time has come to have a minister of power to control the development of the water power resources of this great country. I tell the Prime Minister that many of the power resources of this country are in danger of seizure by power barons, and the government should take command of all these vast resources that will last forever. There is nothing like water power for maintaining itself forever. In our great northern territory where I am going this summer, away up the Mackenzie river valley, I expect to see on the Slave river vast power resources north of Fitzgerald. I do not know who possesses those powers to-day, but perhaps the Prime Minister might consider some way .of conserving them for Canada before the power barons seize the incomparable natural power resources still belonging to this country.

The agreement also states-and I am strongly in accord with this:-

It is also proposed that the engineers of the two governments be directed to take in such steps as may be necessary with a view to initiating forthwith the construction of works designed to distribute the flow of waters over the falls in such a manner as to preserve their scenic beauty.

I am one hundred per cent behind that, and would urge the Prime Minister at the earliest possible moment to associate this country with the United States in arranging for those works. General Warren gave a very exhaustive statement on these works as a result of his survey. I myself have followed the -watershed to its remotest confines to fix in my mind and visualize the tremendous power behind Niagara falls. Later the engineering board of review, in 1924, I believe, amended General Warren's plan and improved it. On Sunday I made a careful investigation at Chippawa to see what will be the effect there of the adoption of the plan of the engineering board of review. I believe to adopt it in full would raise the height of the Chippawa pool from 561 to 571 feet, meaning that the Chippawa power canal intake would have to be raised-and not only raised, but be dredged out. There would have to be dykes at Tona-wanda and elsewhere, where the shore does not reach ten feet above the present level of the river. That of course would be a small matter.

The argument used, in support of the new plan is that only one works would be required, consisting of a monumental bridge and control works, which would be situated approximately a mile or a little over a mile south of Niagara falls. It would be a controlled dam operated by gates which would -rise and fall at will, and it would entail works and a weir immediately south of the brink of Niagara falls.

Supply-Diversion oj Water

37S9

I doubt very much if on Sunday the depth at the notch in the Horseshoe falls was more than three or four, or perhaps five feet, at the outside.

The new plan proposes that a weir be built immediately south of the falls for the even distribution of water over the brink. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), being an engineer, will understand that the evening up of the water immediately south of the brink of the falls would to a great extent retard erosion, which now amounts to quite an item at the falls. Indeed, unless erosion is arrested before long, the two cities of Niagara Falls, possibly not within our own time, but within one or two hundred years will be away down the river from the falls. The falls will be farther up the river. I believe the average erosion is about seven feet annually to the south.

In my judgment it is imperative to preserve the scenic beauties of that majestic, natural wonder. As speedily as possible this government and the government of the United States should have works constructed to conform with the best engineering features the two governments can devise. We are now told that after the works are completed a further diversion of 10,000 second-feet on each side of the line can be taken, without in any way affecting the scenic beauty of the falls. My own judgment would be in accord with that, namely that more water could be taken by an even distribution of the water across the brink of the falls on both sides of the river without affecting their beauty. Provided that these proposed works would preserve the falls, why not use the additional horse-power, if we can get it? After all, God placed it there for the benefit of this country and the United States. A further 10,000 cubic second-feet on each side would mean a very great increase in the production of power. I hope- I am sure we all hope-that that power will be greatly needed after the war for purposes of rehabilitation in this country. I expect it will be rehabilitated.

In my judgment, therefore, the first consideration the government should have in mind is to proceed with the works proposed in the agreement. Do not delay. Do not let another twenty years elapse between the proposal and the time the work is done, as has happened in the past. We must make every effort to preserve scenic beauty which is unequalled anywhere else in the world, a beauty which each year brings vast sums of United States dollars to our side of the line. The beauties of the falls are best seen from the Canadian side. The works suggested Tould not only permit an increase of power,

but would raise the level of lake Erie. Everyone knows that the level of that lake is sadly depleted.

I have before me the monthly report issued by the hydrographic map service of this government. It shows that in May of this year the average stage of lake Erie is 1-41 feet lower than the average stage in the past eighty-one years. The level of lake Erie would be raised on the completion of the works proposed in the agreement. Those who have investigated the levels of lake Erie-and I have done a good deal of it myself-know that at present the shore line of lake Erie extends out along the lake a quarter of a mile or more, and that some years ago those same points were under water. So that I will support any proposal to preserve the beauty of Niagara falls, and raise the water level of lake Erie. The raising of the Chippawa pool to 571 feet would retard the flow out of lake Erie. When the flow is retarded the lake itself rises. So that, as I understand it, no other work would be required, except this at Chippawa, to the height I have indicated.

I should like to present another angle of this whole subject to the government, in connection with its discussions of these matters with engineers from the United States. I would suggest that they try to persuade the United States to bring about the diversion of water from their own side of the line, into the great lakes. I fought like a tiger against the diversion from the Albany river watershed. That is past. I cannot do any more in that regard, and there is no use wasting more time on it. But we can compensate for what was done at that time by bringing about a diversion from the United States side of the line.

I spent considerable time in making extensive travels in the thousand lakes area of north Wisconsin. There are said to be a thousand lakes-there may be two thousand so far as I know. The whole country is dotted with lakes, and from those lakes several great rivers start. The water scarcely knows which direction to flow. Those lakes provide the source of the Wolf river, which flows into lake Michigan, the St. Croix, which flows into the Mississippi, and the Wisconsin, which flows into the Mississippi.

After making my own survey as to the possibility of diverting water out of the Wisconsin river along part of its ancient course via the Fox river, I went to Madison and discussed a proposal with the state engineer. I am happy to say that since that time the state of Wisconsin has taken into serious consideration the matter I talked over with their engineers. I pointed out the advantage to be ga'ned from damming the Wisconsin river

Supply-Diversion of Water

south of Portage, where its current ends, and from which point, until it reaches the Mississippi, it is often a nuisance to the state. It is a large, flat river, with little current in it west of Portage, and it frequently overflows its banks. One and a quarter miles east of Portage the Fox river flows north, in the opposite direction. The Wisconsin river flows south and west. The water level of the Fox river is six feet below that of the Wisconsin, and the Wisconsin would overflow into the Fox. For years there were great floods around Portage, making lakes miles long in the state of Wisconsin. All along the Fox river are vast coulees dug out by the overflow of the Wisconsin river in years past. To prevent further action of the kind the state government has built at Portage a dyke fourteen miles long and twenty-five feet high. This prevents the waters which ordinarily and naturally would flow into the Fox river at flood time and into the great lakes. I believe the engineers are now satisfied that they can divert out of the Wisconsin a flow of 1,500 second-feet.

Their first statement is that they could divert 1,500 cubic second feet for 120 days per year. That is based upon the erection of two large reservoirs at Big Eau Pleine and Little Eau Pleine. All they have to do is to erect other reservoirs in that district and they would be able to maintain a flow of 1,500 cubic feet per second from the Wisconsin into the Fox and then into the great lakes. They could then produce another

20,000 or 30.000 horse-power of electrical energy from the flow of the Fox, east of lake Winnebago from which the river descends a hundred feet, more or less, to lake Michigan via the Fox; there is an old natural course where in years gone by there was a large flow of water out of the Wisconsin river. But they have stopped that. On our side of the line we have been most generous. At the present time we are diverting out of the Kenogami watershed, which is wholly Canadian, 1,200 cubic feet per second, and are considering diverting another 4,000 cubic feet per second. I should like to see the government try to persuade the United States engineers to do just what I have suggested; dam the Wisconsin, take the surplus flow and send it into the great lakes. That would help their trouble at Chicago. It would be wholly their own water; they could do what they liked with it. They could do what they are permitting us to do with the Albany waters. They could use it as it flows down; they could divert another 1,500 cubic feet per second without injuring the lake level at Chicago.

This district is quite historic. Nicolet, one of the early French explorers, went up the Fox river in 1634, and Fathers Marquette and Joliet went through there in 1673. I spent some time along that river going into the history of the district.

I should like to refer to one or two other diversions. I referred to Chicago a moment or two ago, but I want to place it in order on the records. At the moment Chicago can divert up to 3,900 cubic feet per second, all lost to the St. Lawrence system. The agreement states that this proposed diversion at Niagara Falls will terminate in 1942. I have not much confidence in such promises. We have a bold example of the failure to live up to agreements at Massena, where

25.000 cubic feet per second are being diverted from the south branch of the St. Lawrence river. This was originally the main course of the river. This water is being diverted across New York state to generate 90,000 horse-power at Massena. Half of that, or 12,500 cubic feet per second, belongs to us. I am afraid that when the St. Lawrence waterway treaty comes into this house it will be found that the power barons may claim compensation for the loss of the use of this 12,500 cubic feet of Canadian water. I hope that when that treaty is being considered other hon. members will be prepared to vote against compensation being paid for the use of Canadian water diverted at Massena.

That agreement was made in 1918, and we heard the same story, that it was for war purposes. It was stated in the agreement that if and when the war ended, the diversion would be stopped. But that was not the case. The war was over before the diversion weir in the St. Lawrence had been completed. They were diverting some water before, but the agreement was to permit the erection of a weir which would raise the water and permit a greater diversion. Unless the signatories of this agreement will live up to it, what is the use of making it? We will live up to it, but our cousins south of the line must be educated to living up to agreements. They are sharper than we are. I do not find any fault with that. I like to see sharp people; I like to see people who are able to defend themselves and who get what is coming to them.

Under the present agreement they are to get 5,000 cubic feet per second and we are to get 3,000 cubic feet, but when we want another

2.000 cubic feet, we can have it. I hope that is correct, because it is only fair that we should have that. I have another case in mind where we lose everything, that of the St. Croix river between New Brunswick and

Supply-Diversion oj Water

Maine. Immediately south of the junction of the main branch of the St. Croix river and the west branch, a dam has been built to hold back the flow of the St. Croix river. The whole river is diverted into the state of Maine to produce power. Of course the water is returned to the river lower down. We get absolutely nothing out of it; at least I am not aware that any power which is developed is sent back to our side.

I am afraid of any further raids. Recently I read carefully a report of the engineering board of review in the United States, which stated the advantages of diverting 5,000 cubic feet per second out of lake St. Francis. I doubt if that will ever take place, but they pointed out the advantage of diverting that water to lake Champlain. Their engineers are on the job. This same report contains a plan for the diversion of the Black river in New York state, which now flows into lake Ontario at Sachets harbour. The proposal is to divert water from the Black river into the Fish river and Mohawk river. Any diversion of water from the lake Ontario watershed would violate the 1909 treaty. I hope it will never be permitted.

I think that is all I have to say. I am not opposed to the present diversion, since it states in the agreement that it is to be reconsidered in 1942. I hope the government sees to it that these works are constructed on the Niagara river in order that the lake Erie water level may be raised and the scenic beauty of this great natural wonder preserved.

I repeat what I said a moment ago. I hope, the Prime Minister will take into consideration the appointment of a board or a minister or a departmental branch which will assume control of the undeveloped water-powers in territories which are still under the control of this government, preserve them for the people of Canada and prevent their exploitation by the power barons who may try to get possession of these great water powers in our vast hinterland, over a great deal of which I have travelled. I think I have covered all of Canada south of the sixtieth parallel and I should know something about its water resources. I hope the Prime Minister will consider preserving for the people of Canada the still vast water powers of this country.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house from going into supply for more than ten minutes but inasmuch as for many years between 1921 and 1930 I have protested against the Chicago diversion and have taken part in the debates from February 26, 1929, on the

various diversions in the Niagara river, I wish to take a few minutes to protest against the principles involved.

Prior to the statute of Westminster being passed a similar matter came up in this house on February 26, 1929, by way of a debate on a convention or protocol with Washington, and on that occasion I raised this important question of the further diversions of water in the Niagara river for power on both sides of the line. Ten thousand feet then on this side belonged to Ontario and half way out to the boundary line, including the water and the banks of the river and rapids, subject to the rights of navigation. The other half at that time belonged to New York state and the United States. This matter then came before the house in a convention or protocol for the preservation of Niagara falls by the construction of remedial works and for the experimental withdrawal of additional water from the Niagara river. There was a treaty before the house on that date on the very question; it was signed by His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; and on behalf of the United States of America by the President. The terms of the whole convention as to 10,000 horse-power for each country, now reduced to 5,000 and 3,000, are set out in the statutes of Canada for 1929, at page xiii of the prefix. I am in favour of the further diversion for immediate power purposes, as I was in 1929, but I object to the new way of doing it.

What has happened since that time, and how are these matters done now? Just by a note of our executive, whereas at Washington the senate must approve. There were imperial conferences in 1926 and 1930. Up to that time Great Britain and the British empire did not have any written constitution or strict rules of law. The constitution of Great Britain consisted of a number of usages, customs and conventions which have bound the empire together by ties of race and blood and of other principles unwritten except by Canada to the 1867 British North America Act. But at these imperial conferences they changed the whole constitutional structure of the British empire. They passed the statute of Westminster, which made Canada a separate dominion, so that we can now make our own treaties over the head of the mother country and we had our own seat in the league and many other things. I should like to quote a few sentences from Wheare's "The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status." He says at page 3:

This constitutional and international position may he set out partly in rules of strict law,

Supply-Diversion oj Water

such as statutes, passed by the United Kingdom parliament or by the parliaments of the dominions, and judicial decisions, and partly in non-legal rules, such as constitutional conventions. The most important of the rules of strict law which define dominion status at present are to be found in a statute of the United Kingdom parliament, the Statute of Westminster itself. The most important of the non-.legal rules are to be found in the constitutional conventions between Great Britain and the dominions agreed Upon and declared at the imperial conferences of 1926 and 1930, and set out in the reports of these conferences.

Then at page 5:

It is asserted, for example, that Great Britain and the British empire have an "unwritten" constitution. A constitutional statute is regarded therefore as something alien to the spirit of the constitution. On such a view of the nature of the British constitution, and of the constitution of the British empire, it was inevitable that the passing of the Statute of Westminster should appear to be a mistake. Some members of parliament, in the United Kingdom and in the dominions objected to the proposal to pass the statute, not because of the terms it contained, but because it was a statute. Lord Buckmaster, .an ex-Lord Chancellor, put this point of view in the House of Lords during the second reading of the Statute of Westminster bill. He said that he intended to support the bill, but that he felt it was a mistake.

It is not-he said-that its actual terms offend any of the relationships existing between ourselves and our dominions. It is that it is, as I believe, for the first time, an attempt made to put into the form of an act of parliament rules wThich bind the various component parts of the empire, and that I regard as a grave mistake.

There is a footnote which says:

In Australia Mr. W. M. Hughes reiterated the view he had already expressed at the imperial conference of 1921 that it was unnecessary to write down the constitution of the British empire in black and white.

As a result of that empire-wrecking statute, the statute of Westminster, we are now a separate country and here now by a note of Canada's executive power we part with this heritage. Although the senate and house of representatives have to agree in Washington to what is done there by the text of a treaty, here in this country the Prime Minister of Canada, over the head of this parliament, even while it is in session, can by a stroke of the pen give all this away on terms instead of, as in the past, having it done by a protocal or treaty. We in this country can be gold-bricked in connection with this and future diversions, which they say is for emergency purposes. It does not need parliament's consent at all; we get it only for information and can do nothing about it.

Under the Boundary waters treaty, as I pointed out on February 26, 1929, the United States is entitled to 20,000 cubic second feet of water a second and Canada to 32,OCO second

cubic feet, of which Canada exports 12,000 cubic feet of water a second of her allotment by export to the United States. So that we receive 32,000 less 12,000, or a net 20.000 second cubic feet; now we are getting 3,000 additional second cubic feet and the United States, by this new diversion, 5,000 more. It is only 23,000 second cubic feet that Canada retains. What will the United States get? By the Boundary waters treaty the United States is entitled to 20,000 cubic feet per second. So that the United States will have 20,000 plus 12,000 of our 32.000 second cubic feet exported to them. The United States will now get an additional 5,000 second cubic feet as an emergency measure, making

37,000 in all as against our 23,000 up to date.

This new method of dealing with international questions upsets the whole constitutional practice. We are going to be gold-bricked sooner or later. Once that waterpower is given in this manner, it is gone forever, no matter what this note says. I object to this. I believe this is the greatest principle that has been raised in parliament since the war started. The last time, in 1929, the mother country had to sign the then convention; now it is different. If we are going to conduct business in this way and make our own separate treaties, I object on the principles that I objected to two others without the consent of parliament. Canada had no right to bind this country to the proposals there set out or to the Ogdensburg agreement and the Hyde Park agreement, good though they were, except by convention. The principle is all wrong; it upsets ail our relations with the mother country. Under the lease-lend act Canada will be committed for munitions and supplies for Great Britain, over the head of this parliament, running up to an amount it may be of one billion dollars this year. This is done on the principle that we are a separate country and can make our own treaties over the head of the Canadian parliament and of the mother country. Someone will have to pay for all this after the war, Britain or Canada, or both, as it is only a lease and a lend to be paid later.

The power situation in the Niagara district was only redeemed for the province of Ontario by the establishment of the hydro-electric power system for the people at cost. True, my leader does not believe in public ownership, he says, but Ontario does. I should like to say right here that I did not say that the Calgary Power company, which was before s this house the other day. had any affiliations with the Beauharnois or Montreal Bight, Heat and Power company. Far from it. What I said about the Calgary Power Company was

Supply-Diversion oj Water

that there is a forward movement of aggression by this and other companies for extra power, to grab it for private ownership. The state of New York insisted on private ownership in 1929, but in Ontario we have established public ownership of electric power. I did not say the other day that the Calgary Power Company was tied up with Montreal Light, Heat and Power. I was referring to the proposition in 1926 and 1927 in commenting on the history of the company.

I have said that I believe Ontario has been gold-bricked before and Canada may in the future be goldMbricked in connection with any additional diversions. I need only refer to the Stormont Power company, which purchases power direct from Montreal Light, Heat and Power at $10.50 per house-power, while the same company sells the same kind of power at less than one-third, the rate it now charges at Cornwall for the same direct current, and commercial and domestic lighting to its Quebec customers for the very same class of 'service. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario purchases power from the Beauharnois company for $12.50 per horsepower under a revised agreement which was formerly $15 per horse-power, and financially the Beauhamiois and Montreal Light, Heat and Power are one. What I am objecting to is this particular way of doing business. No plans or specifications have been filed under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I wish to support what has been said by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), as to the principle involved here and the mistakes of the Chicago diversion.

Back in 1929 there was a debate in this house, which lasted for many days, in which the preservation of the scenic beauty and other works at the falls was much discussed. At that time the additional number of second cubic feet of water to be diverted was 10,000 to the United States and 10,000 to Canada; under the present arrangement it is 5,000 to the United States and 3,000 to Canada. We should know more about the plans and specifications and the weirs and1 remedial works. We should be informed what is to be the effect upon the scenic beauty of the falls, and know of the erosions in escarpment. In my opinion, it is going to be absolutely destroyed if this measure goes through unless we have properly constructed remedial works.

No doubt both sides need power, but there is a better method foy treaty of getting it, as was shown during the course of the debates in 1929, in the speech of the Hon. J. D. Chaplin, reported in Hansard ait page 469 where he supported the views I expressed there. As I said in 1929 a special international board was appointed' when this matter came up in that year. It was appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite and was known as the special international Niagara board, for the purpose of finding how the diversion could be carried out so as not to ruin the scenic beauty of the falls. The American falls are slowing down and are beginning to run dry; for years there has not been the same volume of water there; far less water goes over them today than ever before. The Horseshoe falls will also be affected somewhat from lower lake levels as a result of the Chicago and other diversions. The board set up under the 1929 convention consisted of: J. T. Johnston,

director of dominion water power and reclamation service; Doctor Charles Camsell, Deputy Minister of Mines, and Doctor J. Horace Macfarland, past president of the American Civic Association. Mr. Johnston and Major Jones were the members of the international board of control established in 1923. Why are not the successors of this board called together in connection with this present diversion? I wish to protest against this way of doing business. This diversion was proposed away back twelve years ago, in the form I have indicated. Why was nothing done about it until now in the dying days of this session, when more power has been wanted since 1929 from this very diversion by both sides?

I wish also to protest against any more export of power; 12,000 cubic feet of water a second going over there, and now 5,000 more added, while we in the province of Ontario are in darkness as a result of daylight saving all the year round. It is not necessary. What did the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Hon. W. L. Houck, say at Buffalo yesterday, referring to this diversion?

Daylight saving has not been a necessity in Ontario during the past year, but it was needed in Quebec, where there was a power shortage, and with its usual cooperation the Ontario government acquiesced with the suggestion of the federal government concerning daylight saving.

This extra development, 12,000 plus 5,000, represents 17,000, whereas Ontario gets only an additional 3,000. Does that mean that we shall have to continue daylight saving merely to save 150,000 horse-power for some alloys in connection with aluminum company plants which Quebec and Montreal and other companies could provide for by a readjustment and by their own power conservation? Consider on the other side of the account that Ontario is required to conserve power and turn over export and get less than its share by contracts while from six to nine in the morning the use of commercial and domestic

Supply-Diversion oj Water

lighting is twice what it should be, especially for domestic purposes. There is no saving for industry.

I warn the house that, without any reports from officials, without reports from this board, without reports from officers of the department under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, or any plan, we are going to sanction this diversion in a fashion which has never been done in principle before in this legislature or any provincial one. I can only say that, if we are going to do things this way, let us get some public ownership men in charge of daylight saving, and not one of those who helped to put the Abitibi company in the condition it is, a lawyer and other agents for the grain exchange, the Calgary Power Company, the Canadian National Railways, the Beauharnois company and the companies which I mentioned the other day, and who is or was listed as one of the directors of this Calgary Power company.

I protest against this principle, whether in peace or war, or giving away by this principle of a note our natural heritage, the waterpower of this country, in the manner it has been done by this parliament.

Yesterday we were talking about a select committee, and that committee has found out nothing. I was one of those who helped to dig up the Beauharnois scandal and wake up parliament about it, and I was pretty nearly driven out of parliament because I proposed to support the policy of the province of Ontario in conserving its natural heritage, the water powers and natural resources for the use of the people of this country. As Theodore Roosevelt said of the United States, in twenty-five years that country may run out of coal. There may be a shortage in the next twenty-five years, with the result that power for industry, for commercial and domestic lighting, for labour and for the farmer will be hard to get. Considering the scarcity of coal which is bound to face us this winter, as well as [DOT]the impending scarcity of oil and other substitutes, we should go slow in this kind of legislation. I object in principle to these agreements without the authority of parliament. While I am satisfied with the policy of immediate diversion, I am not going to consent to this going through in a way which violates the whole constitution of this country since confederation on boundary waterways matters, and which changes the procedure regarding our international relations with our great friends and neighbours from what it has been since 1844, when Sir John A. Macdonald made the great speech he did at Kingston City on our need of relations with the mother country who were parties to this diversion in 1929.

I hope we shall have more details about this matter. It is true we are told that it is only for an emergency. But everything that is put before us is supposed to be for a war emergency. As the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) aptly said the other day, you cannot blow your nose in this house without its being said that it is for the war effort. Every time a deputation goes down to Washington it gives away something or agrees to something over parliament's head. I protest against this procedure of conducting our relations by means of notes instead of treaties and conventions and protocols. There are notes about everything. Every time our officials go to Washington or the joint defence board or any other board meets, we hear about a new note which doesn't get us any place. People will wake up one of these days when their water power has been given away and when we are short of power, coal and oil. Look at the price of fuel as charged by this Cornwall company. The Stormont company purchases power of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power at the price of $10.50 per horsepower, which is about one-third of the price at which the company sells it to workers in the province of Quebec. The reason they are in that position is that parliament sanctions and passes some of these private and public bills without knowing what is involved in them.

If conventions of this kind are to be the result of our status as a nation separate from the mother country, if we are to divert in this fashion the waters of the Niagara, it wrill be a sorry day for the people of Canada.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked me to express to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) his regret that he was not able to remain in the house to reply to their remarks. He had an appointment at 12.30 which had to be kept, and he has asked me to make a few remarks in reply.

WTe are all greatly indebted to the hon. member for Davenport. He seldom rises to speak in the house on power matters without placing on Hansard valuable and accurate information. I am sure that all those who are interested in power developments in the St. Lawrence watershed will find, in his reported speeches, valuable material for their studies on this subject.

I would only take exception to one suggestion which he left with the house, and which I am sure he did not intend to have taken very seriously. I refer to his remark that there was sharp bargaining connected with

Supply-Diversion of Water

the recent diversions of power on the St. Lawrence. I think that our present-day relations with the United States are such that no question of sharp bargaining can be allowed to intervene in relation to anything we are doing in discharge of the common effort. As you know, this country is in an all-out effort to aid Britain, and the United States is developing an all-out effort in the same direction. The needs for power in the United States are for the purpose of aid to Britain, just as are our power expansions in Canada. In recent months it has become more and more important for the two neighbouring countries to sit down together to see how the resources of north America can best be utilized to give that immediate aid to Britain which is so urgently required. As a matter of fact, for the last two or three years diversions at Niagara falls have not been a matter of sharp bargaining. We all recall that the United States, voluntarily and without pressure from Canada, offered to anticipate the Ogoki diversion by at least two years by permitting Canada immediately to divert equivalent water at Niagara before the diversion works at Ogoki had been built, and in spite of the fact that after the works have been completed it will be a matter of many months before the effect of the diversion will be felt at Niagara falls. In other words, the United States has ahead}' permitted Canada to divert

5.000 cubic second feet in addition to the diversion allowed Canada by the treaty, and that with no corresponding compensation to the United States.

The recent diversions were a matter of utilizing available facilities rather than a question of bargain based upon previous diversion permitted to Canada or upon any consideration except the maximum output of immediate power. The United States, on its side of the falls has installed equipment which can be immediately utilized to transform 5,000 cubic second feet of water into electric current, and Canada on the Canadian side has installed capacity to make immediate use of 3.000 cubic second feet.

This additional power is very urgently needed in Canada and in the United States. As hon. members know, June is the month when we should have adequate power reserves. The peak load comes in December and January, and usually the minimum load of the year comes in June. As a matter of fact, owing to the requirements of war production, every kilowatt of power that is being generated in Ontario and Quebec to-day is being utilized this day. This may not be true of the smaller developments in the more remote sections of Ontario, but it is true of the main

network of Ontario and of the complete Quebec network. What is happening is that all surplus power that can be generated is being sent to the Saguenay district for the manufacture of aluminum. An effort is being made to store the waters of the Saguenay against the requirements next winter and to use water power that would otherwise be wasted to protect the Saguenay water power in order that the output of aluminum, so badly needed for aeroplanes for Britain, manufactured in the United States and in England, may be kept up to the highest possible maximum.

The hon. member mentioned the distribution of powrer from Niagara as between Canada and the United States. I think it is only fair to add to that with the development of 5,000 cubic second feet additional there will be a return to Canada of "at will" power. That has been sent across the border at Niagara for several years. When the time comes this "at will" power will be returned to this country where it will be urgently needed for the purposes of Ontario.

Mr. MacNICOL:

I am glad to hear that. Has an agreement been made to that effect?

Mr. HOWE:

That is understood in the

documents that have been tabled. It is a matter between the Ontario hydro and customers in the United States, but the Ontario hydro have served notice that this block of power must be returned, and I think the application from the United States for additional diversions at Niagara provides for picking up the load that could not otherwise be taken care of when that block of power is returned to Canada.

Mr. STIRLING:

What quantity will be

returned in that way?

Mr. HOWE:

Forty thousand horse-power,

as I remember it. This power has been going across at Niagara for some years.

So far as the scenic beauty of Niagara is concerned, that question was looked into by the international board of engineers. Water conditions in the Niagara river are better this year than they have been for some years past, and it is felt that the scenic beauty of Niagara would not be impaired beyond the point which that impairment had reached in earlier years, owing to low water conditions in the river. Coupled with the proposal to divert is the proposal to build remedial works immediately. The effect of these works will be a more even distribution of the flow of water over the falls. The proposed work will increase the head on the Canadian power plants, and to some extent increase the output

Supply-Diversion of Water

of power from those plants, and it will also have the effect of making possible a greater diversion of water on both sides of Niagara without impairing the beauty of the falls.

My hon. friend has suggested that the remedial works should have been built some years ago. He is aware of course that Canada has been pressing for an agreement which would have permitted the construction of these works earlier. The treaty of 1932, which was signed by Canada but was not ratified by the United States, provided that the remedial works should be built as part of the St. Lawrence development. The fact that the remedial works at Niagara falls were tied in with the entire St. Lawrence development has been the retarding factor that has prevented earlier undertaking of this work. However, coupled with the exchange of notes, as my hon. friend has observed, is a provision that Canada will join with the United States immediately in undertaking these works for the purpose of having them constructed by autumn of this year.

The Canadian part of this work i3 being undertaken by Ontario, by agreement between the province and the dominion, and I know that active preparations are being made for its construction.

I do not know that anything more needs to be said on my part except that we are working out our war problems with the United States in an endeavour to reach the closest possible cooperation for maximum output.

The United States has called upon us to assist in the production of greater quantities of aluminum, which will be the limiting factor in the production of aeroplanes for Britain. To that end the Aluminum Company of Canada is building on the Saguenay river a new power development which will generate

700,000 horse-power, of which 500,000 will be a net increase in the resources of that area. Every kilowatt of that power will be used for the manufacture of aluminum at Arvida, and no great relief will accrue to the power situation in the province of Quebec. It is to conserve water, until the new source of power comes in, that the power controller is sending to Arvida, Sunday power, daylight power, every kilowatt that is to spare at any hour of the day or week, in order to conserve the flow of water in the river until the new development comes in. What has been done at Niagara is simply in furtherance of that purpose to devote every possible kilowatt of power to the production of war materials for aid to Britain.

Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): The president of the Canadian

National Railways, Mr. Hungerford, was asked a question which reads as follows:

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question to ask Mr. Hungerford and then I shall be through. Mr. Hungerford, I hold in my hand a copy of the statement that you made before the senate committee and it is entitled "Railway unification opposed by Canadian National president, 1939." You still hold the same view?

Mr. Hungerford: I do.

This is from pages 169 and 160 of the proceedings of the standing committee on railways and shipping of Thursday, May 22, 1941, No. 3.

Here is the statement made by Mr. Hungerford before the senate in 1939. It is a reprint from the text which had been published in the Canadian National Railways Magazine. It is impossible for me to read it all this morning; I shall read only the part which is in larger type and which summarizes the statement made by the chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways against the amalgamation of the two railway systems:

On these pages will be found the full text of the statement presented by S. J. Hungerford, chairman and president of the Canadian National Railways, to the special committee of the senate inquiry into railway problems.

Pointing out that never since 1923 had the Canadian National Railways failed to meet its operating expenses, that it had a very great earning capacity under normal traffic conditions, and that, serving almost exclusively the rich northern mining area of Canada, it had greater potentialities than its rival, Mr. Hungerford opposed unification of the two Canadian railways.

Most of the economies envisaged under unification schemes were unrealizable, he contended. Any that were practicable and in the public interest could be realized under cooperation, he said, holding that if the railways did not show a will to cooperation compulsion would be justifiable in the public interest.

Mr. Hungerford recommended a public body of three, consisting of representatives of each of the railways and a chairman representing the public interest, which would explore and develop cooperative measures and bring the railways together in implementing them.

Of course the question of amalgamation of the railways was never considered seriously by any political party except in later years. When Mr. Bennett spoke during the election campaign of 1930 he said, "Cooperation ever, amalgamation never," and that had always been the attitude also of the Liberal party. After that the Canadian Pacific had some favoured treatment from the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, by a loan of $60,000,000, but it was refunded as soon as the Liberal government came into power. After that we did not hear about railway business until a committee was formed in the senate to study the question of cooperation between both railways. There were many senators who expressed their views, and to the great sur-

Supply-C.P.R. Stock

prise of members of the House of Commons there was a majority of the senate in favour of unified management of the railways. It was the policy of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in the senate; he strongly recommended that. He had changed his views. I remember having read in Hansard-I was not then a member-that Mr. Bennett, who was also a private member, called him the "gramophone of Mackenzie and Mann." At that time he was strongly for the C.N.R. and after that he changed his views and went over to the Canadian Pacific, as everyone knows.

At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock.

Mr. POULIOT:

I hold in my hand a copy of proceedings before the railways and shipping committee, and would direct the attention of hon. members particularly to the evidence taken on May 20 of this year. At page 79 I find this:

Mr. Pouliot: It is said here there was an

order made by his majesty's treasury of the United Kingdom dated October 26, 1940, stating that such portion of the said debenture stock

Of the Grand Trunk Railway.

-as was held by residents of the United Kingdom was transferred to the treasury, which means that the United Kingdom treasury took hold of the stock that was held by people living in Great Britain.

Mr. Cooper: Yes.

Mr. Pouliot: And the vesting order was made upon the condition that the Canadian National Railway Company would purchase the stock from the treasury under the vesting price. Well, then, did the order apply to the Canadian National Railway or was it done willingly?

Mr. Cooper: It was an arrangement between the finance department here and the British treasury in London.

Mr. Pouliot: Over your heads. Speak frankly, as you have done since the beginning, Mr. Cooper. .

Mr. Cooper: Well, of course the repatriation of securities is not a matter which any corporation to-day has anything to do with or say about; it is a matter entirely in the hands of the government concerned.

Then, at page 80:

Mr. Cooper: Can we express it this way?

The British government have from time to time named the United States and Canadian securities which became subject to their vesting order. These companies were not consulted.

Mr. Pouliot: No, it was done between governments.

Mr. Cooper: Yes.

Mr. Pouliot: And as I said, over the heads of the company.

Mr. Cooper: The British government, I think, does not even need to consult the Canadian government. They were taking away from their own citizens the property of those citizens.

Mr. Cooper is the accountant of the Canadian National Railways, and a man familiar with the business of the company. It is true that Mr. Hungerford stated the matter was approved by the directors of the company, but he did not state whether it was done before or after.

I read with astonishment in the press a statement made by the right hon. leader of the Tory party in the senate on the occasion of the celebration to the memory of Sir John

A. Macdonald in Kingston. This is the passage:

Never at any time did he lose sight of, or subordinate to selfish Canadian purpose, the oneness of our interest, the oneness of our security and the oneness of our destiny with the British empire.

I strongly protest against that statement by the Tory leader in the senate, that being a Canadian means being selfish. It is only the natural and national point of view which must be respected. I respect his views-the views of an imperialist. He is entitled to hold them, just as I am entitled to hold mine. But he has no reason to call me selfish because I hold deep convictions, convictions as deep-rooted as his own.

Hon. members may look at any newspaper issued on April 4. I hold in my hand a copy of the Windsor Daily Star, and I find in it the statement made by the Right Hon. Malcolm MacDonald when he set foot first on the soil of the capital of Ottawa. Speaking of those who defend the British isles at the present time, he said: "Even if they were fighting alone, they could not be beaten." That was the way he appreciated the help given to Great Britain by Canada.

And now, sir, I hold in my hand a quotation from British Hansard, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen a few days ago. This is from a speech by Sir Archibald Southby:

It cannot be right, when we are fighting for democracy and the right of free peoples to express their views, for the government to come to a major decision of this kind, which will have most far-reaching effects, without giving the House of Commons the opportunity, which is their right, of expressing their views. It is not a bit of good eoming to the house when everything is signed, sealed .and delivered, and saying, "Here it is; take it or leave it." We are a council of state. Of course, we shall support the executive in anything they do; but they also have a duty towards us and that is to allow us, as far as in their power lies, to express our views, .and to make helpful suggestions.

Not only was that said by Sir Archibald Southby, but it was the tenor of the first sentence in the speech delivered this week by no less a person than the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England, who said that he welcomed criticism. Of

Supply-C.P.R. Stock

If that is not enough, sir, I have another quotation from no less a man than Lord Beaveibrook. This is from the New York Herald Tribune of Sunday, June 8:

Adolf Hitler has "given youth its head" in his plans and preparations, and Britain now found itself confronted "with a mentality which makes rings around many of our old ideas."

One may ask me, why are you speaking of these matters? I speak of these matters because we are on the verge of having in this country what I feel would have taken place if Mr. Manion had got into power, at the last election, and it is this: a formidable trust holding every commodity in Canada and ruling this government. That is my fear. My fear is that I may see some prominent business men in control of the commodities of life so that they can dictate their views, dictate their say, to the Canadian people. I am not going to start to discuss the Bank of Canada, and the still more absurd foreign exchange control board, which are no less than a hymn to bureaucracy. I have no time for that now. But I will say this, that in this country we must 'be very careful to remember that those who preach fascism and who organize it are not all, like ex^Mayor Houde, in concentration camps, because we may find two of them on the treasury benches. They have so much jitters that they are afraid of the coming ideas of socialism and communism, and they think they can put a check on it by installing fascism in this country. We had an example not long ago in the creation of the Department of Transport. It was an incorporated department, organized on corporation lines, on fascist lines. Sir, we must think of the future. At the present time those people have the jitters and they are colonials. They are not real Canadian citizens. They are just colonials who are afraid to speak on behalf of Canada. I was bom here and my forefathers for many years 'back were born here. I am a Canadian citizen. But I do not exclude those who were born in the British Isles and who have decided to make Canada their own country, and who are better Canadian citizens than some who were born here. I have the utmost respect for them. I could name some members of this house who were born in the British Isles and who have true Canadian feelings.

Just a word about something of great importance. We should treat every country, Great Britain just as any other country, as equal. That was stated by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie' King). I am not a political heretic when I say that because I am just repeating what my revered leader has said many a time, perhaps a hundred times. But there is something else. It is

that here in this country we should not forget our past; we should not forget our traditions, which up until this past year have been equal in glory to those of Westminster. I will say now, sir, that the British parliamentary tradition is kept by you here, sir, and by the speakers of all the legislative assemblies in this country, as well as it is in Westminster itself. But I do not think that we should have policies that will destroy the unity of Canada and will destroy the financial system of Canada. I do not mean by that the system that we have temporarily now. I refer to destroying the wealth of Canada which has accrued over the centuries.

I have here an extract from the Ottawa Journal of July 3,1940, quoting what Mottistone has said in England-that he would put the Canadians everywhere. I do not see the use of that. I want the government to keep its pledges of the past. I do not want them to change from time to time. I remember that on the last day of last session, or a day or two before the last day, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) said that we would need to send no more men to England, that all those we were to send had reached there. But a few days or a week afterwards I saw that another contingent of Canadians had just arrived in England. No more to go-all those who were to go had left-and yet a day or two or three days afterwards, not long afterwards in any event, another contingent arrived in England.

No less a man than Philip Kerr, afterwards Lord Lothian, said that England needed food and needed munitions but did not need men. He is dead now, but what he said is recorded in the press. I want this country to be defended. I see the Minister of National Defence is taking notes. It is his habit. I think he would die if he had not a pencil in his hand. But let me continue as he takes notes. I want him to inform the house about Jardine McKerlie, that man who said he served in the British army and never proved that he was there, that man who was promoted from $200 a month to $5,400 a year within a few months, and is now inspector of accounts in the minister's department, a man who has a Ph.D. from a fake university, the McKinley-Roosevelt university. I will quote two letters, one from Walton C. John, senior specialist in higher education, federal security agency, United States Office of Education, Washington, dated March 17, 1941. It is not necessary for the minister to take notes: it is on record in the files of his own department:

The McKinley-Roosevelt university is a correspondence school which offers a wide variety of courses and grants degrees for work done by the correspondence method. We have had numerous complaints from different parts of the

Supply-C.P.R. Slock

world regarding its activities. I find that it is not on any list of approved correspondence schools. In this country no reputable institution grants degrees of any type by correspondence, consequently the degrees of this institution have no academic recognition in the United States.

Is it enough? If it is not enough, I have another one. I send the original to Hansard.

Illinois State Examining Board for Teachers' Certificates

C. H. Engle, Secretary.

March 11, 1941.

In reply to your letter of February 26, I am sorry to state that the McKinley Roosevelt university located in Chicago, is not recognized by any of the regional accrediting agencies or by the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction in Illinois. Work completed in this institution receives no recognition whatsoever in Illinois.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is

quite right: I did take a note or two, because he covered quite a number of subjects, and it was pretty difficult to keep them all in mind. However, I think there are only one or two to which I need refer.

First, the reference of my hon. friend to Mr. Dunning. I have no knowledge whatever of the matter of the Canadian Pacific railway stock to which he refers, except, that as I remember it, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) stated the other night that there had been no mention or suggestion of a purchase of Canadian Pacific stock. It would seem to me that probably that was a sufficient answer.

At the same time, I do feel that this practice which my hon. friend has adopted, of making this house the sounding board for any grievances which he has against citizens of Canada, must be taken notice of, at least to the extent of one saying a word for those who cannot speak for themselves.

All I want to say in this connection is, that, regardless of what is my hon. friend's opinion of Mr. Dunning, and regardless of the insinuations which he has made, I believe I shall receive general approbation from the people of Canada when I say that no citizen who has been in public life was held in higher esteem by the people of Canada generally than the gentleman whom he has attacked this afternoon. Through many years of fine public service, in the legislature of Saskatchewan, as Minister of Railways, and as Minister of Finance in the government of Canada, Mr. Dunning stands in need of no encomiums from me. My purpose is simply to take notice of the fact that he has been attacked this afternoon. I know that citizens generally will feel, as I do, that the attack is entirely

unwarranted, is quite out of place, and that the subject regarding which Mr. Dunning's name has been introduced is not a matter with which the time of this house need be taken up, especially at this particular stage of the session.

The hon. member asked a question with regard to my trip overseas. May I tell him that I did not go over there to settle financial questions. I do not recall that a single financial question was discussed when I was in Great Britain, although there may have been one or two financial matters incidental to the subjects with which I was dealing. What I did go to England for, as I endeavoured to tell the house when I came back, was to see the troops over there, to consult with the commanders in the field, to meet General McNaugbton and his officers and men, to discuss the matter of organization with Canadian military headquarters, and to ascertain what further we could do in connection with our pledge to help in the war to the limit of our ability. I endeavoured to carry out these purposes. In doing so I interviewed from time to time quite a number of members of the British government and staff officials, and discussed fully what Canada might do to render further assistance. I have given, I believe, quite a full account of that to the people of this country and to the house, and I do not propose to take up time this afternoon in rehearsing it.

The hon. member mentioned another gentleman who is not here to answer for himself- Colonel Magee. He suggested that Colonel Magee was taken on the staff of the Department of National Defence as a financial adviser. Let me tell him that I occupied the position of Minister of Finance for about nine months. If I had wanted financial advisers, I can think of very few whom I would rather have had, from the point of view of finance and business, than Colonel Magee. But I do not recall having even talked with Colonel Magee when I was Minister of Finance, because assistance of that kind was not what I wanted. I may, of course, have met him on the street, but that is all. When I came to the Department of National Defence, however, last fall, I looked around for a citizen of Canada who had had some experience in connection with military matters, and who could be relied upon as having the confidence of his fellow citizens, and I found him in Colonel Magee, a man who had raised a battalion, who had taken that battalion overseas, and who had rendered sterling service in England and in France with the fourth Canadian division. Following that, Colonel

Supply-The War-Mr. Ralston

Magee came home and took a special interest in connection with training: I believe he is one of the men who was chiefly responsible for the success of the officers' training corps in Montreal. The result was that I asked Colonel Magee to come to Ottawa in the capacity of executive assistant. He accepted, and I was glad of it. I believe I shall have the approval of hon. members generally when I say that no man could have filled that position more worthily and unselfishly or more acceptably to members of the house and to all the people with whom he has come in contact. He has not been called upon to advise upon a single financial matter of any kind or description in connection with the Department of National Defence. His services have been exercised purely in connection with matters of military administration training and the many details which come up from time to time in the department in connection with which his experience and knowledge of military matters can be of advantage.

My hon. friend made some remark to the effect that I have said that we were not to send any more men overseas. I do not know where he gets that statement. It does not appear in Hansard nor in any other published statement of mine, and I am satisfied1 that I can say without reservation of any kind that I never made such a statement in my life. The argument, therefore, which my hon. friend based on that is totally fallacious. I stated when I came home that we would be sending men overseas. I have stated frequently that we have been sending men overseas. When my hon. friend asserts that somebody said that Britain did not need men but needed munitions, any statement of that kind was based on the knowledge that Canada had pledged the various formations whose dispatch overseas this house has approved as part of Canada's contribution and that that pledge would be kept.

With regard to this man Mr. McKerlie: I never saw him. As a matter of fact I know nothing whatever about him, except that two long questions were asked concerning him in the house, and the department got the answers from the files. My hon. friend may make any statement with regard to that which he sees fit. But I know that Mr. McKerlie was recommended to the responsible officers concerned by Colonel Sherman, who I understand was in charge of the ordnance training centre at that time. He was recommended first with relation to the job which he at first filled, and the title of which I have forgotten, and afterwards to be director of training at the new trade training school because he was regarded as having the technical knowledge necessary for the position. The officers who

had charge of that organization are the officers responsible for making that recommendation, and Mr. McKerlie took up his new position in connection with that work. I do not believe that he is with the department at the present time. As a matter of fact-this will probably bring another outburst from my hon. friend

I think he is in the department of my colleague the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) at the present time-I do not know just in what capacity.

I had not intended to speak at this length, but I felt it was due to these gentlemen that I should say what I have said.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Before the minister takes his seat, may I recall to him that he made one notable omission. A very savage and bitter attack was made on the Right Hon. A. B. Purvis by the member for Temiscouata. Mr. Purvis is not here to answer for himself.